Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 76

Archive 70

←

Archive 74

Archive 75

Archive 76

Add Jean-Baptiste-Camille Corot

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

"Corot is a pivotal figure in landscape painting. His work simultaneously references the Neo-Classical tradition and anticipates the plein-air innovations of Impressionism. Of him Claude Monet exclaimed in 1897, "There is only one master here—Corot. We are nothing compared to him, nothing." His contributions to figure painting are hardly less important; Degas preferred his figures to his landscapes, and the classical figures of Picasso pay overt homage to Corot's influence."

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 13:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Interstellarity (talk) 20:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
3. 63 interwikis, plus quote above, seem convincing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Another vital subject I learned about from The Gilded Age (TV series).-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Yes to level 5, but never had the global recognition and status of a level 4. Aszx5000 (talk) 23:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Aszx5000. Gizza (talk) 22:07, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
3. per Aszx5000. starship.paint (RUN) 02:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Road transport  4 and Watercraft  5

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

We already list Rail transport  4 at level 3 and these two articles seem to be missing when they should cover all transport. Interstellarity (talk) 01:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Maritime transport  4 might be more appropriate than Watercraft  5 here. Kammerer55 (talk) 22:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 01:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

   As the nominator, I am also fine with Maritime transport being added. Interstellarity (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

2. Support adding Road transport. Also, support adding Maritime transport instead of Watercraft, since the former is a more general topic and we already have Ship and many types of small boats in the list. --Kammerer55 (talk) 22:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

   Disclosure: Maritime transport is not yet at Level 5, not sure why. Kammerer55 (talk) 23:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

3. Support road and maritime for V4. As for watercraft, I note ship is V3. Wouldn't it be jarring to have a parent concept only at lower level? Maybe swap them through discussion at V3? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

   I think the parent/child relationship is just one of the criteria for building the proper hierarchy here. For example, we have Earth  1 / Universe  2, or Africa  2 / Continent  3 where the more specialized topic is on higher level, because it is related to more knowledge topics. I imagine all Wikipedia topics as a brain with many interconnected articles, and here we have to choose a limited amount which would (with their most closely connected articles) together cover as much as possible. Kammerer55 (talk) 01:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

4. Rail transport was much more instrumental than maritime and road, but nevertheless these two topics are still level 4 vitality. The Blue Rider 19:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
5. Support road and maritime for level 4. Aszx5000 (talk) 12:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Hierarchy  5

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Pretty basic concept in numerous fields of science. This should be V4 if not higher (currently V5). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:35, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nominator --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:35, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Pretty ubiquitous concept, could probably make VA3. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:26, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
3. Glaring omission, they are part of pratically all societies. The Blue Rider 17:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
4. Agree Lorax (talk) 05:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. V5 is sufficient for this type of overview article. It's basically an extended dictionary definition as scoped. czar 18:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
2. Oppose Social stratification is listed at this level. --Thi (talk) 19:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
3. per Czar.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Swap Physical cosmology for Cosmology

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

We list Physical cosmology at level 3, but don't list Cosmology at level 4. This swap should make sense. Interstellarity (talk) 23:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 23:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Currently Cosmology is mainly about historical cosmologies. Physical cosmology is more important topic. History of astronomy is at level 4, Cosmology is a level 5 topic for a reason. --Thi (talk) 19:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

• You can't make a swap of a level 3 with a level 5. You should create a proposal for the removal of physical cosmology at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles. The Blue Rider 01:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  @The Blue Rider I made a proposal for the swap at level 3. Interstellarity (talk) 12:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Road transport  4 and Watercraft  5

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

We already list Rail transport  4 at level 3 and these two articles seem to be missing when they should cover all transport. Interstellarity (talk) 01:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Maritime transport  4 might be more appropriate than Watercraft  5 here. Kammerer55 (talk) 22:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 01:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

   As the nominator, I am also fine with Maritime transport being added. Interstellarity (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

2. Support adding Road transport. Also, support adding Maritime transport instead of Watercraft, since the former is a more general topic and we already have Ship and many types of small boats in the list. --Kammerer55 (talk) 22:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

   Disclosure: Maritime transport is not yet at Level 5, not sure why. Kammerer55 (talk) 23:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

3. Support road and maritime for V4. As for watercraft, I note ship is V3. Wouldn't it be jarring to have a parent concept only at lower level? Maybe swap them through discussion at V3? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

   I think the parent/child relationship is just one of the criteria for building the proper hierarchy here. For example, we have Earth  1 / Universe  2, or Africa  2 / Continent  3 where the more specialized topic is on higher level, because it is related to more knowledge topics. I imagine all Wikipedia topics as a brain with many interconnected articles, and here we have to choose a limited amount which would (with their most closely connected articles) together cover as much as possible. Kammerer55 (talk) 01:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

4. Rail transport was much more instrumental than maritime and road, but nevertheless these two topics are still level 4 vitality. The Blue Rider 19:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
5. Support road and maritime for level 4. Aszx5000 (talk) 12:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Hierarchy  5

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Pretty basic concept in numerous fields of science. This should be V4 if not higher (currently V5). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:35, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nominator --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:35, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Pretty ubiquitous concept, could probably make VA3. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:26, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
3. Glaring omission, they are part of pratically all societies. The Blue Rider 17:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
4. Agree Lorax (talk) 05:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. V5 is sufficient for this type of overview article. It's basically an extended dictionary definition as scoped. czar 18:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
2. Oppose Social stratification is listed at this level. --Thi (talk) 19:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
3. per Czar.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Swap Physical cosmology for Cosmology

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

We list Physical cosmology at level 3, but don't list Cosmology at level 4. This swap should make sense. Interstellarity (talk) 23:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 23:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Currently Cosmology is mainly about historical cosmologies. Physical cosmology is more important topic. History of astronomy is at level 4, Cosmology is a level 5 topic for a reason. --Thi (talk) 19:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

• You can't make a swap of a level 3 with a level 5. You should create a proposal for the removal of physical cosmology at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles. The Blue Rider 01:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  @The Blue Rider I made a proposal for the swap at level 3. Interstellarity (talk) 12:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Road transport  4 and Watercraft  5

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

We already list Rail transport  4 at level 3 and these two articles seem to be missing when they should cover all transport. Interstellarity (talk) 01:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Maritime transport  4 might be more appropriate than Watercraft  5 here. Kammerer55 (talk) 22:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 01:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

   As the nominator, I am also fine with Maritime transport being added. Interstellarity (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

2. Support adding Road transport. Also, support adding Maritime transport instead of Watercraft, since the former is a more general topic and we already have Ship and many types of small boats in the list. --Kammerer55 (talk) 22:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

   Disclosure: Maritime transport is not yet at Level 5, not sure why. Kammerer55 (talk) 23:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

3. Support road and maritime for V4. As for watercraft, I note ship is V3. Wouldn't it be jarring to have a parent concept only at lower level? Maybe swap them through discussion at V3? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

   I think the parent/child relationship is just one of the criteria for building the proper hierarchy here. For example, we have Earth  1 / Universe  2, or Africa  2 / Continent  3 where the more specialized topic is on higher level, because it is related to more knowledge topics. I imagine all Wikipedia topics as a brain with many interconnected articles, and here we have to choose a limited amount which would (with their most closely connected articles) together cover as much as possible. Kammerer55 (talk) 01:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

4. Rail transport was much more instrumental than maritime and road, but nevertheless these two topics are still level 4 vitality. The Blue Rider 19:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
5. Support road and maritime for level 4. Aszx5000 (talk) 12:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Hierarchy  5

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Pretty basic concept in numerous fields of science. This should be V4 if not higher (currently V5). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:35, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nominator --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:35, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Pretty ubiquitous concept, could probably make VA3. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:26, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
3. Glaring omission, they are part of pratically all societies. The Blue Rider 17:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
4. Agree Lorax (talk) 05:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. V5 is sufficient for this type of overview article. It's basically an extended dictionary definition as scoped. czar 18:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
2. Oppose Social stratification is listed at this level. --Thi (talk) 19:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
3. per Czar.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Gwangju  5

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

South Korean sixth-largest city doesn't look particularly remarkable - nothing in the article suggests it is culturally, historically or economically remarkable. The only start-class among seveal other vital-4 South Korean cities. The others which are C+, can stay, but this one seems worth considering for cutting.

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
2. The class of the article is not a good measurement of its vitality. The only historical importance I could trace to the city was the Gwangju Uprising, an important democratic movement in South Korea; doesn't seem enough for its inclusion as a VT4 though. The Blue Rider 10:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Support. Doesn't look particularly vital to me. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:46, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Interstellarity (talk) 00:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
5. Support. Level 5 is more appropriate. Aszx5000 (talk) 23:13, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
6. Weak support. It does seem a cut below the other South Korean and Japanese cities we list, I think, and 6 cities for South Korea is a little out of whack with other Asian countries. J947 ‡ ^edits 21:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
7. Article quality is not a reason to remove an article, but agreed that Gwangju Uprising is a better fit for V4. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 17:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
8. per above. starship.paint (RUN) 02:17, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Judging by the article's history section, it appears to have been an important city historically, and it seemingly continues to be one. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Though remote, this city is still vital at this level because it has been considered the cradle of democracy in South Korea.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

   If that's the sole reason then better list the uprising and not the city. The Blue Rider 21:16, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

3. Historically significant liberal bastion. Should WP:LEAD be expanded.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

   Article quality is not a reason to remove an article. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 17:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC) Moved to support. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 17:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

4. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Gig economy  5

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Gig economy got redirected after a month and a half in article space back in 2018. It redirected to Temporary work for over a year and a half and spent 4 years redirected to Gig worker before I recreated it on November 29, 2023. It is an important topic that we should highlight for improvement, which is what VA is all about. It may be VA4. Let's talk about it.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Too much of a recent phenomena. The Blue Rider 16:42, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
2. too recent Lorax (talk) 06:01, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
3. Oppose Respublik (talk) 18:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Tina Turner  5

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I proposed this a while back, but there wasn't widespread interested in that discussion. She is a key figure in music history as she was named the Queen of Rock and Roll. Interstellarity (talk) 21:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 21:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Not VA4. I would support both Rihanna and Beyonce above her.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
2. Eh, only passed nine months ago. Vileplume (talk) 14:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
3. Not at V4 level. Aszx5000 (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
4. per above. starship.paint (RUN) 02:03, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

User:Interstellarity, can you link the archive.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:13, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 74#Add Tina Turner The Blue Rider 12:10, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Interstellarity, try to use VA link template in headings (I've added it here) so we can quickly verify if this is V5 already. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:39, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Well that's an irrelevant rationale because there's no point in voting without looking at the appropriate listing, where one can easily spot that Turner is not listed, or if one has a good idea of the list already. J947 ‡ ^edits 04:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

My apologies. I’m sure the template is a new thing. I didn’t have to do that before, but I’ll do it next time. Interstellarity (talk) 14:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that templates should be mandatory. --Thi (talk) 14:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Swap: Remove Google  4, Add Alphabet Inc.  5

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Although Google on its own is important, I think listing the parent company is better choice to encompass the company’s products. Interstellarity (talk) 22:51, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 22:52, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong oppose More than 99% of Alphabet Inc. revenue is derived from Google. We don't list Meta Platforms even at Level 5 even though Facebook  4 (Level 4) comprises a much smaller share of Meta revenue than Google does for Alphabet. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 02:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
2. Oppose Few people remember the parent company. --Thi (talk) 11:29, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
3. Oppose I google stuff way more than I alphabetize them and I alphabetized things this much before the company changed its name. To Google is a cultural thing. Alphabet is just an umbrella/shell company for the important brand.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:13, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
4. Agree with everyone above. Aurangzebra (talk) 05:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Industrialisation  4

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I recently proposed this to Level 5, and there was support for this to be included on Level 4 as well. --Makkool (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --Makkool (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
2. Major historical, economic and sociological concept shaping modern era. Similar and arguably slightly less crucial concept is V4 already: Urbanization  4 --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
3. Support, as Industrial Revolution is level 3 and the process of industrialisation is central to that. (sdsds - talk) 23:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
4. feminist🚰 (talk) 14:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
5. -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move Dr. Seuss  4 to writers

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

So Dr. Seuss is listed in two different places. On here, he is listed under cartoonists, but on the level 5 pages, he’s listed under writers. Since he’s often considered an extremely important figure in children’s literature, I think he should be put under writers, even if his illustrations are just as important.

Move

1. As nom. SailorGardevoir (talk) 23:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 23:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
3. Support: Regarding the cartoonist listing: “He should not be here," said the fish in the pot. "He should not be here when your mother is not.” (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 00:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
4. per nom Aurangzebra (talk) 02:42, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
5. Support proposal in a house. Support proposal with a mouse. Support proposal in a can. Support proposal, yes I am. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Keep

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal: Add a vital section link to each nomination

Almost every nom deals with judging what other topics sit in the same section/level with the proposed topic. It would be greatly helpful to create a nomination template that includes space for which vital section will contain the topic and the topic's current level (if V5 or not).

Support

1. czar 03:35, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Excellent idea. The Blue Rider 08:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Support IF this can be automated. Otherwise it's an extra burden on the nominator. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:23, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

   How is it going to be automated? For some subjects this might be possible. Sometimes, it is not clear what area a subject should be in. Of the 7 VAs that I am aware that I am the primary author of I would not have known how to categorize 2 of them if I had been involve in the nomination. I look at the subcategories that they are in and think I would have never thought to put them there even though I acknowledge they are correctly categorized. Note that our subcategories are much more refined than say WP:GA general categories in their nomination template. Keep in mind that in the GA nomination template it does not matter what the proper subgroup is. Here the comparisons that matter are at the subgroup level.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

   @TonyTheTiger By automated I mean we need to have a friendly tool like WP:DYKNOM. One click solution, not some terrible "edit this, use this code, then edit this, transclude this, notify this" terrible mess like we used to have at DYKs until recently (and still have it for other stuff). TWINKLE and gadgets help, but this kind of stuff should be friendly and easy be default. So what I am saying - I agree with the idea, but we need to do it correctly from the start. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:24, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

   User:Piotrus, the DYK process which is embedded in the webpage is extremely smooth and aspirational. I don't mind something like the GAC nomination, however. You could tag an article talk page. Then the bot lists the topic with a link to open the discussion within 20 minutes. FAC, is a bit different where you tag the talk page with a template, then you have to hit a link to open the discussion and list the discussion yourself. The thing that makes this different from all of those is the potential for multiple similarly themed articles to be simultaneously nominated. DYK can handle mulitple article, which also makes it examplary. We have to think about RM or XFD processes with a bunch of pages. You might have multiple and multiple removes and some of them paired as swaps. It will no doubt be complicated to fully automate.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

   @TonyTheTiger GAC system is fine too. Basically as long as the process requires just one page to be edited, that's good enough. (Pop up stuff is more friendly then having to deal with soruce code, but that's not that crucial for vital stuff, which is not visible to newbies at all). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:15, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

4. Any kind of note containing section-link(s) for the nominated articles would be helpful (though much more helpful for V5), since it would allow people to quickly compare these items with similar ones, so would make it easier to participate in discussions. --Kammerer55 (talk) 17:45, 24 November 2023 (UTC), amended on 18:10, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
5. Support - per nom. Great idea. Aszx5000 (talk) 21:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
6. Good idea. Interstellarity (talk) 00:46, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I am only opposing a one-off template. What is needed is an overhaul of the process and broader features in a templated procedure (see below). Since this was previously discussed at Main (VA3) and VA5, a closely related discussion here at VA4 that ignores those issues is not something I can support.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:35, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

   To me that seems like a completely different issue. The two templates discussed would be unrelated to each other, so I don't see that being at all a problem? J947 † ^edits 22:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

   You should think bigger. Think of the WP:GAC nomination template. It includes a subject, it also creates a discussion space that becomes part of the {{Article history}}. It shows whether an article was passed or failed. You are obviously thinking of something much more trivial. If you want to try to solve this in a trivial manner, I guess you can ram it through.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:10, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

1. Comment Why is this being discussed here. It seems it should either be discussed in the general Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vital Articles or Wikipedia talk:Vital articles-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:36, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
   • It seems there are too many talk pages for the project. --Kammerer55 (talk) 17:45, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Note At Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles#Category:Wikipedia_level-unknown_vital_articles on 24 October 2023, User:Piotrus initiated a discussion that the current process seems to have resulted in artifact categories for presumably wrongly closed discussions Category:Wikipedia level-unknown vital articles. That discussion has covered whether this process should use a template that an article was added/removed with a link to relevant discussions and whether it be incorporated into the {{Article history}}.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:35, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Note When that discussion went nowhere, we opened Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5#Category:Wikipedia_level-unknown_vital_articles on 31 October 2023. We brought up the same topics and there was no response.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:35, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Furthermore in the 4 discussions that I posted regarding expanding VA, their was broad agreement that the process needs to be fixed. Lets have a discussion with how to incorporate templating to fix a broader set of procedural problems.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
5. Note that the page used to have section headers like so. It was the same at VA5 for a while. I'd support that format being reintroduced to VA5, but not to VA4 which isn't as populated with discussions anymore. J947 ‡ ^edits 09:16, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
6. It would be also great to have more stable anchors for the headings in each level/section, so that you could link to them and not worry that they would change when the number of articles inside changes. --Kammerer55 (talk) 18:10, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Add Domestic duck

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Pretty much all the common farm animals are listed at this level, but the domestic duck isn't even level 5. This surprised me as its just as iconic as a lot of the other farm animals we have at this level. We do already have the wild ancestor, the [[mallard] but this is also the case for a lot of other species at this level too. Overall it just seems like a bizarre omission.

Support

1. as nom. Maykii (talk) 20:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss Maykii (talk) 20:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add BRICS  5

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Important economic union for this level. Interstellarity (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. As noted by Noah Smith (writer), BRICS has implemented zero economic policies or initiatives. It's not comparable to the other international organizations we list at this level. Something like G7  5 – which, unlike BRICS, has actually spearheaded global economic initiatives – would be a more appropriate addition. feminist🚰 (talk) 14:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
2. per feminist. starship.paint (RUN) 13:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
3. BRICS was a marketing slogan created by Jim O'Neill at Goldman Sachs. It has never represented any real political union or grouping. Aszx5000 (talk) 17:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

   It's definitely a real political group, just an informal one. The Blue Rider 17:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Cheerleading

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Popular athletic activity.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 12:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
2. Very common. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:49, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
3. Support  Carlwev  15:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
4. -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I don't think it is so popular outside the U.S. Also, the nominator did not mention which article should be removed instead, or which section this should be added to. Place Clichy (talk) 12:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
   1. Removals: Brandy, Gin, Liqueur, Rum, Sake, Tequila, Vodka and Whisky. --Thi (talk) 19:48, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
2. Per Place Clichy. The Blue Rider 16:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
3. Largely a US phenomenon; not at V4 level. Aszx5000 (talk) 17:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal: Organize the Geography list by region rather than by category

I am proposing that we organize the geography list by region rather than by category. I think in this way it is easier to create a hierarchy of where certain places are rather than comparing countries, subdivisions, and cities. Since this is a big change, I am proposing this on the talk page. I provided an example below on how we can organize the cities. Please let me know what you think. Pinging @J947: who mentioned something to me on my talk page. Interstellarity (talk) 14:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• North America
  • United States
    • California
      • Los Angeles

Discussion

• My initial reaction is that I don't think this is a very good idea, since the level 5 geography sections are broken out into separate Cities and Countries and subdivisions sublists. Having the Level 4 and 5 lists structured the same way is generally the best way to go. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:25, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

  I think organising VA5 into continent subpages would be a big improvement. Right now there is in places at VA5 a very severe imbalance in representation of countries and putting all the articles related to each country together is a way to fix that. It's probably best to make the change first at VA4 as a starter to see if it works (over a smaller group of articles than at VA5). J947 † ^edits 22:43, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

  Well I don't think this should just be done at level 4. If we are going to completely change how geography is organized, then I think it would have to be done at Level 4 and 5 together. So I think we need to be considering how level 5 geography would have to be restructured too. Maybe someone can do a draft of what Level 4 geography would look like just so we could see it and then decide. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

  In ~3 weeks or so I can start making a draft. Ping me if I haven't by then. J947 † ^edits 07:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

  I agree that different levels should ideally have the same structure, but I think it's better to think what's best for level 4 first, and then extend the same structure to level 5 eventually if needed. Kammerer55 (talk) 05:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• I support this idea because it makes it a lot easier to see what precisely we cover from each country. For example, currently for Venezuela we list Venezuela, three cities (Caracas, Maracaibo, and Valencia), Angel Falls, and Lake Maracaibo – but not Margarita Island. You can spot that a lot easier if they're all listed together. There are problems where a geographical feature does not neatly fit into one country, but I think reorganisation is a great improvement. J947 † ^edits 22:43, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

  Even if we listed countries, country subdivisions, and cities together, natural physical geographical features like lakes, rivers, islands, etc should not be listed under specific countries. Too many of them are not exclusive to a single country and it would just make things more complicated. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:10, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Moving Fantasy  4 to Society and social sciences/Mass media

In refence to this discussion on adding Fantasy literature to V5 under Arts/Literature, how would think about moving the pre-existing entry Fantasy  4 to Society and social sciences/Mass media, next to Western? Also, what has been the practice regarding genres here? Which are to be listed in Arts/Literature and which under Society and social sciences/Mass media? There are currently several discussions open about different genres in Level/5 talk pages, and it would be good to achieve consensus before those proposals start being passed and added to V5. Could there be another place to list popular culture genres like Western, Fantasy, Post-apocalypse etc. than Mass media? --Makkool (talk) 16:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Support Move

Oppose Move

Discussion

1. It would be helpful if you could provide a complete breakdown of the current mess, i.e. where various genre entries are. I am not sure if we can ever find a perfect solution, given one-dimensionality of the vital system, but unless we see the full picture, it's hard to comment. (I did try to move one or two minor things at V5, ex. brining steampunk to cyberpunk...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

1. I might do a proper thorough suggestion later on, when I find the time. It's not high in priority right now. --Makkool (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Nominations by Dawid2009 in the name of deceased Wikipedian (SpinningPark)

Over three years ago deceased Wikipedian SpinningPark made many proposals to the levels: 3, 4, and 5: [1], although proposals were intresing, most of them did not get enough attention due to low acitivity project at the time. I am going to nominate all of his proposals, will not give rationales at every single entry but please for research of these terms, productive feedbacks and substantive discussions (no dispurtive !votes like "no rationale given etc.", "we are under quota" etc. but many comments in discussions and substantive discussions)

Most of these terms are unfamiliar to the average person, so I highly recommend that you do give rationales. The Blue Rider 19:26, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Add Wireless telegraphy

Support

1. Dawid2009 (talk) 12:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose covered by Telegraphy at this level. Gizza (talk) 22:30, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

• Wireless telegraphy is not V5 yet. Can you check which of those are not V5 and nom them there first? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
• Ditto.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
• +1. Aszx5000 (talk) 15:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Add Distributed-element circuit

Support

1. Dawid2009 (talk) 12:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose is too specific for Level 4. A well-written article on Electrical network would have a paragraph or two on distributed-element circuits. Gizza (talk) 22:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose, per DaGizza. Aszx5000 (talk) 15:01, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Planar transmission line

Support

1. Dawid2009 (talk) 12:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose open to adding telecommunications network instead. Transmission line is currently Level 5. Gizza (talk) 22:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Per DaGizza. Aszx5000 (talk) 15:01, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

Dawid2009 (talk) 12:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC)