Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4#Remove Button

{{Pin message|}}{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2034457189}}

The purpose of this discussion page is to select 10,000 topics for which Wikipedia should have high-quality articles. All Wikipedia editors are welcome to participate. Individual topics are proposed for addition or removal, followed by discussion and !voting. It is also possible to propose a swap of a new topic for a lower-priority topic already on the list.

All level 4 nominations must be of an article already listed at level 5.

{{Wikipedia:Vital articles/Discussions}}

When you are making a decision whether to add or remove a particular topic from the Vital Articles Level 4 list, we strongly recommend that you review and compare the other topics in the same category in order to get a better sense of what other topics are considered vital in that area. We have linked the sublists at the top of each proposal area.

For reference, the following times apply for today:

:* 15 days ago was: {{CURRENTTIME}}, {{Days before now|15}} (UTC) ({{purge}})

:* 30 days ago was: {{CURRENTTIME}}, {{Days before now|30}} (UTC)

:* 60 days ago was: {{CURRENTTIME}}, {{Days before now|60}} (UTC)

{{clear|right}}

It is one of the major types of transportation.

;Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 00:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
2. Support, per nom. BD2412 T 20:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
3. I suppose that a broad article on one method of transportation could be suitable for level 4. PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Support. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:23, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. This needs to be a swap with another article; we are over quota by 23. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

1. Close call.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

;Discussion

I need to understand where a lot of related topics fall. Here goes: {{VA link|car}}, {{VA link|bus}}, {{VA link|train}}, {{VA link|truck}}, {{VA link|horse}}, {{VA link|highway}}, {{VA link|road}}, {{VA link|street}}, {{VA link|transport}}, {{VA link|rail transport}}, {{VA link|land transport}}, {{VA link|public transport}}.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

{{atop

| status = FAILED

| result = With 4 opposes and only 1 support, this subproposal isn't passing. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC) PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

;Support

1. Greatly influenced religion. Pretty much every other biblical character who is at his significance or below is also at level 4. Wikieditor662 (talk) 03:58, 3 December 2024 (UTC) (original commenter)

;Oppose

1. We already list {{VA link|Adam and Eve}} at this level, and the two are very intertwined, almost always discussed as a pair. Listing Adam at this level would be redundant due to the amount of overlap. λ NegativeMP1 04:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
2. :I see... What about the other person I suggested? Wikieditor662 (talk) 19:12, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
3. ::I'm not sure if I know enough about the Neoclassical movement to make a proper judgement on his influence. He definitely seems important, though. λ NegativeMP1 19:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
4. Oppose Adam per MP1. Kevinishere15 (talk) 03:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
5. per NegativeMP1.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
6. Oppose per above. Sahaib (talk) 12:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

;Support

1. Considered by some to be the father of art history, influenced the Neoclassical movement, influenced Gothe and Nietzche among others Wikieditor662 (talk) 03:58, 3 December 2024 (UTC) (original commenter)
2. Thought about this one for a bit longer, and yeah, I agree. He seems quite important. λ NegativeMP1 23:47, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
3. Interstellarity (talk) 21:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
4. PrimalMustelid (talk) 15:42, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

Both Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo and Paul Biya have served for quite a long time with Obiang serving as president of Equatorial Guinea since October 1982 and Biya serving as president of Cameroon since November 1982. Biya would likely be more vital as he was previously prime minister (1975–1982) and also because Cameroon has a much higher population. That being said, Obiang actually got slightly more [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2015-07-01&end=2025-01-11&pages=Paul_Biya%7CTeodoro_Obiang_Nguema_Mbasogo pageviews] in the last decade and is about a decade younger suggesting he could remain leader for longer. Sahaib (talk) 08:49, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. as nom. Sahaib (talk) 08:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. I'm surprised that Obiang has higher pageviews. The influence of leaders is by-and-large confined to their country's population, and Equatorial Guinea is simply too small to justify an article on one of its leaders. J947 ‡ ^edits 21:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Per J947. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 15:26, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{archive top green|status=passed|result=Added, 5-0 _pbp 15:37, 30 April 2025 (UTC)}}

;Support

1. as nom. Sahaib (talk) 08:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
2. This is a good addition. J947 ‡ ^edits 21:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
3. I also think this is a good addition, and would balance out Africa not having too many articles in the V4 political leaders section; even if most of the ones currently there are Modern, I think Paul Biya still seems to fit V4 comparing him to the other African leaders in the section. AkiyamaKana (talk) 19:08, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
4. The politics of Cameroon are more vital than those of Equatorial Guinea. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 18:23, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
5. Interstellarity (talk) 01:51, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{archive bottom}}

{{atopr|status=failed|result=Not removed 1-3 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 00:46, 7 June 2025 (UTC)}}

We include {{VA link|Poultry}} and {{VA link|Seafood}} under the "Meat and other animal products" section, I feel like these two pages are redundant at level 4.

;Move Chicken as food

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

;Move Fish as food

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose both

1. Oppose  Carlwev  07:37, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Those two things are probably eaten by billions of people every day. I don’t think we should overthink this. -1ctinus📝🗨 11:45, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:10, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

Chicken and fish are among the top eaten meats in the world, I'm not not sure they're obsoleted by seafood and poultry at this level. By contrast we list Pork, Ham, Bacon, Lard and Sausage, 5 food articles that come from pigs, where as poultry includes meat from several species in addition to chicken including turkey, duck, fowl, quail, goose. And Fish as food includes many many species, and huge amount of the world population eat fish, I'm sure it deserves more than just Seafood. Seams more vital to feeding people than an article like Veal that we list, or mustard, chutney or 8 articles under liquor.  Carlwev  04:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

:I agree we could trim those other sections a bit as well. Level 4 is starting to get full, so trying to propose the low hanging fruit I notice first like these. Having Chicken as food and fish as food in addition to poultry and seafood means two other articles aren't included. Veal would be a good one, as well as different types of pork product, but I'd swap {{VA link|Mustard plant}} with {{VA link|Mustard (condiment)}}. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:19, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

I recently listed a batch of architectural elements at VA5. These all passed within a month. Testing whether any of them belong at this level which has a long listing at Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/4/Technology#Architectural_elements.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:35, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:35, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Support, mainly just based on the precedent of {{VA link|Fireplace}} at Lv4. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
3. Support  Carlwev  18:26, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Level 4 is over quota, so we need to tighten our standards. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 23:49, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discussion

1. I think Level 4 is pushing quota pretty hard. I could support this and maybe a few others with a good case, but we might need swaps. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:49, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
2. :I'm only expecting a few to pass. It is just that for some reason almost all vital architectural elements are considered level 4: Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Technology#Architectural_elements.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:00, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
3. ::That fact means more should be added to VA5 – not VA4. There's nothing intrinsic to the concept of an "architectural element" that means such articles should be listed at this level rather than any other. J947 ‡ ^edits 03:09, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:35, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Pretty ubiquitous. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:28, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Interstellarity (talk) 19:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Level 4 is over quota, so we need to tighten our standards. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 23:49, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discussion

;Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:35, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:49, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Support  Carlwev  07:38, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Interstellarity (talk) 19:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Not on the same level as {{VA link|Castle}} and {{VA link|Defensive wall}}. Also, level 4 is over quota. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 16:26, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discussion

{{atopr|status=failed|result=Not added 1-3 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 14:03, 19 May 2025 (UTC)}}

;Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:35, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Weak oppose, looks like {{VA link|Drainage}} is already at this level, and that subsumes this topic enough in my mind. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Oppose Unnecessary at this level. --Thi (talk) 18:24, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Redundant to drainage at Level 4, although it makes a good listing at Level 5. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:24, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discussion

{{abot}}

Makes sense to list when we list North American and South American history.

;Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 01:25, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Support. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:33, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. I would rather keep things how they are. North America and South America had pretty different histories, and I think those differences are enough to keep them separate. We don't even list {{VA link|History of Eurasia}} at VA5, and I don't see why this would be any different. Also, {{VA link|Americas}} is only VA4, while {{VA link|North America}} and {{VA link|South America}} are VA2. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:58, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Unless swapped. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 23:19, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

Support swap of this with {{VA link|History of North America}} AND {{VA link|History of South America}}. I don't think that this should be in level 4 though and the removal is awkward. This is a prime example of when skipping levels should be allowed to minimize discussions. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:33, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

:This situation is a bit strange. I wouldn't expect an encyclopedia to have both an article on History of the Americas, and articles on History of North America and History of South America, unless they were separated by time period. It's really an editorial decision of how best to present the content. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 20:53, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

:I can see this at V3 with the NA and SA moved to V4. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:29, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

I listed several of biology nominees for level 5 and these are the ones that passed in a few weeks. Probably some of these should be at this level.

;Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Support. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:29, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
3. Interstellarity (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Level 4 is over quota. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 23:20, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discussion

1. I think level 4 is either full or close to it based on the chart (not sure of its accuracy). I could support many of these, but would likely need to see a swap proposal.

{{atopr|status=failed|result=Not added 1-3 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2025 (UTC)}}

;Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. {{VA link|Tooth}} would be a better addition; overlap with {{VA link|Ivory}}.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 11:10, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Per Laukku. Would support a tooth addition. PrimalMustelid (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
3. Per above. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:29, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

1. Weak support because of the ivory trade. Sahaib (talk) 06:52, 27 January 2025 (UTC) Actually, ivory is at level 4, so I'll remove my support. Sahaib (talk) 18:44, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

;Discussion

{{abot}}

;Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Support. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:29, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Marsupials are of too minor importance to list their anatomy on level 4. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:02, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Opposed on importance as well. Hyperbolick (talk) 02:26, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discussion

;Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Interesting and widespread enough, plus Biology still has room. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
3. Support. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:29, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
4. Interstellarity (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Level 4 is over quota. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 23:20, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discussion

;Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Support, looks like Biology still has room at Lv4 and this is a pretty general organ. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
4. Support. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:29, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
5. Interstellarity (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Level 4 is over quota. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 23:20, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discussion

;Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Weak support, kind of insect-specific, but interesting enough plus Biology still has room. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 17:01, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
4. Support. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:29, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
5. Interstellarity (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Level 4 is over quota. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 23:20, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discussion

Unless I've missed anything. Compound eye, whiskers, and stinger have already been added to level 4 although discussion about them at that level has only just begun above and not yet passed. Is there a reason for this I've missed? Or is this a simple error?  Carlwev  19:13, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/STEM&diff=prev&oldid=1271817029 this diff] shows them passing level 5 on 1/25/25.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:31, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

:Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/STEM/Archive_6 here is the archive of the discussion.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:31, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

:When I was trying to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger&target=TonyTheTiger&offset=20250127122547&limit=12 correct some miscategorizations], I mistakenly moved some things into level 4.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:46, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

:Thx. I have corrected this.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:58, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

{{atopr|status=failed|result=Not added 2-3 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 19:25, 7 June 2025 (UTC)}}

Mustard as a condiment is made from the seeds of the mustard plant. The mustard plant is a cultivated crop that has been grown for thousands of years, and {{VA link|Mustard seed}} is important in many regional foods. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Idiosincrático (talk) 07:54, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
3. *Everyday life is over quota and biology is under quota. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
4. *:I feel like this is a bad reason to make a change. GauchoDude (talk) 00:58, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Might be my American-centric view, but I feel like the condiment is more important than the plant? Page views seem to corroborate. Looking into this further, condiment averages ~1100 views per day, plant + seed combined is ~1,400. 71 to 40 interwikis for the condiment over the plant, seed only has 19. Pretty clear that the condiment is the important factor here, similar in my opinion to an author being less well known than their work. Going to strike discussion comment and move to oppose. GauchoDude (talk) 01:08, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
2. I agree with GauchoDude. Even if it is American-centric to say that the condiment is more important than the plant, the condiment is unavoidable in the United States. Practically every single American has at least heard of mustard as a condiment, and the hot dog is almost always depicted with ketchup and yellow mustard—I mean, look at hot dog! And to dispute the idea that it's only American, our article even says that it's "one of the most popular and widely used spices and condiments in the world." Nub098765 (talk) 19:45, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Per GauchoDude. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 11:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

Might be my American-centric view, but I feel like the condiment is more important than the plant? Page views seem to corroborate. GauchoDude (talk) 01:01, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop|status=corrected|Lophotrochozoa (talk) 00:06, 7 June 2025 (UTC)}}

Is Enugu (city) meant to be the vital article? Because right now we have Enugu State listed under cities.

Also I don't think the Amazons are listed in any of the Level 5 pages. 64.124.92.4 (talk) 19:20, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

{{Ping|Interstellarity}}, It’s been a couple of weeks, is anyone going to fix this? 209.133.7.1 (talk) 22:41, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi, same guy as before. Decided to just turn this into a discussion topic to get some attention. Again, I think the city was meant to be the vital article. ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enugu_(city)&oldid=1270188671 the article for the city was just called Enugu before it got moved], with Enugu now being a redirect for the Nigerian state). Or we can just move Enugu State to the subdivision section.

;Swap

1. --209.133.7.1 (talk) 23:17, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

;Keep and move

;Oppose

;Discuss

I went ahead and fixed it. Checking various page histories (1 2 3) confirms that it was the city which was supposed to be listed on VA4, and after a move the update bot blindly changed the now-redirect to its new target.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 07:01, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopr|statuys=failed|result=Not added 4-3 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 12:14, 20 June 2025 (UTC)}}

Similar in importance to invention.

;Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 17:59, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Probably. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:32, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Idiosincrático (talk) 07:20, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
4. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:24, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Level 4 is over quota. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 14:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Quite abstract on its own; I believe it is sufficiently covered by {{VA link|Creativity}} and {{VA link|Invention}}. ALittleClass (talk) 21:01, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Per above opposers --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 21:16, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discussion

{{ping|ALittleClass|LaukkuTheGreit}} Do you mean to vote neutral or oppose? Your votes are placed as neutral. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 11:57, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:I fixed my vote.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 14:58, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::yeah, I meant to vote oppose ALittleClass (talk) 17:07, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

The biological taxon {{VA link|Gastropoda}} is a better place to put information than the taxonomically imprecise words {{VA link|Snail}}, {{VA link|Slug}} and {{VA link|Conch}} Lophotrochozoa (talk) 21:03, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. As nom. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:27, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Support removing conch, adding gastropod  Carlwev  21:53, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
3. Support all. Free up some space. Nom, do you want to include your vote?GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:07, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
4. Support all. Interstellarity (talk) 19:36, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Oppose removing slug and snail.  Carlwev  21:53, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

;Discussion

I will support a swap for conch. gastropod is a significant enough topic for level 4. I wouldn't remove slug or snail. I'm not combing the whole the list, but it wouldn't surprise me if many animal groups are just unofficial general groupings that were used historically and still used in general but are not 100% scientifically accurate with modern taxonomy, but they can still be an important topics that an encyclopaedia can have significant articles on. Evolutionary speaking, I've heard theories that there's no such thing as a fish, that reptile doesn't make sense as it would include mammals and birds but doesn't, and other groups like ants, monkeys and moths among others don't include wasps apes and butterflies when they should, but that's fine I wouldn't remove all of them for that reason. Gastropod I think is an excellent idea. Support.

:{{ping|Carlwev}} That's fair. My primary reason for proposing three removals was that level 4 is over quota. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:27, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

This has reached enough support to be added to Level 5, and someone suggested that it could be included in Level 4 also. Lessons are an important concept of how education is structured.

;Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 19:59, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Yep. Might have been me. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:33, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
3. PrimalMustelid (talk) 15:23, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Interstellarity (talk) 19:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

1. I would support it if level 4 wasn't over quota. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 13:28, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

;Discussion

It has been noted that we are listing too many socialites on level 5. Does anyone belong on level 4 as a socialite? {{VA link|Yang Guifei}} is the only person listed as a socialite who is also listed on level 4.

;Support

1. As nom. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Might be important but I simply just don't see what would make her worthy of this level. λ NegativeMP1 23:25, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Interstellarity (talk) 19:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Not convinces by arguments, and systemic bias is an issue (Chinese, women). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:35, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discussion

Just added to level 5. It is an important societal topic that details how long humans live.

;Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 19:41, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
2. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 17:41, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
3. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:20, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
4. PrimalMustelid (talk) 15:38, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
5. Important concept. Could be V4. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:10, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
6. Agree it’s Level 4. Jusdafax (talk) 21:12, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

;Discussion

I have started a thread asking where it should be listed. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:23, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

The "multi" sport classification is more a trivia point rather than academic field classification. Thorpe is vital for his contributions to athletics and then as a trivia that he was professional in multiple sports. The Baseball and American football achievements alone are not vital to list him. It's his achievements in athletics and the resulting controversy. Zaharias is also vital for her role as a pioneering woman athlete and role in women's Golf. The multi sport category also results in two women being listed for Golf, probably too much at this level. I think removing the multi sport category would be helpful at this level to show a clearer example of what we list (too many athletics people and too many golf).

;Support

1. As nom. GuzzyG (talk) 01:29, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
2. The multiple sports category is not so important at this level. --Thi (talk) 15:10, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Per Thi. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 21:34, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
4. Support remove category. Would prefer to remove all the athletes in it, so neutral on move. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:07, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Thorpe is a Football Hall of Famer and Didrikson won multiple Olympic medals. Both of their vitality clearly stems from multiple sports. _pbp 01:41, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Per pbp. --Bluevestman (talk) 22:53, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
3. This is for convenience of bureaucracy, which is a poor reason for these changes. It's very obvious to anyone that reads their respective articles that they were profound in more areas than one per pbp. Also, we should probably discuss as a project whole since we're also just rolling with "Other media" in Arts, "Other mythology" and "Other branches of philosophy" in Philosophy and religion, "Other individual sports" in Everyday life, "Other languages" in Society and social sciences, etc. etc. etc. Just because something doesn't fit nicely into a box or has a smaller amount of entries in the subcategory doesn't mean it's not a good fit. This makes the most sense for these individuals. GauchoDude (talk) 15:50, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

;Discussion

If it stays, Jim Brown should be there for the GOAT lacrosses rankings he gets and there should be a "Multi genre" music category for all the multiple genre musicians, for consistency. GuzzyG (talk) 02:27, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

{{ping|GeogSage}} How do you want your vote to count? You placed it on "Support" but you say "neutral" Lophotrochozoa (talk) 14:54, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:I support remove the category, I'm neutral on the move. If it helps close, I can support. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:02, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

{{ping|GauchoDude}} But Thorpe's baseball and football careers were nowhere near V4 level. Would he have qualified for the V4 list if his athletics career was only as prominent as those? Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:23, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:He is the sum of the parts. Counterpoint, if he were only an "athlete", or whatever track and field people are, would only two gold medals at a singular Olympics qualify someone like Thorpe to Level 4? If so, I feel we're missing a whole heck of a lot of other Level 4 people/biographies then. GauchoDude (talk) 20:31, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atopg|status=pass|result=Moved 4-0; we no longer require 5 votes for moves Lophotrochozoa (talk) 17:45, 5 June 2025 (UTC)}}

These genres are all classified together on the level 5 list and they're generally seen as all apart of the same overview in music criticism. It would also show we have 9 musicians here, more than non-english and on the level of Jazz with Benny Goodman being removed. Probably not good for a genre that's largely US only. Classifying them together like the level 5 list will be more concise and accurate to music categorisation.

;Support

1. As nom. GuzzyG (talk) 01:29, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 15:15, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:55, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Can we move Fela Kuti as well? Funk is one of the main components in Afrobeat. --Bluevestman (talk) 22:54, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

{{abot}}

Jewish king who is responsible for stuff like building the Western Wall and playing a part in the Second Temple. He's also mentioned in the bible for doing the Massacre of the Innocents. Articles in a bad state, but he's a historical figure who still holds prominence today. (with the Israel/Palestine conflict). Being apart of the bible also means his name will be remembered for quite awhile.

;Support

1. As nom. GuzzyG (talk) 01:29, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Pretty famous, more so - for me, at least - than most celebrities and sportspeople we tend to list here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:13, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Support  Carlwev  13:17, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
4. For sure. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:33, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
5. Interstellarity (talk) 19:38, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

"al-Kindi was the first of the Islamic peripatetic philosophers, and is hailed as the "father of Arab philosophy"" is the first line in his biography. I don't know too much about this area, but he seems of supreme importance. Other quotes are "Al-Kindi's book entitled Manuscript on Deciphering Cryptographic Messages gave rise to the birth of cryptanalysis, was the earliest known use of statistical inference", "The Italian Renaissance scholar Geralomo Cardano (1501–1575) considered him one of the twelve greatest minds." and "In the field of mathematics, al-Kindi played an important role in introducing Hindu numerals to the Islamic world, and their further development into Arabic numerals along with al-Khwarizmi which eventually was adopted by the rest of the world.".

All of those alone make him seem to be a massive miss. I think he's vital for this list. We undercover thought people in comparison to pop culture too.

;Support

1. As nom. GuzzyG (talk) 01:29, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. J947 ‡ ^edits 02:56, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
3. He definitely seems like a good addition. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:59, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Interstellarity (talk) 19:41, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

30 year long Syrian dictator, with his son carrying on another 20 years. 50 year dynastic rule. One of the two major Ba'athism leaders with Saddam Hussein. One of the 20th century dictators whose influence has impacted todays history. He occupied Lebanon Syrian occupation of Lebanon, ordered the 1982 Hama massacre which led to widespread resentment that culminated in the rebel movement that overthrew his son 40 years later. Bashar al-Assad is the most famous of the two, but i think the dad is historically important enough that any 20th century politics encyclopedia would cover him and his influence. Syria's history has impacted today with the war and refugee crisis and i think he is the biography we should cover to represent this as he is Syria's defining modern figure. (And Syria is important enough to global events to cover one person, or compare it to Speed skating with two. On the same level as Muammar Gaddafi.

;Support

1. As nom. GuzzyG (talk) 01:29, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Agree with Piotrus. --Bluevestman (talk) 23:08, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

;Discussion

I'd rather see Assad family. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:23, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Yemen's defining modern figure (and who united Yemen chose as it's first president). Yemen's ongoing civil wall and the fall out from Saleh's assassination still resonates globally today (the Houthis and the shipping/international trade disruption). I think Yemeni history should have one biography considering the impact the country has today and Saleh is clearly that biography. Middle Eastern politics is globally relevant today and yet Western Asia has 10 leaders compared with Track and field having 15. (14 + Jim Thorpe). I think Yemen and Syria and the fallout from the wars is apart of that, so have nominated the two people who are the largest part of that history.

;Support

1. As nom. GuzzyG (talk) 01:29, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Interstellarity (talk) 19:41, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

Recapping: The last update has VA4 at 10023/10000 and Society and Social Sciences is at 928/900

{{atop

| status = FAILED

| result = 3-4 and been open for a month. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:40, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

}}

This does not seem to be that relevant of a profession/industry any more.

;Support

1. As nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:11, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 07:49, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Any more - was it, ever? Limited to few countries only. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:28, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Oppose  Carlwev  06:33, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Feels like whaling was a pretty big deal for the advancement of civilization through a slew of products derived therefrom. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:01, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Per Carlwev _pbp 11:50, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
4. Per Carlwev in Discussion section, good reasoning. Jusdafax (talk) 08:28, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discussion

Article appears in 55 languages, There are categories and articles for whaling specific to 20 individual countries/states, on all 6 inhabited continents :Category:Whaling_by_country. Article states there is evidence that whaling started as early as 3000,BC over 5000 years ago. That it was a big industry for over a millennium from the ninth century to the late twentieth century when as many as 80,000 whales were killed a year. It has been an industry for over ten times longer than other topics we list. The oil from whaling helped the industrial revolution. The rules and law about whaling are significant international treaties. There were significant ships, stations, weapons built just for whaling, it's quite different and unique compared to other types of hunting. It appears in popular culture in stories like Moby-Dick. If we are to list several articles about whale species, we should probably list the article about the main way humans interacted with whales for over 5000 years.  Carlwev  06:33, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

We have {{VA link|Company}} and {{VA link|Corporation}}. This is OK at VA5.

;Support

1. As nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:11, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 07:49, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Interstellarity (talk) 19:42, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Level 4 is over quota. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 00:17, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Important concept in economics and such. Not the same as company, obviously. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:41, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discussion

{{archive top red |Status=retained |result=Not removed, 1-3 _pbp 23:38, 21 May 2025 (UTC)}}

At 22 interwikis, this is 40 interwikis fewer than all other festivals. The world has concentrated agriculture to a small percentage of the population. Most people have other professions now. There was a time when a majority or major portion of any civilization was involved in harvesting. This is no longer that important of a holiday. Even {{VA link|Music festival}} with 34 interwikis seems more vital to me.

;Support

1. As nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:11, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Removal smacks of recency, as most people were in the ag business until about 200 years ago. Furthermore, harvest festival is the root of other celebrations, such as Thanksgiving. _pbp 22:24, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Agree with the above. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:29, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
3. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:07, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discussion

{{archive bottom}}

I would much rather see Paper money promoted to VA5 than have banknote up here.

;Support

1. As nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:11, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Oppose removal. Oppose Swap.  Carlwev  13:33, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Swap Banknote for paper money

1. _pbp 22:25, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
2. :I was about to nominate paper money and saw zero interwikis and decided not to.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:48, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
3. I'd support a swap but I am puzzled by the lack of interwikis for paper money, which makes me wonder if this is really a separate concept from banknote? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:30, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
4. Interstellarity (talk) 19:43, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

;Discussion

Banknote vs Paper money. Even though they are not exactly the same, both articles mention the other and they cover a lot of the same ground, it seems banknote is a type of paper money, not all paper money is banknotes, but most is that people use everyday. Some banknotes are not paper but may still be referred to as such anyway. BTW we also list cheque separately at level 4, and coin. Banknote is probably higher importance than cheque and similar importance to coin. (I was wondering if cheque was considered paper money, but the article only mentions cheque in passing referring to counterfitting.) Also paper money is in the banknote category. banknote is not in the paper money category, as there is not even such a category, suggesting banknote is more vital.

Banknote appears in 92 languages, paper money in one language. Since 2015 Banknote has had 2.3M page views, average 647 per day, has 720 edits by 386 people, and 2010 incoming wikilinks. Paper money has had 139.6K views, 39 per day (one sixteenth of banknote) only 9 edits by 5 people and 668 incoming links.

[https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=all-time&pages=Banknote|Paper_money] [https://linkcount.toolforge.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&page=Banknote] [https://linkcount.toolforge.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&page=Paper%20money]

Even though banknote is a type of paper money, the vast amount of paper money used is banknotes. The majority of people reading about or writing about, or linking to the subject seem to use the banknote article. Both articles are of similar size. Banknote is rated a B class and paper money C class. It may be something as simple as who, when and how the different wiki languages were cross linked. But I cannot in good faith support one article over another, when both are vaguely similar in scope and size, but one has triple incoming links, sixteen times the other's readership, 18 times the edits, 77 times the editors, and appears in 92 times as many languages, and one appears in the others category, while the other doesn't even have a category.  Carlwev  13:33, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

{{atop

| status = Withdrawn

| result =I forgot about recent discussion.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:36, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

}}

I don't regard it as more important than the other members of the Big Three (American television). I believe CBS has been the leader in ratings for many years.

;Support

1. As nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:20, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Literally added barely even two months ago, where the nominator of this discussion opposed and was the only one to oppose. So reopening this discussion that quickly based on a minority viewpoint strikes me as a bit odd. That aside, the logic behind listing NBC was not ratings, but rather historical importance, and other editors there expressed potential interest in adding the other members of the Big Three/Four to this level. λ NegativeMP1 01:00, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discussion

{{abot}}

{{atopr|status=failed|result=Not removed 3-4 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:00, 18 June 2025 (UTC)}}

The only political party listed at Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/4/Society_and_social_sciences#Politics. Is this really that much more important than any other political party in the world and world history.

;Support

1. As nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:20, 17 March 2025 (UTC)+
2. Support. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Redundant to China itself IMO. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. The CCP's in depth level of control over China, as well as its institutionalized structure, is unlike almost any other party and has very few other historical similar examples. Most political parties have relatively weak structures, while the CCP has numerous branches and organizations from the central level to the smallest grassroots level, meaning it impacts the lives of 1.4 billion people actively on a daily basis. The constitution and most Chinese laws enshrine the CCP's leadership explicitly, most Chinese companies have Party branches within them, every single educational institution including universities are controlled by the Party in some form (every Chinese primary school student has to become a member of the Young Pioneers, which is a youth organization of the CCP), every single state institution as well as the {{VA link|People's Liberation Army}} is under the sole and complete control of the CCP, Party Committees exist from the national level to the [https://www.economist.com/china/2020/06/11/chinas-communist-party-worries-about-its-grassroots-weakness neighborhood level], Chinese internet and social media is under the strict control of a CCP Committee while its media is under control of the CCP Publicity Department, and even the big star in the Chinese flag represents the CCP. The Account 2 (talk) 18:30, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Given China's increasingly important role, I'd say no. {{VA link|Republican Party (United States)}}, {{VA link|

Democratic Party (United States)}} or {{VA link|Communist Party of the Soviet Union}}, however, should be at the same level. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:34, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

1. Idiosincrático (talk) 02:01, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
2. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 06:40, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

1. It IS the principal political party in the largest country in the world. In many respects, the CCP and the Chinese government are almost interchangeable. _pbp 00:49, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
2. : Correction, India is more populated per List of countries and dependencies by population. Sahaib (talk) 18:25, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

;Discussion

{{abot}}

I understand that we have {{VA link|Democracy}}, but these are not even listed under that or Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/4/Society_and_social_sciences#Forms_of_government. They are listed at Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/4/Society_and_social_sciences#Ideology_and_political_theory and seem out of place and less vital than other listings.

;Support

1. As nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:20, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Oppose Important political ideologies in Europe. --Thi (talk) 07:47, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discussion

{{VA link|Population}} is important, but is this really a VA4 topic? It seems less important than Population control and Human population planning to me.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:20, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. As nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:20, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Interstellarity (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. I disagree. Basic and important concept in demographics, I'd say equal to population control and better known than human population planning. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:34, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Big issue in several parts of the world.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:39, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discussion

Only 24 interwikis. Not sure it belongs.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:20, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. As nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:20, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Interstellarity (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discussion

He is known as the "King of Bollywood" and is the most successful of the three "Khans of Bollywood". He also stars in the vital film {{vital article link|Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge}}.

;Support

1. As nom. Sahaib (talk) 19:07, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Interstellarity (talk) 19:45, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

: Amitabh Bachchan and Rajinikanth cover modern Indian male actors pretty good, SRK is definitely essential to modern acting, but we don't cover many of the modern Western actors either like Tom Cruise or Leonardo DiCaprio. There should be more Bollywood but with names like Dilip Kumar (star of {{vital article link|Mughal-e-Azam}}) and Dev Anand for male actors, Nargis/Sridevi for another woman to equalise the male 2 and Mohammed Rafi and Kishore Kumar for music (which backs film in India). They are the better additions to cover Bollywood history. Better to have a balance for old/new overall. Eventually all of these should be added, there should be a large reexamination of the 20th century names like Spencer Tracy, Gary Cooper, Claudette Colbert, Henry Fonda, Joan Crawford, Barbara Stanwyck, Alec Guinness, Klaus Kinski, Jeanne Moreau and Peter O'Toole who have not been remembered by global culture and could be used to swap with the modern vital names. Either way, SRK isn't where i'd start. Kumar should be the next Bollywood actor and it's a hard sell for SRK to be on as one of the sole modern actors with Hanks/Chan but not Cruise/DiCaprio, so i'll stay neutral. GuzzyG (talk) 04:09, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

::Maybe we should get more input from Indians, but as an American who has watched very few Bollywood films, I would have assumed SRK was #1 for recent decades. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

;Discussion

{{VA link|Chinese Communist Party}} is V4, and per my comment above (defending it), rightly so. While the Soviet party is gone, its mark on history is V4-level. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:39, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:39, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
2. The Account 2 (talk) 00:47, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Idiosincrático (talk) 07:19, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
4. Interstellarity (talk) 11:17, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Soft oppose. The USSR is included, the party is probably not needed. I would rather see the CCP taken down to level 5 then this go to level 4. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:41, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
2. :To be fair, the {{VA link|Soviet Union}} is Level 3, as is {{VA link|China}}. Sub-topics like this which basically served as the government for both of them doesn't seem too out there. λ NegativeMP1 00:49, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Feels redundant to the USSR itself. I'd rather list historical events that the party caused than list the party. I also agree with GeogSage that I'd rather demote the CCP than elevate this article. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:57, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

;Discussion

{{VA link| Republican Party (United States)}} and {{VA link|Democratic Party (United States)}} are widely known internationally and have left and enduring and continuing mark on geopolitics. They are household concepts worldwide, better known than a lot of stuff we have at V4. Also see context above (Chinese Communist Party is V4, Soviet one should be, IMHO). (And I say this as someone who generally complains about SYSTEMICBIAS and Vitals being too US/English-centric). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:39, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:39, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
2. The Account 2 (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Interstellarity (talk) 11:16, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
4. We really should have more political parties than the CCP on here. --Bluevestman (talk) 23:12, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Strong oppose. The U.S. political parties are not that important. We don't include the major parties of other countries unless the party is the same thing as the government, such as the CCP. Adding {{VA link|Labour Party (UK)}} would be silly, and we aren't going to open the can of worms that is U.S. third parties, historically significant parties like the {{VA link|Whig Party (United States)}} or {{VA link|Democratic-Republican Party}}. Fundamentally, most of these parties might feel like they are super important, but in the grand scheme of things they are kind of a blip. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:40, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Leaning oppose to both, as the political parties aren't inherently internationally influential in terms of consistent ideologies to warrant level 4. PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:17, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

;Discussion

Important part of biology, with many variations.

;Support

1. As nominator. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:06, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
2. PrimalMustelid (talk) 12:09, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Very important, and bio is under quota. Mrfoogles (talk) 02:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Important biological topic. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:19, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
5. Critical for life. -1ctinus📝🗨 11:31, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

Endocrine and exocrine glands are so distinct that I think each is a more important topic thatn what they have in common, and level 4 is over quota. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:04, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Lophotrochozoa {{VA link|Endocrine gland}} isn't listed at all, and {{VA link|Exocrine gland}} is on VA5 for now but it's currently only 3-2 for keeping it. If endocrine gland should be vital, can you propose it? EchoVanguardZ (talk) 22:59, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

;Discussion

It is the second most populated first-level administrative division in the world and is one of only four in the top 20 most populated divisions not included (the others being #11 {{vital article link|Madhya Pradesh}}, #16 {{vital article link|Karnataka}} and #19 {{vital article link|Anhui}}. Whilst there is some overlap with {{vital article link|Punjab}}, I don't think that should discount it.

;Support

1. Sahaib (talk) 20:31, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. J947 ‡ ^edits 03:03, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Interstellarity (talk) 19:45, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

{{atopr|status=faikled|result=Not added 1-3 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 12:44, 12 June 2025 (UTC)}}

President of Azerbaijan since 2003. Notable for his authoritarian rule and corruption, increased tension with Armenian states to the point of the 2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh where N-K was dissolved, almost the entirety of the Armenian population expelled. Also has been increasing ties with Israel to the point of it becoming one of its most reliable economic and political allies. PrimalMustelid (talk) 14:34, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. As nom. PrimalMustelid (talk) 14:34, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. But Azerbaijan (and by extension, its leader(s)) doesn't matter outside its borders. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:36, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
2. :I would contest that since the EU has been increasingly relying on Azerbaijani oil since 2022 as a result of the Russo-Ukrainian War, and they still have to walk a fine line since it is threatening Armenia, which they had pledged to support. And it has complicated regional ties with the likes of Iran, Turkey, and Israel. PrimalMustelid (talk) 08:40, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
3. --Bluevestman (talk) 23:12, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Idiosincrático (talk) 12:57, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discussion

{{abot}}

{{atopr|status=failed|result=Not added 2-3 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 14:46, 12 June 2025 (UTC)}}

Ruling Hungary since 2010, Viktor Orban has stood as one of the biggest proponents of the illiberalism movement, especially evident by his infamous 2014 speech endorsing it. He's proven to be one of the biggest stonewalls to EU unity and has been aligning his country with similarly authoritarian, expansionist nations like Serbia, Israel, and Russia, making him a very important and controversial figure of his time. Arguably one of the most infamous modern political names in all of Europe.

;Support

1. As nom. PrimalMustelid (talk) 10:54, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Very weak support. He is known but his regional is mostly local, outside occasionally messing up with EU-workings. He is better known, in Europe, than many other V5 politicians who are strictly local, so he might be V4. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:35, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Maybe recognizable internationally today, but he is ultimately the prime minister of a small country with little international power mainly known for being the most blatantly authoritarian leader in the EU. Iostn (talk) 21:34, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Not very impactful outside of his home country, and his home country does not have much influence outside of being one of many EU states. I don't think he is a VA4 level politician. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:18, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Idiosincrático (talk) 12:56, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discussion

{{abot}}

Based on my calculations of numbers borrowed from various level 4 article categories, the total number of articles there is about 10,024. We'll probably need to discuss which articles we need to remove since it is currently over quota. It would be likely be worth looking at both the Society and social sciences and Technology categories since both are over quota. We can probably nominate more than 25 articles to potentially make room for adding other articles. But yeah, we should suggest potential candidates here so that we can nominate them later. PrimalMustelid (talk) 22:24, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

;Suggested articles for potential removal

1. Removals should come from biographies, it is grossly over represented at this level. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:56, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
2. :Maybe we can somehow find biography articles to remove then some of the transfer technology and/or society plus social science category quotas into people. PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:06, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
3. :Yes, Athletes and Writers could both use a few cuts. I think we should only have 2 NFL players instead of 3, we probably don't need six basketball players, and we also probably don't need over 50 modern American authors at VA4. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:58, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
4. ::I honestly don't think American football should be at this level whatsoever. Like, I do think athletes of some kind do warrant being at this level if they're basically one of THE greatest players in the history of the sport that has global appeal. But American football is, by definition, an Ameri-centric sport. If we were trying to make a selection of articles tailored towards the whole world without a western bias, then sports like {{VA link|Association football}} obviously stay. But nobody outside of the United States or the niche demographics that watch the sport in Canada or some European countries cares for American football. It's not even contested in the Olympics. It would definitely make V5 but I do have trouble grasping the idea that American football representation belongs at V4 whatsoever. The most I'd be willing to give is just the {{VA link|American football}} sport itself, but remove all players, the {{VA link|National Football League}}, {{VA link|Super Bowl}}, and whatever else there is at this level. λ NegativeMP1 17:37, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
5. :::I would say that {{VA link|American football}} being at this level is fine since it has plenty of interwiki links and has thousands of views per day, but everything else should be axed. PrimalMustelid (talk) 17:41, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
6. Some removal ideas for VA4 Society: {{VA link|Social reality}} (replace with the much more-viewed {{VA link|Social constructionism}}?), {{VA link|Support group}}, {{VA link|Freedom of thought}} (overlap with {{VA link|Freedom of speech}}), {{VA link|Remorse}} (overlap with {{VA link|Guilt (emotion)}}), {{VA link|Social research}} (overlap with {{VA link|Research}})--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 16:23, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
7. A note about biographies: They make up 0% of VA1 and VA2, 11% of VA3, 20% of VA4, and roughly 30% of VA5. They are clearly overrepresented in the latter two, and I would support an effort to find removals. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:08, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
8. VA4 biography articles with sub-100 daily views, counted between 2024-01-01 & 2025-04-13, least viewed first (many Asian historical people, will have to be careful about bias):
   {{collapse|{{ubl|

|{{VA link|Wang Wei}}

|{{VA link|Kanō Masanobu}}

|{{VA link|Lushan Huiyuan}}

|{{VA link|Eugenius Warming}}

|{{VA link|Trần Thánh Tông}}

|{{VA link|Ramkhamhaeng}}

|{{VA link|Puduḫepa}}

|{{VA link|Shitao}}

|{{VA link|Gareth Edwards (rugby union)}}

|{{VA link|Ouyang Xiu}}

|{{VA link|Iskandar Muda}}

|{{VA link|Rainilaiarivony}}

|{{VA link|Tabinshwehti}}

|{{VA link|Zhiyi}}

|{{VA link|Luciana Aymar}}

|{{VA link|Lê Thánh Tông}}

|{{VA link|Li Shizhen}}

|{{VA link|Han Yu}}

|{{VA link|Sultan Agung of Mataram}}

|{{VA link|Sesshū Tōyō}}

|{{VA link|Fuzuli (poet)}}

|{{VA link|Kirsten Flagstad}}

|{{VA link|Ivan Asen II}}

|{{VA link|Quang Trung}}

|{{VA link|George Armitage Miller}}

|{{VA link|Wang Xizhi}}

|{{VA link|Svatopluk I of Moravia}}

|{{VA link|Tao Yuanming}}

|{{VA link|Gaspard Monge}}

|{{VA link|Vytautas the Great}}

|{{VA link|Kumārila Bhaṭṭa}}

|{{VA link|Bai Juyi}}

|{{VA link|Nikolay Karamzin}}

|{{VA link|W. D. Hamilton}}

|{{VA link|Charles Hermite}}

|{{VA link|Bonnie Blair}}

|{{VA link|Amda Seyon I}}

|{{VA link|Alaungpaya}}

|{{VA link|Frances Marion}}

|{{VA link|Syama Sastri}}

|{{VA link|Robert Burns Woodward}}

|{{VA link|Rudaki}}

|{{VA link|Patriarch Nikon of Moscow}}

|{{VA link|Wallace Carothers}}

|{{VA link|Huang Chao}}

|{{VA link|Lao She}}

|{{VA link|Al-Nasir Muhammad}}

|{{VA link|Charles Algernon Parsons}}

|{{VA link|Kumārajīva}}

|{{VA link|Maudgalyayana}}

|{{VA link|Abd Allah al-Mahdi Billah}}

|{{VA link|Bhavabhuti}}

|{{VA link|Tughril I}}

|{{VA link|Lê Lợi}}

|{{VA link|Peter Debye}}

|{{VA link|Shen Kuo}}

|{{VA link|Jean Froissart}}

|{{VA link|Izumo no Okuni}}

|{{VA link|Guillaume Du Fay}}

|{{VA link|Xunzi (philosopher)}}

|{{VA link|Alejo Carpentier}}

|{{VA link|Charles A. Beard}}

|{{VA link|Mohammad-Reza Shajarian}}

|{{VA link|Gaudapada}}

|{{VA link|Anawrahta}}

|{{VA link|Jacobus Henricus van 't Hoff}}

|{{VA link|Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau}}

|{{VA link|Zara Yaqob}}

|{{VA link|Jorge Amado}}

|{{VA link|William Gilbert (physicist)}}

|{{VA link|Trần Hưng Đạo}}

|{{VA link|Bumin Qaghan}}

|{{VA link|William Henry Bragg}}

|{{VA link|Marie Tharp}}

|{{VA link|Vasubandhu}}

|{{VA link|Joseph Dalton Hooker}}

|{{VA link|Raymond Cattell}}

|{{VA link|Śāriputra}}

|{{VA link|Friedrich Wöhler}}

|{{VA link|Johannes Diderik van der Waals}}

|{{VA link|Pedro Calderón de la Barca}}

|{{VA link|Harold Urey}}

|{{VA link|Francisco Morazán}}}}}}--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:20, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Gareth Edwards was recently moved, real pageviews are ~180 daily.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:24, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

1. I also looked through the lowest-viewed VA4 Arts listings, some removal ideas for the future (although it's underquota cleanup would always be good): {{VA link|Proportion (architecture)}} (better to have {{VA link|Mathematics and art}}), {{VA link|L'Atalante}} (acclaimed but not as famous as e.g. {{VA link|The Passion of Joan of Arc}}), {{VA link|Oku no Hosomichi}} ({{VA link|Kalevala}} for example has more international influence, but {{VA link|Man'yōshū}} could be an eventual slightly better-known Japanese swap candidate although it isn't even VA5 yet), {{VA link|Kathasaritsagara}}, {{VA link|Architectural drawing}} ({{VA link|Technical drawing}} may be enough), {{VA link|Prose poetry}}, {{VA link|Jazz dance}}, {{VA link|Snow Country}} ({{VA link|No Longer Human}} would be a more famous replacement, but should be added to VA5 first).--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 11:37, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

{{VA link|Bedouin}} is a subgroup of {{VA link|Arabs}}, so I think it should be replaced with {{VA link|Turkic peoples}}. Turkic peoples are broad, spreading from Turkey, to Central Asia, to Siberia, while still sharing many aspects in common. We do include several Turkic ethnic groups, such as {{VA link|Uyghurs}} (at VA4) and {{VA link|Gagauz people}}. Also, per the articles, there are ~25 million Bedouins and ~170 million Turkic people.

;Support

1. As nominator. If Bedouin is to be kept, an alternative would be to replace {{VA link|Sámi people}} with Turkic peoples. I'm not sure Sámi people are significant enough to be at VA4. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 04:37, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nomination. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 16:57, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Interstellarity (talk) 19:46, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

A recent V5 discussion about removing double-entry bookkeeping noted that bookkeeping is just V5. Well, I think that d-e bookkeeping is V5, and bookkeeping is an important concept related to the development of modern {{VA link|finance}}, {{VA link|accounting}} and {{VA link|economics}}, and should be at V4. I can see accounting at V4, but still... I'd push that one (bookkeeping) up. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:32, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. As nominator. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:32, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Interstellarity (talk) 19:46, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

{{VA link|Logic}} is a Level 2 article and is very important to human history. The history section of Level 4 is a bit below quota, so we should be able to add this.

;Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:35, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Sure. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:21, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Since we are losing ground at Level 4 (going from 10023 in January to 10030 in April), I don't think it is a high priority to elevate this type of subject.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:05, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
2. _pbp 03:47, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{atopg|status=passed|Added 6-0. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2025 (UTC)}}

A profession that is key to culture, particularly modern (but it has also a long cultural significance). Could suggest a swao with {{VA link|Mime artist}}. Note {{VA link|Writer}} is V4. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:15, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:15, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Support, but I would like to see ALOT of our actors/actresses trimmed. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:20, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
3. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 08:00, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
4. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 16:28, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
5. PrimalMustelid (talk) 20:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
6. It's absurd to not have this while listing so many actors. ALittleClass 18:07, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

Another key artistic profession that should be at V4 (since V5 is full of minor professions already). Note {{VA link|Writer}} is V4. If necessary, I'd suggest a swap with a less well known theoretical concept like Counterpoint, Chord (music), Scale (music), or one of the subtypes of flutes, for example ({{VA link|flute}} is V4, and so is Pan flute, Recorder (musical instrument), Western concert flute - I thinbk all three should be delisted from V4, frankly, flute is enough, unless it goes to V3). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:15, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:15, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:28, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
3. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 16:29, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Very important, fits in with Actor once that is added. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:00, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
5. Interstellarity (talk) 19:47, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. The article is little more than a dictionary definition, and level 4 is over quota. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 00:55, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

Just 3 interwikis. Not very influential on modern culture. Outlier in the 'Non-Western art traditions' section, which lists African, Chinese, Indian, Islamic, Japanese and Persian, or let's say Roman art from another section. This more of a V5 level. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:35, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:37, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Weak oppose. I wouldn't say it's an outlier. This article and {{VA link|African art}} are similar in that they cover a wide area with many cultures. Both articles focus on the forms of art that are not influenced by western civilization. I think the indigenous art of the whole Americas is significant enough for one spot at VA4. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 04:51, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

Listed under "Western classical music" section, and made equal at V4 with more influential, IMHO, {{VA link|Baroque music}} (64 iw) or {{VA link|Medieval music}} (48 iw). 25 interwikis for both. the second article is for 1945+ era plus. By 20th century, classical music was past its prime. Consider my proposal a strong removal vote for contemporary and weaker for 20th-century; we certainly don't need both, and the former is more of a parent article. Still, I am not convinced either is V4, but maybe we can be lienient and just remove the latter? But as a nom, I support removing both, since I just don't see 20th century rivalling earlier periods. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:09, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. As nom, for both, per above. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:37, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Interstellarity (talk) 16:09, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Oppose Both topics cover important composers, which are usually listed in encyclopedias but not here. --Thi (talk) 07:15, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

;Mixed

1. Support removing Contemporary classical music because of overlap, weak oppose to removing 20th-century classical music per Thi. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 12:29, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

I am a bit surprised these are not higher given their relevance to most people, relation to other articles, and significance in popular culture. Proposing several additions, and recommending some removals to make room for them. More removals then suggested additions, if they all pass we can clear some room for other articles. I tried to take fat from education before moving to other sections, but that is a very lean section. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 15:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

The most common degree people get from college, the Bachelor's degree included things like Bachelor's of Science and Bachelor's of Art.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 15:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
2. PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Interstellarity (talk) 16:10, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

Often a terminal degree or a degree between a Bachelor's an Ph.D., these are very common standard products of the education system.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 15:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
2. PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
3. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:08, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Interstellarity (talk) 16:10, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

A Doctor of Philosophy or Ph.D. "usually denotes the highest level of academic achievement in a given discipline and is awarded following a course of graduate study and original research."

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 15:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
2. PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
3. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:07, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Interstellarity (talk) 16:10, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Removed 6-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:07, 11 May 2025 (UTC)}}

American universities are a bit over represented, I think we can move this down to level 5.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 15:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 20:01, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
3. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 02:28, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Not a super-important institution. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:32, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
5. Yeah, not really level 4. PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
6. per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 00:44, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Removed 5-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2025 (UTC)}}

American universities are a bit over represented, I think we can move this down to level 5.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 15:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 20:01, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
3. _pbp 14:14, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Per nom. PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
5. per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 00:44, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

Not particularly vital, could be moved to level 4 to make room for other topics.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 15:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Oppose  Carlwev  20:17, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Per Carlwev below. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 12:25, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

Most people are aware of the concept and it probably gets more coverage than majority of individual sportspeople we swapped with Lance Armstrong, 11 years ago, (see here). Obviously that was ages ago, and can be discussed again, but it had seven support, I wasn't one of them, I would prefer to keep this. We list 228 articles concerning sport across people and actual sports, I would expect to come across doping before mascot, luge, or Eric Heiden or Luciana Aymar. The more years tick by the more athletes will drift into history, but doping will probably be an important topic for as long as humans play sports; New drugs and methods such as gene therapy may make it more of a topic as years tick by.  Carlwev  20:17, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:Mascot should be moved out of sports, it is not exclusive to those fandoms. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:22, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::I agree with this, maybe under fictional character or perhaps, advertising? Mario, Mickey Mouse and Ronald McDonald are all described as mascots in their articles and elsewhere, but completely outside the sports sphere.  Carlwev  21:21, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:::That sounds good. I don't think we need a nomination for a move like this based on previous discussions I've seen. If you want to move it I'd second, and if not I'll likely move it to advertising unless you feel strongly for fictional characters (I don't have a strong opinion either way). GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:21, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

{{atopr|status=failed|result=Not removed 2-6 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:39, 20 May 2025 (UTC)}}

We include {{VA link|Wrestling}}, I think professional wrestling is redundant at level 4.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 15:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Level 5 stuff. --Thi (talk) 19:59, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
3. : Per above. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:44, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Oppose  Carlwev  21:06, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Moved to Oppose per Carlwev. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:18, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Per below. Kevinishere15 (talk) 07:39, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Not redundant to wrestling at all because it’s not really wrestling like the sport. It's a show. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:20, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
5. Ridiculous nomination. Especially the "popularity is exaggerated a bit due to our western perception" comment. (the biggest audience in pro wrestling history is in... North Korea at 165,000 claimed people Collision in Korea). Even ignoring the 100 year history in North America (Professional wrestling in the United States) or the impact on modern day politics via Trump, it's a predominant form of entertainment in Mexico ("In 2018, Mexican lucha libre was declared an intangible cultural heritage of Mexico City by the head of the Government of Mexico City") and Professional wrestling in Japan. El Santo is arguably Mexico's biggest pop culture idol and Rikidōzan and Antonio Inoki are just as big in Japan and Muhammad Ali vs. Antonio Inoki is seen as the modern start of MMA (which is listed). Inoki is also the reason that North Korean event happened. Western influence only is flat out false and dismissive of Japan's culture, here's a academic article that shows a example of widespread name recognition of Hogan (and i'm sure you could find more stuff like this). [https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.59962/9780774850186-004/pdf?licenseType=restricted]. That's 3 G20 countries that heavily have some aspect of this permeating their cultural history. WWE is widely, globally broadcast too and has been for decades. If Steve Irwin is the comparison, i'd say professional wrestling is more impactful. There's 1,792 results in JSTOR for professional wrestling. [https://www.jstor.org/action/doBasicSearch?Query=%22Professional+wrestling%22&so=rel], compared to 392 for Gangnam Style. Comparable to stuff like Heavy metal music; which does not have a century of history or as widespread in the cultural histories of major cultural output countries (Mexico, Japan, US). GuzzyG (talk) 22:20, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
6. Do you seriously not know the difference between pro wrestling and amateur wrestling? --Bluevestman (talk) 01:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

As much as I hate Pro Wrestling, it is huge. Been around for over 100 years, been big for several decades, and isn't really disappearing. We will soon be adding Gangnam Style by the looks of it, due to it being a "cultural phenomenon" I would have thought Pro Wrestling is more of a cultural phenomenon. It has huge televised events, live events, toys, magazines, wrestlers themselves are huge stars. I'm as much for adding things due to artistic merit than the next person, we are soon to add Final Fantasy and we list artsy films like Mirror (1975 film), Children of Paradise, Bicycle Thieves, and Breathless (1960 film) at level 4 for their artistic merit. I could listen to an argument that Snow White, Wizard of Oz, or Star Wars or Star Trek, has had more cultural long lasting impact than Wrestling, but Children of Paradise or Gangnam Style?? Pro Wrestling is different from Wrestling as in, it is a performance rather than a competition, it is under a different part of the list for this reason. We list Judo and Sumo under wrestling, plus arm wrestling elsewhere, these would be more redundant and have more in common with plain wrestling due to being actual competition but I wouldn't suggest to remove them. Also there are 4 articles about different kinds of skiing and 3 for sledding, having a few for types of wrestling is not outrageous, pro wrestling probably has more media coverage, merchandise, viewership and fans than all kinds of sledding put together. We also list 28 professional wrestlers at level 5, which is more than regular wrestlers, and more than cyclists, gymnastics, rugby, swimming, skiing, rowing, climbing, horse riding, animators, puppeteers, much more than judo, kickboxing, karate or Sumo. In fact more than all martial arts/combat sports separately other than boxing. Only slightly less than figure skaters and golfers. All of those sports/entertainments are in at level 4, a few even level 3 (swimming, martial arts, animation). In past years it has had both support and opposition (previous), (discussions)  Carlwev  21:06, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:I'm not really the person to talk to about how many athletes we list, if you'd like to nominate all the wrestlers, professional wrestlers, types of skiing, etc. to be moved down a level I'd be first in line to support it. I don't think individual people are generally very vital, and think we need to dramatically reduce the list overall and would support major limits on BLPs we include. The reason I support Gangnam style is articles/publications like [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00393541.2016.1176784 Gangnam Style and Global Visual Culture], [https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9781137350282_6 “Gangnam Style” as Format: When a Localized Korean Song Meets a Global Audience], and [https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9781137350282_6 The rise of ‘Gangnam style’: Manufacturing the urban middle class in Seoul, 1976–1996] in the academic literature. Not many songs have several pages of [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=0&q=gangnam+style&hl=en&as_sdt=0,49 Google Scholar] results with the song name in the title. Generally, when it comes to the vital article criteria, looking at professional wrestling as a sport makes me think it is less broad then regular wrestling and should be level 5. Looking at it as {{VA link|Theatre}} or {{VA link|Performance art}} makes me think it is a specific example that would fit at level 5 better. While having some international attention, I think its popularity is exaggerated a bit due to our western perception. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:19, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

Important but don't think he is one of the top 10,000 most important people of all time, much less most important topics.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 15:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. --Thi (talk) 19:59, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
3. PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Interstellarity (talk) 16:11, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

The virus that causes {{VA link|COVID-19}}. If the disease isn't vital at this level, I don't see why the virus that causes it should be. Listing {{VA link|COVID-19 pandemic}} and {{VA link|Coronavirus}} (the virus type) at VA4 is enough IMO.

;Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:03, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
2. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 14:27, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 07:28, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 00:44, 18 May 2025 (UTC) Swap for COVID-19 per GeogSage. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 11:51, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
5. PrimalMustelid (talk) 13:14, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
6. Æ's old account wasn't working (talk) 08:16, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. I've been torn on this one for a while but will weigh in. Yes we have many articles related to COVID-19 listed, that said, per the Sars-COv-2 article, "As of 10 March 2023, there were 676,609,955 total confirmed cases of SARS‑CoV‑2 infection. The total number of deaths attributed to the virus was 6,881,955." I don't like invoking comparisons to the Holocaust, but in the article Victims of Nazi Germany it lists approximately 6 million Jews murdered. A virus that killed a comparable number of people as Jewish Holocaust victims seems like something we'd expect several articles on. Based on the watchlist function of Vital Articles, given the misinformation around the virus, I think it is especially important to list. It is likely to be removed given the current vote count, but I thought I'd put my thoughts on the record. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:50, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
2. It’s already one of the most studied viruses, if not #1. Unbelievable piles of money and literature. Also, its appearance is now what people imagine when they think of a virus and it’s one of the first ones you learn about in school. It’s the most socially and academically important one, period. Like this is now the textbook example of a virus (see linked page image!!). 3df (talk) 08:14, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

"

;Discuss

This was apparently added without discussion (along many without adding them to VA5 I think), I pointed this out once but nobody took action.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 14:27, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

{{ping|GeogSage|QuicoleJR|LaukkuTheGreit|Thi}} What do you think about my swap idea? Lophotrochozoa (talk) 11:51, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:I would support a swap with {{VA link|COVID-19}}. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:35, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:I could support a swap. Ideally, we would have to look at how other viruses are handled. For example, {{VA link|Influenza}} is level 3, {{VA link|Influenza A virus}}, {{VA link|Influenza B virus}} are level 5, and {{VA link|Influenza C virus}}, {{VA link|Influenza D virus}} aren't listed. {{VA link|Coronavirus}} is currently level 4, and based on the the flu organization, COVID-19 at level 4 would make sense with the specific virus at level 5. That said, Cornavirus belongs at level 3 with influenza.. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:03, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

"The Crocodile Hunter" is definitely more iconic then many of the people we list. The page [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Steve_Irwin stats] are impressive, with 2,253 links to the page, and 4,317 [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2024-04-18&end=2025-04-18&pages=Steve_Irwin average daily pageviews] over the past year. Irwin is an icon of Australia, but has international recognition. If we can't get him at level 4, we will seriously have to reconsider who we do include. A straight add would be fine, but I have a few possible removals we can consider to make room for this and other articles. I'd like to see at least one removal go through to serve as a swap, but if multiple do that would make future additions easier.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:10, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
2. More famous and noteworthy in the history of pop culture and television than a lot of other biographies. Many celebrities are contemporary and likely won't be remembered in a decade or two once the next big celebrities come around. Irwin doesn't fall under that (people still remember him and recognize his efforts and he's been dead for 19 years now). Even younger generations know who he is. Another thing is that he's not an American celebrity (which this project has too many of) yet is still globally recognized. I concur that he could be bumped up to V4 and that need a MASSIVE sweep across the entire vital articles project against celebrity culture and Ameri-centric pop culture. λ NegativeMP1 16:37, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
3. I'd consider him worthy of being VA4. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:29, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
4. I agree, he's among the most iconic conservationists who brought plenty of attention to reptiles to this day. PrimalMustelid (talk) 21:56, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. I don't see it, I just don't. He's not John C. Calhoun, James Naismith, James Cagney or Joe Biden. _pbp 19:28, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
2. :I don't see how you can defend individual athletes inclusion and not the Crocodile Hunter. He is at least as vital as {{VA link|Fred Rogers}}, has international recognition despite being dead for almost two decades, is not an American, has more page views then many of the biographies we include, and is noteworthy for both TV and environmentalist work. From a quantitative and qualitative perspective, I can't find a problem with his inclusion that would not necessitate the removal of almost all our biographies. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:37, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
3. ::In most of the athletes' cases, I am neutral. And, while he may look good vs sports and entertainment figures, he stacks up poorly against other VA4 bios from other fields. _pbp 20:44, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
4. :::Based on what criteria? Based on any criteria I can think of, he exceeds most of the biographies. Further, his page lists him as a "zookeeper, conservationist, television personality, wildlife educator, and environmentalist." He could fit into the activist as easily as the entertainers and be the among the most prominent figures. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:24, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
5. Oppose. This is based off of the respectability of the pop culture thing he did more than him (in comparison to athletes who are clearly looked down upon in some cases). He's a recently popular celebrity who died in a tragic way who had a 10 year career with his show, he hasn't lasted the test of time. Howard Florey would be the better example of Australian to add in a scientific way. (although we cover enough Australians here). David Attenborough is enough representation for wildlife documentaries. I don't believe a 10 year tv career is enough to be listed or that we need 2 wildlife documentarians. It would put our coverage of wildlife documentaries on the level of Fashion and fashion design, something clearly more prominent in global ongoing cultural life. GuzzyG (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
6. Not in the same level as David Attenborough. --Thi (talk) 07:29, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
7. Recency bias and I disagree with what was said in the Support about Irwin standing the test of time. He contributed to conservationism but not at a VA4 level. Most of his efforts were regional in scope. If you read the Environmentalism section and replaced his name with anyone else's, you would not think it was VA4-worthy. And if we judge him on the merits of being an entertainer, he is nowhere close to the entertainers we list in terms of celebrity and impact. His legacy section also doesn't demonstrate lasting impact beyond posthumous honors. Aurangzebra (talk) 04:53, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
8. You seriously think that Steve Irwin is more important that we need to remove four people? (Don't answer. I already know it.) --Bluevestman (talk) 01:31, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
9. :No, I think Steve Irwin is important and proposed four possible removals in the hopes that at least one would be a suitable swap to make room. If more were removed, that makes room for other proposals people make here. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:39, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

Of the 6 level 4 baseball players we have listed, [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2024-04-18&end=2025-04-18&pages=Steve_Irwin|Sadaharu_Oh|Willie_Mays|Ty_Cobb|Hank_Aaron|Babe_Ruth|Jackie_Robinson views] for Sadaharu Oh stand out for being much lower then the others.

;Support

1. Failing straight add, this would be my preferred swap.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:10, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Another athlete listed solely based on stats. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:30, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 07:31, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Per nom. "Home run record controversy" taints him. Ohtani will probably have his spot one day. He's not needed. He's not at the level of cultural fame and influence worldwide needed for this level. Only Ruth and Robinson are in baseball. GuzzyG (talk) 05:04, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. He's the only international baseball player we have and he's the all-time home run leader anywhere. _pbp 19:00, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
2. :{{ping|Purplebackpack69}} Do we really need an international baseball player at VA4? It isn't really a big thing outside the United States, and I don't think we need one in our list of 2000 biographies. Like I've said before, I think we should only list Babe Ruth and Jackie Robinson at VA4 for baseball, although it's fine if you disagree. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
3. ::Eeeeehhh, I think it may be a little bigger than you give it credit for. Japan, S. Korea, Mexico, Canada, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Venezuela, Panama, and a few other places have big baseball cultures. Millions go see ballgames in Japan every year; each of those countries has placed players of significance into the MLB. And if it really was only big in the United States, that would be a strong argument for not having anyone at all. _pbp 19:24, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
4. :::"if it really was only big in the United States, that would be a strong argument for not having anyone at all." Sounds like an argument to remove the American Football players. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:48, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
5. Per pbp. Yes, Virginia, baseball does have a big following outside of the US, and we should probably reflect this. --Bluevestman (talk) 01:35, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

Of the 6 basketball players we list, James Naismith has move then 1,000,000 fewer [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2024-04-18&end=2025-04-18&pages=Steve_Irwin|Sadaharu_Oh|Kareem_Abdul-Jabbar|Wilt_Chamberlain|LeBron_James|Magic_Johnson|Michael_Jordan|James_Naismith pageviews] then the next highest page over the past year.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:10, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
2. The inventors of {{VA link|baseball}} and {{VA link|American football}} are both VA5, so I don't see why the inventor of {{VA link|Basketball}} needs to be VA4. We only really need two or three basketball players, not six. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:38, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
3. :Not sure that's comparable because the provenance for a single inventor of baseball or American football doesn't exist in the way it does for Naismith and basketball. And if you compare Naismith to the most-common candidates of those founders, Alexander Cartwright and Walter Camp, [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2024-04-18&end=2025-04-18&pages=James_Naismith|Alexander_Cartwright|Walter_Camp Naismith has waaaaay more pageviews than either of them], and also has more interwikis than they COMBINED. _pbp 19:07, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
4. ::I understand that, and Naismith definitely isn't the weakest of the basketball listings at VA4. However, I don't think making something that is vital automatically makes you vital at the same level. It's a weak support, but I still don't think we need him at this level. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
5. --Thi (talk) 07:32, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
6. I was a long term advocate of him being here, but if there's no coachs or any other sports person on the non player side other than the Olympics founder guy, than maybe we don't need to cover anyone else in sports business. GuzzyG (talk) 00:27, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Per User:Purplebackpack89 above (even though no oppose has been made).-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:43, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
2. I think six is a good number for basketball. I can't think of any other sport that got invented out of thin air. (Every other sport that we "know" the "founder" for clearly was just fine-tuning what was already being played.) --Bluevestman (talk) 01:31, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

Of the 6 cricket players we list, W. G. Grace has less then half the amount of [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2024-04-18&end=2025-04-18&pages=Steve_Irwin|Sadaharu_Oh|James_Naismith|Shane_Warne|Sachin_Tendulkar|Garfield_Sobers|Viv_Richards|W._G._Grace|Don_Bradman views] then the next highest over the past year.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:10, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 07:32, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Cricket only needs 2 people, Bradman and Tendulkar. We can't list every historic developer of every sport. If he's not wide-fully popular and known, he should not be on the level 4 list. Level 5 is for the in-field known greats. GuzzyG (talk) 05:00, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
4. :Is it about who is popular and well-known? By that reasoning, half the sports list should be replaced every 50 years. We don't do that for scientists or politicians or artists. J947 ‡ ^edits 05:40, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. History is traditionally particularly important in cricket, and Grace was a goliath of almost absurd proportions in cricket's development. As well as being 1.5 times as good as a batsman as any of his contemporaries, his bowling was among the best in his time. Think of that in baseball terms (bowling being the equivalent of pitching). His personality was equally massive and he played for 40 years. I would support the removals of {{VA link|Viv Richards}} and {{VA link|Shane Warne}} – whilst their personalities and playing styles were very influential, they were not as elite in their respective disciplines and their popularity will fall away as the generations pass. So I must say that proposals like this one reflect recency bias not seen anywhere else in the VA list. J947 ‡ ^edits 07:32, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Per J947. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Per J947. This guy's pretty damn important. --Bluevestman (talk) 01:31, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

I'm not sure pageviews is necessarily the best metric. Seems like pageviews tend to favor more recent players. I'm by no means an expert in cricket, but this guy seems pretty influential on the sport for quite a long time; article suggests he invented modern cricket batting. _pbp 19:16, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:Pageviews is a metric listed on the VA criteria. The use of interwiki links is not part of the criteria. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:39, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Next lowest page views of the cricket players we list after W.G. Grace.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:10, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
2. : He also has the lowest number of interwikis among the VA4 cricket players, at 17. He can go down to VA5. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:41, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Per Quicole _pbp 19:13, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
4. --Thi (talk) 07:32, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
5. "Very widely accepted as the second-greatest cricketer of all time" would be a big claim, since the biggest country Cricket is popular in is India and Sachin Tendulkar exists. Cricket only needs 2 people, Bradman and Tendulkar. GuzzyG (talk) 04:57, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
6. :Okay then, Sobers is very widely accepted as the second-greatest cricketer of all time amongst people who have Bradman as number one. Which obviously includes us. I think you're conflating popularity and skill: I have never seen a source on which an encyclopaedia can rely that has Tendulkar above Sobers. J947 ‡ ^edits 05:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Very widely accepted as the second-greatest cricketer of all time, and a massive cultural impact beyond that in developing West Indian cricket. {{VA link|Viv Richards}} is a much more sensible removal – he might be slightly more famous than Sobers now but that won't be true in 50 years. If you're still not sold as to his vitality, see the vote totals at Wisden Cricketers of the Century. J947 ‡ ^edits 07:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Weak oppose per J947, our resident Cricket expert. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:59, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Per J947. I think cricket is big enough to have more than two people on here. --Bluevestman (talk) 01:31, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

;Proposal signature.

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:10, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Finishing off the baseball proposals with Hank Aaron. {{VA link|Babe Ruth}} and {{VA link|Jackie Robinson}} are the only two baseball players that are important enough to warrant listing at VA4. The other three we list are already nominated above. Aaron is good at the sport, but unlike Ruth and Robinson, he hasn't had a broader impact outside of baseball stats. He also no longer holds the record that made him so vital in the first place, currently being second in the MLB and third worldwide. He makes VA5, but he isn't important enough for VA4.

;Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:49, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:39, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 07:33, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 05:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. A slight notch above Mays because he held an important record for a long time.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:47, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
2. 1. Baseball is definitely large enough to have more than two people on here. 2. I don't think you guys get the importance of him breaking Ruth's home-run record. He got death threats when it became clear he was going to beat it, solely for doing it as a Black man. Obviously, such atmosphere did not exist when Barry Bonds broke Aaron's record. (I should also note that Bonds is usually held to have some help getting that achievement.) --Bluevestman (talk) 03:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

1. Remove him if the Willie Mays removal passes. Willie and Hank are in the same band of influence. _pbp 18:59, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
2. He’s usually the first big biography when you read a print encyclopedia in alphabetical order. 3df (talk) 07:58, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

Probably should be VA3 if not VA2...

;Support

1. As nom.--_{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 06:11, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Level 4 is over quota. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 14:05, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

May I ask what exactly goes in this article? What beyond a DICDEF? What is certain as opposed to speculation? _pbp 19:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:Looking at the article in existence, it appears to be a loose collection of what the future means to different disciplines, including grammar (the {{VA link|Future tense}}, which I just nominated for VA5), physics ({{VA link|Time in physics}}), philosophy ({{VA link|Futurism}} and {{VA link|Eternalism}}, psychology ({{VA link|Optomism}} and {{VA link|Pessimism}}), religion (the {{VA link|Afterlife}}). Also mentioned is {{VA link|Forecasting}} and, more broadly, {{VA link|Future studies}} _pbp 20:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Probably should be VA3 if not VA2...

;Support

1. As nom.--_{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 06:11, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Level 4 is over quota. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 14:06, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

May I ask what exactly goes in this article? What beyond a DICDEF? What is different from {{VA link|History}}, {{VA link|Human history}} and related articles? _pbp 19:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:Looking at the article currently in existence, I think there's just as much case for AfDing it or redirecting it to other articles as there is bumping it up to VA4. The article is textbook DICDEF and WP:COATRACK. Most of the grammatical section is redundant to {{VA link|Past tense}}. Most of the rest of the article is a COATRACK of various uses of the word "past". The article lists fields of study such as {{VA link|History}}, {{VA link|Archaeology}}, {{VA link|Chronology}} and {{VA link|Paleontology}} that are themselves vital and explain the study of the past in more detail. _pbp 20:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::@Purplebackpack89 IMHO the broad concepts of past and future are very vitaql, if less tan {{VA link|Time}}. But since time is V2, I think past and future, and perhaps {{VA link|present}}, which I forgot to add here, should be higher than V5. (And yes, the articles are a bit messy...). Did you nominate {{VA link|Past tense}} and {{VA link|Present tense}}? I'll try to find and support them, V5 easily. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:52, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:::@Piotrus The past, present and future tense nominations can be found on Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/Society _pbp 12:10, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:::@Piotrus The past, present and future tense nominations can be found on Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/Society _pbp 12:41, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Famous as the creator of {{VA link|Objectivism}}. One of her works, {{VA link|Atlas Shrugged}}, is listed at VA5, and the rest are not listed at any level. If we think the influence of Objectivism is at a VA4 level, then we should list Objectivism. If we don't think that the influence of Objectivism is at a VA4 level, then Ayn Rand hasn't had enough of an impact to warrant listing. Either way, I don't see a reason to list her at this level.

;Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:19, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Not a heavyweight philosopher. --Thi (talk) 20:13, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Nor a heavyweight novelist. Hyperbolick (talk) 23:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Agreed. GauchoDude (talk) 13:41, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Pretty famous, more so than some classics. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:52, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

1. Ayn Rand is not only important to {{VA link|Objectivism}} but also for her influence on {{VA link|Libertarianism}}, which is a Level 4 topic (although she rejected the label). Do we list any other Libertarians (or Libertarians proper at all, given that she didn't consider herself one) currently?

;Discuss

It's my opinion that when we're embarking on a programme of mass removals, we should set a target for ourselves to aim for. Not only does this mean that we're all on the same page so we can accurately assess who the weakest inclusions are, but it also is a way of ensuring that all sports get cut equally. I think 50 is a good starting point.

;Support

1. Support as nom. J947 ‡ ^edits 20:38, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Support cutting sports figures to 50. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:59, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Subsection quotas are still abolished, and I'd rather not bring them back. I do agree that that is a number we should aim for though. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Negative. There is no "sports figures" number/quota to reduce as it doesn't exist; the people section at Level 4 is right on target (as of January update) with 1,997 of 2,000. Not sure what we're trying to accomplish here. GauchoDude (talk) 21:50, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
3. This seems to be a bit on the fly.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:49, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
4. For the record, I think we can trim sports figures down to 50. Maybe a bit more or less depending on what exactly we seek, but overall that is a good number to aim for in my opinion. But I oppose, in principle, the idea of re-implementing sub-section quotas. Especially when its seemingly only for sports figures at this level. Which this proposal implies. λ NegativeMP1 19:32, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
5. Oppose. --Moscow Connection (talk) 03:46, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
6. --Bluevestman (talk) 03:25, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

;Discussion

1. There's sub-quotas at this level beyond just the standard quota categories like "People"? λ NegativeMP1 20:51, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
2. :Not to my knowledge, no. I didn't even know we(?) were embarking on a program of mass removals in the first place. If that's the case, the natural place to look would be the areas that have the most representation currently on the list (e.g. visual artists, writers, musicians, religious figures, politicians, scientists, etc.) GauchoDude (talk) 10:57, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
3. ::{{ping|GauchoDude}} The mass removal program is specific to sports for the most part. Some of the participants here, myself included, think we list too many athletes and are trying to fix that. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:27, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
4. :::If there are no subquotas at this level, it feels misguided to specifically target a "subset" with a number when none exist. Our process of evaluating each *person*, which is the actual bucket with a number attached, should remain in place. Whether athlete, scientist, entertainer, whatever, with no subcategories everyone should be on a level playing field (pun maybe or maybe not intended). This, quite frankly attack, is in opposition to that. GauchoDude (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
5. ::::That makes it easier, if everyone is on a "level playing field" athletes do not satisfy the vital article criteria 3 notability, specifically "Individuals within the People section represent the pinnacles of their field '''." Athletes do not have a material impact on the course of humanity, even if they are the pinnacle of their field, they are pop culture figures that have a large fandom and are included here largely because sports fans want to include them. Artists, authors, various entertainers, scientists, politicians, etc. can have material impacts, if only as an influence to others in the arts/literature, and have tremendous influence on society (such as {{VA link|George Orwell}}) and his books which are widely referenced. A sport can have a large impact on humanity, such as the use of terms like "level playing field". The people who play a sport do not have a material impact on the course of humanity, but their fans think vital articles are a popularity contest, and all it takes is five people to get something added here. Ultimately, outside sports betting and environmental damage, the results of any particular sports match are inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. We have far to many biographies in my opinion, and athletes are the most severely over represented. This is not an "attack," it is a difference in opinion. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:40, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
6. :::::Hi, you must be lost here, this is for Level 4? If you have issues with Level 3, take it up there? GauchoDude (talk) 01:04, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
7. ::::::{{ping|GauchoDude}} He wasn't talking about VA3, he was referencing the third point of the criteria on the landing page. I've never liked that list, but that's neither here nor there. Also, did you have to be so condescending? QuicoleJR (talk) 01:08, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
8. :::::::It literally says in the opening line of the last reply "...athletes do not satisfy the vital article criteria 3 notability...". This is not a Level 3 conversation, this is Level 4. I'm not sure where this argument is going, or why it's headed that direction, but this doesn't seem to be the place for it. GauchoDude (talk) 01:11, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
9. ::::::::{{ping|GauchoDude}} Vital article criteria 3, aka the third criteria for being a Vital Article, as seen at Wikipedia:Vital articles. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:15, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
10. :::::::::Ah, understood. My mistake, I didn't read it that way! GauchoDude (talk) 01:18, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
11. ::::::::::It's fine, just wanted to clear things up. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:39, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
12. ::::::::::Pardon my writing, I could have been clearer. @QuicoleJR, thanks for clearing that up. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:19, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
13. : I'd be more for removing "with a material impact on the course of humanity" it holds no value on anything. It gives weasel room for editors personal opinions on the field itself, rather than something that helps build a encyclopedia (no modern respectable pop culture based encyclopedia like this one would outright miss sports bios). It should not be upto editor opinion on the respectability of the field. (like someones obvious and clear as day personal vendetta against sports with obvious bias tinged statements like "outside sports betting and environmental damage") (Ignoring Football War among many other events that would be ignored and the simple, easy fact that sports as a pop culture thing is set in stone and will be incorporated more in history as time goes on, it just never existed on this level before, would be like saying film or the beatles is a fad, especially stuff so culturally rooted like football in Brazil, Baseball in the US). You can't make a list out of personal bias and this line opens up that possibility and has to go. GuzzyG (talk) 23:46, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
14. ::I'd support removing those bullet points entirely. They were clearly written for Level 3, and they don't apply very well to Levels 4 and 5. I personally disagree with more than one of the bullet points listed. Overall, they cause more trouble than they are worth IMO. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:50, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
15. :::I agree. We don't need bullet points at all, but either way the one for level 3 needs to more clearly state it's for that while it's there. Level 5 especially should clearly include current pop culture topics, that is the bread and butter of this encyclopedia pageviews wise and it deserves good written articles too to match the expectations of the popular audience. GuzzyG (talk) 00:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
16. @User:J947, @User:QuicoleJR, @User:GuzzyG, @User:NegativeMP1: I can't stop the tide of what's happening, and I have seen people who shouldn't be on here, but are you guys not concerned that the user who got the ball rolling clearly wants this level to not have ANY athlete on here? --Bluevestman (talk) 03:25, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
17. :Not really. Because that won't happen. Many people on here have crazy opinions about this list with which no one else agrees – myself included. But the rule of the game is compromise. The balance of these lists is very difficult to change more than incrementally. Especially if, as appears to be the case in this instance, there is no mechanism to force a decrease in a sub-section. J947 ‡ ^edits 05:20, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
18. :I'm not concerned about that, because it is extremely unlikely to pass. Nobody can change things unilaterally, they need a consensus. Most people would support some cuts, but few would support cutting {{VA link|Pelé}} or {{VA link|Jackie Robinson}}. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
19. ::I wish I could agree with you, but considering this recent proposal of getting rid of everyone who was alive ten years ago, I don't think my fears are unfounded. Bluevestman (talk) 23:02, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

He is a good ice hockey player, but we only need one ice hockey player at VA4, and that is Wayne Gretzky. Even if we were to list two ice hockey players, I would rather have one of them come from outside the NHL. Our sports coverage is way too Americentric, and I say this as an American.

;Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:00, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 17:48, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Per nom. I don't think hockey players are vital in general. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:26, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. VA4 is for players who were a dominant player of their sport for an extended period of time. Howe (6 MVPs) and Gretzky (9 MVPs) fit that bill. I don't care where they are from.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:15, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
2. :{{ping|TonyTheTiger}} Would you be willing to support a swap with Ovechkin, who has a stronger claim to vitality and provides wider representation? I think Howe is good, but I don't think he is VA4 good. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Oppose. GauchoDude (talk) 11:11, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
4. I think hockey is quite global. Look at the countries of origin that are represented in NHL drafts versus the NFL draft for example. Countries like Algeria, Bahrain, and Indonesia have national hockey teams that regularly play. Not only does it make sense to have 2 hockey players but I would argue that it’s fair to even add a third to match parity to other sports (I’d vote for Jagr). As for having more international representation as opposed to just NHL, I don’t think that really makes sense because the NHL is the best hockey league in the world and every international player’s goal is to play there. We don’t complain that all of our basketball players played in the US. It’s where the top league is. As for Howe himself, he is considered the most complete hockey player ever and I personally think he takes the edge over Jagr/Ovechkin. One data point that I can provide that points to his ahistorical legacy is his longevity. Think about athletes today that are associated with longevity such as {{VA link|Tom Brady}} and {{VA link|Lebron James}}. Seems like they’ve had careers that have lasted lifetimes and each of them have played in 3 different decades and neither is particularly close to achieving 4 (Brady would also have to un-retire again to do so). Howe has played in 5 different decades. Being a pro athlete in a highly physical, competitive sport who has played in 5 different decades at the highest level is damn near a VA4 level accomplishment itself. Aurangzebra (talk) 22:46, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
5. Oppose. --Moscow Connection (talk) 03:45, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
6. I also think ice hockey is large enough to have three people on here. --Bluevestman (talk) 03:35, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

1. Swap with either Alexander Ovechkin or Jaromír Jágr _pbp 15:37, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

Um, Gordie Howe and Wayne Gretzky are Canadian... _pbp 16:37, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|Purplebackpack89}} The NHL is still an American hockey league, one which happens to have some Canadian teams. I knew they were Canadians, but if we are going to include a second ice hockey player, I'd prefer to find a European if possible. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:09, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::Alexander Ovechkin? Just broke the goals record. Jaromír Jágr? Been playing hockey for last 35 years. _pbp 17:59, 23 April 2025 (UTC

:::I would support swapping in Ovechkin, although a straight removal is my first choice. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:01, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

• Jagr has played at a high level for a long time. However, he only had one league MVP. Howe (6x) and Gretzky (9x) are the two VA4s mainly for being the most dominant players of the sport. I can not swap out a great player for a dominant player. Howe was the best for a long time. Additionally, Jagr and Gretzky overlapped, so it would not be good to have the only two VA4s being contemporaries. I would prefer the only goaltender with multiple MVPs (Dominik Hašek) to Jagr, although he overlapped with both of them. Ovechkin would be an acceptable VA4 nominee, at only 3 MVPs, but his level of dominance is too common. There are 9 guys with 3 MVPs. I would think 4 or 5 is required to solidify a VA4 nom. Although he is the all-time goal scorer, he does not have that many points relative to other greats. I don't really want to make an argument against Ovechkin, but he does not have 6 MVPs. Keep in mind Gordie Howe played when the NHL had 70 game seasons. Ovechkin might still be chasing Howe's total if the NHL had 82 game seasons back then. I think we have it right with the two VA4s now.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:25, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Guys, I'm going to be real honest here. The fact that we're discussing whether Gordie Howe is one of the elite of the elite tells me we might not have a lot of hockey fans in this discussion. Gordie Howe is the Babe Ruth of baseball, full stop. Utterly dominant in an early period of the sport, name recognition for decades upon decades. Surpassed by only Wayne Gretzky, if Mount Rushmore had two heads, these would be the two. To make an argument for anyone else is change for change's sake. GauchoDude (talk) 11:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:If it were up to me, we would list only Gretzky for the sport. Gordie Howe may be the Babe Ruth of ice hockey in terms of stats, I don't know. However, he doesn't seem to be as recognizable as Babe Ruth outside of the NHL fandom, and I think being recognizable to non-fans should be a requirement for athletes at VA4. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:24, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

seems like a pretty important branch of philosophy. 101 interwikis.

;Support

1. As nom. -1ctinus📝🗨 12:39, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Very important branch of philosophy. ALittleClass (talk) 18:16, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Support. AllyWithInfo (talk) 21:50, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

The nomination to add Benjamin Netanyahu suggested removing {{VA link|Golda Meir}} in exchange.

;Support

1. As nom; level 4 is over quota. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 15:33, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 19:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Her only notable thing is being one of the most known women in politics of this region. I don't know if that's enough on it's own, plus Ben-Gurion and Netanyahu are more vital as politicians and two is pushing it for a new, recent country. If we had to list a third from Israel, it should be Moshe Dayan because he is the most known symbol of its military. Either way, i don't think Meir fits. GuzzyG (talk) 01:27, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Agreed. GauchoDude (talk) 12:26, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

• Strong oppose. She is a legendary figure. (How did Netanyahu get to level 4? Pure recentism.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 12:12, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• :@Moscow Connection Netanyahu is the longest serving prime minister of Israel (17 years). EchoVanguardZ (talk) 20:00, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::@EchoVanguardZ@Moscow Connection Because he started a big war _pbp 23:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discussion

Lophotrochozoa (talk) 15:33, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Best hurdle runner, but not one of global popularity and impact, just a athlete known for accomplishment in hurdling, a niche aspect of running. Why do we cover a hurdler over a weightlifter, fencer, equestrian rider or any other more historic and widespread olympic athlete? No impact or legacy section in his article. Low views at only 822,669 in 10 years. [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/langviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range=all-time&sort=views&direction=1&view=list&page=Edwin%20Moses]. This is running bloat and we list 11 runners, he is the best start for cutting down this bloated section. We list no high jumper, long jumper, decathlon athlete, shotput thrower, discus thrower all of which are more popular events than hurdling. Is he one of the 50 most important athletes ever?

;Support

1. As nom GuzzyG (talk) 02:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. --Thi (talk) 07:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Not vital enough for Level 4. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:51, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
4. As much as I am sympathetic for Tony's viewpoint, the fact is hurdle running is something not many people care about outside of the Olympics. --Bluevestman (talk) 03:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. In the entire field of athletics, I don't know of an athlete so dominant as to win his event over 100 consecutive times. We would be removing the most dominant athletics competitor in history by removing him. Shot put and discuss are not more popular than hurdles. Also, we list a long jumper. Carl Lewis won 4 Olympic long jump gold medals and three World Championship long jump medals. His 13 step style also changed the sport.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:41, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
2. :This is a footnote factoid Guinness World Records type note rather than something that represents global popularity and impact. We can't list every footnote. You would then have to do swimming and every other sport. If we had to list pure sport winning footnotes, it would be Esther Vergeer who would represent Paralympic sports or symbol of Pakistan Jahangir Khan who has the biggest winning streak in solo sports. Much better footnotes than just another American runner. Hurdling may be searched more in the US, but not globally. [https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=%2Fm%2F018gpn,%2Fm%2F02c9p,%2Fm%2F06_k_]. Has a lesser search average. Would you list factoids in other things like most Academy Awards for men Daniel Day-Lewis? or most solo number ones songs and most for a woman songwriter in Mariah Carey? Or do you see how that's neverending? it should be based on cultural profile and name recognition backed by stats. not just unknown people with stats, level 5 can accommodate some of that. Usain Bolt, Carl Lewis, FloJo, that's the standard for Athletics. Edwin Moses is decisively not on that level. GuzzyG (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
3. ::You are simply going with all the sprinters Bolt, Lewis, FloJo and Owens are all sprinters. Basically, what you are doing by removing Moses and Zatopek, is say you only care about the events that the casual Olympic viewing audience has the patience to watch. We should stop focussing all VA4 attention on sprinters. There should be a thrower, a jumper, a hurdler, a middle distance and a long distance to balance out athletics. Simply mindlessly choosing the athletes whose events are less than the 30 seconds that most people can pay attention for is not sensible.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:37, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discussion

If Ice Hockey is being debated on cutting down to 1, i don't see how field hockey should be different. It's mainly popular in South Asia (covered by Dhyan Chand), Europe and Australia. It's not as popular as Volleyball; which has 0 players listed. Aymar's not one of the 2,000 most historic people in history. Mercedes Sosa is a much more popular and important woman to Argentine pop culture, she'd be better to list than Aymar. Even Carlos Gardel in general as a Argentine pop culture star. Aymar does not make the bar in comparison.

;Support

1. As nom GuzzyG (talk) 02:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. --Thi (talk) 07:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Field hockey is definitely not more popular than ice hockey. I am fairly certain of that. --Bluevestman (talk) 03:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
5. :That's not my impression. A quick search indicates there are 30 million field hockey players worldwide compared to 1.7 million ice hockey players, and field hockey is generally listed as having the third most fans of any sport (due to the prominence of India and Pakistan). J947 ‡ ^edits 05:28, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discussion

Very well regarded but not at all globally popular or impactful, not on the cultural name level of Luciano Pavarotti and Maria Callas. That should be the standard for Opera singers. Vidkun Quisling is the bigger name in Norwegian modern history. Edvard Grieg is the Norwegian person in classical music that should be listed.

;Support

1. As nom GuzzyG (talk) 02:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
2. We should not be listing this many singers when we have 0 film composers.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 07:20, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Per nom. --Thi (talk) 07:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 02:14, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discussion

We list too many biographies at VA4 IMO. Heinlein is decently famous and definitely makes VA5, but I don't think he is quite influential enough for VA4. He isn't as well remembered as {{VA link|Isaac Asimov}} or {{VA link|Jules Verne}}, and he certainly had an impact but not at the same level as the other VA4 biographies. Overall, I think he is one of the weaker listings at VA4 and would like to see his slot given to someone or something with more importance.

;Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:02, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Hard task nominating a sci-fi figure for removal on here but it's needed. Heinlein does not have the long lasting history of Washington Irving. No need to list the big 3 of sci-fi + Bradbury if we don't list all of the big 3 of American theatre like Eugene O'Neill. We list too many sci-fi writers as is and he is the weakest. GuzzyG (talk) 00:03, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Support I have proposed his removal several times before. --Thi (talk) 07:25, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Think this underestimates Heinlein's impact on the lexicon if sci-fi thought, and even outside sci-fi. Hyperbolick (talk) 05:34, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
2. per Hyperbolick. --Bluevestman (talk) 03:58, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{VA link|Starship Troopers}} and {{VA link|Stranger in a Strange Land}} are both fairly influential within science fiction, and both have been referenced in political culture. Starship troopers likely inspired {{VA link|Iron man}}, {{VA link|Samus Aran}}, and {{VA link|Master Chief (Halo)}}

and has influenced virtually any "space marine" content. Honestly, I'm a bit shocked Iron man, Samus, and Master Chief aren't listed at least at level 5. While I agree that bios can be cut, Heinlein wouldn't necessarily be where I'd start. That said, could possibly support a swap with one of his books, particuarlly Starship Troopers as I think that has had the largest impact on military science fiction. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:20, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:If we're being so anti modern pop culture; why does this matter? Will Heinlein be important for 2,000 years? Will space marines or any of the 3 niche pop culture enthusiast things you mentioned be known in 2,000 years? Military science fiction isn't even level 5 nor is Space marine and in the grand scheme of things not relevant to history at all, professional wrestling also has references in political culture with academic articles like [https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780429242670-13/smarks-marks-electorate-david-beard-john-heppen-matthew-millett] analysing Trump's demagoguery being completely derived from pro wrestling and we even have a article of Professional wrestling personalities in politics, but professional wrestling was still nominated by you for removal, so how does political references matter for military science fiction? You could have endless subgenre representation like this with Robert E. Howard and Sword and sorcery etc. It would be neverending. You're a advocate of stuff like whole sports being removed, do you think something as isolated as military science fiction is as vital? Do you think the average grandparent consumes military sci fi compared to American football in the US? We list both Stan Lee and Jack Kirby for Iron Man and Nintendo for Metroid. You list Halo on your profile, so as a pretty big fan of it you may know more about this specific influence than me, but i'm not seeing how science military fiction in light of the recent anti modern pop culture thing we're doing is big enough to be listed. We have 41 people in American literature, is so many sci fi writers appropriate? is military science fiction a thing we need to cover at all? GuzzyG (talk) 00:02, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{ping|GuzzyG}} I don't know about GeogSage, but the reason I want to remove these athletes (and Heinlein) has nothing to do with pop culture. My issue is that many of the biographies we list don't have enough lasting influence to meet the VA4 requirements. Most people who aren't diehard fans of a sport can only name a couple of players, and we should realistically try to only list the ones they can name at VA4. I have nothing against pop culture, I more take issue with the number of people we list. Works are more vital than biographies when it comes to culture because they have more staying power. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:18, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I also think that 2000 years is a completely stupid benchmark. The ten-year test makes sense because it can be somewhat predicted. It is completely impossible to know what the world will be like in 2000 years and if anything we list right now will still be relevant that far out. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:20, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I agree with you, alot of the modern pop culture bios are too untested to be on this level, they need to last a bit longer - the 2,000 year test was a reference to GeogSage's comment dismissing Elizabeth II [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles#Limits_on_Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons_and_recently_deceased]. Just pointing it out here as Heinlein or his books are seemed to be presumed to last 2,000 years if that's the methodology. I was the main editor behind the maligned aspects of the level 5 list and that was made purely to cover pop culture topics that this list wouldn't touch. (like Beyoncé, Tom Cruise etc). So i have no outright thing against pop culture and i actually do agree with you that works have more influence and would actually support a cut of 500 bios to add to the arts to account for that. I'm just curious about GeogSage's take who seems to be anti listing lots of modern things (Elizabeth II, pop culture in general, sports) - but then supports video games, manga, very minor sci-fi lit genres getting representation etc - so curious about that outlook to try and understand the difference between say - sports and military science fiction (a sub genre of a genre). I do agree that entertainers, directors, modern popular music and sports should all be about 50 bios each. 200 popular culture people seems like a good amount (out of 2,000 or even 1,500), since there is widespread interest for popular culture biographies and this is a pop culture encyclopedia they just need widespread name recognition. We're not that much different - i've agreed with all of your nominations and i've been a long time advocate to cut the fluff on this level. GuzzyG (talk) 00:40, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::The discussion you are referring to is discussing BLPs, and biographies and recency bias. To give the full context of my statement on Elizabeth II:

:::::{{Quote|A super majority over ride clause could account for that kind of thing. Still would want to wait on it, we exclude ALOT of monarchs from history at level 4. {{VA link|Leonnatus}}, {{VA link|Perdiccas}}, and {{VA link|Antipater}} 5 were all generals involved in the division of the empire created under {{VA link|Alexander the Great}}, but we have mostly placed them as footnotes in history. In 2,000 years, do you really think {{VA link|Elizabeth II}} will be considered one of the top 10,000 most vital humans ever? The fact we have 21st century athletes, actors, and authors included but fail to include people like Alexander's generals, or scholars like {{VA link|Diodorus Siculus}} and {{VA link|Demades}}, kind of shows why this recency bias is a huge problem. Things that seem "vital" in the moment might not be as vital in hindsight. Again, we could build in a "super majority" clause for this.}}

:::::My issue isn't with "pop culture" in general (I've nominated several pop culture phenomena to various levels), it's with biographies, specifically biographies of athletes as I don't believe athletes meet the criteria of "vital" in general, but also broadly as I think biography articles are way over represented in the project. I believe they are popular, not impactful, and think they take room from actual impactful people that are not quite as prominent in the corporate entertainment (like high impact award winning scientists). I think {{VA link|Donald Trump}} probably shouldn't be at level 4 either, at least not until some time has passed for us to look objectively at his presidency. I'd be okay with moving all of level 3 biographies to level 4, pushing those at level 4 to level 5, and removing most of level 5. Ultimately, I'd like to see the project have no more then 5,000 biographies (10% of the project) across all 5 levels. I tend to favor the work of an artist over the artist themselves in terms of being "vital," so while Stan Lee might be an extreme due to his prominence in the industry, I think the characters are more "vital" then the person who made them. The person who invented {{VA link|fire}}, the {{VA link|wheel}}, and flint {{VA link|knapping}} is much less important then the technologies themselves. That said, as I stated, Heinlein wouldn't be where I would start cutting, but I'm not completely opposed to it. He is one of the biggest names in Science fiction, and Starship Troopers has had a tremendous impact on modern media. I'm not against pop culture, I am frustrated we have what I believe to be an inconsistent approach to choosing VAs. When it comes to level 4, we have 10,000 slots TOTAL, every inclusion means something else will be excluded. We have living and breathing people included, but if you go look at the talk page for level 5 technology you'll see we are struggling to find room for critical stuff (note that knapping isn't in level 5 yet, I just proposed it recently along with several other stone tools). Discussing Elizabeth the II in 2,000 years may be an extreme example I made when proposing trimming BLPs from level 4, but as a historical figure comparing her to similar ones from 2,000 years ago that aren't viewed as vital seems fair to me, at least at level 4. At level 5, I think we can argue that the community watchlist might warrant some high traffic pages being included to protect against vandalism.

:::::In terms of impact, I think that science fiction has outsized influence on technology progression, and that Star Ship Troopers had a huge impact on media franchises (You can see this in the Starship Troopers#Influence section). Starship troopers popularized the idea of Exoskeleton (human) in fiction, and these fictional ideas have inspired (and likely will continue to inspire) real world technology. When we have AI on our phones named Cortana, and Space shuttles named after the Star Trek fictional ship Enterprise (NX-01), we can see that the art, science, and engineering all play off each other. In 2,000 years, I think the we might look at some 20th century science fiction and see the origin of what might become commonplace tech. I don't think most politicians, celebrities, or people in general are vital, but I definitely think science, engineering, and art can meet the 3rd listed criteria for VA in having a major impact on the course of human civilization/society. On that note, I do not consider {{VA link|Professional wrestling}} to be one of the top 10,000 most vital things ever. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:51, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::You are comparing apples and oranges and taking the word "vital" too seriously. You cannot say Microsoft naming one of their products after another one of their products as serious influence that's worthy of vital status. The enterprise article says "In an official memo, White House advisors cited "hundreds of thousands of letters" from Trekkies, "one of the most dedicated constituencies in the country", as a reason for giving the shuttle the name. Although Ford did not publicly mention the campaign, the president said that he was "partial to the name" Enterprise, and directed NASA officials to change the name". That's a contemporary fan campaign. It would be like Doge (meme) being level 5, because it's the influence on Department of Government Efficiency. It's typical for a contemporary fad to influence it's contemporary society, but this is not historic vitality by itself. You cannot compare biographies or entertainment to tools or technology. It's why the sections are separate. They are incomparable. Biographical dictionary's among other similar things, means biographies are just as vital to cover as a separate section. Think of the VA project as a overview, with every section separate. (so the biographies are not replacing tech stuff, but representing biographical dictionaries as a genre of history coverage). We are not a science encyclopedia. we should not cut everything else to cater to it. It's not the 10,000 most vital things ALL UP ever, but 10,000 split to certain sections in a Noah's Ark style. It may be information you may not think is vital, but we are documenting what exists, not what anyone personally has problems with. Heinlein is judged to the metrics of Poe, Hemingway and Twain and these are metrics he does not meet, irrespective of Microsoft corporate branding. (I support no biographies on level 3, 1,500 on 4 with that 500 going to arts and 7,500 on 5 btw, so we agree more than disagree. There is not 15,000 or even 10,000 biographies that will not look funny on a list with "vital" on it. It's unsustainable and should be rebuilt ground up with 7,500 - with arts getting some of the reallocated quota). GuzzyG (talk) 04:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I feel like a centralized, larger discussion about how we should handle biographies across the project in general should be held on the main talk page at some point to get a proper consensus to work off of. I don't mean this in a rude way towards anyone but this sort of discussion happens quite a lot across several different discussions, all contained in the discussion section of a different proposal each. I'm not sure how helpful consistently repeating these debates in a sporadic, spread out manner can be at this point. I don't think many of us are really on the same page right now, especially if we throw around the idea of rebuilding the list from the ground up. λ NegativeMP1 04:59, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::: I agree, it's just hard to properly concentrate and know exactly what area to target. There needs to be a actual target in mind to properly analyze removals, otherwise it's all random. Say if we agreed on 25 American writers for example, it'd be easier to discuss removals until that target is hit, but if you nominate them one by one without a goal in mind, there will be lots of justifications why that person should be listed. You can see that with the sports nominations. We need a clear target we are gonna be at before anything serious can get started. GuzzyG (talk) 05:28, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I largely agree with you, I'm not sure if you missed the fact I've repeatedly said I wouldn't start with Heinlein but am open to his removal from level 4. You can look up my arguments, I've been calling for massive reductions to biographies for a while. Biographies take up 0% of the list at level 1, 0% of the list at level 2, 11% (111) of the 1,000 articles at level 3, 20% (2000 articles) of the 10,000 articles at level 4, and 30% (15,071) of the 50,000 articles in level 5. Every biography we include is a tool or technology we don't include, the section for them is bloated at level 4 and 5. I base my criteria on what we have listed on the Wikipedia:Vital articles main page. On these criteria, Wikipedia:Recentism is noted as something we should be cautious with. When it comes to biographies, "Individuals within the People section represent the pinnacles of their field with a material impact on the course of humanity." While I agree we should include stuff "Noah's ark style," I believe that biographies, particularly of American entertainers and athletes, are wildly over represented and have crowded out sections that could be used for other categories. At level 5, we have 1,150 "Sports figures" and 1,159 Sports, games and recreation articles currently listed. Compare that to 1,300 articles for "Scientists, inventors, and mathematicians" combined, 1677 writers 901 of which are Prose writers like Heinlein on Writers and Journalists, 1,200 articles allocated for Mathmatics, 1,100 health. When it comes to athletes, I don't think being the G.O.A.T. in a sport satisfies the material impact on the course of humanity criteria that is required for a person to be vital. I think that the people we view as "vital" today should have the same kind of impact we see from people 2,000 years ago on the list. My goal is to ultimately push biographies down to 10% of the list at level to make room for all the other categories that are also important but under represented because of all the biographies. Your concerned with this being a "science" encyclopedia and displacing "everything else" to cater to it. Sports, biographies, and entertainment has been catered to at the expense of science and technology. I agree with @NegativeMP1, this should be discussed somewhere bigger. Would largely agree with your reallocation proposal. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:49, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Just to be clear, i'm the one largely responsible for the sports [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/People/Sports_figures&action=history&dir=prev&limit=500] and entertainment bloat. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/People/Entertainers,_directors,_producers,_and_screenwriters&action=history&dir=prev&limit=500]. I created the science bio page too [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/People/Scientists,_inventors,_and_mathematicians&action=info]. The specific goal and intention i had with the layout was to cover every sport and entertainment form and i do believe every form of science should be covered, i just don't have that knowledge. Politics was the same, with a goal of covering every country with politicians. Science had kind of a guessed too low quota, the intention was to include every Nobel winner etc. With sports, there's 50+ sports that add to that high total, while science there's less large disciplines, you'd have to dip into sub fields, which is why it adds up in sports but not many other categories like religion, military and science. Say religion there's only 10-15 ones capable of producing a biography to list unlike 50-100 sports (and the thought process was for people to accept 1 in every single one, the popular ones should be covered well, with every position and decade taken care off). Science is underdone, except physics, which had every Nobel winner, but i hit the quota off of the physics Nobel adds and stopped before adding the other Nobel science winners. I understand exactly what kind of mess the quotas is in because i am arguably responsible for the mess. My biggest intention for level 5 was to cover the popular articles that would not fit on the 4 list but require to be in a condition decent enough to be good. (Popular bios in covered on level 4 fields like Beyoncé, Tom Cruise and popular articles on fields not considered appropriate for bios on level 4 like Kim Kardashian, PewDiePie, Ted Bundy, Hulk Hogan, Jenna Jameson etc). I strongly believe these types of articles which have 10s of millions of views should be written good on a pop culture encyclopedia. But yes, Science definitely got undercut in biographies. 7 years on i do agree with heavy cuts now. But most of the cuts from sports currently has been the little sports with the big ones largely untouched except the recent baseball noms. That is a bandaid fix. I would go further though, i'd be happy to have 1,000 bios on level 4, 5,000 on 5 and none on 3. I'm just strongly against removing popular articles in the styles of the ones i listed, where they are clearly the most known of their field. With sports bios, it's not about the GOAT, just that every single sport was covered. If a encyclopedia had to cover sports, it should cover them all, not just a couple. That was the philosophy for the majority of additions, that the encyclopedia would be improved by covering everything rather than covering a little. GuzzyG (talk) 06:35, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::I've started a proper, centralized discussion for this matter at WT:VA as suggested earlier. These points from this discussion should probably be reiterated there, and the discussion itself hopefully moved so that we're all on the same page. λ NegativeMP1 07:02, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

58 interwikis. Not bad; but most other American authors VA4s have at least 80-90. We already have {{VA link|Allen Ginsberg}} and {{VA link|Jack Kerouac}} to represent the Beat Generation; both have more interwikis and the works they created are more well-known than the works WSB created. _pbp 00:24, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. _pbp 00:24, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. 3 Beat writers out of 41 is too many. Arguably this is a small scene in the worldview of world literature history. We don't list the big 3 of American theatre (Eugene O'Neill missing). So i don't know why we need to list all the main members of a particular movement. We don't cover any members of the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood movement in painting, which had a similar kind of cultural profile as the Beat generation, which might speak to it's lasting history potential. Beat Generation is not even level 5. Arguably that article should be listed, not any of the 3 authors. GuzzyG (talk) 00:43, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 07:13, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Per GuzzyG. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 01:56, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

Group of heroes from Classic (Ancient) Greek myths. Kind of like Avengers of the past :P 68 interwikis. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. as nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
2. A reader of classic literature might get the impression that ancient Greece had two main stories: the Argonauts and the Trojan War. Each playwright then placed their own tale within these events. --Thi (talk) 07:19, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Per Thi, since {{VA link|Trojan War}} is VA4. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:04, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

This is my 2nd time nominating this article for demotion, and I know that it failed last time, but I still think that it is an appropriate removal candidate, especially with how loaded VA4 is currently. While Smilodon is an iconic prehistoric mammal genus, there's not much to suggest that it really holds the same level of iconicity plus historical influence that mammoths had, and arguably one can point to other genera of prehistoric animals that hold far greater importance to the field of paleontology than Smilodon itself, especially since it really is just a name of the Machairodontinae that most people wouldn't be able to distinguish from close relatives like Machairodus or Homotherium. Level 5 is an appropriate level for it and most other prehistoric taxa; the only prehistoric mammal worthy of level 4 is the mammoth really.

;Support

1. As nom. PrimalMustelid (talk) 17:00, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Saber-toothed cats are iconic, but I don't think that they reach the vitality level of VA4. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

A very important part of social structure. Given that Influencer is currently being nominated for Level 4, I believe this is a more general, more well known, and longer lasting phenomenon.

;Support

1. as nom-ALittleClass (talk) 18:14, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Easy support given we already list so many examples. Kevinishere15 (talk) 19:15, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Yep, especially if we can remove some celebrities fom level 4. In coming nominations. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:24, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discussion

{{atopg|We no longer need five votes to move entries. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2025 (UTC)}}

Humboldt is listed as an exploror at level 4, and Miscellaneous at level 5. He was a {{VA link|polymath}}, but I believe his long term impact is in laying the foundation for {{VA link|biogeography}}. His explorations are vital, but more so is the writings that discussed the regions he traveled to.

Bringing up in part because of discussions about moving quota from misc. at level 5. Wanted to propose at level 4 before boldly moving there though.

;Support.

1. As nom.
2. Alternatively, move to biologists. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 02:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

Is there a reason why the actors are organized by their DOBs? They're not organized like that in the Level 5 page, and other than some politicians, no one else on this level is organized like this either. Personally, with the exception of leaders (and that's only if everyone in a certain subsection is a head of state or something (in which case it should be done by when they gain that position)), it doesn't make any sense to organize a list other than alphabetically. Bluevestman (talk) 19:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:I would support switching the actors to be sorted alphabetically for consistency. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:07, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::The thing is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVital_articles%2FLevel%2F4%2FPeople&diff=1278663056&oldid=1278617528 it originally was]. For reasons unknown, Interstellarity decided to reorganize it to its current state. Bluevestman (talk) 23:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{ping|Interstellarity}} Why did you choose to sort Actors chronologically instead of alphabetically? I'd like to hear your reasoning. Thanks, QuicoleJR (talk) 23:24, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Hi, I think it would be good to sort all of the people chronologically that way we can group people who lived in similar time periods together. History goes from beginning to end, and grouping people from similar eras together makes the most sense in my opinion. That's my reasoning in a nutshell. For consistency, I would support sorting all L4 people in each category chronologically like in level 3. Interstellarity (talk) 21:33, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::OK, are you now just outsourcing your reorganization? User:Bo-3903 didn't even do it correctly. Bluevestman (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Why am i not doing it correctly ? Apologies in advance, i am kind of new to this Madotea (talk) 13:11, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::You have Mikhail Baryshnikov (1949) come before George Balanchine (1904). You have Rembrandt (1606) come before Peter Paul Rubens (1577). You have Jackson Pollock (1912) come before Salvador Dalí (1904) and Frida Kahlo (1907). You have Winsor McCay (1871 at the latest) be the last person listed when everyone else in his category was born after him. You accidentally made Alberto Giacometti be the level 3 article and not Michelangelo (thank God that's a mistake that the Cewbot can easily fix). You have Louis Kahn (1901) come after Albert Speer (1905), Philip Johnson (1906), Oscar Niemeyer (1907), I. M. Pei (1917), Frank Gehry (1929), and Zaha Hadid (1950). And last but definitely not least you accidentally removed Buckminster Fuller. These are just some of the mistakes I came across. Bluevestman (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I see, apologies Madotea (talk) 20:17, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I have fixed all the mistakes you have mentioned, thank you for noticing them Madotea (talk) 20:31, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Winsor McCay is still last even though he's the first cartoonist born. Otherwise, you're welcome. I'll tell you if I see any more mistakes. Bluevestman (talk) 22:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:I like it this way. It looks like we could do with a few more modern actors. J947 ‡ ^edits 23:38, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:I would like sorting people chronologically, but I think the relevant years should be listed in hiden comments if we do. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:05, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::I got to be honest, I don't think the notes are necessary. A simple "this list is organized chronologically" at the beginning should be sufficient. Also why did you not move Hieronymus Bosch? He is not just born in the middle of 15th century; he is specifically estimated to be born in the year 1450. And keep in mind, this is not just us; a quick Google search shows a lot of legitimate sites having c.1450 as the YOB. Bluevestman (talk) 18:17, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:::The notes might be convenient when adding new entries. I didn't move Bosch because I get the impression that his year of birth isn't known with enough precision to be sure than he was younger than Botticelli. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 21:04, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Fair enough, although I think we should reflect what our own pages say, and Bosch's specifically has c. 1450 as his birth date. Bluevestman (talk) 22:28, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Also you added another bracket (]) for Masaccio. Bluevestman (talk) 23:09, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:I am quite neutral to the way the list is organized. I saw interstellarity needed someone to sort out the articles and i thought it was a good idea to help them. If you all agree to instead sort the articles alphabetically i'd have no problem helping you out to sort them that way. Madotea (talk) 20:40, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::I would like to apologize for a being a dick earlier. I'm mostly just angry at Interstellarity at this point who: a) seems to be taking their sweetass time reorganizing the people page; and b) seems to actively ignore my objections. Bluevestman (talk) 22:24, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Apologies accepted. What do you suggest i do ? I left the work half the way done. If you all agree i can get sorting them alphabetically or continue sorting them chronologically Madotea (talk) 17:16, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Here's some things I want you to do first:

::::#Restore the actors to the original arrangement, and then place Joan Crawford (probably Mar. 23, 1904) after Cary Grant (Jan. 18, 1904). Other than her, the list was already organized chronologically and, I'm giving Interstellarity some props here, correctly. So I really do not get what, other Crawford, you saw that was wrong with this list. You placed Marlene Dietrich (Dec. 27, 1901) before Gary Cooper (May 7, 1901), Barbara Stanwyck (Jul. 16, 1907) before John Wayne (May 26, 1907), Ingrid Bergman (1915) before Vivien Leigh (1913) and Alec Guinness (1914), and Shirley Temple (Apr. 23, 1928) before Jeanne Moreau (Jan. 23, 1928).

::::#Place Anna Pavlova (1881) before Vaslav Nijinsky (1889). Again, I really do not understand what makes you think that the ballet list was improperly organized, because I'm basically asking to restore it to its original state.

::::#Place Jan van Eyck (before 1390) before Masaccio (1401); Sandro Botticelli (1445), Hieronymus Bosch (1450), and Leonardo da Vinci (1452) before Albrecht Dürer (1471); Titian (1477) before Raphael (1483); Hans Holbein the Younger (1497) before Pieter Breugel the Elder (1525); and Peter Paul Rubens (1577) before Artemisia Gentileschi (1593).

::::#Place Henri Rousseau (May 21, 1844) before Ilya Repin (Aug 5, 1844); John Singer Sargent (1856), Georges Seurat (1859), Edvard Munch (1863), Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec (1864), before Wassily Kandinsky (1866); and Kazimir Malevich (Feb. 23, 1879) before Paul Klee (Dec 18, 1879).

::::#Place Winsor McCay (c. 1866) first.

::::#Place Henry Moore (1898) before Alberto Giacometti (1901).

::::Other than that, I guess you can continue reorganizing the people list based on their DOB. There's clearly a consensus in favor of a chronological order. My own opposition was that the actors were the only one that was organized like that for a while. Bluevestman (talk) 18:49, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Alright i'll get to it soon Madotea (talk) 18:55, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::You still missed Sandro Botticelli (1445), John Singer Sargent (1856), Georges Seurat (1859), Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec (1864), and Kazimir Malevich (Feb. 23, 1879). Bluevestman (talk) 19:56, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

===Reverse {{ping|Interstellarity}} reorganizations===

;Oppose

;Discuss

@User:J947, @User:Lophotrochozoa: You want to help reorganize the list and not just let some user bumble around? User:Bo-3903, I really want to be nice to you, but you are making too many mistakes that makes me question if you know how time works. --Bluevestman (talk) 20:25, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:I've avoided reorganizing the lists because the rules forbade any modification, but now I've changed the rules (I've long wanted to make that change, and no one had any substantive objection) Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:46, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::That's a perfect legitimate reason. Now that you change the rules, do you mind fixing the errors I'm talking about below? Bluevestman (talk) 01:01, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:Seriously, @Bo-3903 I could already tell that your reorganization of ancient writers is a hot mess. Did you forgot about Hieronymus Bosch (1450) when you moved Sandro Botticelli (1445)? And your organization of modern painters between Vincent van Gogh (1853) and Diego Rivera (1886) is arguably even worse now! This is how they should be organized:

:#John Singer Sargent (1856)

:#Georges Seurat (1859)

:#Edvard Munch (1863)

:#Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec (1864)

:#Wassily Kandinsky (1866)

:#Henri Matisse (1869)

:#Piet Mondrian (1872)

:#Kazimir Malevich (Feb 23 1879)

:#Paul Klee (Dec 18 1879)

:#Franz Marc (1880)

:#Pablo Picasso (1881)

:#Edward Hopper (1882)

:Bluevestman (talk) 23:01, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::Fair enough, i will drop the thing. Madotea (talk) 23:07, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Bluevestman, I haven't reviewed the edits to the list at all so don't know how good or bad they are, regardless, I don't think the comment directed at @Bo-3903 was WP:CIVIL. Specifically, I think it was an example of "belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgemental edit summaries or talk-page posts." Remember, being civil is not optional. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:39, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::As much as I loathe to agree with you, you're right. I don't want to berate this user, as their heart is in the right place. But they are making errors that are outright illogical. Their recent placement regarding Sandro Botticelli is an understandable mistake, as is placing Winsor McCay last, and even removing Buckminster Fuller. But these edits ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVital_articles%2FLevel%2F4%2FPeople&diff=1292549411&oldid=1292538564|1], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/4/People&diff=next&oldid=1292549411|2], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVital_articles%2FLevel%2F4%2FPeople&diff=1293225310&oldid=1293225168|3], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVital_articles%2FLevel%2F4%2FPeople&diff=1293226040&oldid=1293225310|4]) are not. Bluevestman (talk) 03:30, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

We probably shouldn't remove articles based on quality (since, you know, the goal of this project is to improve them), but holy mother of God is this thing unreadable. I can barely tell what makes him level 5 worthy. (Apparently he's on par with Kalidasa, although I find it really difficult to believe that what with Kalidasa having 110 more interwikis than him.)

;Support

1. Bluevestman (talk) 22:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Does not seem to meet the requirements for Level 4. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

I think the vital articles project has a pseudo-bias towards Classic {{VA link|Rock music}}, or just generally older music in general. I completely understand why, but there's quite a few concepts missing that should easily be suitable for this level to try and diversify it and make it seem less "outdated". And by outdated, I mean that I think it's a bit disingenuous for the only rock representation at V4 to be mainly classic acts (up to the 1970s), save for two metal acts and {{VA link|Nirvana (band)}}, when rock goes far, far beyond just that and classic rock barely represents even a fraction of what rock has proven to be. We don't even list the concept of {{VA link|Alternative rock}} here. Obviously, these proposals will be done sparingly (I've picked three for now) since alternative music at its core has always been less popular than the more historically relevant classic acts and recency may still be a concern. But I think my picks here are pretty safe and almost certainly worthy of V4 as part of an effort to try and spruce things up a bit.

Note: I was initially gonna put a biography proposal or two here as well, but we're at quota with that section now and I don't wanna make a proposal without a swap. I think we can cut back on some of the more "legacy" / older names that haven't had as much influence in the modern day (and are basically outdated), but I don't wanna touch that area that much.

The broad definition of Alternative rock as a concept covers a ton of genres, some of which are listed at V4 and V5. The most prominent ones are probably {{VA link|Emo}}, {{VA link|Grunge}}, {{VA link|Britpop}}, and {{VA link|Punk rock}} (technically preceded "Alternative" formally I suppose, but most people would still consider punk to be alternative). Most of the successful rock acts of the 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s, were affiliated with a genre considered to be Alternative. An entire sub-category of artists at V5 is dedicated to alternative rock. The broad article for Alternative rock can go here at V4.

;Support

1. As nom. λ NegativeMP1 05:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Other than metal and punk, this is basically the only form of rock that's being made these days.--Bluevestman (talk) 22:04, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
4. ALittleClass (talk) 06:00, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
5. Per nom. Kevinishere15 (talk) 07:43, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

{{atopr|status=failed|result=Not added 3-5 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:19, 7 June 2025 (UTC)}}

Arguably the most prominent "alternative" genre and culture unless you count {{VA link|Punk rock}}. We even list an example of it at this level, {{VA link|Nirvana (band)}}, and I am almost always inclined to believe that the genre is more important than any artist affiliated with it. Given that we already list Punk at this level and that we are likely to list other sub-genres such as {{VA link|J-pop}} and {{VA link|K-pop}} (not rock, but still sub-genres with similar popularity), I see no reason to not list Grunge.

;Support

1. As nom. λ NegativeMP1 05:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:29, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
3. per nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:39, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. A short-lived genre. --Thi (talk) 16:37, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Per above. -1ctinus📝🗨 18:24, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Per Thi. Kevinishere15 (talk) 08:04, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Per Thi. --Bluevestman (talk) 22:04, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
5. Considering all the ways we skimp at VA4, adding this doesn't seem right _pbp 03:52, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

{{abot}}

{{atopr|status=failed|result=Not added 4-4 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 15:17, 8 June 2025 (UTC)}}

We only list seven modern musical works at this level, most of which are classic rock ({{VA link|Bohemian Rhapsody}}, {{VA link|Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band}}, {{VA link|Johnny B. Goode}}, {{VA link|Like a Rolling Stone}}. A total of 4/7). I get not listing many specific musical works at this level but most of them being classic rock with absolutely zero representation to how the genre evolved over time feels disingenuous. And if it's not classic rock then it's some sort of work for an older genre. I guess there's also {{VA link|Gangnam Style}} which we are likely to list soon but as of this proposal being made it isn't. I also think there may be a bias against specific musical works at this level in a sense too (we list more movies than musical works).

Anyways, I think that if we're going to start listing more modern music like Gangnam Style, and if we want to give more representation towards Alternative (which I don't know yet, I'll see depending on how these proposals go in the first place), we should list Nevermind. It is effectively the defining, most important Alternative rock and Grunge work. It's extremely well written and detailed legacy section proves this ({{xt|Nevermind popularized the Seattle grunge movement and brought alternative rock as a whole into the mainstream, establishing its commercial and cultural viability}}, {{xt|The album also initiated a resurgence of interest in punk culture among teenagers and young adults of Generation X}}, countless rankings as one of the best albums ever made, etc.) This level of influence is almost certainly comparable to something like {{VA link|Kind of Blue}}. If you have recency concerns, we list {{VA link|Thriller (album)}} which is barely any older, its only twenty-five or something years newer than Sgt. Peppers, and soon-to-be-listed Gangnam Style was only released in 2012. And if you think that a something needs to be known globally or extremely popular to be at this level, {{VA link|Smells Like Teen Spirit}} is one of the most well known songs ever written of the modern era and is vital in of itself, both the song and the album have more interwikis than many other individual works at this level, and the album charted in several countries across the world even today, over 30 years since its release. Again, I get that wanting to list more specific musical works at this level may be a hard sell, but I see no reason to not list this album.

;Support

1. As nom. λ NegativeMP1 05:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Seems just as vital as some of the other musical works we list. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:28, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
3. --Bluevestman (talk) 22:04, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
4. ALittleClass (talk) 03:29, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. _pbp 01:04, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
2. :Do you mind explaining why you oppose? λ NegativeMP1 01:16, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
3. ::Too much American modern and contemporary popular music and not one of the Top 10 in that area anyway _pbp 19:46, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Oppose, per my discussion in neutral I misplaced. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:51, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
5. Oppose - Nirvana themselves are in already - would prefer the space go to a musician in alternative rock or elsewhere. Guns N Roses, U2, Bruce Springsteen, RHCP, R.E.M. or even Elton John.  Carlwev  17:26, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
6. Listing Nirvana themselves is enough at this level. Definitely V5, but not quite V4. Kevinishere15 (talk) 02:37, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

1. Changed my mind. I still believe that this is of equal importance of something like {{VA link|Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band}}, but even though it's not "classic" rock, it's still rock, which is an overrepresented genre in this section. I would more comfortable with this addition after the removal of one of the existing rock works (probably Like a Rolling Stone) and the addition of another non western work. ALittleClass (talk) 00:05, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
2. :The problem is that it is only classic rock at this level. Rock is a diverse enough genre that was in dominance of modern music for a long time so it being majority makes sense. But it being majority classic rock does not and that's what I'm trying to fight. I wouldn't even factor the genre of rock as a whole being overrepresented into the equation here.
3. :With that being said, I would support a swap with Like a Rolling Stone, but I feel that would be highly controversial given that it was #1 on the Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs list for a while there. If I recall correctly that's literally the only reason it's on this list. And if you want to suggest a non-Western modern musical work to add, go ahead and I'll probably support it if it's important enough. λ NegativeMP1 00:12, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
4. :{{ping|ALittleClass}} Gangnam Style was just added to represent non-Western works. Would you be willing to move back to support now? QuicoleJR (talk) 21:54, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
5. ::I'm not the most satisfied with Gangnam Style: it does represent a lot of much needed things for the section, but it's also a song that's usually seen as a joke, and not centered that much around the music. Rethinking, this does make a more balanced rock selection so I'll support. (also, what does a "neutral" vote do? There's nothing listed about it on the main page, if it's functionally just like a discuss section and doesn't affect the tally I'll keep it) ALittleClass (talk) 19:14, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
6. :::{{ping|ALittleClass}} I believe it would technically count towards any participation requirements, if Level 4 has any that aren't specific to Support or Oppose. Other than that, the differences are semantic. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:17, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
7. :This is waaaaaaay in the rear view mirror to the Beatles. I'm also bothered that {{VA link|Nirvana}} and potentially their album could both be VA4 when {{VA link|Bruce Springsteen}} is only VA5. Furthermore, "best alternative rock album" is rather a "shortest tall people" argument. There's a reason why classic and mainstream rock and pop have more representation: they sell more albums and concert tickets! _pbp 19:48, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
8. ::I understand your reasons for opposing but I think you're misinterpreting my argument here. I'm not trying to make the coverage between classic and alternative rock equal; classic rock has always generally been on top so I understand why it's predominant (I do think there's some classic rock bias on the project overall but I get why it's represented like this at least). Rather, I'm attempting to make alternative feel like it has some representation at this level. Currently, it does not have any at all. I threw Nevermind out there as probably the best option for an alternative work should we add one but I do think it's close to V4 anyways. I would take just listing Alternative rock itself and be happy. λ NegativeMP1 17:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
9. ::Also, to clarify a bit more, I agree with both you and {{ping|Carlwev}} that Springsteen should be V4. If a nomination is made I'll likely support it. Don't know about the others that Carlwev listed though. I'd support U2, R.E.M., and Elton John, but I think that Guns N' Roses being at V5 but also having an album at that level, {{VA link|Appetite for Destruction}}, is okay. I don't think that the success or influence of GNR goes very far beyond that album even counting both Use Your Illusion albums. I don't think the others need to be any higher; I would support {{VA link|Green Day}} or {{VA link|Ozzy Osbourne}} (despite {{VA link|Black Sabbath}} being at this level already) being here before {{VA link|Red Hot Chili Peppers}}. λ NegativeMP1 17:51, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
10. :::@NegativeMP1 To clarify, I'm OK with there not being any alternative rock at all, I DON'T see "any need to make alternative feel like it has some representation at this level". If you look at the things VA4 skimps on, it doesn't bother me in the slightest that we don't have a representative of the lesser subgenre of one genre of music popular mostly in one country and not for very long. We have more rock songs than we have American politicians from my lifetime (3) or British politicians from the past 60-70 years (2) _pbp 03:29, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
11. ::::I'm not even talking about Nevermind at this point ("{{xt|I would take just listing Alternative rock itself and be happy}}"), I made it very clear I already understand why you oppose. When there's nothing about alternative rock at this level at all, what I deem "representation" is just Alternative rock itself being at this level. Would the other listings be nice? Sure. I was really just throwing out ideas though.
12. ::::Also why would you point out the representation of rock music at this level when you also said that you would oppose removing Like A Rolling Stone, which is probably the weakest music listing at this level (I do not think the song is as important as the Rolling Stones themselves which are at this level. It's not even the bands most well known song. It is literally only listed here because of the Rolling Stone magazine's older ranking that the song isn't even at the top of anymore if I recall correctly). Unless you only oppose a swap. λ NegativeMP1 03:49, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
13. :I also oppose removing "Like a Rolling Stone" for this _pbp 01:39, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
14. ::@NegativeMP1 Why do you think "Like a Rolling Stone" is weak? And did you say above it was written by the Rolling Stones? It was written by Bob Dylan! There's a whole film building up to him plugging in a guitar and playing it. And Bob Dylan is a particularly exceptional case because he's the only Nobel Laureate musician. _pbp 04:01, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
15. :::@ALittleClass Same question: Why do you single out "Like a Rolling Stone" as deserving of being cut? Why do you consider "Nevermind" to be more vital? _pbp 04:04, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
16. ::::It was less about "Like a Rolling Stone" in particular, and moreso that if Nevermind was going to be added, it would be fit to trim one of the current rock entries, and "Like a Rolling Stone" just seemed the least vital of the bunch, on second thought I don't really think a trim for Like a Rolling Stone is necessary, it probably exemplifies lyricism the most out of anything in our music selection.
17. ::::I consider "Nevermind" to be Level-4 vital because not only was it a massive commercial and critical success, it clearly, markedly split popular music and general culture into before and after. In the [https://www.reddit.com/r/90s/comments/auqcnp/when_do_you_think_the_90s_began_and_ended/ first reddit thread] I found when I looked up "When did the 90s really start", Nevermind was given as the cultural start of the 90s in all the top answers. Nevermind and the associated grunge movement that followed didn't just affect the 90s, but also into the 2000s, as the biggest selling rock bands of that decade, such as Foo Fighters, Nickelback, and Creed (band), are literally described as Post-grunge.
18. ::::Nevermind has sold around the same amount of records as Sgt Peppers, by the way, and Jagged Little Pill by Alanis Morissette has outsold every Beatles album, R.E.M. and Green Day also have multiple albums with 20 millions sold. What I'm saying is that there's a point in time where alternative rock was definitely selling more than classic rock ("alternative rock" is somewhat of a misnomer as it WAS the mainstream rock genre at that point, it's probably a marketing thing).
19. ::::As a final note, I'd note that I think it's unnecessary to have these long discussions about single entries, when I believe that there are categories that could get wholesale trimming, see the bottom of this page. ALittleClass (talk) 05:50, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
20. ::: I've been on vacation lately and have been having maybe a bit too much fun and not thinking properly as a result. I got it completely mixed up with a different artist. I'm very sorry and I will see myself out on this debate. λ NegativeMP1 04:09, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
21. Per above. I think "Grunge" is likely more important then Nevermind. Nirvana was my Jam in middleschool, but there are a lot of albums we don't list that are highly influential. {{VA link|American Idiot}} and {{VA link|Hybrid Theory}} were both fairly big deals, although not as big as {{VA link|Nevermind}} they aren't even listed at level 5. Bands like {{VA link|Rush (band)}} and {{VA link|Megadeth}} are both highly influential to subsequent artists (Especially Megadeth from a purely academic standpoint if you're interested in metal) but at level 5, and I think that is the correct place for them. {{VA link|Nirvana (band)}} is level 4, and that is enough for me on this. I struggle to think the album is level 4 without opening the door for more listings then we can hope to include, and fundamentally would rather see non-American, non-Western, non-20th century representation.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:54, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
22. :@GeogSage This is Neutral, did you mean to vote oppose? _pbp 11:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks, yep, meant opposed. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:51, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::I think that American Idiot should be V5. It mainly left an impact around the time of its release but it is a very prominent example of a concept album and 3-4 songs from it are still pop culture staples. You can't say that about a lot of other albums. It's probably the most important and successful rock album of the 21st century and the shining example of punk rock / pop punk albums (if not that, then {{VA link|Dookie}}). If it were up to me I would list both American Idiot and {{VA link|The Black Parade}} at V5 (though I likely wouldn't nominate the latter since I'm a very prominent editor on {{VA link|My Chemical Romance}}-related articles and could be a bit biased). Don't know about Hybrid Theory but it too was very important. λ NegativeMP1 17:37, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I could support that at level 5. MCR, Green Day, and Linkin Park were the three I knew on most people's iPod's back in the day. We also had Fall Out Boy and such, but don't think they're quite as significant long term. On MCR, I would have thought Three Cheers for Sweet Revenge was more important, but that is from a "I was living through it" pov and not an academic analysis of them. Honestly only listen to a few songs by MCR anymore and they're from that album. You Know What They Do to Guys Like Us in Prison had an outsized influence on my young taste in music. That said, {{VA link|Green Day}}, {{VA link|Linkin Park}}, and {{VA link|My Chemical Romance}} are all level 5 already, I'm not sure how much individual albums need to be included as those articles kind of capture them. Of the "Big four" in Thrash metal, {{VA link|Metallica}}, {{VA link|Megadeth}}, {{VA link|Slayer}}, and {{VA link|Anthrax (American band)}}, we're missing Anthrax at level 5. Might be another thing to patch. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:52, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Someone tried to nominate Anthrax a while ago on the grounds of them being one of the Big Four, and it didn't go through. In regards to the albums, I could see TBP or Three Cheers being adequately summarized on a good article about MCR. And Three Cheers might be more important than TBP, honestly not sure. I'm rewriting that albums article at some point so I guess I'll find out then. I think there's a lot more to be said about American Idiot though that would warrant V5. λ NegativeMP1 18:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

1. Hesitant to close these early because so many people are involved, but it looks like it's starting to look like Wikipedia:Snowball clause might apply. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:54, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
2. :A snowball close would be something like 1-8 going oppose. This is 4-4. 50-50. It's unlikely it goes through but it's technically possible. λ NegativeMP1 03:52, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
3. :No way. This only requires 1 change from oppose to support and 1 extra support to pass. J947 ‡ ^edits 03:57, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
4. ::Fair for Nevermind, although 50-50 is rough odds when it needs 2/3 to pass... Grunge might be a bit more snowball in hell though at this point. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:26, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

One of the most famous American poets of all time, if not the most famous. He single-handedly elevated {{VA link|Paul Revere}} from an obscure footnote to a national hero, his poem Evangeline had a major impact on the culture of the Acadians, and {{VA link|The Song of Hiawatha}} is listed at Level 5. The American writers section is too focused on the 20th century, and Longfellow would be a good addition to counteract that, but he deserved to be listed regardless of time period. Rated High-Importance by WikiProject Poetry and WikiProject United States.

;Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Sure. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:55, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

Given how ubiquitous the {{VA link|internal combustion engine}} is in daily life, and the fact that other contributors like {{VA link|Carl Benz}} and {{VA link|Rudolf Diesel}} are securely ranked at Level 4, I think it's an oversight that the inventor of the first commercially successful internal combustion engine and the {{VA link|Otto cycle}} (in practice) is only ranked at Level 5. [https://www.nature.com/articles/129892a0 A Nature article from almost 100 years ago] describes his work as having "proved of such fundamental importance that it may almost be compared with the invention of the separate condenser for the steam engine by Watt".

;Support

1. As nom. Johnnie Runner 19:43, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

1. I would support if level 4 wasn't over quota. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 19:56, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

We include several topics related to natural ice: {{VA link|Glacier}}, {{VA link|Ice sheet}}, {{VA link|Ice shelf}}, {{VA link|Sea ice}}, and {{VA link|Permafrost}} in addition to {{VA link|Iceberg}}. Icebergs are "are chunks of ice shelves or glaciers that calve into the ocean." Based on this, I think we can place Iceberg at a lower level then sea ice and glacier based on Vital Article Criteria 1: Coverage. This can fee up some room for all the adds we get.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:14, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 11:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Arguably among the more famous of the concepts cited above. For example, I don't think I ever heard of "sea ice" before now, I'd remove it before iceberg (sea ice has 50 interwikis to iceberg's 100). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:35, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
2. :Interwiki links are really not the metric I'd be using, and sea ice is a huge deal in climate science. I suspect icebergs are well known because of the {{VA link|Titanic}}, in much the same way {{VA link|Quicksand}} is popularized by popular media. Sea ice is what covers the North Pole and what {{VA link|Icebreaker}} ships are designed to make paths through. Icebergs can become incorporated into sea ice, but are essentially just chunks that have fallen off of larger ice bodies. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:33, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
3. ::Well, vitality comes with popularity. Sea ice is certainly important, but "iceberg" is undeniably more popular as a term and as a concept than "sea ice." You seem to dismiss the Titanic iceberg too easily. I mean, it launched the term into the mainstream. Icebergs have been globally recognized, even if they are relatively unremarkable phenomena in general. The number of interwikis only bolsters this—icebergs are without a doubt the most recognized ice-related concept. Nub098765 (talk) 05:55, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Per my reasoning above. Nub098765 (talk) 05:58, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:14, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

So there does appear to be some agreement that a page got to have some activity in order to be on here. This person's page only has a more than a hundred edits, and a completely empty talk page.

;Support

1. Bluevestman (talk) 22:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Purely based on balancing out western bias in our religious figures. I don't expect non-western figures to have the same statistics as western ones due to the inherent western bias of an English Wiki. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:54, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

1. I don't think talk page activity and edit count should be among the main criteria used for determining vitality. Number of edits, MAYBE, but talk page criteria is arbitrary.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:37, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
2. :Agreed. GauchoDude (talk) 18:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
3. ::Seems like it gets [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2015-07&end=2025-04&pages=Lushan_Huiyuan crap pageviews]. Bluevestman (talk) 18:45, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

The Scottish Reformation and the Church of Scotland (which is in [https://www.scotsman.com/news/uk-news/church-of-scotland-will-not-survive-without-radical-action-to-cut-minister-numbers-general-assembly-is-warned-3250058 decline]) are not listed as vital. Knox only had an impact on Scotland.

;Support

1. Sahaib (talk) 12:41, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
2. We need to make swaps because level 4 is over quota. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 12:43, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. The claim "Knox only had an impact on Scotland" is bunk. Knox is generally cited as the founder of Presbyterianism, which has millions of members in the United States, Australia, Canada (as part of the UCC), and elsewhere. Consider how many Asian languages have articles on John Knox. The founders of the major branches of Protestantism should be listed at VA4. Let's not be RECENTist/prisoner-of-moment and remove him because a centuries-old church has had a membership dip for a couple of decades. _pbp 12:46, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
2. :{{Reply|Purplebackpack89}} Presbyterianism is at level 5 though. Sahaib (talk) 13:04, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Per pbp. --Bluevestman (talk) 18:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

1. Given above, should we swap him with Presbyterianism? -1ctinus📝🗨 15:34, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:I was proposing adding Presbyterianism as you typed this. Honestly think both should be VA4 _pbp 15:36, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Strange omission considering that most other major branches of Protestantism ({{VA link|Anglicanism}}, {{VA link|Baptists}}, {{VA link|Methodism}}, {{VA link|Quakers}}) are listed _pbp 15:35, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. _pbp 15:35, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
2. --Bluevestman (talk) 18:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 12:43, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

Robert E. Lee was a general on the Confederate side of the {{VA link|American Civil War}}. From an international perspective, this was was not very consequential, and I don't think Lee should be among the top 10,000 most vital topics of all time because of his role in it. Even if you don't agree with removing Lee, adding Patton seems obvious. Not many military leaders have a famous movie made about them like {{VA link|Patton (film)}}, and he has a series of tanks named after him ({{VA link|Patton tank}}). His campaigns during WWII were definitely influential, and he is widely studied as a general. In this proposal, I started with generals who were "American" to avoid controversy of taking someone from another section. Patton has slightly more watchers, more pageviews over the past year, and more unique editors involved in the page. On the other hand, Lee has more links to other pages and projects within Wikipedia. Qualitatively I lean towards Lee not being particularly vital, while Patton is approaching legendary status.

;Support swap of Lee and Patton

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

;Support straight add of George S. Patton

1. Failing swap, as nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Absolutely not. Quantitative favors Lee. For the American Civil War " not being very consequential from an international perspective", Lee bests Patton in interwikis. The American Civil War's importance in comparison to World War II is reflected by the fact that three American generals (Eisenhower, MacArthur and Marshall) are already listed at VA4 (Eisenhower as a President, the other two as Generals), as are two Germans, a Brit, a Jap (two if you count Tojo), and a Russian. That's what, 8 or 9? By contrast, the American Civil War only has two VA4s (Lee and Grant), and having those two is exactly the right size for VA4. It would be disproportionate for America to have four WW2 generals against only one Civil War general despite taking more casualties in the Civil War, and equally disproportionate for America to have four generals in WW2 when the Soviets only have one. I would note that the Atlantic ranking of most influential Americans ranked Lee 57th and Patton not at all. Lee spent the majority of the war commanding his own army, and ultimately became General in Chief of the Armies of the Confederate States. By contrast, Patton didn't get a fourth star until the closing month of the War in Europe, never got the fifth star that Ike, Marshall and Mac did, and was mostly subordinate to Ike, Marshall, Monty or other generals. And, if you want to talk films, Gettysburg (1993 film) is but one of many to have Lee as a character. Lee is, like Patton, studied in history and military science courses, and, like Patton and the tank, has or had many things named after him. _pbp 19:20, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
2. :Would you support a straight add then? Or do you have another swap in mind? From quantitative perspective, pageviews Patton has Lee beat, and I still fail to see the benefit of Language links over Sitelinks or any of the other metrics (other then ease of access when clicking on the page). We have 52 military leaders and theorists at level 4, compared to 96 sports figures. Only 21 of our military leaders are "modern," while the vast number of our athletes would qualify as modern. A WWII general with a major motion picture named after him, not the battle he fought in, is fairly stand out as far as American generals go. Lee is a traitor who lead a failed rebellion, honestly if kept should be moved to "Rebels, revolutionaries and activists." GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:08, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
3. ::To clarify, I oppose both halves of the proposal. Patton was once VA4 and it was I that nominated him for removal (well, swap with Monty) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/4/Archive_18#Swap:_Remove_George_S._Patton,_Add_Bernard_Montgomery,_1st_Viscount_Montgomery_of_Alamein here]. As noted above and in the previous discussion, Ike, Mac and Marshall are all considerably more significant (as are Monty, Rommel, Yamamoto and Zhukov); one commentator in the last discussion noted that "Hollywood should not be a guiding factor." _pbp 21:49, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
4. :::If Hollywood should not be a guiding factor, we should probably have fewer Hollywood figures then. As for military leaders, I think they have a quantifiable impact on society, and like religious figures are dramatically under represented. The priorities of the project are upside down when it comes to biographies. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
5. Oppose We can't add everyone with a popular Hollywood movie. The American South and it's collective actions is one of the things America is known for internationally and a fundamental aspect of American history and one person to represent it is needed. (only other choice - John C. Calhoun was removed). Lee is the global recognised South figure. John J. Pershing would be better than Patton and WWI is undercovered. It's pretty weird to argue athletes are not vital as they're apart of a team; but then want more modern military (or religion) figures, wherein these people are more part of a larger machine than individually stand out to be 2,000 vital. 4 American WWII generals would be too much. (in comparison to the global sports we are nominating for removal). Just another popularised military figure along the likes of Manfred von Richthofen or George Armstrong Custer. The Russian equivalent is Pavel Nakhimov (not listed). The only modern military figures that could have a place are Mullah Omar, Moshe Dayan or Peng Dehuai as they represent 3 big uncovered topics of modern war. In comparison to Hitler, Stalin, Roosevelt, Tojo, de Gaulle these individual generals like Patton are on a level below. The vital military people tend to be listed under politicians, which is why military is light. GuzzyG (talk) 00:45, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

;Neural

;Discuss

{{atopr|status=failed|resullt=Not added 4-4 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:30, 8 June 2025 (UTC)}}

Lukashenko is Belarus' first and only president having served since 1994. Notable events under his tenure include the Minsk Spring, Freedom March, Jeans Revolution, 2010 Belarusian protests, 2011 Belarusian protests, Teddybear Airdrop Minsk 2012, 2017 Belarusian protests, 2020–2021 Belarusian protests. Also partly the Belarusian economic miracle and Russification of Belarus. He was recently declared as the winner of the 2025 Belarusian presidential election, so will likely continue to be leader till at least 2030.

;Support

1. As nom. Sahaib (talk) 17:06, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
2. λ NegativeMP1 17:18, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
3. per nom TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:50, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
4. PrimalMustelid (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Not influential outside his country, which has small history, and his country is not influential outside its own borders. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:50, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
2. :{{Reply|Piotrus}} I would dispute that. See for example International reactions to the 2020 Belarusian presidential election and protests, Belarus–European Union border crisis, Ryanair Flight 4978 and Belarusian involvement in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Sahaib (talk) 14:26, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
3. ::@Sahaib Make it borders and neighbors. Arguably, all countries have some impact on their neighbors, and occasionally elicit international commentary. That does not change the fact that Belarus is not very vital, and its leader, outside being the trivial case of a modern European dictator, much eclipsed in that ranking by Putin, is, well, inconsequential for anyone outside his country. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:39, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
4. I understand the rationale here, but Lukashenko isn't at the same level as Putin and Netanyahu. He makes Level 5 easily, but like Piotrus, I don't think he quite reaches Level 4. Feel free to ping me if you have any counterarguments. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:20, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
5. Oppose. {{VA link|Kim Jong Il}} likely had more of an impact on the world then him, and I would not consider him level 4. {{VA link|Belarus}} is level 4, that's enough. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:42, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
6. Idiosincrático (talk) 04:24, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discussion

{{abot}}

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I'm aware that rapper Eminem is already a L5-Vital Article but I feel as if he should be moved up to Level 4. Reasons for this are because his two studio albums The Marshall Mathers LP and The Eminem Show were groundbreaking commercial successes worldwide, most notably the later—and both albums had a 1 million+ sales week in the United States. Aside from the two albums, Eminem has influenced many other artists via the Legacy section of his Wikipedia page, being considered "Hip-hop Elvis", having won or been nominated for various accolades, and setting various records and achievements throughout his career. Additionally, on SethAllen623's vital articles—he listed Eminem under the Level-4 Vital Article section, likely for reasons similar to mine. Someone please let me know what you think about my thoughts as I would greatly appreciate it, thank you. JustTryingToBeSmart (talk) 01:11, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

;Support

# assumed support by nominator

1. The reasonings in the nomination aren't necessarily of the standard arguments expected when proposing someone for V4, but I do think Eminem should be here. We only list two representatives of hip-hop / rap: {{VA link|Tupac Shakur}} and {{VA link|Run-DMC}}, and no hip hop work at all. As such, I believe that V4 has a lack of representation for the genre, and I think Eminem is objectively the best third option. I'm pretty sure he's the most commercially successful rapper ever (minus maybe Drake, but his success is from the streaming era) and he kinda broke the genre into the mainstream. While Tupac and Run-DMC may have left a greater impact on the genre in almost every other way, Eminem's commercial success basically brought it to the masses and {{VA link|The Marshall Mathers LP}} was a major moment in the genres history. Infact, I'm pretty sure the Eminem Show is one of the top 3 best selling hip hop albums ever. I would also sort of consider him one of the greats when it comes to the history of modern music in general, and I see no reason why people like him or {{VA link|Elton John}} shouldn't be here when we list people like {{VA link|Taylor Swift}} and {{VA link|Stevie Wonder}} (not saying they don't belong here, but rather just solidifying my point on listing figures on the same level as her, which I'd historically argue Eminem and John to be). TL;DR I think hip-hop / rap is underrepresented by the current standards of BLPs at this level, and I think Eminem's contributions to the genres real mainstream success should put him at this level. λ NegativeMP1 01:31, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
2. V4 is getting neglected and there is little pruning going on to keep it from veering from quota, but I can support this nontheless.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:53, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
3. One of the dominant figures from 1980-2020 music and pop culture, a time in pop culture we don't list alot of big names from. (because we list so much early to mid 20th century pop culture). I think we should start swapping some out for these newer globally big names. GuzzyG (talk) 09:35, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
4. One of the most influential rappers of all time. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:16, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
5. Hip-hop should definitely have more than two entries. --Bluevestman (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
6. Rap music only has three entries and Eminem is arguably the most commercially successful rapper of all time.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JustTryingToBeSmart (talk • contribs) 15:24, May 25, 2025 (UTC)-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:42, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Too many recent American pop musicians as is _pbp 18:26, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Oppose, per above. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:56, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

1. The people we do and do not list is obviously highly qualitative and subjective. I struggle to list Eminem when many critical individuals have seen significant pushback. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:37, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
2. :{{ping|GeogSage}} Out of curiosity, which individuals are you referring to? QuicoleJR (talk) 01:08, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
3. ::My comment can be broken into two parts: people we do or do not list, and pushback.
4. ::Regarding pushback, as bringing that up has lead to hostile comments, my proposals here are generally experiments to test out what is and is not passing based on some idea of what is generally level 4. Basically look at numbers, look at who we have, what passes, what fails, and propose what I think should be obvious adds. I'm trying to grasp what we define as "vital," but the criteria we list on the main page are essentially ignored (and bringing them up gets ignored) while other metrics are accepted much more readily. I can't seem to grasp the "vibe" people vote with, it seems very random. Specific examples of pushback for people I've recently proposed: {{VA link|Gerardus Mercator}}, {{VA link|John Snow}}, and (likely) {{VA link|Steve Irwin}}, {{VA link|George S. Patton}}. Those were based on my attempts to understand a quantitative balance to the list, and all are more impactful then Eminem IMO. Steve Irwin in particular shocked me a bit, and has me re-evaluating my opinion on biographies at level 4. Another that surprised me was {{VA link|Bugs Bunny}}.
5. ::Moving towards the basic analysis though, specific to Eminem and specific to people we do and do not list that seem random to me. I'm not actually that interested in rap music as a genre, but know some of the names and such. Based on my understanding, I would have expected Eminem to get significant pushback and opposition. In terms of Rappers, from a qualitative perspective adding Eminem when {{VA link|Dr. Dre}} and {{VA link|Snoop Dogg}} are level five seems odd, as I think both of them are qualitatively influential to the genre on a similar level (IMHO). Looking at [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2015-07-01&end=2025-05-07&pages=Snoop_Dogg|Dr._Dre|Eminem|Drake_(musician)|Kanye_West|Nicki_Minaj|50_Cent|Ozzy_Osbourne|Beyonc%C3%A9 page views] (I haven't run a more formal analysis yet) for multiple popular singers does show Eminem has a lot of views and watchers. These numbers are why I'm neutral, not opposed. That said, {{VA link|Beyoncé}} and {{VA link|Kanye West}} are not that far behind either, and I wouldn't consider them level 4 (Beyoncé maybe if we decide to balance female/male singers).
6. ::Overall though, I default more towards thinking BLPs shouldn't be on level 4 until we have time for the dust to settle on their career and the corpse to cool off. Based on this, {{VA link|Tupac Shakur}} is one of the "examples" of an ideal level 4 musician in a related genre to Eminem.
7. ::Again, neutral, not opposed. Mostly confused. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
8. :::Please move on. --Bluevestman (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
9. ::::No. Referring to past votes is how I build a model of what should and should not be considered vital. Each entry should be considered in the context of what we do and do not include, past votes are relevant. Please read WP:Civility, as this and your comment below appear condescending. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:07, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
10. We think some rapper is VA4 but Joe Biden and John C. Calhoun ain't? CONSISTENCY, people! _pbp 20:48, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
11. :{{ping|Purplebackpack89}} We can't only list politicians, entertainers are vital too. Also, as an American, Biden is not in the Top 20 American politicians I would add to VA4. He is not vital at this level, he barely did anything that Trump didn't undo. He makes Level 5 but doesn't have the level of impact required for Level 4. So yes, I think Eminem is more vital than Joe Biden. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:53, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
12. ::I agree with you 100% on that statement. JustTryingToBeSmart (talk) 21:43, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
13. :You also need to move on over the removal of Calhoun, man. --Bluevestman (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

I was recently reminded by QuicoleJR that proposals at V4 need 5 support votes to pass. This was another proposal that I prematurely closed without enough votes, so I am relisting it. λ NegativeMP1 18:01, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

From the article:

{{quote|Claims have been made that it is the most abundant living land bird in North America, as bird-counting censuses of wintering red-winged blackbirds sometimes show that loose flocks can number in excess of a million birds per flock and the full number of breeding pairs across North and Central America may exceed 250 million in peak years. It also ranks among the best-studied wild bird species in the world.}}

One of the most important avian species on the planet.

;Support

1. Per nom. -1ctinus📝🗨 18:12, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

India currently sits with just 1 entry for film: The Apu Trilogy. Now, this serves well as an example of a acclaimed Indian film, but there's no real Indian blockbuster here, which is an awful blind spot. {{VA link|Sholay}} is probably the most important movie of Bollywood, as it was by far the highest grossing movie in India at the time, established or popularized many key tropes of Bollywood, and remains very widely known in the country to this day.

(I'll note the last time this movie was proposed, 2 out of the 3 veto votes claimed that Indian films were not as important for the English Wikipedia, which is nonsense given the "No Western bias" rule on the main page.)

;Support

1. As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 00:28, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Seems very important, and India is definitely underrepresented at Vital Articles. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:40, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

1. Another representation Indian cinema is due for sure, but I think other options should be considered as well. {{VA link| Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge}} seems like another potential choice. AllyWithInfo (talk) 21:07, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Removed 5-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 19:38, 8 June 2025 (UTC)}}

As a counterbalance to the addition. Fellini is important, but not quite enough to justify having two additions on this very selective list, like Hitchcock or Kubrick do. Out of his two listed movies, {{VA link|La Dolce Vita}} and {{VA link|8½}}, I believe Vita is probably the one to keep, as it was able to get great acclaim as well great commercial success across Europe (whereas 8½ was less commercially successful), but I would also be open to keep 8½ instead.

;Support

1. As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 00:28, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 06:11, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Level 4 is over quota. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 13:13, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Agree with {{VA link|La Dolce Vita}} being more representative and important for Fellini. ‪AllyWithInfo‬ (talk) 21:38, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
5. Aye. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:43, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

The People category at Level 4 has a lot of people who are at Level 5 importance, and Laxness is one of them. He seems important enough for Level 5, but nothing in the article suggests a level of impact that would make him one of the 250 most important writers of all time. There are plenty of other people that would be better uses of this slot.

;Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:03, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 13:25, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

Important social concept/group/activity. Not sure which one to use, similiar interwikis (~40), fandom has few less but almost 2x pageviews of fan, so I prefer fandom, I guess. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:55, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. As nom (fandom preferred). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:55, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Support either, with a strong preference for fandom. A very important cultural topic. We only need one of the two at Level 4 though. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:59, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{VA link|Elizabeth II}} of the United Kingdom is listed among politicians, but as a queen of a democratic country she didn't have that much political power.

;Support

1. As nominatior. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 23:31, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. She was Queen for 70 years. She was head of the Commonwealth for that time too. She was on money in over a dozen countries for generations. Also problematic that women are underrepresented but we're removing a woman. And all other kings and queens are listed under politicians. 204 interwikis; literally more interwikis than there are nations of the world (about 50 more than Thatcher or Nixon). _pbp 23:44, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Oppose -  Carlwev  00:59, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Not a chance. GauchoDude (talk) 17:10, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Kevinishere15 (talk) 20:34, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discussion

By far not the weakest of the biographies. I believe it is unwise to list figure skaters etc but not this article, head of state for over 70 years of 15 nations at the end of her reign, 32 nations at some point of her reign. The fact the article is listed among politicians and leaders, could be a thing to bring up about the structure of the list, but the amount of power a monarch holds or does not hold is a gradual scale, not a black and white condition, if we want to list monarchs with power and monarchs with less power separately it would just confuse and clutter the list and talk page more and lead to discussion about who did and did not have power and where to list them - unnecessary. It's politicians and leaders for a reason, it's the best place to list her. Anyway she was a leader that had some power, the fact that she was in a constitutional monarchy not an absolute monarchy, is worth considering, but not enough to exclude her in my opinion. We also list Queen Victoria and Juan Carlos I and maybe more who are similar situation.  Carlwev  00:59, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:The main reason we list monarchs and politicians is that they hold political power, and level 4 is a pretty exclusive list (and it should probably be more exclusive than the norms by which most of us judge candidates, judging from the fact that we have more proposals for additions than for removals even though the list is over quota). Lophotrochozoa (talk) 14:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::@Lophotrochozoa I think you would be better served comparing Elizabeth to ALL VA4 bios rather than just politicians. Remember, that in addition to head of state, she's somewhat the ultimate celebrity, in a vein rivaled only by her rough contemporaries {{VA link|Billy Graham}} and {{VA link|Pope John Paul II}}. More people have seen her live at parades and functions than have seen {{VA link|Bruce Springsteen}}. She's on money and Graham, PJP2 and Bruce are not. She was a top-tier celebrity from 1952-2022, almost as long as Bruce has been ALIVE and longer than the combined papacies of John XXIII, Paul VI, both John Pauls, Benedict and Francis (1958-2025 is only 67 years). _pbp 17:15, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Thank you for explaining your thinking. I'm still not sure she should be listed on level 4, but your argument at least makes sense. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 15:20, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

An animal that has been raised for meat and eggs for thousands of years, has dozens of breeds, has cultural impact (from the article: "appeared numerous times in children's stories"). The only reason I don't see this as listed is because domestic ducks are mainly raised in China, where there are not that many Wiki editors.

;Support

1. As nom. -1ctinus📝🗨 15:40, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Removed 6-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 14:05, 9 June 2025 (UTC)}}

The batch removal by Piotrus above of the different flute types closed as No Consensus, but there wasn't really any opposition to this one, so I am renominating it. {{VA link|Flute}} itself is VA4, and while pan flutes are important, I don't think that they rise to the level of VA4.

;Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:18, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Support. I closed that one and suggested individual nominations. This seems like a good remove. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:22, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 08:03, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Support as old nom. I didn't see how this one is important before and I don't see it now, neither did anyone who commented last time.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:53, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
5. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:54, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
6. ALittleClass (talk) 00:23, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

The guy that figured out matter itself behaves like a wave, and therefore follows {{VA link|Wave–particle duality}}. Even with how heavily physics (and quantum mechanics in particular) is represented at Level 4, leaving the man behind such a fundamental insight at Level 5 feels like an oversight. Without de Broglie's proposals, quantum doesn't leap from a critique of classical mechanics into a description of reality. If that's not enough, he also played a major role in turning science into an internationally-collaborative pursuit involving the general public, for which he received UNESCO's first ever Kalinga Prize for the Popularization of Science.

;Support

1. As nom. Johnnie Runner 00:12, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

1. I would support if level 4 wasn't over quota. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:41, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

This isn't a normal proposal, but I do think it's useful. I'd just like to open a discussion on general where we should consider adding or trimming to at this Level. Keep in mind Level 4 is still overquota (by around 30 now? the numbers on the main article aren't updated), which is why I'm proposing a trim instead of an add.

I'm proposing we should trim the categories related to film , even if it's by 20% or less. We currently list 56 film actors (and one stage actor), 53 directors, 4 film producers, and 34 films. There was an argument stated around in the long discussion for adding Final Fantasy by GuzzyG: "in the grand scheme of thousands of years of human history, a cultural medium that's had 50 years of existence should not have that much coverage". Well, film has not existed that much longer in the grand scheme, it's existed popularly for maybe ~100 years, and that number only holds for a few countries; in huge countries like China and Indonesia the form has been popular for a shorter time frame, so maybe film over representation is even an example of systemic bias.

Doing some math: Adding together screen actors, directors, animators and producers, we get 117 people. The oldest of these started their work in 1895, so I'll claim there is an average of 117/130 ≈ 0.9 people per year since the advent of film. Comparing this to writers with 255 entries, and which is a field that has existed since around 3200 BC (and I'll add the 68 Philosophers, because almost all of them were writers), we get 323/5225 ≈ 0.06 people per year. So, from this metric, it seems that actors and directors are 15 times as important as writers and philosophers. I could make a similar comparison for written works and films.

Now, I'm not stupid; This person-per-year metric I just constructed is obviously a super flawed way of comparing the importance of categories. I think there should be some bias towards things that are closer to the present compared to ancient history, although maybe this is also a point of debate. But this amount of representation seems excessive, especially since other categories are currently getting pressed for new additions, like music and video games. To make a bit of an apples to oranges comparison, I strongly believe something like Nirvana's Nevermind is more important to that generation's music than around a quarter of our current film list was to their own film's generations (examples could include Children of Paradise, The Rules of the Game, and Triumph of the Will, in fact a lot of Triumph's claimed legacy/important has been argued as itself as a propaganda attempt, even movies that are beloved to me like Mirror and The Seventh Seal were never popular outside of critic circles). The list seems to be filled with all these movies that were acclaimed but do not have the sort of generational impact that you would expect from works of this level, and I also feel the same about many of the directors we list. I don't even believe we need to trim these categories by that much, just a 20% reduction would help us get to quota and free some more space (as this list is still quite flawed and needs additions).

Please feel to add about whether you agree/disagree with this, or propose categories in which you believe we should expand. ALittleClass (talk) 19:41, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

We include {{VA link|gravity}}, {{VA link|electromagnetism}}, {{VA link|weak interaction}}, {{VA link|strong interaction}}, it seems odd to have fundamental interaction two levels below them.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:00, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. I think it's redundant to {{VA link|Standard Model}} (and to a lesser degree, {{VA link|Force}}). The content is pretty similar between Standard Model and Fundamental interaction. Also Level 4 is over quota. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 21:37, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:00, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

In the same way that {{VA link|Sherlock Holmes}} is representative of all {{VA link|Detective fiction}}, Count Dracula is representative of all {{VA link|Horror fiction}}. He's eminently prolific across all modes of fiction ([https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/97587-most-portrayed-literary-character-in-film 538 portrayals in film to Sherlock's 299 as of 2015]), immediately identifiable to the average person from the silhouette of his collar alone ([https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/59e512ddf43b55c29c71b996/1666841745058-GBD4H9L5E776ML4D2P2N/Nosferatu.jpg even his rip-offs are iconic]), and has stayed in the public consciousness for over a century with pretty much no drop in popularity. There's no conception of the {{VA link|vampire}} today that isn't in some way influenced by the Count.

I'm not really that opposed to keeping Tarzan at Level 4, but since we're overflowing by 32 pages, a swap is probably the best option. From all the possible swaps in the same category, Tarzan is the best candidate. His source material isn't particularly influential anymore, and his current popularity is far below what it was in his heyday. Arguably his yell is more iconic these days than him.

;Support

1. Johnnie Runner 23:50, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Very good reasoning. I'd even argue Tarzan doesn't belong at V4 at all. Nub098765 (talk) 04:09, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Support removal --Thi (talk) 06:58, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. We already have {{VA link|Dracula}} (swapped against the character some years ago), VA4 only is overquota by 16 as of the last main count update.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 05:07, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Oppose addition --Thi (talk) 06:58, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Per above. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:08, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Oppose addition. ALittleClass (talk) 03:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
5. Oppose remove.  Carlwev  11:52, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

I think Dracula is more vital than Tarzan. Remember, Dracula had one influential novel, which has had many adaptions, so we have a choice of the novel or the character, at the moment he have the novel. We used to have the character in the past, but swapped it for the novel Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/4/Archive_60#Remove_Count_Dracula_or_swap_for_Dracula. I would be open for discussion about whether the novel or character is better. But I do not like the idea of having both the character and the novel but not Tarzan at all. Tarzan had a collection of novels, 24 I think. None of the novels is a level higher vitality than all the others combined, the first novel Tarzan of the Apes maybe more notable, but maybe not by a big enough margin. For this reason the article on the character is probably better than picking out one novel. Tarzan has appeared in many books, films, shows, games, cartoons, I think the topic is vital enough for level 4. I do think Dracula is more important, but not to the point that Dracula should get two slots and Tarzan none.  Carlwev  11:52, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

{{VA link|Barn owl}} has become a Set index page. It seems it used to be considered a single species, but has been split into several species. What should be listed as vital here? EchoVanguardZ (talk) 23:15, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{Reply|ALittleClass}} I believe it should be removed now that it's just an index page. After all, the given mission statements (prioritizing what articles to improve, give a sample measurement of quality of wikipedia, serve as a centralized watchlist for articles) all imply that vitality is based on the article itself, and not the topic it covers. Generally, I'd say we value pages that are broad, but there's an issue when sometimes, page topics are too broad to be very useful as articles. ALittleClass (talk) 02:40, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:Replace with Tyto. Alternatively, remove because level 4 is over quota. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 13:03, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::Now I've replaced it. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 17:12, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

We already list Head of state, so we might as well for this article.

;Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 21:03, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Very similar to my proposed removal for L'Atalante, this was critically acclaimed, but has had very little staying power in mainstream culture, and not the type of influence for a work at this level. It does not even appear on Wikipedias own list of the best films.

;Support

1. As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 06:27, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 11:48, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Level 4 is over quota and, as the nominator points out, this film isn't that famous. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 12:25, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
4. PrimalMustelid (talk) 13:15, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

1. I would like to see some of these proposed film removals eventually be substituted by something like {{VA link|Titanic (1997 film)}} or {{VA link|Jaws (film)}}. Also, I think the metric of using the "List of films voting the best" to determine Level-4 vitality isn't necessarily the best idea considering how that article is structured - it only lists films that were voted as the absolute best at a certain point. Second or even third placements aren't even considered or shown there generally and a film making those kinds of lists at all (even if outside of the top 10) in my opinion can be a major contributing factor towards vitality. λ NegativeMP1 06:43, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
2. : I proposed {{VA link|Sholay}} with the removal of {{VA link|8½}}, which I believed was the most important film not listed. The three main reasons I could see something being on this list were: it was at one point exceeding popular, it represents a country that does not have another entry, or it is exceedingly critically acclaimed. This film does not pass the first two metrics, and it's not anywhere near the level of acclaim of {{VA link|Citizen Kane}} or {{VA link|The Godfather}}; I'd wager Sunrise, 12 Angry Men, It’s a Wonderful Life, Passion of Joan of Arc, and Sunset Boulevard all have achieved similar or higher critical stature. I also couldn't anything suggesting that it advanced the art or technique of filmmaking in a concrete way, like many of the entries have. You're free to suggest more movie additions, but I probably won't until we are under quota again. ALittleClass (talk) 07:34, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

{{VA link|Flood management}} itself is only VA4, and I think this is too region specific. 10 interwikis which is pretty low for this level. (Also note that this is the only country specific flood-control article that exists. China is a massive country that is also pretty prone to floods, couldn't that have an article as well?)

;Support

1. As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 18:29, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
2. The Dutch war against the ocean is certainly very famous, but it isn't worthy of VA4. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:27, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

First of all, this is a contentious topic given the current situation, but I think it needs to be noted that the subheading Russia under Politicians and leaders > Post-classical > Europe is not ideal from the standpoint of neutrality or historical accuracy.

Admittedly, some of the articles in this section like Ivan III of Russia are people who are definitely connected to Suzdal or Muscovy, the direct predecessors of present-day Russia. On the other hand, Daniel of Galicia is much more historically connected to the territory of modern-day Ukraine (Galicia and Volhynia) and hardly at all to present-day Russia. A bunch of the other figures like Vladimir the Great are rulers of Kievan Rus', which encompassed territory in present-day Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus, but was obviously centered in what is now Kyiv, Ukraine. Simply calling rulers of Kievan Rus' "Russian" in the current sense is misleading if not wrong, but calling them "Ukrainian" would be similarly anachronistic.

Therefore, I propose to rename the heading from Russia to Russia and Ukraine (and Belarus?), East Slavic lands, Rus', or some other alternative. If we're trying to match these historical figures to modern-day nation-states, then Russia and Ukraine seems like a good option. If we're trying to be more historically accurate, then Rus' (encompassing both Kievan Rus' and its successor principalities) would be my preference. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 02:41, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support _pbp 03:01, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support renaming it to Rus' or East Slavic lands. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:25, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

The {{VA link|River Thames}} is the river than flows through {{VA link|London}} (other than that it is an unremarkable river, with an average discharge of 65 m³/s, a length of 346 kilometers and a drainage basin of 13,000 km²). Since we don't list other rivers flowing through major cities (such as {{VA link|Seine}}, {{VA link|Hudson river}} and {{VA link|Chao Phraya}}), its inclusion seems to constitute sysbias.

;Support

1. As nominator. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 17:53, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. J947 ‡ ^edits 23:10, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
3. If this river were not in an English speaking country, it would not be listed here. Plain and simple. -1ctinus📝🗨 23:38, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose~

1.  Carlwev  23:16, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Culturally important. ALittleClass (talk) 18:23, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discussion

River length is one of several factors I think should be considered but not alone. The Thames has been huge factor in the history and culture of Britain since before Roman times over 2000 years ago before England was England. For example the list of cities at any level is not simply the most populous, but also the most culturally significant, Jerusalem is listed at level 3 despite having under 1 million pop, when there are over 450 cities world wide over 1 million pop, there are bigger cities missing from level 4 compared to it. I think the history and culture of the Thames is more important than the length. Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/4/Archive_12#Swap:_Remove_Livingstone_Falls,_Add_River_Thames Had 5-1 support when added but that was 12 years ago but perhaps I am biased having lived in London most of my life and opening the previous add discussion back then. [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=all-time&pages=Seine|River_Thames|Jordan_River|Chao_Phraya_River|Hudson_River] Page view wise the Thames is over 6 million since 2015 higher than all others mentioned above, double Seine, 8 times Chao Phraya River. We also list the Jordan River which has a big cultural and historical weight, but is smaller in length and flow than the Thames. Many cities have their iconic buildings, churches, museums, libraries, universities listed, New York has its park listed, I think London having its river is fine, even though it flows through more than just London; including the Thames in my head makes sense.

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Removed 6-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 12:53, 15 June 2025 (UTC)}}

Of the six TV shows we currently list, four are American, and Meet the Press seems to be the least vital of those four. Sure, it's the longest-running show in the US, and has had many notable guests appear on it (including every president since JFK), but it doesn't really seem to be that influential on a worldwide scale. I don't even think {{VA link|Talk shows}} in general need to be represented this much in V4, especially considering the other genres we list in the same level ({{VA link|Game show}}, {{VA link|Soap opera}}, {{VA link|Reality television}}) don't have that much representation themselves.

;Support

1. As nom. SameOldSameOldSameOld (talk) SameOldSameOldSameOld (talk) 19:17, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 19:52, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
3. λ NegativeMP1 17:59, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
4. PrimalMustelid (talk) 13:16, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
5. Weak support. It is an important show that easily makes Level 5, but I don't see it as this much more vital than {{VA link|M*A*S*H (TV series)}}, which is Level 5. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:54, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
6. Support swap with M*A*S*H (TV series). Interstellarity (talk) 23:52, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

There's been a lot of rumblings on expanding our selections to include more non-Western music. Well here you go, the biggest K-pop group in the world.

;Support

1. Bluevestman (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
2. Primary band of {{VA link|K-pop}}. I can see it at V4. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:03, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. I really like the push for non-western music, but it might be too early for BTS. I'd really like to see more suggestions from the 19th century, early modern period, classical, baroque, traditional eras of music, all of which are woefully underrepresented by non-western artists. Idiosincrático (talk) 04:17, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

I think we should add a key figure in artificial intelligence to this list and I am suggesting two possible contenders to the table for discussion. I think in many ways, these figures shaped AI into what it is now.

;Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 23:48, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Considering that we list Dennis Ritchie at this level, I think it would make sense to include him as well.

;Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 23:50, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Covers Slave trade.

;Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 00:14, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
2. This is important enough and VA4 is not that much overquota anymore, we should be very able to find listings to remove for compensation.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 05:25, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

The Arts subtopic is only 3 away from reaching its own quota, so I think we can afford to list one more fictional character at this level. According to the lead, the Hello Kitty brand was worth over $8 billion in 2013, and that the character had over 50,000 different branded products in 2008 (I can only imagine that these numbers have grown in more recent years). The article also mentions that these products have been sold in over 130 countries. So of all the characters currently listed in V5, Hello Kitty is definitely among the few that are recognizable on a worldwide scale.

;Support

1. As nom. SameOldSameOldSameOld (talk) SameOldSameOldSameOld (talk) 19:07, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
2. Major franchise, popculture, etc. I can see it at V4. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:58, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

What bigger quota? The quota for level 4 is 10 000, and I haven't heard anything about that changing. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 19:21, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:Yeah, this must be a misunderstanding. The sub-quota's are loose allocations to split up each levels quota. Level 1 is 10, level 2 is 100, level 3 is 1,000, level 4 is 10,000, and level 5 is 50,000. Technically, level 5 breaks the pattern of each level being 10 times as large as the previous, but it is already extremely difficult to manage. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:29, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:I must have misinterpreted a comment made on the post above this one. Sorry for the confusion, I'll remove mention of it from this proposal. SameOldSameOldSameOld (talk) 19:31, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

This is very specific clothing accessory that is already covered by articles like Clothing, Shirt, Coat or Suit.

;Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 21:30, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 07:54, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Pretty basic element. I think it's more vital than suit, for example. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:57, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

We list a lot of vital drinks, but this is a very specific kind of drink that is better suited for level 5. Drink covers this.

;Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 07:54, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
3. PrimalMustelid (talk) 05:38, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
4. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 20:04, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. We include {{VA link|Drink}}, {{VA link|tea}} and {{VA link|Coffee}} at level 3, and the beverage {{VA link|Soft drink}} and {{VA link|Coca-Cola}} at level 4. {{VA link|Chocolate}} is level 4, which should probably be level 3 based on how popular it is. While I understand Hot chocolate is not as widely consumed as those two beverages, if you look at the history section of the article it was one of the earliest ways that Europeans consumed the crop upon taking it from South/Central America. We include a lot of topics I would cut before hot chocolate from both a historic and cultural perspective. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:49, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

{{VA link|North Carolina}} itself is only V5, so I'm not sure what makes its capital the more vital topic. It's only the fourteenth most populated US city, which puts it behind {{VA link|San Jose, California}}, {{VA link|Fort Worth, Texas}}, and {{VA link|Jacksonville, Florida}}; all of which are only V5 as well. The city's history doesn't have much to note about either.

;Support

1. As nom. SameOldSameOldSameOld (talk) SameOldSameOldSameOld (talk) 21:42, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
2. ALittleClass (talk) 22:41, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
3. Per nom. I think place names are a bit too heavily represented, and would prefer some more conceptual geographic concepts in the category rather then places. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:30, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
4. --Thi (talk) 07:54, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
5. PrimalMustelid (talk) 05:37, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
6. Weak support. Like Tampa, this always stuck out as a sore spot on our list of U.S. cities. However, even though it hasn't been heavily populated for long and its only major significance is in banking, it's big. As the nominator notes, by city-proper population it's only smaller than three non-VA4 cities, all of which are rightfully omitted (except maybe San Jose). San Jose and Fort Worth are secondary cities in a bigger conurbation, and Jacksonville isn't actually that big by metro area (which is why the proposal for its addition failed). By MSA, only the {{VA link|Inland Empire}}, {{VA link|Tampa, Florida}}, and {{VA link|Orlando, Florida}} are bigger and not at VA4. Ultimately, I think Charlotte should be removed – but what I'm saying is that it was there for a good reason. J947 ‡ ^edits 23:54, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

It's not {{VA link|North Carolina}}'s capital – that's {{VA link|Raleigh}}. This is the only representative of the {{VA link|Carolinas}} (population: 16.5 million) at VA4.

Niche topic. Subtopic of Pigment.

;Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 23:22, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 07:54, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
3. Per nomination. Also, level 4 is over quota. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 23:32, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
4. PrimalMustelid (talk) 05:37, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Obsolete technology that would be better in level 5 alongside Floppy disk.

;Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 23:26, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. I don't know what you mean by "obsolete". These kinds of discs are still widely used, even in today's age where many things are becoming digital only. This articles works as a subtopic for four other topics currently in V5, which are {{VA link|Compact disc}}, {{VA link|DVD}}, {{VA link|LaserDisc}}, and {{VA link|Blu-ray}}. SameOldSameOldSameOld (talk) SameOldSameOldSameOld (talk) 00:28, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
2. Even if physical media are in decline that would be too recentist a reason for removal.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 07:04, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 07:54, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

I just found that {{VA link|Optical storage}} is not a VA article at level 5. I will nominate that there, and if that passes, I would support swapping that with Optical disc as the level 4 umbrella. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:21, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:We don't always list parent topics on a higher (or as high) level. Sometimes a subtopic is so widespread/popular that it makes sense to focus on it instead.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 07:04, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::I think that what you're describing should be the rare exception, not the norm. I think pages like Optical storage and {{VA link|Computer memory}} should either be added to level 4, or replace pages like Optical disc and {{VA link|Random-access memory}}. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:37, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

This is a niche toy that doesn't have much impact. Puzzle and Toy work fine in covering this article.

;Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 21:37, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 07:58, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
3. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 12:21, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. This is a extremely popular toy that has had a major impact in media and culture. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:18, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
2. While being invented in the 1970s is mild recentism, this is far from niche. The more VA4 becomes optimised over time, the harder we have to search for the least important topics to remove and I don't think this is among them.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 18:37, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
3. Strong oppose, generational product. Idiosincrático (talk) 02:23, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
4. Excuse me but how is a Rubik's Cube niche? And how does "not have much impact"??? It has 93 interwikis + "{{xt|As of January 2024, around 500 million cubes had been sold worldwide, making it the world's bestselling puzzle game and bestselling toy.}}" An entire community that is vital in of itself, {{VA link|Speedcubing}}, is centered around the cube, and that itself has 21 interwikis! Also, it would be disingenuous to list games/toys like {{VA link|Tetris}} but not the cube. If anything, the Rubik's Cube would be the most important toy to list at this level. λ NegativeMP1 03:12, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
5. Per MP1 Kevinishere15 (talk) 04:13, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Compared to other toys, this toy has limited cultural/historical impact.

;Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 21:40, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 07:58, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
3. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 12:23, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
4. PrimalMustelid (talk) 05:36, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Idiosincrático (talk) 02:24, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Covered by other topics like Weaving and Textile. Too niche for this list.

;Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 22:15, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 07:58, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
3. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 14:37, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
4. PrimalMustelid (talk) 05:36, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Basket weaving is an incredibly important technology, especially when discussing ancient human civilizations. We have an entire culture called the {{VA link|Basketmaker culture}}, and before culture had the wheel, these were one of the best methods for moving stuff around. Something that has had, and continues to have, a major impact on our society is something we should include. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:53, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
2. Agree with Geog. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:56, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Obsolete military technology. Already covered in broader articles on ancient weapons.

;Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 22:17, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 07:58, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
3. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 17:11, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. This is a pretty significant invention. Obsolete military technology does not mean not vital. We have a recency bias when it comes to military tech. The ballista is also something that is fairly prominent in fiction and media. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
2. Idiosincrático (talk) 02:24, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

A very specific topic that is sufficiently covered by Infant and Parenting.

;Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 22:18, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
2. Fits into that "too broad yet too specific to work well as an article" category. (Stroller should be VA5, except we don't have a standalone article for it, weird). ALittleClass (talk) 06:57, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 07:58, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
4. Idiosincrático (talk) 04:22, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
5. PrimalMustelid (talk) 05:35, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

A very general topic that is better covered for specific articles like Hairbrush or Paintbrush.

;Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 22:20, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 07:58, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

A very narrow topic covered by Textile and Sewing.

;Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 22:21, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 07:57, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
3. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 15:02, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
4. PrimalMustelid (talk) 05:36, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

One of, if not the most famous video game in history, as well as one that effectively established the entire video game industry, is far more important than {{VA link|Final Fantasy}}.

;Support

1. As nom. Æ's old account wasn't working (talk) 02:39, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Final Fantasy was added not too long ago with a 10-3 vote. Pong may be 'one of' of the first videos games, but it isn't nearly as influential as FF (or many other games franchises for that matter). SameOldSameOldSameOld (talk) SameOldSameOldSameOld (talk) 10:35, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
2. I'd rather add {{VA link|History of video games}} than re-add Pong, which by itself hasn't had as much long-term relevance. Final Fantasy was just recently added for, among other things, representing story-based games.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 11:11, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
3. Strong oppose Final Fantasy removal, recently added with overwhelming support. Video games are underrepresented at v4 so could be added outright. Idiosincrático (talk) 02:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
4. Oppose solely on principle since FF was only recently added barely even a month ago if I recall correctly. Neutral about the actual prospect of a swap itself given that even in the FF proposal I recall saying it wouldn't have been my first pick. I think the next video game to add would be {{VA link|Minecraft}}. λ NegativeMP1 03:02, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
5. Oppose per everyone else. PrimalMustelid (talk) 05:35, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discussion

{{VA link|Chanakya}} is listed as a social scientist, political writer or economist, which suggests that he is listed because he is traditionally considered the author of {{VA link|Arthashastra}}, but modern scholars don't think he wrote that book.

;Support

1. As nominator Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:03, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discussion

Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:03, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

"A screw is an externally helical threaded fastener capable of being tightened or released by a twisting force (torque) to the head." Don't make the mistake I did and confuse this with {{VA link|Screw mechanism}}, but like {{VA link|Nail (fastener)}}, I think screw belongs at level 4. I propose swapping it for Assault rifle because we include {{VA link|Firearm}} at level 3 and {{VA link|Rifle}} at level 4 already. When it comes to pistols, machine guns, and shot guns, there isn't this level of specification. We don't even include {{VA link|Revolver}} at level 4, which I think is a bit more vital. Assault rifle is a type of rifle, so I think it can be moved down a level.

;Support swap

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:44, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
2. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:58, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
3. Sure, or at least add. Either way, screw is much more vital than a type of gun. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:55, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
4. Noticed Screw missing when nominating the removals of {{VA link|Gasket}} and {{VA link|Washer (hardware)}}, but VA4 was even more overquota at that time.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 13:31, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

;Support straight add

1. As nom, if we can't get enough for the swap. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:44, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:44, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

The article has 3 interwikis. Regardless of that, I think it's too specific for this level, and Central heating itself would be better as it covers the entire system. (that article is not VA5 currently, which is why I didn't nominate it as a swap)

;Support

1. As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 08:02, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

I'd rather wait for the addition nom for {{VA link|Central heating}} at level 5 to pass and then do a swap.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 08:16, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

He was the leader of China for nearly 13 years, and oversaw significant parts of China's economic reforms. He also continued to influence Chinese politics for much later until his retirement up until the 2010s through his political faction (to give a sense of how long lasting his influence was, the current vice president Han Zheng is considered to belong to his faction). He oversaw the return of Hong Kong and Macau, construction of projects including the Three Gorges Dam, as well as the persecution of Falun Gong. I also feel that there's an underrepresentation of Chinese leaders at VA/4 level.

;Support

1. As nom. The Account 2 (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

One of the most important events in China's modern history. Started an economic boom that dramatically changed the country and the world, and created the China we know today.

;Support

1. As nom. The Account 2 (talk) 18:24, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

{{VA link|Mantle (geology)}} is listed on Earth science, but the article is not specific to the Earth. {{VA link|Earth's mantle}} is clearly what's intended.

;Support

1. As nominator Lophotrochozoa (talk) 19:15, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
2. In this case, an {{VA link|Earth}} specific topic should take precedence over a general {{VA link|Planet}} topic. Plus {{VA link|Mantle (geology)}} is currently listed under "Earth" in VA4 and general planet articles under "Planetary science", the other one is indeed obviously intended.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 20:11, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 21:24, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
4. I see this just passed in level 5. I nominated it there intending to do this later. Support. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:48, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

{{VA link|Albert Speer}} is listed as an architect, but he is mostly known for being the minister for armament of Nazi Germany (I've proposed moving him). I'm not sure if even that is enough to list him on level 4, and we need to remove entries; the only other Nazis we list are {{VA link|Adolf Hitler}}, {{VA link|Hermann Göring}}, {{VA link|Joseph Goebbels}}, {{VA link|Heinrich Himmler}} and {{VA link|Erwin Rommel}}.

;Support

1. His works have not survived. --Thi (talk) 08:17, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

1. As nominator; I haven't made up my mind. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 17:11, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

;Discussion

"we need to remove entries" we are 15 below quota and additions are slow, so it is not essential to do heavy cuts at this time. (In reference to the Louis de Broglie nom comment too). Now to address Speer, he is primarily known as a architect and is commonly cited in architecture history and education, that's worth more than 3 years as a government minister - but hard to tell the difference because of the overlap. But his role in Architecture history as the planned architect of Germania (city), with Triumph of the Will and Leni Riefenstahl (another Nazi listed) in which he built the Nazi Party rally grounds used for propaganda. He's listed first as Hitler's chief architect on Britannica [https://www.britannica.com/biography/Albert-Speer], architecture sites always analyse him as a architect [https://parametric-architecture.com/the-legacy-of-albert-speer/], JSTOR does too [https://www.jstor.org/stable/43152734?searchText=%22Albert%20Speer%22&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3D%2522Albert%2BSpeer%2522%26so%3Drel&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_phrase_search%2Fcontrol&refreqid=fastly-default%3Aedac91169583f524320e94ed20c1c75b]. It shows that he's more notable as a example of the relation between architecture and propaganda than he has placement in political history. He has to be compared to other architects rather than head of states or political leaders. In the context of architecture as propaganda, he's the first example to be cited. Depends on how many architects we list, but we are 15 under quota, he wouldn't be the first one i'd cut. WWII history will last a couple of centuries of least, i don't think his role as a architect is less "secure" than any other 20th century person we list in the context of the visual arts. This would be like listing Arnold Schwarzenegger in American politics cause technically Califonia governor is higher ranked in traditional sources rather than his acting or bodybuilding career. GuzzyG (talk) 04:44, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:Apparently he was more important as an aritect than I thought, but still, our entire level 4 list is 10 over quota, and it would be farther over quota if additions weren't so slow. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 21:21, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:I forgot about Riefenstahl. I should have said "the only Nazi politians and militaries". Lophotrochozoa (talk) 00:15, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

{{VA link|Geoffrey of Monmouth}} is most famous for a discredited work. His Wikipedia page does not show how he left a positive impact on the development of historiography.

;Remove

1. As nom ―Howard • 🌽³³ 08:41, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 08:51, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

;Move to writers

1. He wrote the first version of the Matter of Britain, including the legend of King Arthur, as we know it. Unless we decide to remove him anyway because level 4 is over quota. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 10:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

;Keep on historians

;Neutral

;Discussion

J947 said in another thread that {{VA link|Viv Richards}} is the weakest cricketer listed.

;Support

1. As nominator Lophotrochozoa (talk) 19:29, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 19:32, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discussion

Lophotrochozoa (talk) 19:29, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

There are some people I see who are listed in one section on here, but at Level 5 they are listed at a different section. Some of course we have no choice on the matter since there are naturally more divisions at the lower level, others however need to be fixed promptly. Note that there are only going to be two options: we either keep the person where they are at Level 4, or we move them to where they are at Level 5. I also would like to discuss about sections that exist here but not at level 5.

Currently listed under Actors at Level 4 and Directors at Level 5. This one is really tough, but ultimately I think we should put him under Actors due to his roles as the Man with No Name and Harry Callahan.

;Under actors (current Level 4 position)

1. Bluevestman (talk) 23:11, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
2. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 01:06, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 14:14, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

;Under directors (current Level 5 position)

;Discuss

Non-level 5 section. I don't know what to do with this to be honest. The problem is Marcel Duchamp; the only reason he's under Sculptors and not Contemporary artists: general at level 5 is timeline issues, otherwise he would be a perfect fit for the latter. I guess we can move Duchamp and Joseph Beuys to Sculptors here, or just Duchamp and rename the section to contemporary artists, but I think I would prefer to just keep this section.

;Move both to sculptors

;Rename to contemporary artists, move only Duchamp

;Leave as is

1. Bluevestman (talk) 23:11, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

Currently listed under Businesspeople at Level 4 and Designers (specifically Video game designer) at Level 5. He's the creator of Mario, The Legend of Zelda and Pikmin, and I don't think that being a video game designer is too different from the other designers.

;Under businesspeople (current Level 4 position)

;Under designers (current Level 5 position)

1. Bluevestman (talk) 23:11, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

Currently listed under Writers at Level 4 and Philosophers at Level 5. We got a couple of non-fiction prose writers like Ouyang Xiu and Michel de Montaigne who I feel should remain under writers due to the quality of their writing skills. But his status as the leader of Transcendentalism requires us to place him under Philosophers.

;Under writers (current Level 4 position)

;Under philosophers (current Level 5 position)

1. Bluevestman (talk) 23:11, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

Currently listed as an American/Canadian writer at Level 4 and as a Russian writer at Level 5. Although his importance as a writer occurred after he became an American citizen, he spent most of his life in living in Europe, and he has a significant career writing Russian literature.

;Categorize as American (current Level 4 position)

;Categorize as Russian (current Level 5 position)

1. Bluevestman (talk) 23:11, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

Currently listed under Journalists at Level 4 and Businesspeople (specifically Media and communication) at Level 5. Questions on whether any of his news companies actually practice journalism aside, I think his ownership of 20th Century Fox and HarperCollins puts him on par with Ted Turner, who is listed under Businesspeople on both levels.

;Under journalists (current Level 4 position)

;Under businesspeople (current Level 5 position)

1. Bluevestman (talk) 23:11, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 14:14, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

Non-level 5 section. As I mentioned in the recently passed discussion to merge funk with the R&B section, I think we should do the same with Afrobeat. We only have Fela Kuti listed there, and funk is a huge component in that genre. Or we can rename it to African popular music or something like that and move Miriam Makeba to that section.

;Move Kuti to R&B

1. Bluevestman (talk) 23:11, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

;Rename to African popular music, move Makeba

;Leave as is

;Discuss

Non-level 5 section. There used to be one before it was removed. While it will be a lot easier to just move the four people we list under Latin to their Level 5 position (Celia Cruz to Jazz, everyone else to Non-English language popular music), I personally think we should restore the Latin section at level 5.

;Move everybody to their Level 5 position.

;Restore the Level 5 Latin section

1. Bluevestman (talk) 23:11, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

;Leave as is

;Discuss

Currently listed as an American director at Level 4 and as a European director at Level 5. There are a lot of foreigners working in Hollywood, with some like Chaplin working almost their entire careers at Hollywood. However unlike Billy Wilder, Chaplin is almost universally seen as just being English, especially since he never became an American citizen.

;Categorize as American (current Level 4 position)

;Categorize as European (current Level 5 position)

1. Bluevestman (talk) 23:11, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

Should probably rename the United States directors section due to James Cameron. Bluevestman (talk) 23:11, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Currently listed under Political writers at Level 4 and Economists at Level 5. Despite being a major ideologue in classical liberalism/right-wing libertarianism, he's usually viewed as an economist first and foremost.

;Under political writers (current level 4 position)

;Under economists (current Level 5 position)

1. Bluevestman (talk) 09:55, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 14:14, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

Currently listed under Political writers at Level 4 and Sociologists at Level 5 (most other members currently listed under Social scientists). I got to be honest, I don't think either is a good place for him. As the founder of the NAACP, he really should be placed under the Rebels, revolutionaries, and activists section.

;Under political writers (current level 4 position)

;Under social scientists/sociologists (current Level 5 position)

;Under activists

1. Bluevestman (talk) 09:55, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 14:14, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

Listed under Political writers at Level 4 and (formerly) listed under Sociologists at Level 5 (most other members currently listed under Social scientists). Helped found Marxism, and the word sociology doesn't even show up on his page. (NOTE: decided to do a bold move down at Level 5 for him; unlike Eastwood, I think it was outright erroneous to place him there.)

;Under political writers (current level 4 position)

1. Bluevestman (talk) 09:55, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 14:14, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

;Under social scientists/sociologists (current former Level 5 position)

;Discuss

Currently listed under Linguists at Level 4 and Sociologists at Level 5 (most other members currently listed under Social scientists). Little confused on how he got placed under Linguists to be honest. His main fields were sociology and anthropology (and he should probably be listed under the latter).

;Under linguists (current level 4 position)

;Under sociologists (current Level 5 position)

;Under anthropologists

1. Move to anthropologists. Bluevestman (talk) 09:55, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
2. I don't know why I listed him as a linguist either; I probably meant to list him as a social scientist. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 10:27, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 14:14, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

I've split the social scientist option into one for listing him as a sociologist and one for listing him as an anthropologist. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 10:27, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

{{VA link|Chinese cabbage}} includes {{VA link|Napa cabbage}} and {{VA link|Bok choy}}, but I don't think they have enough in common to list an article about both.

;Support

1. As nominator Lophotrochozoa (talk) 23:00, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 05:02, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

So besides these two articles, we also have "Fuck tha Police", Eazy-E, Ice Cube, and Dr. Dre. That's a lot of things on here for a group that's level 5 (rightfully, so don't try to argue we need to get rid of one of them). I could simply argue to just add the group, but I think there's a case for adding their groundbreaking album. We don't have any hip-hop work ("Gangnam Style" does not count), and while it's not the most critically acclaimed hip-hop album (that would either go to It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold Us Back or To Pimp a Butterfly), Straight Outta Compton did help make gangsta rap to be the dominant form of hip-hop.

;Add Straight Outta Compton

1. Bluevestman (talk) 21:21, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

;Add N.W.A

;Oppose both

1. Too many recent musicians and music as is _pbp 23:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

Major concept, not just thereotical but something mentioned in the news often and steadily, for decades. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:53, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

;Support

;Oppose

;Discuss

The level 4 list is over quota, and it would be farther over quota if we finished the existing proposals faster. Thus I suggest that we stop making new proposals for additions, except swaps for related entries, to focus on removals and eventually existing proposals. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 15:28, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:I prefer swaps in general, the issue is that when a proposed add fails, but the corresponding swap passes, it makes a void that people are happy to try and fill. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:39, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support, and {{ping|Lophotrochozoa}} I have a moratorium proposal going at VA for anytime a VA page hits 300K _pbp 16:47, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
• :I already support that proposal, and this proposal is inspired by it. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 17:00, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::@Lophotrochozoa Um, you haven't voted on it... _pbp 17:40, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::@Lophotrochozoa Um, you haven't voted on it... _pbp 18:17, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I would like to search for more articles that are good candidates for removal. From my experience on this project, it's easier to find good additions to level 4 than to find good candidates for removal. They are probably plenty of articles on level 5 or even articles unlisted there that would probably pass at this level. I would like to try to get at least under quota for the sublists that are over quota and with once we are under quota, then we can find good additions that would likely be great for this list. Interstellarity (talk) 23:00, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:I'm looking at the Geography list and rather than mass nominating everything, I will provide some articles worth looking into for removal. You don't have to say to remove all the articles, but tell me which ones you would support. I hope this list provides a good start on where we should prioritize fixing the list. I can look into the other lists later on.

:*Poznań

:*Wrocław

:*Strasbourg

:*Belo Horizonte

:*Barranquilla

:*Vadodara

:*Jodhpur

:*Ranchi

:*Coimbatore

:*Douala

:*Rosario

:*León, Guanajuato

:*San Juan, Puerto Rico

:*Niue

:*Vänern

:*Kattegat

:*Lake Onega

:*Lake Ladoga

:*Seto Inland Sea

:*Tagus

:*Madeira River

:*Tocantins River

:*Neighbourhood

:*Zoning/Urban design/Urban planning

:*City block

:*Surveying

:*Remote sensing

:*Central business district

:*Industrial park

:Interstellarity (talk) 23:24, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::I thought about proposing Tagus for removal before. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 10:13, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::Oppose {{VA link|Remote sensing}}, {{VA link|Central business district}}, {{VA link|Neighbourhood}}, {{VA link|Zoning}}, {{VA link|Urban design}}, {{VA link|Urban planning}}, {{VA link|Surveying}}, {{VA link|City block}}, and {{VA link|Industrial park}}. In geography, these are high level concepts that are more important then individual places. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:29, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:There's already #Discussion for which articles to discuss removals of.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 10:16, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

{{VA link|Tagus}} is a smaller river than most that we list. Is its historical importance enough to list it?

;Support

1. As nominator Lophotrochozoa (talk) 10:21, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion