Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Remove Leon Czolgosz

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.

---

Suggested above. Not a household name, not very famous, assasinating a not-famous US president does not make you vital. For the record, I also don't think Eligiusz Niewiadomski is vital (he is not, nor would I suggest he was, despite the fact tjhat he assassinated the first president of Poland). Neither event was world-history impactful. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Support notable and important, but not vital at this level.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
3. One of the few true anarchists, nevertheless the article about the assassination is enough to cover him. The Blue Rider 21:21, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Support, tentatively, for two reasons: [1] I'm not greatly enamoured with the prospect of assassins being vital independent of their assassination (the vital topic in this instance) and [2] our coverage of activists and the like is greatly bloated compared to politicians. J947 † ^edits 00:26, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I think Czolgosz is absolutely a vital figure when it comes to understanding the turn of the 20th century in the United States. Czolgosz was deeply affected by the economic crash of 1893, which drove him to involvement with the anarchist movement. He was the first American anarchist to really follow through on "propaganda of the deed" (as he held McKinley responsible for his economic troubles), which had been talked about a lot but never actually carried out in the US. After the assassination, he was one of the first people to be executed by the electric chair and Edwin S. Porter even recreated his execution on film that included an early example of continuity editing. His body wasn't just buried but destroyed and hidden by the US government, who feared his resting place might become a place of pilgrimage. Fears of people like Czolgosz drove the passage of the Immigration Act of 1903 (still on the books today), the assignment of the United States Secret Service to protect the President, and the formation of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in order to surveill radicals. Czolgosz has absolutely left a mark on history and I very strongly oppose his removal. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

   Just noticed that "The Ballad of Czolgosz" is the most played song of the musical Assassins on YouTube and the second most on Spotify. I can't help but think that counts for something... Guess who was a theatre kid. :P --Grnrchst (talk) 21:58, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

   Gosh, knowing that he is connected to a musical, I will be strongly supporting it now. Who likes movies being constantly interrupted by music? >:( The Blue Rider 22:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

2. Oppose per Grnrchst. --Totalibe (talk) 19:25, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

• "One of the few true anarchists"—what do you mean by this, @The Blue Rider=? czar 13:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

If you're trying to put into question my statement, you're reading it too deeply. I simply meant that he actually follow through the anarchist values of starting a revolution by violent means. The Blue Rider 15:17, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

• Leaning neutral. Our article doesn't cover Czolgosz as having "highest importance" in his field or any assertion in the lede of the topic's enduring importance or essentialness in its category. There are other assassins that have that "vital" quality and they're currently being discussed on this page. The Assassination of William McKinley event itself doesn't cover much of this vital rationale either but at least goes into depth about the event's legacy effect on anarchism in the United States. Parking as neutral as I think the articles can be expanded to include this rationale but I think it's altogether a weaker case compared with other VIT5s: Princip, Booth, Oswald. czar 13:28, 20 November 2023 (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.

Remove Skip Bayless and Colin Cowherd

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.

---

The Sports journalists section is crowded with recent American middle-tier pundits. I have a hard time thinking of these two gentlemen as vital to the history of the world

Support

1. pbp 16:05, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Support well said.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:50, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Support 4 and 1 interwikis respectively.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 15:26, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
5. Per Purpleback89. The Blue Rider 22:20, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

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.

British politicians removals

Remove Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale

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.

---

What's the case for his inclusion? How is he more notable than any of the American politicians we're discussing removing? All the speculation about what he was up to? He was never Prince of Wales (he predeceased his father) nor consort (as were Prince Albert, Mum Elizabeth and Mary of Teck). pbp 01:06, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 01:06, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Historial trivia. Mildly controversial and interesting figure, but why vital? I don't see any reason. Notable for not really achieving anything, IMHO... if he disappeared from the world history, next to nothing would've changed, sorry to say. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Did not do anything of note. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:31, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Totalibe (talk) 08:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
5. Definitely a trivial inclusion. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

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.

Remove Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon

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.

---

Neither was ever PM and I'm not seeing anything significant enough to warrant inclusion on this list. We don't typically list First Ministers of Wales and Scotland. If we're scrutinizing American political leaders, so too must we scrutinized British political leaders pbp 04:58, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 05:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Support per nom.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 20:29, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Local politicians, recentish and English (UK) bias. Not important to the world history. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Both are important in noting the divergence between Scottish politics and those of the rest of the UK, and to be blunt this comes across as a tit-for-tat nomination in response to proposed removals of US politicians (some of which I do disagree with but w/e). I am somewhat sympathetic to the suggestion of removing one though. Totalibe (talk) 08:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

   @Totalibe: Why are people making such nefarious assumptions about me? pbp 00:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

2. The two leaders of the Scottish independence movement that culminated in the 2014 referendum are certainly vital. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

   That referendum was almost entirely symbolic and isn't vital in the slightest. Last I checked, Scotland is still part of the UK. pbp 00:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

   Which of the two do you think is more vital? J947 ‡ ^edits 00:59, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

   I think Salmond had a greater influence on the referendum. But I still don't think either is vital. pbp 02:25, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

   Explain to me the consistency here, @Grnrchrst:. How are supporters of a failed referendum more notable than somebody like John Kerry or Bernie Sanders or Adlai Stevenson? pbp 18:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

   @Grnrchrst: Still waiting for an explanation why this politicians are more notable than Kerry or Bernie. This is kind of a problem here...that the hoi polloi just votes willy-nilly and they don't listen to the experts. pbp 18:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

   Getting the username right may help :). @Grnrchst:. J947 ‡ ^edits 22:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

Certainly not as important as the American politicians, but still not far away from sufficient importance. I think keep one, remove the other, but lack the knowledge to say which which.

In general it does look like Britain is overrepresented in the 1945–present section compared with other European nations, but I'd support French, German, Italian, and Spanish additions over British removals. J947 ‡ ^edits 05:16, 25 November 2023 (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.

Remove Enoch Powell

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.

---

Seems to be on this list for giving a nationalist/racist/nativist speech when Britain was no longer a world power. Never was PM. If we're contemplating removal of the likes of Barry Goldwater and George Wallace, we should take a look at this guy as well. Neither support nor oppose, but putting him in the convo.

Support

Oppose

1. Highly influencial figure in race relations / immigration for the UK. (For reference his rivers of blood speech is ranked as among the 12 days that made modern britain by Professor Andrew Hindmoor).  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 20:36, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Per Spy-cicle Totalibe (talk) 08:32, 26 November 2023 (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 President of the United States

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.

---

Do I even need to explain this? The other two branches are already VA5, as are several less important sections of government. How is this not listed yet?

Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
2. The most famous political position in the world since early 20th century, arguably. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Support. But we should probably add some other offices as well. This also made me think about the coverage/non-coverage we have of dynasties, houses and political families. pbp 04:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Support absolutely.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
5. Support. --Kammerer55 (talk) 05:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
6. J947 ‡ ^edits 06:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
7. Totalibe (talk) 12:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

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.

Discuss

@QuicoleJR and Purplebackpack89: - can someone figure out where it should go within Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences/Politics and economics ? I don't know. Also, what's with half (21/42) of "Government agencies" articles being American? Perhaps we can remove Defense Intelligence Agency, Federal Communications Commission, National Science Foundation, Office of Strategic Services, Peace Corps, United States Department of the Treasury and Works Progress Administration starship.paint (RUN) 09:24, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

• I have added it under Politics of specific countries. starship.paint (RUN) 04:56, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Increase cities quota?

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.

---

In much the same way that the percentage of people increases as you go up the VA levels, I think the same should apply for cities – currently a long way over quota but still bursting with potential additions.

• VA3: 1.90% individual cities
• VA4: 4.34% individual cities
• VA5 (current quota): 3.92% individual cities

It seems to me as if the quota should be increased to at least 2,250 or so. I'm too long unfamiliar with the project to know what it should be at the cost of, but increasing the city number seems like a slam dunk to me. J947 † ^edits 02:19, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I think the current quota it's fine. To be honest, I already have trouble justifying the vitality for a lot of the VT5 cities. The Blue Rider 22:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

We may be being a bit harsh on the African cities, I reckon. One with a population of 500,000 is bound to be vital. It's just that we don't really have any idea of its importance just yet due to our paucity of African editors. And the point of VA is to encourage the development of those articles for that reason. In general, IMO, cities tend to be vital just because they house people. Their significance obviously develops from that, and pretty universally does so.

What I will put out there as food for thought is that: settlements are one area in which we assess as vital significantly less than 0.75% of articles. It's my opinion that this does to an extent reflect some imbalance in our coverage. J947 † ^edits 04:06, 8 November 2023 (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.

Decrease "non-cities settlements" quota

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.

---

Current quota is 40 but there are only 13 articles listed, half of which should be deleted or moved to other sections. I propose cutting its quota from 40 to 20 and redistributing it elsewhere in the cities subsection pbp 23:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 23:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Per nom, half of them listed should be cut anyway IMO. It's a start. J947 † ^edits 04:06, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Support Most quotas I assume were set rather arbitrarily so changing them to meet addition/removal demands is generally a good thing.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 07:11, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
5. Support Specifically, I think the quotas for sections on African cities need to be increased, which seem to be a big victim of regional bias. Totalibe (talk) 20:11, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
6. Support Redistribute the quota to African cities, per Totalibe. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:04, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

• @Purplebackpack89: @QuicoleJR: @J947: @LaukkuTheGreit: You have all supported the reduction of the non-cities quota, but haven't mentioned where you think it should be redistributed to. Do you support Totalibe's proposal for moving the quota to African cities, or do you have any counter-proposals? --Grnrchst (talk) 12:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  I would recommend Africa or Southern Europe. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:38, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  5 to Southern Europe per this discussion, 5 to three other random places. I find it odd that in the #African city changes section there is such great support for removing African cities while here we come and say that that is the section that needs to be increased. For Africa cities are largely modern and relatively small percentages of their countries' population, so populating the Regions section may be preferable. J947 † ^edits 06:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

  • I support the 20 being divided amongst Europe, N. America, S. America, Africa and Asia pbp 19:46, 23 November 2023 (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.

Remove The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past

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.

---

Sure, it is one of the greatest games of all time, but there are a lot of those, and we don't have room for all of them. Zelda does not need 5 articles at VA5, and this is the least important one. Other than introducing the Master Sword, I can't tell what influence it had on the industry or on popular culture.

Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Support I had planned to nominate it for removal by myself (more specifically, replacing it with Fate/stay night) once this discussion page got less bloated. Having so many subentries for a game franchise does not quite sit right with me (even for such a venerable series such as Zelda), considering we don't even list any of the individual Harry Potter books.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 19:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Support. I concur. The Legend of Zelda is well known, but I'd say it merits just two articles - one for the franchise and one for the most popular game. Maybey, maybe stretch it to three, for two best known games (first famous and most famous or such). But clearly we have 2 games too many from that franchise. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:33, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Weak support. If it was a standalone game I'd be in favour of keeping it but I do agree that five entries is rather pushing it. Totalibe (talk) 08:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Disagree with the premise here. Maybe it's not "fair" but it seems eminently possible to me that a lot of VAs might all be in the same series, and if that means we have a ton of Mario / Zelda games, so be it. Seeing a lot of critical refs in List of video games considered the best for LTTP. SnowFire (talk) 19:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

   I personally don't have anything against having a bunch of Zelda games on the list, but this game does not appear to have anything going for it besides being one of many best games. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

2. This game is widely considered as one of the greatest of all time. I would consider its impact as surpassing most other games on the greatest games list, due to it basically having a very high number of references classifying it as such at List of video games considered the best. I would argue that it is one of the most prominent 2D action-adventure games, and its impact towards the overall direction of the Zelda series is quite high. VickKiang (talk) 21:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
3. I think this is higher than BOTW and the first Zelda I would remove them first. There are also many other video game articles that seem lower down like Mario theme  Carlwev  07:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

1. I’d support a swap with Kirby (series), due to it being one of the most well-known Nintendo franchises. I may also propose Animal Crossing in the near future since specific video games and series are under quota. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 19:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

   I have been wanting to propose Kirby for a while, so I would also support this swap. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

   Why Kirby? There are several not-listed game series which have sold more and/or have more pageviews etc. I don't think I have seen any of its entries in the lists of most influential games I skimmed through when building portions of the game list years ago.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 22:02, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

   I was looking at Nintendo franchises, since this is a Nintendo game we’re discussing here, and two that stood out to me were Kirby and Animal Crossing. Animal Crossing and its popularity are far more recent than that of Kirby, and while monthly page views for AC are at around 36k, Kirby’s aren’t too much lower, at around 28k. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 15:21, 6 December 2023 (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.

Size

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.

---

• It's awesome that we're attracting this much participation
• But this page is too big.

And with the sheer volume of nominations that continue to crop up, it's impossible to get them to all experience a proper discussion without blowing the WMF's computers. We want these nominations to come to conclusions, so we must do something. Here's a few temporary measures, of which we could do one or all, but realistically we must do at least one.

1. My preferred solution would be to split this page in half based on date of nomination. Create Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/Old. That way the only thing we have to change is by looking at 2 pages rather than 1.
2. Enable discussions to be closed after 10 days rather than 15.
3. Create a formal "no consensus" option like at the other levels for dormant discussions.

I'm happy with 1 and 2. 3 is a tool of last resort, kicking the can down the road. I don't like it, to be honest. But it remains an option worth considering. J947 † ^edits 01:53, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

It was a struggle enough to get that edit to save on my laptop – think of the editors on phones! J947 † ^edits 01:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

What about a nomination limitation. A participant can have no more than 10 articles under discussion at a time as the nominator. Even 20 or 25 would curb some of the bloat.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 09:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that's helpful nor necessary. It's very easy to split this page out into two pages and suddenly the problem is gone, kaput. Limiting nominations is what I think to be really injurious to the project – there are 50,000 articles to consider; 50 a month won't get us anywhere fast. J947 ‡ ^edits 09:27, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

If the page size here is an issue, we should move to the format where nominations are on subpages and are just transcluded here, like with DYKs or AFDs. It would also move us a step closer to listing those dicussions in article's histories (the discussions could be transcluded on article's talk pages like DYKs are, too). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:35, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Piotrus, I wanted to have this discussion earlier this month when templating changes were at issue, but you didn't back me up at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4#Proposal:_Add_a_vital_section_link_to_each_nomination. I support this. DYK, FAC, AFD, GAC, all use transcluded subpages. That is definitely the way to go. Now you are presenting my argument here, but are on the other side there.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 09:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I know at FAC they transclude and still have problems with page size. Not sure that's the solution, especially as our discussions tend to be short and more along the line of the minor XfDs which use log days rather than individual nominations. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:11, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Highly agreed that this page is getting unbearable but setting up a 2nd page isn't the solution. We should automate closing proposals so it isn't as much of an hassle as it's now, plus I also feel like people nominate a lot but don't vote on other people's proposals at the same rate. The Blue Rider 13:03, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I know it's not attractive to split but what's your proposal instead? Closing proposals as soon as they reach the deadlines is counterproductive and if we don't do that, then, well, there's only a handful more discussions on this page that are ripe for closure (which I'm happy to close, by the way). If we want to get this page down to under half a megabyte then what you're saying won't cut it. J947 ‡ ^edits 03:17, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

A lot of current proposals are up to be closed for a long time, but basically only two or three people close discussions because it's too laboriously. If we could set up a bot to automatically add the talk page banner, update the quota numbers and add/remove articles to the list we could trim this page moderately. I agree with you, discussions that failed to get votes or are tied in voting should be closed as no consensus. A 10 day deadline seems good to me as well. The Blue Rider 15:07, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

A complication: closing discussions early would almost definitely kill off most for less popular (and still incomplete) sections. For example, the discussion to cut some units of measurement really only caught on in the last couple weeks, despite being opened Sept 30. This is another one that's still grinding along.

Big picture, I think the best bet at this level is to minimize the need for voting to begin with. If the page reaches a point that the server can't even handle it, maybe we need to declare a temporary freeze and lock the page while we figure out a different process on the Level 3 talk page. Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:00, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

See a new discussion about splitting this talk page below. --Kammerer55 (talk) 03:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Attention, attention! Note that there is a discussion about splitting this talk page here.

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.

Replace 'Brocchi's Cluster' with 'Double Cluster'

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.

---

For level 5 VA, the Astronomy section under 'Notable star clusters' includes 'Brocchi's Cluster', which is actually an asterism rather than a cluster. I'm suggesting replacing this with the more notable 'Double Cluster'. Being visible to the naked eye, this was discovered far earlier than Brocchi's Cluster, and is a popular target for amateur astronomers. Praemonitus (talk) 05:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support just adding it (though swapping with the other's fine too). I'm not much of an astronomer, but the reasons are well-argued, and we're actually only at 898 articles. Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Support The double cluster is actually a cluster, as you say, and the Brocchi's article needs some rewording. - Parejkoj (talk) 15:26, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Support as nominator. Praemonitus (talk) 19:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Support swap per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 15:10, 27 November 2023 (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.

Remove History of Western role-playing video games and History of Eastern role-playing video games

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.

---

Role-playing video games are undoubtedly vital. Their history is not nearly as vital.

Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Too niche to be vital. History is briefly covered in the main article which is vital. I noticed that history of video games is not vital and it should be added or swapped in for those two first before we add such detailed histories of subgenras. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

   History of video games is listed in WP:Vital articles/Level/5/History, as was decided with all "history of X" articles. Moving the RPG history articles there is a possibility, although the history section is very slightly overquota (by 1).--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 07:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

3. Per Piotrus. The Blue Rider 15:31, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
4. per above. starship.paint (RUN) 03:34, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

The history articles are resorted to being listed because there are no main articles for JRPGs nor Western role-playing games. OTOH arguably the "Cultural differences" section at Role-playing video game sufficiently covers the main features of the two groupings.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 07:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@LaukkuTheGreit Interesting topics to write about. I can't believe we don't have an article about JPRGs. @BOZ _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

That's a bit outside of my area of expertise. BOZ (talk) 14:58, 4 November 2023 (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.

Merge politicians, military leaders, jurists and rebels/revolutionaries/activists at VA3, VA4 and VA5

A discussion on this topic has begun at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles pbp 16:53, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Happy six years level 5 anniversary

It is six years ince VA lvel 5 appeared! Many thanks to anyone who constributed here! Dawid2009 (talk) 22:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

What is going on with the "Philosophers, historians, political and social scientists" quota?

The entire Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Philosophers, historians, political and social scientists section has a target of 1,500 articles, but adding together the totals for each of its subsections's quotas only gives a total of 1,300. In fact, the issue becomes obvious when every single one of its subsections is somewhere above quota, yet the total amount falls well short of its overall target with only 1330/1500 reached. What exactly happened here? Totalibe (talk) 20:23, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

It seems like it was bumped up from 1,300 to 1,500 without changing the section quota within it, which still add to 1,300. J947 † ^edits 23:14, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

How should the additional quote be distributed? --Totalibe (talk) 18:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Bambi Woods, add Seka (actress)

Woods was sort of a one hit wonder who then jetted from the industry. Seka had much longer and more influential career involvement (radio show, continuing commentary). Hyperbolick (talk) 09:00, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
2. If she is known for only one film, then surely it makes more sense to list Debbie Does Dallas? Her disappearence/unidentified-ness really isn't that vital by itself to warrant inclusion. --Totalibe (talk) 20:29, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Support removal. Oppose addition, fail to see how most (pornographic) actresses (and actors) are vital. The Blue Rider 21:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

• @The Blue Rider: I’m sure most are indeed not vital (we have thousands of them), but if the genre is vital surely, it’s most important performers are, no? Hyperbolick (talk) 11:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I will also add that there's a dedicated section for porn directors and performers that this is being proposed for, and it only has a quota of 25 (which is pretty low in comparison to the size of the industry). Seka would probably not have been my first pick as a replacement and its article could use some work on detailing her impact, but it seems reasonable enough. Totalibe (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

By most, I obviously meant the ones currently listed. There are a lot of big industries, such as mining, farming and finances, among many other, but the quota for miners, farmers and bankers are in a much lower proportion comparatively to entertainment. That's because they don't get as much spotlight as actors and other entertainment figures and people tend to wrongly associate (short-term) popularity with vitality. The Blue Rider 18:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Add Shanghai Library

It is the largest library in China. Interstellarity (talk) 13:02, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 13:02, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
2. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Weak support; libraries listed for reference. zh.wp calls it the 2nd largest in China after National Library of China (VA4), for the record. J947 † ^edits 07:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Making the quota system fairer

Hi, I wanted to let you know that I have made some changes to the quota system to make the system fairer. I have made it so that the numbers are rounded to the hundreds place rather than weird numbers like 1,475. Note that I had a hard time making quotas for the people. As a starting point, I have made each of the sections of people equal. Note that this is a starting point, we can always make changes to it overtime so that it better reflects the distribution of articles. I was just leaving a note to let you know about how I think the quotas should go since they seem to be random numbers. Interstellarity (talk) 01:02, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that while I'm not too focused on the quotas, I think it looks a lot more balanced now (though I'm guessing some of the slots will gravitate back to people). I have some other ideas for quota adjustments / reorganization I might propose, but for now, it looks really good.

The only thing I was wondering about is your reasoning for allocating the extra 100 articles to physics. Mind if I adjust that one and give 100 slots back to Plants, Fungi, etc. so the sciences are more even?

I ask because I just finished going through the Physics WikiProject's Top & High-rated articles (plus some extras), and that still only brings the Physics list up to about 1200. Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:47, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Zar2gar1 and thanks for responding to my post. I believe that all ideas should be considered when deciding an amount of articles. If you believe the quotas can be adjusted to make the list better, please feel free to do so. I wanted to adjust them so that they round to the hundreds place and not some really odd numbers like 1275. I don’t know if there will be much comment on my post since this page is not heavily watched. I would love to hear your ideas on improving this list. Interstellarity (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I just updated all the counts & tweaked the quotas a bit more:

• I bumped all people subcategories to 1,500 so the entire list sums to 50,000
• I pushed the 100 extra slots from Physics back to Plants, Fungi, etc.

I do think 1,500 is excessive for some of the people categories, and I have ideas for where the slots could go, but I'll start a fresh discussion for that. Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I think that the People section has grown quite naturally. At least it would save us from extra work at this point if the quota is closer to the current distribution:

• Writers and journalists 2,135 / 2,000
• Artists, musicians, and composers 2,281 / 2,000
• Entertainers, directors, producers, and screenwriters 2,343 / 2,000
• Philosophers, historians, and social scientists 1,325 / 1,500
• Religious figures 501 / 500
• Politicians and leaders 2,438 / 2,500
• Military personnel, revolutionaries, and activists 996 / 1,000
• Scientists, inventors, and mathematicians 1,135 / 1,500
• Sports figures 1,212 / 1,000
• Miscellaneous 1,180 / 1,000 --Thi (talk) 11:08, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Let me put my 2c in here to say I both disagree with the substance and process of Interstellarity's proposal

1. I think I would like the quotas to more mirror what Thi suggests rather than what Interstellarity proposed, and
2. I think Interstellarity's BOLD change of quotas, which would result in the removal of hundreds of articles from the list, was in error

pbp 18:25, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I've always wondered about how the individual section quotas should be viewed. Are they hard quotas that we should be strictly sticking to and cutting out articles if we are over, or are they soft quotas that serve more as a rough estimate of where each section should be in the overall number of 50,000 articles that we are trying to hit. At Level 4, I have never really been that concerned with the individual section quotas, and hitting the overall 10,000 target is really the only number that I care about. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

At least on Level 5, I've seen the quotas as softer than on the other levels and more like aspirational targets. They'll ebb and flow more as part of a feedback loop with the actual changes to the lists, which tend to come in batches on this level. As for the changes, while Interstellarity's change was a bit of a fait accompli, I think the slots are more balanced after it and Thi's tweak. I don't focus as much on the people lists, but for one last tweak, would anyone mind me adjusting the people quotas to multiples of 300 instead of 500? Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Up-or-down vote on Interstellarity resetting people quotas to 1,500

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.

---

This should have happened BEFORE Interstellarity made the changes. We NEED to discuss and vote on it before it becomes final

Support

Oppose

1. There are some topics that warrant more than 1,500 entries and some that do not. I believe the pre-Interstellarity quotas were reasonable and didn't need adjusting that much. As stated above, I also disapprove of this being done BOLDly. pbp 12:45, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
2. There is no reason to assume all subcategories are equal.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 13:11, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
3. The subcategories divide combinations of groups of people arbitrarily. No reason to give each quota equal allotment.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:31, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
4. per above. starship.paint (RUN) 03:22, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

1. Even though it didn't follow normal procedure, I'm mildly supportive of the changes, or at least the process they've started:
   • I think Interstellarity was primarily focused on getting rid of the weirdly over-tuned quotas. I definitely prefer the round quotas of 100 and honestly think all being multiples of 200 or 300 would be even better (500 may be a bit too chunky).
   • Leveling the People subsections (I'm the one that bumped them to 1.5k each to keep the 15k People total) was actually done with the intent of not assuming what the subsection quotas should be. I agree about not keeping them equal, but it's good that it started this conversation.
   • I was a little surprised that Interstellarity made the changes boldly, but when nobody else reverted or pushed-back over a couple weeks, I figured there was a tacit consensus that a little shake-up would be a good thing.
   • Maybe the real issue is that with so many articles at Level 5, especially for filled-out categories that are no longer brainstorming exercises, list changes will probably need to be systematic. Going forward, maybe the quotas should float some with "programmes" for changing lists, not vice versa. Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:57, 3 September 2023 (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.

Politicians vs. activists

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 propose we add 100 to the politicians quota and remove 100 from the activists quota. If you look at some of the things that are being proposed for removal right now, it's clear that it's too easy to get on as an activist and too difficult to get on as a politician. Several relatively obscure or not-that-influential activists are being given a relatively free pass at a time when some Presidents of the United States and British Prime ministers are being proposed for removal

Support adding 100 to politicians quota, removing 100 from activists quota

1. pbp 15:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Support activists -> 900, oppose pols -> 2600. Definitely agree that the activists can be cut to 900, but the politicians section already seems over-weighted to me. Of all the people sections, I'd actually support adding 100 to religious figures, or bumping one of the other popular subcategories closer to its actual size. Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Support both – I think politicians are underrepresented across all stages of VA (which is to some extent motivated by my inclination towards politics, to be fair). J947 ‡ ^edits 09:21, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
4. support both per above. starship.paint (RUN) 03:22, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

• I don't see a proposed list that seems as close to the current demands of spaces as I think is reasonable. There is no way we are going to reduce the number of the following to the variable quotas.

  Writers and journalists 2,135 / 2,000

  Artists, musicians, and composers 2,281 / 2,000

  Entertainers, directors, producers, and screenwriters 2,343 / 2,000

  Sports figures 1,212 / 1,000

• Thus, it is not clear to me what to pin down quotas at.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
• I think soft but precise quotas are the way to go here. I think precision ought to be prioritised over the prettiness of round numbers to an extent. But although the allure of setting the quotas at basically each section's current size is clear to me, for the very rough multiples of 500 for people, it does still seem as if the ones over quota do need to be reduced in size and the ones under quota do need to be added to significantly. For example, despite being under quota significantly the quota of 1,500 for scientists/inventors/mathematicians seem still too low to me if one extrapolates the VA4 section sizes. It certainly doesn't seem right that there are double the amount of entertainers listed as scientists. J947 † ^edits 23:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
• Not at all a fan of the idea that figures in some pocket must round up to an even hundred, even aspirationally. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:48, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
• I'd push back some against overly-tuned quotas. As I see it, the quotas serve two functions, especially at Level 4/5: imposing discipline on each section and allowing each to evolve in parallel. The more fine-tuned the quotas become, hard or soft, the quicker cumulative changes in a section would trigger quota change discussions. So the tail could start wagging the dog, which undermines the whole point of quotas: discipline and parallelism. That said, I personally think denominations of 500 are too chunky; it's a gut-feeling, but multiples of 200 or 300 seem better to me. Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:08, 14 November 2023 (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 some milk related articles

add Lactose intolerance

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.

---

About 65% of the world's population is lactose intolerant, this is arguably a lvl 4 article although lactose is also level 4.

support

1. This should be obvious. I am honestly shocked that this wasn't on the list. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:03, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Support--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 07:50, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Support. Another case of "should have been on here already". --Grnrchst (talk) 11:04, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
4. Per IP. — The Blue Rider 20:26, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 22:08, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
6. starship.paint (RUN) 05:04, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
7. Support-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:42, 27 November 2023 (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.

add Lactase persistence

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.

---

The remaining 35% of the population are lactase persistent, able to drink milk in adulthood.

support

oppose

1. This is covered by the other proposals. I do not think it is important enough for VA5. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Per QuicoleJR. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:04, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Not an important concept. — The Blue Rider 20:26, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
4. Oppose. I don't think we need to list this and intolerance. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:08, 28 October 2023 (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 Lactase

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.

---

The thing that breaks down lactose and "essential to digesting whole milk" (a lvl 3 article) 115.188.113.184 (talk) 20:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

support

1. This enzyme seems important enough for VA5. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
2. With the preponderance of lactose intolerance, this is an important enzyme.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:04, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Per above. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:04, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

oppose

1. Its only use is to break down lactose, a VT4 article, to make lactose-free products and supplements to treat lactose intolerance, a soon to be VT5. Its use is not significant, plus it has too much in common with other vital articles. — The Blue Rider 20:26, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose. It would be better just to add Lactose intolerance. We don't need to list this one too. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Oppose - I think we've covered the key issue with Lactose intolerance. starship.paint (RUN) 13:07, 1 December 2023 (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 Censorship in China

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.

---

A system of control that has affected billion+ people for several decades. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Per nom, and one of the most significant examples of censorship. starship.paint (RUN) 08:13, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
3. This is obviously vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Support--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 14:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
5. Support. --Kammerer55 (talk) 20:12, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

1. Where would this be added? As it stands, censorship is in Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Society_and_social_sciences/Culture#Mass_media_(36/35_articles), which is already one over quota, and once this is added then you could easily make cases for other political regimes with high levels of censorship under "Censorship in..." Totalibe (talk) 12:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

   No opinion on where this should be added but if it is to be added to that section I don't see a problem. The sub-section quotas are intentionally flexible – 2 over would not be a problem even if we'd absolutely completed this list – and the overquotaness of the section is just due to the television section, which either needs to have its quota increased or be met with a flurry of removals. J947 ‡ ^edits 21:51, 27 November 2023 (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.

Template:WP1.0 being deleted soon

Template:WP1.0 will be deleted soon. It strikes me that there could be some articles that the WP1.0 project tagged that we might want to include at Level 5. If anyone wants to take a look at articles that are tagged by the 1.0 template that aren't currently tagged by a vital articles template, here is a link to that search. As the template will be deleted soon, if you want to save the search list you should do it soon. There are approximately 1,200 articles in this search. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Here's the full 1.0 list of 4,707 articles, which is at best eclectic. J947 † ^edits 23:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Process Discussions (Voting et al.)

I normally don't like to revert, and I like the intent of updating the Level 5 policy, but I'd like to discuss first.

My main concerns are:

• I'm a big supporter of encouraging bold, batch additions for incomplete sections
  • For perspective, look at the recent proposals we've had for adding women scientists, or Wrist for example.
  • It took a lot of space & churn here on the talk page for changes with 100% support and no need for trade-offs.
• As you've already noted J947, the talk page is getting swamped now.
  • I think this gets into a deeper issue that voting just doesn't scale well as the default process to Level 5.
  • I don't want to get bogged down in details here, but I think we should at least hint / future-proof the landing-page for things like LaukkuTheGreit's analytics suggestion.
• I'd like to tighten up the "uncontroversial" loop-hole for voting with something a bit more precise.

Not proposing anything myself yet, but feel free to add specific ones as subsections. Zar2gar1 (talk) 09:11, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I will add that I have recently added a number of entries to the scientist and philosophers/social scientists section, since the quota had been raised on those a while ago and those section were well sub-quota as a result (I even had to manually adjust the quota by propotion on the philosopher/social scientist subsections since those hadn't even been updated). Totalibe (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Yup, the top-of-page quotas are an extra source of confusion because we don't auto-reconcile them with the Lv5 landing page. And since it's a pain to go into each page, plus we still don't have an efficient formal quota-setting process, we often don't bother with them after a quota change. Then you have some pages that give quotas for even subheadings, though I think that's long been (unofficially) deprecated.

I'm too busy IRL for now, and I've never developed for Wikipedia, but I have a software background and to try making a bot for more VA tasks someday. Kanashimi is definitely one of the unsung heroes of this project with everything Cewbot does for us. Maybe we could give the guy/gal a break though from some of the fix & feature requests if the VA bots (and managing them) were spread out across a few people. Zar2gar1 (talk) 07:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Add Experience point

Pretty basic concept from gaming, both off and online. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nominator. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
2. This is an extremely important concept to both video games and TTRPGs, and probably some other games as well. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:44, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
3. per above. starship.paint (RUN) 06:00, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Analyzing the vital article lists (Level 5)

I think it would be helpful to have a discussion every year or two regarding how we are doing with the vital articles. Some questions we could ponder include: have the lists gotten better or worse with time? What are some ways the lists have improved and ways the list has worsened with time? How is the current process of adding and removing articles? Do you think there should be stricter or more lenient requirements or keep the requirements as is? This list has been around since 2017 and hasn't been around that long compared to the other lists (6 years) and it has gone through many changes since its inception. Levels 1-3 have been pretty stable and haven't seen a lot of proposals for addition or removal recently. I've seen it more frequently in years past, but the discussion nowadays seems to be about the list itself. Levels 4 and 5 have seen more rapid changes throughout the years due to the large number of articles within it. You can always go back to the history section and see how the list evolved. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts. What do you think? Interstellarity (talk) 00:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

It's easier (not easy) to agree on the big concepts. At V4 and V5 there is a lot of minor stuff that nobody can claim to know about. I think the lists are getting better, obviously, just like Wikipedia. As time goes and more people comment more, we reach the ideal state, edit by edit, comment by comment. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

• We need some major process improvements. Working toward a better more stable list is a process that we can all help improve. I would like to see dedicated pages to discussions that can be linked to talk page {{article history}}. This would provide easy access to past discussions on given topics. It is possible that easier access to past discussion would help to understand the vitality of a given subject. We need to come together on how to improve the stability of the lists. I think we are taking major steps by increasing the hurdle rate, which looks like it is going to be supported at some level. I really don't like the current system of undulating quotas. Some fields were originally given larger quotas and now many of those are being cut. Some smaller ones are being cut too. The chopping of a quotas is a huge source of instability. I think we need a better system of tallying subsection totals and rolling them up so that they are accurate at a given moment. Those are some of my thoughts.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:33, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Procedural removal of Digital Revolution needed?

Following a recent discussion at Talk:Information_Age#Merge_from_Digital_Revolution_and_Information_revolution, DR (V5) has been merged (well, redirected, merge still need to happen IMHO) to IA (V3). Which nobody has likely informed Vital project about, and I assume DR is still a V5 somewhere? Do we need a vote for removal? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Best to leave notice, but at VA5 no need for a vote. Feel free to remove it. J947 ‡ ^edits 08:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Listings should be fixed to reflect page moves/redirects, and be removed if it results in a duplicate, without requiring discussion. Maybe leave a notice about having removed duplicates, but that too perhaps is better done sometime in the future when the list is more stable/finetuned.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 11:32, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Add some driving professions

We list 30 Common trades and professions. Gig worker (for not only Uber/Lyft drivers but also Door dashers and TaskRabbit taskers), Chauffeur and/or the redirect Taxicab driver (my first redirect nomination)

Support

1. As nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Switched support from gig worker to gig economy suggested above, oppose others per my comment above. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

1. I dislike all jobs articles which are almost always mostly redundant to general articles about fields. Gig economy however redrects to gig =worker, so tentative support for that one only. I don't think other are vital at V5; taxi is at V3 and what would thsoe two add here? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

   Now that you have called my attention to it, I am recreating Gig economy. It is probably a VA topic, but was redirected supposedly due to sourcing (after a brief 4/3/2018-5/29/2018 tenure in main space).-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

   @TonyTheTiger Good catch. I recently restored from bold redirects two vital 5 aricles: history of wood carving and History of scholarship (and nominated one for AfD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of rail transport before 1700 :P). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:34, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

   It seems all sorts of history articles are on the chopping block.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

   Just noting that this was my old support vote which I moved to discusion now. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at VA § Number of articles in heading

 You are invited to join the discussion at VA § Number of articles in heading. -- Kammerer55 (talk) 19:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Minor quota change

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.

---

Under Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/People/Miscellaneous#Criminals (240/240 articles), the old quota was Assassination (16/18 articles) and Crimes against humanity (20/18 articles). I am WP:BOLDLY changing it to Assassination (16/16 articles) and Crimes against humanity (20/20 18/18 articles). Feel free to revert if you disagree. starship.paint (RUN) 03:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

You can't change 20/18 to 18/18, since the first number is not the quota, but just the number of articles in that section and is automatically updated by the bot. You can change only the second number. Did you mean to change the quota to 20/20 instead? Kammerer55 (talk) 07:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

@Kammerer55: - yes, you are right, forgive my typo. My apologies. Changed it. starship.paint (RUN) 14:07, 10 December 2023 (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.

Adding a rule to stop rush closes

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.

---

In my opinion, no proposal voting should be closed until at least 7 days have passed since the last comment. This enables all discussants to react to other discussants and be reacted to by all other discussants. This will ensure that no important comments get swept under the rug. Do I need to bring this to a vote or can we come to a simple agreement on this for immediate inclusion in the level 5 closing guidelines.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I guess I'll bring this to a rule change vote. If people want the rule added summarily please express that thought.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. I think this should go without saying and shouldn't have to be called to a vote. -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
2. This makes logical sense and should have already been a rule. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
3. I'm all for clarifying that closing these discussions is best avoided. But make it a guideline, not a rule. J947 ‡ ^edits 22:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

   Guideline vs. Rule. DUNNO. What is at the top of this page? Whatever that is.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:34, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

4. This makes sense. There is far less pressure for quick closes here than there would be for, e.g., an AfD of a BLP bio. BD2412 T 14:34, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
5. Support Kammerer55's counter-proposal. The Blue Rider 10:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The proposed rule (if strictly enforced) is potentially destructive and irreversible, since any person can block any decision by commenting on it forever (including the decision to revert the rule). If there is not enough time for voting, then just increase the time frame. Or if the voting does not work well, then replace it with consensus-based approach instead. Also, the proposed rule does not make sense in some simple situations like in the #Add Sequel-discussion above where one could close the discussion a few days ago with a 5-0 vote, but since it's now 6-0, we would need to wait a bit longer to close it (if the rule is accepted). So even if this proposal is accepted as a guideline (not a strict rule), some provisions should be added so that the comments/votes which do not affect the outcome should not prevent the closure. --Kammerer55 (talk) 07:22, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

   The comment-forever scenario is where we apply the formal Stop-Being-An-Asshole rule and ignore (though it would be schadenfreudiacally interesting if we applied total bureaucracy). But the second point is pertinent – if there's a pile-on support vote which doesn't raise any further questions this rule should simply be ignored. A guideline may be a step too firm for that reason: how about calling this a "rule of thumb"? J947 ‡ ^edits 08:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

   I just realised that I was beginning to get scared that this comment chain would be ignored and that this rule would be passed as proposed. Which, incidentally, is a point in favour of this rule. Help! I'm digging myself deeper into this logic hole! J947 ‡ ^edits 08:19, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

   The explanation for this logic hole is that both the current situation and the rule are imperfect. So we just need to find a slightly better solution. For example, by making it an informal rule of thumb, or by making the closing rules slightly more complicated similarly to other levels. Another approach to avoid this particular logic hole would be to treat procedural proposals as consensus-based (with regular Wikipedia discussion guidelines) and apply the 7-day rule (in a strict or weak form) only for the article nominations. Kammerer55 (talk) 09:07, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

   A "rule of thumb" sounds much better. Then it could probably be formulated less precisely as something like "Avoid closing proposals with active discussions within past week that could affect the outcome." Kammerer55 (talk) 08:33, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

The risk of a filibuster, always exists. Right now since we have a 45 day autoarchive on this page, one could keep a discussion from being autoarchived by commenting every 44 days. It does not seem to happen. This rule is more of an attempt to avert what is going on at Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Subpage_1#Remove_Jerry_Brown, where there was controversy surrounding its prompt close. It would quickly become obvious that a filibuster is preventing closure after about the 2nd unnatural extention by comment of a sole discussant. I have seen discussions that appeared to be WP:SNOW closes shift to very contentious. The point is to allow consensus to reveal itself rather than allow something to be closed before everyone has had a chance to express their opinions. If the #Add Sequel-discussion is the worry, what is the problem of a discussion remaining open for a month if there are 5 consecutive supports 6 days after another. That would be the most extreme and remote possibility. What that would mean is a few discussions are held open some extra time and some of those times it would mean that it would provide time for a change in the true consensus to reveal itself.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:10, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Here are two currently active discussions that seemed to be uncontested consensus that turned around:

1. Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Subpage_1#Add_Sam_Smith was 3-0 from 13:09, 27 October 2023 to 15:09, 11 November 2023 (over 15 days) and then 3-1 from 15:09, 11 November 2023 to 00:55, 26 November 2023 (another 14.5 days), but now sits at 3-3. Since it is eligible for a 4-3 pass it remains contentious.
2. Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/4#Add_Everyday_life quickly ran up to 5-0, where it stood for over 70 hours (nearly 3 days) before quickly turning to 5-2. Since it would fail at 5-3 it remains contentious.

These are cases where rush closes would not have revealed a contentious nomination. We want to come to the best decision we can, which means to gather as much collective wisdom and evaluate based on that. In some cases the early wisdom could be swayed by later wisdom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:24, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

I would support this. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:07, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I think it would pass, the question is whether I actually need to put it to a vote of whether it is an obvious thing we should do.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure, but for the record I already self-impose this rule on myself, so I find it obvious. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:17, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

• This seems useful in close discussions but it's bureaucratic if there's a clear consensus. pbp 17:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  Proposals with 4 or more supports and no opposes could potentially be exempt. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  • I really don't think so. At level 4 Everyday life started 5-0 and is now 5-2 (Level 4 fails 5-3 votes). 5-0 would seem like a WP:SNOW close. I don't see a good reason not to give all voices a chance for 7 days. What's the rush.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:31, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

    Yes, as @Purplebackpack89 noted, everyone is already given 14 days to comment, though this time can be probably increased if that's not enough. Kammerer55 (talk) 07:37, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

    We already have a rule, "Discussions should run for at least 14 days before being closed." pbp 14:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

    That is 14 days after it was nominated, this is 7 days after last comment/vote.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

    @Purplebackpack89, Yes, that seems to be a very efficient formulation for the provision and it makes sure that the discussions do not run forever. Kammerer55 (talk) 07:33, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

• I don't get it. This is already a rule at VT5 and all other levels, you must wait 14 days to close a discussion. The Blue Rider 09:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

  This would be based on last comment and not start date. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

  Oh, in that case 7 days seem excessive, 3 days should be fine. The Blue Rider 14:47, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

  I recall you taking about a full week off (no edits between 21:41, October 30, 2023 and 20:59, November 7, 2023 as well as no edits between 18:07, September 17, 2023 and 19:44, September 28, 2023 ) pretty recently. It is not uncommon to be unable to fully checkup on all WP issues for more than 3 days.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

  I take wiki-breaks at my discretion, when I do so I'm acknowledging that things are still going to get done with or without my consensus, but sure 7 days it is. The Blue Rider 22:57, 8 December 2023 (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.

Proposal to specify target section when nominating articles for addition

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 propose to make a general rule that addition proposals should also mention which section the article should be added to, since it is sometimes not obvious. This would make it a bit easier to close the discussions, would help to verify that the article was added properly, and would also help participants to check what's the current quota of the targeted section. (If it's not a new addition, but a swap within the same section, then this should not be necessary.) See also examples of discussions above where this caused some confusion: #Add President of the United States, #Add Miracle on Ice, #add Lactose intolerance (I closed the last one). --Kammerer55 (talk) 06:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

• -User:Kammerer55, This discussion is already underway at Proposal: Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4#Proposal:_Add_a_vital_section_link_to_each_nomination. As I noted there, the discussion should be at WT:VA rather than WP:VA4.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
  • I am just noticing that you are a discussant there (November 9 and November 24). Is this something different from that? If so, how?-21:45, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
    • TonyTheTiger, Honestly, I forgot about that discussion when making this proposal, since it was some time ago and I arrived to this one from a slightly different direction (from the issues with closing), while in the previous discussion I had slightly different concerns. In any case, it would be great if someone could close that proposal and specify further steps. (Then my proposal might become redundant, so we could also close it quickly.) Until then, I think this proposal could still stand on its own, since it does not require any additional automation (or template creation), but just requires specifying the topic/section name in words (even without the need to add the link). We could just add the corresponding note to the introduction then. What do you think? --Kammerer55 (talk) 00:56, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
      • You and Czar should work out the differences between your proposals before either is closed, IMO.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:35, 7 December 2023 (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 Convoy

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 military concept. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. per nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
2. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 13:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
3. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:45, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
4. Support--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 13:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

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.

Remove al-Fashir

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.

---

This town has very little historical significance besides one recent battle, which is not enough to reach VA5 levels of importance.

Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
2. I am more convinced by the nom's rationale then oppose votes. The region is important - then add the region. The war is important - ditto. The city is just a background unless the article says otherwise. And it does not. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:35, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The city is the capital of the infamous Darfur region and as so it played a role in the War in Darfur (2003-2020), a VT5 article. Further, al-Fashir is currently a disputed region in the War in Sudan. It also plays an important role for IDPs with their three refugee camps. Further, the city is an economic hub for the country, especially agriculturally. There is a UN's report that profiles the city, if someone wants to read it more deeply feel free. The Blue Rider 19:43, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

   How about swapping for Nyala, Sudan, capital of South Darfur and the largest city in Sudan outside the Khartoum metro area? Sudan does look a little over quota to me; otherwise I'd be opposing this with you. J947 † ^edits 05:53, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

   Would support said swap, Nyala seems more important historically and economically. The Blue Rider 21:44, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

2. Oppose Capital and primary city of Darfur, more likely to be vital as it is unlike typical provincial capitals. Curbon7 (talk) 08:42, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Swap for Nyala, South Darfur

1. Swap per my comment above. J947 † ^edits 00:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Per above comments. The Blue Rider 09:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Metro area of over a million, this is a no brainer. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 23:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
4. I think the historical part gives the edge to Nyala. starship.paint (RUN) 04:40, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
5. Swap per the UN report mentioned below and other comments. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 12:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

• @QuicoleJR: hello! This is the 2nd time you withdraw a proposal after me opposing it. My argument for vitality is not particularly strong and the odds are that there will be, at least, some people supporting its removal. Don't get discourage by a single oppose! The Blue Rider 15:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

  Un-withdrew. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

• I note that Nyala also has a UN report, which in 2009 said: Nyala had fewer than 100,000 people prior to the conflict but has swollen to over 600,000 ... Challenging El Fasher for the distinction of being Darfur’s biggest city whereas Fashir's UN report in 2009 said: This town of fewer than 200,000 people prior to the conflict has swollen to over 500,000. starship.paint (RUN) 04:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

  Haha wow. I'll still support the swap, based on the stats here which indicate Nyala was still fairly populated 30 years ago and had 500,000 inhabitants even 15 years ago, but – yeah, that's interesting. J947 ‡ ^edits 04:37, 6 December 2023 (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.

Remove Japan–South Korea trade dispute, 2012 China anti-Japanese demonstrations, 709 crackdown, Add Gwangju Uprising, June Democratic Struggle, Miracle on the Han River

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.

---

As it stands, South Korea strangely underrepresented in the contemporary history section, with Japan–South Korea trade dispute being the only article representing the post-Korean War era, which seems like a very strange pick as its far from the most impactful event especially given how tumultuous much of the period since the 1950s has been. Therefore I propose the following...

Remove:

• Japan–South Korea trade dispute - already discusses and limited in long-term consequences. There have been many diplomatic disputes between Japan and South Korea over the years.
• 2012 China anti-Japanese demonstrations - also limited in long-term consequences and not even the most significant unrest in China since 1989. Including the main Senkaku Islands dispute article would make more sense.
• 709 crackdown - I really do not know why this stub stands out of all the various crackdowns on dissent that have taken place in China

Add:

• Gwangju Uprising - Considered one of the most significant events in the movement against South Korea's various military dictatorships and widely commemorated. The crackdown likely had a comparable death toll to the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre but still remains much less covered in comparison internationally.
• June Democratic Struggle - led directly to the democratization of South Korea and ended the ~40 year period where it would pass between various right-wing dictators. As a disclaimer, I have expanded this article significantly.
• Miracle on the Han River - article on the (very fast) economic growth and industrialization of South Korea. As it stands articles on the Japanese economic miracle and Taiwan miracle are already listed but not this one. As an aside, this and the Taiwan Miracle page should both be under Four Asian Tigers. Totalibe (talk) 11:59, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As someone these days at least a bit familiar with Korean history, yes, this makes sense. I am surprised the proposed topics are not Vital, whereas the ones suggested for removal are pretty minor indeed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 11:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Adding this vote as nom despite it having been a while to make sure I'm counted Totalibe (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
4. per above. starship.paint (RUN) 03:31, 5 December 2023 (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.

Category:Wikipedia level-unknown vital articles

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.

---

At Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles#Category:Wikipedia level-unknown vital articles, User:Piotrus opened a discussion about Category:Wikipedia level-unknown vital articles. I had tried to clean up the subcategory Category:All Wikipedia level-unknown vital articles recently and chimed in. My perception is that the articles here are former VA5s that are no longer VAs, but that were improperly removed. Can anyone give us advice since we are getting no clarification there.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:45, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

And as I said there, some articles there look like stuff that might be decent V5 candiates. Perhaps what we need is Category:Wikipedia former vital articles and some system to move stuff once delisted there? Maybe also Category:Wikipedia propised vital articles and Category:Wikipedia failed proposed vital articles? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:48, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

We definitely need to institute something like this. As, I mentioned there, I also think VA nomination results should appear in Template:Article history.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:09, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

1. This has been largely resolved at Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles#Category:Wikipedia_level-unknown_vital_articles-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:05, 15 December 2023 (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.

Move African leaders

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've just noticed that, for some reason, Luís Cabral, Patrice Lumumba and Thomas Sankara are listed under the African rebels, revolutionaries and activists section. This is despite all of them having been the heads of state of their respective countries, with both Lumumba and Sankara both being listed in level-4 as political leaders. I'm assuming their inclusion in the "rebels, revolutionaries and activists" section was a mistake, so I'm proposing they be moved to the politicians and leaders list. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:10, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:10, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Whilst they are revolutionaries they mainly known as politicians. The Blue Rider 16:07, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Support Primary notability.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:25, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Support per above. starship.paint (RUN) 03:21, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

This is why politicians and rebels should NOT be separate sections, the line between politician and activist is too blurred. pbp 21:07, 12 November 2023 (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.

Increase passing hurdle from 55%

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.

---

Level 5 is the only level that does not use a 2/3rds hurdle for add/remove discussions to be passed. It currently uses 55%. Above User:QuicoleJR mentioned that we should increase the hurdle from 55%. Additionally, in some broader recent discussions there has been a lot of support for more stability, which means we need to make change harder to achieve. I responded to QuicoleJR that I don't think we should go all the way to 2/3rds, but would support 60%. The following are discussion counts that would fall below the passing hurdle if we moved it to just 60%: 4-3, 5-4, 7-5, 8-6, 9-7. If we moved to 2/3rds the additional counts would become failing counts: 3-2, 5-3, 6-4, 7-4, 8-5, 9-5, 9-6.

Presumably if you vote for one of the higher thresholds you support the lower ones.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Support at least 60%, but also support 2/3rds hurdle (3-2, 4-3, 5-4, 5-3, 6-4, 7-5, 8-6, 9-7, 7-4, 8-5, 9-6 and 9-5 become failing counts)

1. I would prefer 2/3 but 60% is also a good change to make. 4-3 and 5-4 is definitely not a consensus. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:55, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Support maintaining consistency with the other levels will make things fairer and less complicated. Gizza (talk) 04:57, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Support >60% hurdle (3-2, 4-3, 5-4, 6-4, 7-5, 8-6, 9-7 and 9-6 become failing counts)

1. This is better than >=60%, because it excludes all situations with one vote difference, thus covering situation when the nominator is biased, and other voters are non-biased, but are equally distributed between support/oppose, which does not seem fair for the article. --Kammerer55 (talk) 22:09, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
2. I think this is the position most in line with where I feel (gotta win by two!) and what's realistic for the number of participants in the room at this time. pbp 05:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

   I agree 4-2 and 5-3 are important counts and both probably have instructive meaning for us as a project.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:42, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

3. The Blue Rider 11:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Like I said above, 2/3 is my first choice. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:16, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Support 60% hurdle (4-3, 5-4, 7-5, 8-6, 9-7 become failing counts)

1. As nom. -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
2. 3–2 should fail; 6–4 (and 9–6) should pass. In general I'm supportive of lax requirements for proposals to pass, but when it comes to something like #Remove Likasi passing... J947 † ^edits 22:35, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

   User:J947, If it passes at this level only we could have an additional vote on a rule that there must be a majority aside from the nominator to specifically fail 3-2.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

   I think it would make it too complicated to put the fourth option in for your specific list of fails. Then everybody will feel they should author a specific list that they like. I get your point though and think a rider for 3-2 later would probably pass.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

   It definitely would be too complicated. My 4-supports proposal above covers it for now. J947 † ^edits 22:55, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose change

1. Oppose Far too early, especially for entry by entry..... 50 000 is larger number of articles than 1000-10 000, still require fast decisions and sometimes even bold chenging things, even sometimes at the quotas. Dawid2009 (talk) 11:07, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

   This would not make adding things slower. It would just stop very controversial adds and removes from being successful. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

There is a third alternative in the middle of the two above which would be to say the vote must exceed 60% which would move 3-2, 6-4 and 9-6 to failing along with 4-3, 5-4, 7-5, 8-6, 9-7 but leave 5-3, 7-4, 8-5, 9-5 as passing counts.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:49, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

To potential participants: don't be dissuaded by the perceived complexity of these proposals. The options, from bottom to top, are 55%, 60%, 61%, and 67%. J947 † ^edits 22:35, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

• With 7 of 8 discussants wanting at least >=60% and 5 of 8 wanting at least >60%, it looks like this will pass. Will it go into effect for all discussions or only discussions nominated after this is closed?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
• Also note the #3-0 votes discussion above.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:58, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

@The Blue Rider, Purplebackpack89, and Starship.paint:-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:58, 6 December 2023 (UTC) @QuicoleJR, DaGizza, Kammerer55, QuicoleJR, J947, and Dawid2009:-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Though I prefer 2/3rds, I also support 60% as an improvement to what we currently have. Gizza (talk) 22:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I have closed the discussion. In the interests of fairness, I suggest that the new ruling only comes into effect for discussions started after this close. We can't assume that voting editors would know this would happen before the close happened. starship.paint (RUN) 03:10, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I see that User:J947 has taken the initiative to update the rules with a grandfather clause. I think this is the correct thing to do.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:21, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, intended to note that here. I made a few other minor changes to the rules as well (mostly just wording and reflecting practice). J947 ‡ ^edits 04:33, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Starship.paint and @J947 for updating the introduction. I also took liberty and added the color table showing how to count the votes using the new rule. Please feel free to adjust the alignment if needed. (In the comments there is also a Python code that generated the table. This can be easily adjusted if the rule changes.) Kammerer55 (talk) 05:50, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Question - Following the rules and the chart at top of the page, which kind of makes sense on the one hand... If a proposal has 3 support and no oppose, it will fail. But if a proposal has 3 support and one oppose it will pass. I know it means the topic has attracted 4 people's attention and the other only only three, but how can a 3-1 be better than 3-0? seems absurd. If a person comes across a suggestion they disagree with, which has 3-0 support, and it's been there a while, what can do other than get one of their friends to vote at the same time as them. If they leave it, it would stay as is, nothing would happen until someone else comes along, if they agree with the thread it could be closed as passed, but if they disagree it could also be closed as passed. It doesn't really feel right that any action including disagreeing would pass the thread, perhaps 3-0 should pass? but I don't know. Or make 3-0 and 3-1 fail and the minimum 4-0, maybe that would be better, there's no way a 3-1 should pass "if" a 3-0 does not, both have 3 support. In theory if everyone knows the rules and plays accordingly, if a thread has 3-0 support a fourth person sees it and disagrees, they will ignore it and not oppose, as they don't want it to pass, then if a fifth or sixth person sees it and disagrees, the may all also ignore it, not wanting to create the passing 3-1 score, then later if another person sees it who agrees, they could support it and it would pass when several potential opposers may have deliberately not voted oppose.  Carlwev  07:37, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

• User:Carlwev, I think you want to get involved at Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5#3-0_votes.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:50, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
• I have noticed a bit of an issue with the wording of the close between User:J947 and User:Starship.paint. They were voting on >60% not >=61%. If we ever had a 14-9 (60.87%) or 17-11 (60.71%) vote total, they would pass even though they are below 61.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
  • @TonyTheTiger: - fixed. starship.paint (RUN) 01:26, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
    • Honestly, I don't know why any parenthetical has to be included in the summary. I am a math guy so for me >60% means greater than 60%. Maybe non math guys need to see some words without math symbols and the parenthetical helps them. 60.01 takes care of any count in the range of participants that WP discussions have. I guess you could run a program to find the smallest whole number denominator of a fraction between 60 and 60.01. It may be in the thousands so we need not worry.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
• User:Starship.paint Should the closing blurb say >60% replaces >=55% as the passing hurdle.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:45, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Because this is apparently controversial, I want to be counted in favour as my solution is the gist of what was accepted. I feel like painting this as a 5–3 margin rather than a 6–2 margin makes the change appear closer than in essence it is. (It can be hard to appropriately classify peeps' votes.) J947 ‡ ^edits 22:04, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

• Keep in mind it was 7-1 in favor of change to at least >=60%. 5-3 in favor of >60% only makes the 3-2, 6-4, 9-6 votes slightly less overwhelming. In retrospect, I am in support of the change to >60% too.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:13, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
• Moved bottom to close discussion. No issues seem outstanding.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:30, 13 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.

3-0 votes

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.

---

Currently, the rules require a quorum of 4 interested parties for any discussion to count and a 55% support. This means that a nomination that gets three support votes with no opposes fails as no consensus, but a nomination with three support votes and one or two opposes passes. Should we amend the rules so that 3-1 and 3-2 decisions are not favored over 3-0 decisions? Specifically, should we change the rule to 3 supports and 55% rather than 4 votes and 55%?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Let me provide more context. Above right now there are some 3-0 (a. Move George Washington Gale Ferris Jr. to inventors and engineers, remove everyone else in Amusement park people; b. Replace 'Brocchi's Cluster' with 'Double Cluster', c. Quota changes for criminals, d. Add The Chicks (formerly/better known as The Dixie Chicks), e. Move The White Stripes, f. Add Gwen Stefani, g. Add Terraforming Mars (board game), h. Remove History of Western role-playing video games and History of Eastern role-playing video games, i. Add Ed Bradley, John Chancellor), 3-1 (a. Add Sam Smith, b. Remove more modestly notable rock bands, c. Add Wordle) and 3-2 discussions (a. add Lactase, b. Remove Leon Czolgosz) that have not had commentary in over a week. Plus, we have a. (Re-)Add The Jerry Springer Show which just got closed as a 3-2 pass, b. Add Kunimitsu Takahashi, and c. Add Sophia Perovskaya that both just got closed as 3-1 passes that have yet to be archived. Proposed moves the 3-0s to pass and Alternate proposal moves the 3-1s and 3-2s to fails. Either way puts all the variants of three supports with a majority on equal footing rather than the odd preference.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Support as proposed

1. As nominator. --TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Per TonyTheTiger. We do not want people opposed to a proposal to be punished for opposing it. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

   This voter has expressed a preference for the alternative below.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:28, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

3. Makes sense. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Alternative proposal – require 4 support votes (and get rid of the four-votes overall provision to be replaced with something else)

1. See below for context. J947 † ^edits 05:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

   This seems odd to me to have an alternate proposal wedged into a proposal. I have never seen this before. Is this normal protocol?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

   Yes – it's how swap proposals are frequently formatted, for one. J947 † ^edits 06:10, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

   Feel free to tweak my newly added contextual examples to help people see what they are choosing between.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

2. This is also a good idea. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
3. The problem with the first option is that it assumes that 3-2 is passable and it then concludes that 3-0 should also pass. Three people voting is not sufficient in the first instance. The Blue Rider 14:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose both

Discuss

I was planning to bring this up myself (because it's dumb), but with the increased participation we've seen on this page in the past month I'd prefer to make there be 4 supports for an add. I'm also not sure 3–2, 4–3, and 5–4 results should be passing as they currently are, but that's a lesser problem in my view. J947 † ^edits 00:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

User:J947 are you saying just 4 supports for adds, but still 3 for removes?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:47, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry – 4 for both. J947 † ^edits 04:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Moving to 4 support votes converts 3-2 and 3-1 to fails on equal footing to 3-0, which is an alternate solution. If you feel strongly that way and would like to seek support for that, you are opposing this solution. If it was just something that you were thinking of as the solution, but with minor preference to this that is different. So if you can get on board with this, you should enter support and if you feel strongly the other way, you should oppose. I am just trying to rectify the 3-2 and 3-1 preference over 3-0. Yours is an alternate solution.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Voting about votes: we're 3–0 here as it stands, does that pass? :) I've added another heading for my proposal. We'll see how that goes. If necessary, there's a host of better voting systems than straight first choices (STV, Borda, Condorcet) we can use! J947 † ^edits 05:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I would say that the percentage required should be increased a bit. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:55, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

This was really just a motion to correct the preference of 3-2 and 3-1 over 3-0. I am sure we could get into the weeds on other issues. But if we are going to go there, it would have to go to above 60% for 3-2 to fail. If we move to 60% exactly 3-2 still passes, 4-3 and 5-4 would fail as a result of the change. I think a change in the approval percentage should be a separate nomination. I would support 60%.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:09, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

By the way. There is no way the percentage should go to over 75% which is what it would take to eliminate the 3-1 preference over 3-0. So the percentage support definitely needs to be a separate discussion.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:49, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

• User:QuicoleJR, both proposals cause 3-0, 3-1 and 3-2 to be treated the same rather than have 3-0 fail while the others pass. One passes them all and one fails them all. It might be more helpful if you were to help guide us as to which solution you feel will take the project in the better direction rather than concur that they both rectify the issue at hand.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

  I would say that 4 support votes is my first choice. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:49, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

• I'll be honest that I have so many active noms with 3 supports, that I saw making all 3s pass as the better way. But requiring 4 supports and failing all 3s might be a step toward stabilizing the project.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
• User:J947, if we vote to increase support votes to 4, then should I assume that every article will be held for 5 votes instead of 4 (unless it has multiple opposes in which case an early close would be OK).-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

  No, 4–0 should definitely pass. I didn't realise before that the whole 4-vote system applied across the board – you couldn't close other noms as no consensus with limited participation. While we're looking at these rules, making VA5 have the same sort of rules as the other VA levels is another change we should consider. J947 ‡ ^edits 02:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

  User:J947Yes, 4-0 should pass, but 3-1 should not get archived is my point. If it takes 4 support votes to pass and an article can be closed with 4 total votes, what happens to 3-1?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:55, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

  The 5th vote for a 4-0 is moot and should not hold up a discussion, but a 3-1 should be held out for a 5th vote.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:10, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

  If 4-2 is going to be a pass, we may even need to hold for 6 votes unless it has stabilized with 3 or more opposes. (This assumes the hurdle is going to make 4-3 a fail). If it has stabilized at 4-0 or 4-1 holding to push for six votes is moot so it would not be necessary in those cases.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:47, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

• User:J947, we definitely need some clarity on your proposal. Currently, with 3 support votes required, we are suppose to hold voting open in cases that have stabilized/stalled at 2-0 and 2-1 thus we have a 4 vote policy, which can be ignored in 3-0 cases where a fourth vote is moot. If we go to 4 supports required, presumably we would hold open voting in cases that have stabilized at 3-0, 3-1 and 3-2 (and maybe 2-0 and 2-1) so we would be requiring some nominations to be held for up to 6 votes unless an article has gotten to 4 supports. Do you agree that this would be necessary? How would that affect the project waiting for 6 total votes rather than 4? That could really slow a lot of closes down significantly. Do we really want that?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
  • User:QuicoleJR, since you have expressed an preference for 4 supports as the way to clean this up, do you understand it to be the case that we would need to hold voting open for up to 6 votes instead of 4.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:31, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Well the simple way to do it is to add a no consensus provision for discussions with insufficient quorum as at all other levels. J947 ‡ ^edits 19:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
    • User:J947, If 4 support votes passes, what is protocol for using no consensus, which is up for debate in another part of this talk page. My presumption is that day 1, we have to change to 4 support/6 vote system because in my mind they go hand in hand and then lobby for no consensus. Do you feel that if this passes, day 1 you could convert the project to no consensus, or would we have to go with 6 votes until we can lobby for it. 6 is the right number of votes to wait for in order to assess nominations with a 4 support hurdle just as 4 is the right number of votes for a 3 support hurdle. No consensus is a different system that we would have to seek consensus for.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:38, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
      • I'd like to think the 4-support system is an explicit alternative to the whole of the current voting system. 4 supports would entail the addition of extra provisions for failed votes like at other levels, the specifics of which will indeed be worked out later. I've updated the header for my proposal to emphasise that. J947 ‡ ^edits 01:22, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
        • In concert with increasing the hurdle, moving from 4 votes to 4 supports may help to stabilize level 5. We will need to make some compensatory changes in order to deal with the prolonged nominations. We will have to come together as a group to do this. It will surely take a few months to really see what the impact of the change will be if it carries. I still think we still need a gradual size growth to have less instability from herky jerky quotas, but I may revisit that in the future.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:38, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
• Willing to accept (support) alternative to bring this to a close, but see inquiry below regarding enforcement or grandfathering of active nominations.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:01, 6 December 2023 (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 the following media topics

Add Sequel

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.

---

Key concept in modern media. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Per nominator. The Blue Rider 18:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
3. This should be VA4. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:33, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
4. J947 † ^edits 07:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
5. Per nom. --Kammerer55 (talk) 07:57, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
6. Common sense. Curbon7 (talk) 20:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Prequel is less significant IMHO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Agree. Kammerer55 (talk) 20:40, 1 December 2023 (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 Media franchise

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.

---

Key concept in modern media. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Per nominator. The Blue Rider 18:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
3. J947 † ^edits 07:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Per nom. --Kammerer55 (talk) 07:57, 23 November 2023 (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.

Add Series finale

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.

---

Key concept in modern media. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Series finales don't define a show; the journey, character development, and impact matter more and consistent quality throughout is more crucial than just the last episode. The Blue Rider 18:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
2. J947 † ^edits 07:25, 21 November 2023 (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 Cliffhanger

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.

---

Key concept in modern media. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Per nominator. The Blue Rider 18:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

We really are missing some concepts in this section (Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Arts), but this one is a massive step below all the others proposed. Marking neutral for now. J947 † ^edits 07:25, 21 November 2023 (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 Plot device

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.

---

Key concept in modern media. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
2. J947 † ^edits 07:25, 21 November 2023 (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.

Add Book series

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.

---

Key concept in modern media. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
2. J947 † ^edits 07:25, 21 November 2023 (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.