Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4#Remove Robert A. Heinlein 4

{{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

An important type of {{VA link|library}}.

;Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 21:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
2. Support. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:48, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
3. The innovation of publicly funded libraries is it's own thing and is important Mrfoogles (talk) 20:29, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Very few people understand the difference. Barely V5 for me. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:20, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 18:22, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discussion

{{atopg

| status = PASSED

| result = Added 5-0. Glad this one made it, I just got it to Good Article status last week. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:06, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

}}

Within geography, there are several methods for organizing the discipline. Within the branch model, there is {{VA link|Human geography}} that looks at topics like the distribution of human populations, {{VA link|Physical geography}} that studies the natural environment, and {{VA link|Technical geography}} that developes, studies, and applies the techniques like {{VA link|Cartography}}. I believe that technical geography should be on the same level as the other two branches. Ideally, this will be part of a broader project to make how we organize vital articles consistent with other ways of organizing geography, which is in a discussion here. Full disclosure, I originated this page.

;Support

1. As nom GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
2. Support, the other 2 branches make the precedent simple. I don't normally participate at Lv 4, but we've discussed the wider reorganization at other levels too. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:47, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
3. Interstellarity (talk) 21:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
4. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
5. Per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:23, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = PASSED

| result = Added 5-0. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

We have {{VA link|Sea}} at level 2. The lede for that defines sea as "A sea is a large body of salt water" with "body" linking to the Body of water page. This term is inclusive of both fresh and salt water, and should be higher then level 5.

;Support.

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Support, the current article is very listy, but that's arguably more reason to list it (and prioritize improvement). Promoting it at least to Lv4 makes sense on organizational grounds. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Interstellarity (talk) 01:48, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
4. PrimalMustelid (talk) 15:37, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
5. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:56, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

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}}

We already list Artificial intelligence at level 3, but I think it would be good to list a subtopic of artificial intelligence since it will likely become a part of everyday life in five or ten years time. I will provide my suggestions below. For me personally, I’m leaning towards large language model, but open to other articles as well. Interstellarity (talk) 20:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

{{archive top red|status=failed|result=Not added, 1-2 _pbp 15:38, 30 April 2025 (UTC)}}

;Support

1. _pbp 15:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Leaning towards no for this one as this is the only one I can definitively think of as a "recent" concept. While I know that the concept has existed for quite a while, this kind of thing has only really been relevant for the past few years. I also think that this might be covered by LLM if we add that? λ NegativeMP1 21:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Per above. --Thi (talk) 09:03, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

;Support

1. They've existed, or at least been a concept, for a long time. λ NegativeMP1 21:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Interstellarity (talk) 01:52, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. LLMs are what we're really talking about here, though Mrfoogles (talk) 20:33, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Detail. --Thi (talk) 09:03, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. As the nominator said, I think this should absolutely be at this level as a sub-topic of AI. λ NegativeMP1 21:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
2. _pbp 15:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Interstellarity (talk) 01:52, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
4. This is acceptably general Mrfoogles (talk) 20:33, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
5. We need a modern AI topic even if I'd prefer {{VA link|AI boom}}.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 18:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

{{atop

| status = FAILED

| result = 0-5 and been open for months, this isn't going to make it. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:35, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

}}

;Support

;Oppose

1. Weak oppose, as I think Chatbot probably covers for now. I might support in a few years as I do seriously think that ChatGPT alone has left a significant impact on the world as a whole. However, it could also easily be overtaken since AI chatbots / LLMs right now are in an arms race of sorts (Gemini, Copilot, etc.). Let's wait and see. λ NegativeMP1 21:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Still too recent and specific for this level, I'd rather have the more general {{VA link|AI boom}} or {{VA link|Large language model}}.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 22:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Per LaukkuTheGreit. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
4. Oppose --Thi (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
5. Too specific Mrfoogles (talk) 20:33, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Interstellarity (talk) 20:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

More general and so future-proof than more specific AI types or products due to still rapidly ongoing innovation (Diffusion LLMs seem like the newest breakthrough for example, and there's talk about Agentic AI). This one would go instead of Technology to History, which has slightly room at 695/700 quota.

;Support

1. As nom.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 08:20, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. This is less important than LLMs themselves, in my opinion. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:33, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

{{archive top|status=Passed|result=Added, 5-1 _pbp 16:11, 30 April 2025 (UTC)}}

Arguably the greatest there has ever been in her sport regardless of gender. It appears this has been supported in 2019, but resulted in a withdrawal. While I'm sure some are familiar with her accolades, she's the most decorated gymnast of all time. She's won 30 World Gymnastics medals and her Worlds gold medal total alone (24) surpasses the second-highest female (Svetlana Khorkina)'s total medal count regardless of color (20). Additionally, she has 11 total Olympic Games medals with 7 of them being gold, both totals the second-highest in history. Throughout her career, she's had five separate skills named after her.

;Support

1. As nominator. GauchoDude (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Oppose swapping with another gymnast (Latynina or Comăneci), as three gymnasts is a good number. But we have two speed skaters for some reason, so there's that. J947 ‡ ^edits 21:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
3. per nom Aurangzebra (talk) 01:37, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
4. Interstellarity (talk) 01:53, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
5. We definitely need to cut some athletes, but Biles is a good example of the type of athlete we should list. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:02, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Oppose add without swap. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

1. I would support a swap with one or more of the other level 4 sports figures. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

::{{Ping|GeogSage}} I am unfamiliar with who is included on this list nor the previous why's behind their inclusion, but a quick glance seemingly (to me) provides many potential targets for a swap with far less contributions to their respective areas as well as overall popularity/interest. I would be open to hearing your considerations. GauchoDude (talk) 16:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

:::{{Reply|GeogSage}} Not sure if you plan on weigh in on potential swap options, but for me, again in my humble opinion, she could be easily swapped for Fanny Blankers-Koen or Junko Tabei. GauchoDude (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

Sabaeans, a level 4 vital article, got merged. Can we move the vital level thing to Sheba? Abo Yemen✉ 07:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. Support Sheba at VA4 _pbp 16:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
2. :@Purplebackpack89 so does that means it gets to be promoted or not? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 16:54, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
3. ::It means promote Sheba from where it is to VA4 _pbp 17:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Makes sense Mrfoogles (talk) 20:34, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/4/History&diff=next&oldid=1272858055 Already done by Cewbot]. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 16:43, 30 April 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)

;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)

File:1929- Advertising revenue as percent of GDP (US).svg, what do you think is going to happen to digital advertising in the future?]]

Given that {{VA link|Internet}}, something at Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Society_and_social_sciences/Culture#Internet_medium should probably be Level 4 (either this or {{VA link|Podcast}} or both).-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Support in spirit. Betting on the internet as a ephemeral phenomenon is a strong position, but not sure one i agree with. I'm much more comfortable saying the internet is permanent and thus advertising on the internet and resultant celebrities built on the internet as a platform will always exist, unlike dying radio or television, the internet is supremely positioned to be a permanent medium. (there's no other way, there will always be devices with global virtual communication and that is what the "internet" will be seen as. there will thus always be "digital" advertising and known celebrities that come from the internet as a result). GuzzyG (talk) 09:33, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Unlikely to be ephemeral. Slight chance it is child of a parent concept that is more vital (ping me if you think so). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:26, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. If this turns out to be an ephemeral phenomenon, then adding this article would look very silly in 20 years' time. J947 ‡ ^edits 22:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Per J947. We don't know for sure yet. λ NegativeMP1 20:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discussion

:This is not intended to be misleading. Internet does parent a lot of VAs at Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Technology#Internet.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

::FYI here are other Level 4s parented by Internet {{VA link|HTML}}, {{VA link|HTTP}}, {{VA link|Internet protocol suite}}, {{VA link|Social media}}, {{VA link|Search engine}}, {{VA link|Website}} & {{VA link|World Wide Web}}.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

:{{re|TonyTheTiger}} so it's not vital yet. This topic will become worth listing if and when it becomes vital. Predicting that today's "fads" will retain their importance for generations is never clearcut. J947 ‡ ^edits 01:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

:I would propose moving celebrity to level 4 before influencer.ALittleClass 18:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

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

;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)

;Oppose

;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)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discussion

;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)

;Neutral

;Discussion

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)

;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)

;Oppose

;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)

;Oppose

;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)

;Oppose

;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)

;Oppose

;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)

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)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

Gaining another five year term in the 2024 Rwandan general election has probably pushed him to level 4. He was one of two main leaders in the Rwandan Civil War (level 5), created a new constitution, improved the economy of Rwanda massively but remains controversial due to elections in Rwanda not being considered fair and is one of the main leaders in the ongoing Democratic Republic of the Congo–Rwanda conflict. Not sure if his Ugandan counterpart Yoweri Museveni is more vital or not, as he has served as leader of a bigger country in terms of population for longer but gets [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2015-07-01&end=2025-02-10&pages=Paul_Kagame%7CYoweri_Museveni less pageviews], so would like to see discussion on him too.

;Support

1. Sahaib (talk) 21:12, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
2. He has already been president since 2000 and held de facto power before that Iostn (talk) 22:27, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
3. From the Rwandan Civil War to the imperialist M23 campaign (2022–present). This guy is one of the most impactful leaders of modern Africa. Definitely should be listed. GuzzyG (talk) 09:28, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
4. One of the most significant and geopolitically active African leaders at present, has been bolstering his country's economy and driving towards imperialism. PrimalMustelid (talk) 15:21, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
5. --Bluevestman (talk) 22:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. I think we need a few years of separation before we can determine if he is one of the 10,000 most vital topics of all time. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:35, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
2. per GeogSage. Jusdafax (talk) 03:26, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discussion

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)

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

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)

;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)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discussion

We list some of the busiest public transportation systems in the world like the London Underground and the NYC Subway, but we don't list any of the busiest airlines in the world. Obviously, the largest airline in the world depends on how you measure it, but in terms of passengers carried, this is the largest. I would consider adding additional airlines, if this passes. However, I would also be open to removing all the public transportation systems we list to strive for more equality on the list.

;Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 20:37, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Regional, IMHO. And less iconic than these two subways. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:33, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

It's becoming an important form of media nowadays and will likely stick around for a long time.

;Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 01:41, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
2. A bit of a recent medium all things considered, but I don't necessarily see a problem with the podcast article itself being at this level. λ NegativeMP1 02:38, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Pretty much online radio. A vital form of 21st century entertainment. GuzzyG (talk) 21:19, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
4. Agree with others that this is vital at level 4. Jusdafax (talk) 05:17, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
5. Significant form of modern media that's here to stay prominent in the near future. PrimalMustelid (talk) 15:23, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

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)

;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

Eruca sativa was merged to Eruca vesicaria in 2019. The merge has been reversed. While these are sometimes considered a single species under the name Eruca vesicaria, they are usually treated as distinct species. Eruca sativa is the species that is commonly cultivated as a leafy vegetable.

;Support

1. As nom. Plantdrew (talk) 19:11, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Agree, as the articles are now, this article and species is more vital. This is an improvement, although part of me is wondering if either are level 4 vital though. Open question, is it more vital than some missing edible plants like red onion which are listed nowhere?  Carlwev  03:16, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 21:44, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
4. --Thi (talk) 06:46, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;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)

;Discussion

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

As I noted above, I am going to take some cracks at moving us toward quota. The last update has us at 10023/10000 and Everyday life which is 467/450. Porridge does not seem like it is that important to anyone other than Goldilocks and the Three Bears. I have never seen it on a menu at a restaurant, on Instagram or TikTok or even any website. Is it even a real thing?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:23, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. As nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:23, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 15:09, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Oppose.
   In Europe in many (if not all, except English) languages, it is a blanket term for any kind of grains boiled in water or milk.
   You have eaten it, you just know it as gruel or any particular type, such as oatmeal, farina (a more watery one).
   As for restaurant menus, maybe gruel/porridge is like ratatouille in that Disney movie. A "lower class" dish? --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:15, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
2. :I have tasted farina and would not consider it vital. I am very familiar with {{VA link|oatmeal}} and if porridge and oatmeal are synonyms, then maybe this deserves its space. The oatmeal article does mention that a cooked form of oatmeal is a porridge. The porridge article mentions oat porridge in the WP:LEAD. Still not a strong supporter of porridge at this level.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:39, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
3. ::Maybe it is just that "gruel" is the more common term for this type of dish in English. The "Gruel" article says: "Historically, gruel has been a staple of the Western diet, especially for peasants," And: "Gruel was on the third-class menu of the Titanic on the eve of her sinking in April 1912."
   The French "Porridge" article (:fr:Bouillie) says: "In many cultures, especially the Anglo-Saxon and the Slav ones, this dish is traditionally served at the first daily meal, with salt, sugar or milk. Scottish porridge is the traditional breakfast of Scotland."
   The German "Porridge" article (:de:Brei) says that porridge existed at least since the Neolithic, at least since the beginning of agriculture, some 10,000 years ago. And that in Europe a porridge called puls "was part of the food culture in the Roman Empire and was the main food of a large part of the population until the end of the 18th century."
   So maybe you just forgot. :-) --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
4. ::Farina is vital for little kids in Russia. It is as "evil" as broccoli is in the U.S. --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:35, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
5. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:18, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
6. It is on the menu in Korea, where there are entire chains dedicated to it. Ex. :ko:본죽_(브랜드). Staple dish in many cultures. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:22, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discussion

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)

;Discussion

1. 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)

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

If Babe Didrikson Zaharias gets accurately moved to Golf per my above nom, this will show we have 2 women for Golf. I don't think golf is significant as a known sport for women historically to have 2. (unlike Tennis, Association football, athletics, swimming, figure skating, volleyball, gymnastics - even Basketball now etc). We need a woman for Swimming more than 2 for Golf. I also don't think Sörenstam is more vital than Arnold Palmer or Bobby Jones (golfer). A successfull career but no widespread global name recognition like Tiger Woods, more fitting for level 5. (and once it's cleaned up there'll be no shame in being there).

;Support

1. As nom. GuzzyG (talk) 01:29, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. --Thi (talk) 15:15, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Aye. The only thing that will be vital about golf in 1000 years is understanding the biodiversity and ecological damage done by the sport. The athletes are not among the 10,000 most vital people of all time, much less topics. I'd be fine cutting all of the athletes from it. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:06, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Is this really necessary? --Bluevestman (talk) 22:57, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
5. IMO golf really only needs Tiger Woods, but I can see that that is not currently feasible. Either way, I agree that this individual is not Level 4 vital. I would support keeping her at Level 5. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:22, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
6. Yeah golf doesn't need de facto four people on here. --Bluevestman (talk) 22:57, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. _pbp 01:42, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

;Discussion

Cobb's seen as one of the greatest early baseball stars but his one stand out record and the one major aspect of his vitality that granted him permanent relevance in baseball culture was the fact that he had the highest career batting average, which he now does not. Per his article, "his .366 career batting average was officially listed as the highest-ever until 2024, when MLB decided to include Negro Leagues players in official statistics" . Josh Gibson now holds that record. Cobb's importance represents the racism that kept out the Negro league players, in which without the segregation he wouldn't have had that record. I think the era of segregated baseball just needs one name; Babe Ruth.

Baseball is big in Venezuela, Cuba, the US and Japan. It's not a global sport like basketball or cricket, so listing the same amount of biographies as both is probably too much. Cobb's name doesn't have the same reverence today as Lou Gehrig or Cy Young both in pop culture or baseball culture itself, so why list lesser Cobb?. Without that big record, there's no need to list Cobb anymore. Sports fame and historical importance is based on pop culture relevance and to be listed as apart of the 2,000 most important people ever, that global relevance should be like Babe Ruth, global name recognition that never fades. Lesser bios that are not big no more but hold importance to certain eras of their field/craft should be level 5. Otherwise we will be (and are) bogged down in faded and no longer remembered 20th century bios. Early 20th century baseball when it was just white Americans playing, is not one of those major historical areas that needs multiple bios and if we needed to list more, Josh Gibson is more important than Cobb.

Sports is way over represented, there should be 50 to 60 listed and this is a start.

;Support

1. As nom. GuzzyG (talk) 01:29, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. --Thi (talk) 15:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Aye. Most athletes are not vital, people just like them. We don't include all the Poke'mon, we shouldn't include several thousand athletes. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:03, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
4. When has anyone pushed for the inclusion of any Pokémon besides Pikachu?--Bluevestman (talk) 23:00, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
5. His one claim to vitality has been invalidated, so I don't see why he makes VA4. I'm fine with Cobb at VA5, but he is not one of the 2000 most important people to ever live, and 2000 is arguably too many people in the first place. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:34, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
6. Rather have this go than the other three baseball players being discussed. --Bluevestman (talk) 23:00, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

# What? _pbp 01:43, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

:I have decided to strike my oppose vote _pbp 12:36, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

1. I am so old (I'll be 60 in June) that I remember when Ty Cobb even had the all-time hits record and was 2nd in stolen bases. I had to calibrate my thoughts on this for a bit, but I don't think I can get behind this. Back in 1936 when people who saw him play voted he was an inaugural HOF selection with more votes than anyone else, including Babe Ruth.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
2. - per TonyTheTiger. Jusdafax (talk) 05:25, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Per TonyTheTiger.
   P. S. Negro Leagues don't count. (I don't watch baseball and hence didn't witness Josh Gibson play /j, but this is my opinion.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:47, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
4. :{{ping|Moscow Connection}} Negro League statistics are included in MLB records by the MLB, so I don't understand why you don't think they count. The MLB itself says that they do. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:55, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
5. :@Moscow Connection Let me ask you this: does being one of the greatest, best or most influential Negro League players make someone vital? At least Lv 5 vital if not Lv 4? _pbp 19:15, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
6. ::{{VA link|Josh Gibson}} is level 5, and you know better than me. From what I see, he is vital. I have no idea if he should be higher level cause I don't know much about baseball.
   But it is my understanding that Ty Cobb played in MLB and faced the highest possible level of competition and was the GOAT at this level, while Josh Gibson played in several leagues that had a lower overall level. --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:51, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
7. ::[https://www.reddit.com/r/mlb/comments/1d5q76r/gibsoncobb_playing_time_disparity_was_already_an/ https://www.reddit.com/r/mlb/comments/1d5q76r/gibsoncobb_playing_time_disparity_was_already_an/] – Reddit does not approve of the stats being joined. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:01, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
8. ::Ty Cobb has articles in 34 languages, and even I have heard of him. (And about Babe Ruth.) Even Vokrug sveta has written about him [https://www.vokrugsveta.ru/articles/velikii-i-uzhasnyi-kak-tai-kobb-prevratil-beisbol-v-voinu-i-stal-pervoi-sportivnoi-zvezdoi-v-istorii-ssha-id3082083/], and Russia's interests are as far from baseball as they can be. Therefore Ty Cobb is definitely a very important person. That's all I can say. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:19, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
9. :: The Vokrug sveta article says that Ty Cobb was "the first sports star in U.S. history". --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:56, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
10. :::{{ping|Moscow Connection}} I'm not saying he isn't important, but we can only list 2000 people at Level 4. I don't think Cobb should be one of them. I think we should only have two baseball players at this level, and they should be Babe Ruth and Jackie Robinson. Cobb can go down to Level 5. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
11. ::::It shall be decided by voting, then... I still think that the MLB's combined list looks artificial and removing Cobb simply because he is down one position on that list is AI-like decision/reasoning and is wrong. --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:36, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
12. :::::{{ping|Moscow Connection}} To be clear, I would not support listing Gibson at this level either. I don't think we should list athletes at Level 4 just for having good stats, I'd like to see a broader impact. The only baseball players I see that for are Ruth and Robinson. For another player with a major record that we don't list at this level, see {{VA link|Joe DiMaggio}}. That record is still active! I simply don't see how Cobb is one of the 2000 most vital people in all of history. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:40, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
13. ::::::Joe DiMaggio is very famous, but he is 11th on Baseball Almanac's [https://www.baseball-almanac.com/legendary/lisn100.shtml list of greatest players], and Cobb is 3rd. Josh Gibson is 18th and doesn't even have a profile page.
    Jackie Robinson is even lower, 44th, but I understand that his "vitality" can't be measured by bare statistics. --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:04, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
14. :::::::I understand that, but what I'm trying to say is that Level 4 vitality comes from having an impact on society, not from bare statistics. I'm not seeing what Level 4-worthy impact Cobb has that would put him on the same level of vitality as {{VA link|Michael Jordan}} or {{VA link|Cristiano Ronaldo}}. If you disagree, that's fine. You are entitled to your own opinion. But in my opinion, Cobb is not worthy of a slot at Level 4, and should be demoted to Level 5. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:34, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

;Discussion

The MLB (well, the National League) began in 1876 and was integrated in 1947. Basically half of MLB's history is before integration. Saying only one player should represent that era seems draconian _pbp 15:15, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

:That's 71 years. Hank Aaron is the latest MLB player to play, it's 49 years since then. You can just as much argue we need a player to represent this time. (and it'll probably be Shohei Ohtani). But we can't cover every era of everything at this level. As Tony implies, Ty used to be big and hold importance via important records but they're all gone now. He has no fame today. We list tonnes of 20th century people from mostly pre 1980. Eventually some will fade and lose heaps of importance. Then the late 20th century/early 21st century generation (1980-2020) will replace them and then the mid and late 21st century them. Segregated baseball is a blip in the grand scheme of the world and as time goes on that'll only become more apparent. If the level 5 list gets improved, a "demotion" probably won't be seen as bad; but some of these 20th century faded bios could use a replacement;

:I would include Ty Cobb, James Cagney, Robert A. Heinlein and Little Richard as cultural examples of fading 20th century bios who do not have wide name recognition in this day and age. Babe Ruth, John Wayne, Ray Bradbury, and Chuck Berry do still and that is the permanence required of this list, we're not required to honour the placement of fading stars, that is only natural that some will fade into history. Why do we have to include these old era fading greats when we could list Barry Bonds, Tom Cruise, Cormac McCarthy or a Radiohead? There's many names from the 1980-2020 era we miss to cover these fading early to mid 20th century bios. It's not just Cobb either, it should be a wide examination. Sadaharu Oh can go too, now that we have Yuzuru Hanyu and Junko Tabei Japanese sports culture is covered and Oh isn't a big global sports name and his home run record is controversial.

:But 6 Baseball players is way too much. We list 2 Fashion designers for example - a world wide globally known industry. Dior, Balenciaga, Gucci, Versace, Armani, Calvin Klein are all way more known names globally than any baseball player. Fashion has definitively impacted larger global culture. Video games is another global industry. We don't have the founder even. (Ralph H. Baer), just one person. Baseball is big in Japan, but so is anime and we don't have the modern big name (Akira Toriyama). we have one manga/anime name. We have no professional wrestler and that's an American industry like baseball that's big in Japan and Latin America/Mexico. El Santo is often referred to as one of "the greatest legends in Mexican sports". Rikidōzan and Antonio Inoki are just as big in Japan. So professional wrestling captures the main big 2 areas of baseballs popularity and a larger global reach and yet has 0 names representing it. Not even Hulk Hogan or Vince McMahon - not even with the modern Trumpian political influence of it, which got Linda McMahon a cabinet spot. Let's not even mention Hugh Hefner and his major role in the sexual revolution in the US which has been exported as a major part of Japan's culture with AV idol's. Or Japan influencing k-pop which has global impact. We don't list Hefner or any j=pop or k-pop star. Baseballs main global claim is rested on it's popularity in Japan, but does segregated baseball deserve more coverage than all of these missing or light bio examples?

:Or better, why 2 segregated baseball players? It may be important in American history, but so is Brigham Young the St Paul of Mormonism, Ray Kroc globally impactful as the founder of McDonalds still impactful with the MAHA stuff and Trumps love and promotion of McDonalds, Buzz Aldrin globally known astronaut, Sam Houston whose incorporation of previously Mexican territory into the US impacts today with the immigration aspect, Cesar Chavez a Latino rights activist who still impacts today via Trumps mistreatment, Marsha P. Johnson a global symbol of the Trans rights movement which is still relevant today, Luther Burbank a agricultural pioneer, Katherine Johnson a mathematician incredibly vital to NASAs spaceflights, Melvil Dewey a librarian whose work forever changed libraries or any other American thats permanently changed anything. All of this doesn't include the non Americans we list of way more variety. So why have 2 segregated baseball players while we can cover any other area of American history?

:I just don't think Cobb's now overtaken achievements justifies a place and in the grand scheme of 5000 ish years of human history and potential biographies i don't think segregated baseball needs 2. Baseball should arguably only have Ruth and Robinson, the two globally known big names that transcend culture. But Cobb is the weakest on here and should go first. GuzzyG (talk) 09:22, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

This is a pop culture article with no legacy section and no global name recognition. With 354,612 views total out of every language article version. [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/langviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range=all-time&sort=views&direction=1&view=list&page=Frances%20Marion]. I'm sympathetic to that she was probably originally listed to cover women in film production, but she's just not a known person. Lois Weber and Alice Guy-Blaché did more for women in early filmmaking history. She's a relic from the stages of this list when it was pre-discussion. I think any article in a pop culture related industry should be globally important and Marion does not fit that bar.

;Support

1. As nom. GuzzyG (talk) 01:29, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 15:19, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Not famous at ~65 daily pageviews, the others mentioned by OP get more. If female filmmaker representation becomes a concern someone else than her can be added.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:16, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
4. PrimalMustelid (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
5. I concur the case for V4 is not clear here. If someone makes it, they should improve the article and ping us here - or nominate her in the future. So far all we have is a very generic and subjective "I think she is important" in the single oppose below. That's not good enough. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:12, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
6. With the exception of some directors who also writes their films, only a small number of people can name a screenwriter. --Bluevestman (talk) 23:06, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. After reading the article carefully, I’m impressed by her career and credits and feel she earned a level 4 rating. A creator who made a huge impact on her craft. Jusdafax (talk) 03:43, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

;Discussion

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)

;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)

;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)

;Oppose

;Discussion

20th century dictator for national idol. In politics we list too many 20th century European dictators. They won't all be remembered and i think Hoxha is not more vital than Todor Zhivkov or János Kádár. Skanderberg is central to Alabanian national consciousness and history. He's one of the best known military figures fighting the Ottoman Empire, during the Albanian National Awakening he was seen as the central Albanian figure and going by Historiography of Skanderbeg he has a high prominence in the cultural life of Albania. Hoxha in comparison is just another dictator and in 500 years i don't think he will stand out compared to Skanderbeg. Hoxhaism isn't big. Kaysone Phomvihane Thought is in a similar boat. Hoxha is on a level of Kaysone Phomvihane. (not listed). We need to start clearing out some of the large amounts of 20th century figures, especially if there's a much better historical alternative like in this case.

;Support

1. As nom. GuzzyG (talk) 01:29, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 20:01, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Weak support. But going off pageviews and notoriety, Hoxha is much more important than Zhivkov and Kádár. J947 ‡ ^edits 02:58, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Support add; neutral on removal. We should have Skanderbeg on here, but J947 is completely correct regarding Hoxha. --Bluevestman (talk) 23:11, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

More from Everyday life. These do not seem like topics that need VA4 prioritization in 2025.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:31, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. As nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:31, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
2. per nom, superfluous fluff better suited for level 5 and we're overquota. GuzzyG (talk) 03:16, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 15:20, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
4. PrimalMustelid (talk) 15:35, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
5. These can go down to VA5 in my opinion. Having {{VA link|Courtship}} at VA4 is enough. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:30, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
6. J947 ‡ ^edits 02:58, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Important topics in anthropology/sociology, even if they are discussed less in the modern world. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 17:38, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discussion

More from Everyday life. Looking at Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/4/Everyday_life#Residential_and_housing_units, it seems that Villa and Hut are less vital than the rest. Upon further inspection, they have the fewest interwikis although each has a few dozen.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:41, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. As nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:41, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
2. per nom, superfluous fluff better suited for level 5 and we're overquota. GuzzyG (talk) 03:16, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 15:22, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
4. Per nom and GuzzyG.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:07, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
5. Let's start reducing the number of Lvl 4 articles. PrimalMustelid (talk) 15:35, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
6. Support removing villa. J947 ‡ ^edits 03:00, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. I am not convinced they are less vital than niche if memorable igloo I'd remove first. Hut is a simple type of building that most humans lived in for a long period. Villa is the upper-level version of it, for middle class. Upper class gets a palace, so middle class should get a villa and lower class, a hut. If we need to cut something from this section, kill igloo first. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:27, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Oppose removing Hut per Piotrus. Neutral on removing Villa. Also I'm pretty sure that a villa (in the traditional definition) is not for the middle class. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:09, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Opppse removing Hut, one of the most basic types of building, basic but very important things are exactly what should be listed on V4, neutral on Villa for now. Kevinishere15 (talk) 03:43, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Oppose removing hut. J947 ‡ ^edits 03:00, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;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)

;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

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

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)

;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)

I am surprised that this is not listed at the same level as Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/4/Society_and_social_sciences#Services_and_institutions. It belongs.

;Support

1. As nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:51, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Either this or something similar obviously belongs here. At [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/4/Archive_73#h-Add_Law_enforcement-20230310153100 the last vote], it was opposed by 3 users without any explanation. {{VA link|Police}} is level 3 but in a different section. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 06:14, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
3. {{VA link|Police}} is at LV3. This could be at LV4, as it deals with broader, if less famous aspects. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:31, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
4. This should arguably replace {{VA link|Police}} at level 3. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. We have {{VA link|Law}}, we have {{VA link|Police}}, we have {{VA link|Justice}} – I don't think an encyclopaedia confined to 10,000 articles should expend a slot for the intersection of these concepts. J947 ‡ ^edits 11:33, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Per above. --Thi (talk) 13:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discussion

{{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}}

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

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)

;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)

;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)

;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)

;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

We already have {{VA link|Dye}} at this level, a bit too specialist for this level I think. VA4 Technology is overquota.

;Support

1. As nom.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:49, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Any good article on Dye would realistically cover the Dyeing process. Listing both at V4 isn't really necessary. λ NegativeMP1 20:31, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Per above. --Thi (talk) 08:38, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
4. PrimalMustelid (talk) 15:36, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
5. Makes sense. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:59, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;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

;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)

;Oppose

;Discussion

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)

;Neutral

;Discussion

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)

;Neutral

;Discussion

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)

;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)

;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)

;Neutral

;Discuss

I have a lot to say about this, so here's the TL;DR. {{VA link|Video game}} articles are unfairly underrepresented compared to {{VA link|Television show}} articles and arguably also {{VA link|Film}} articles. They deserve one more slot, and no story-based games are listed, so we should add Final Fantasy. It has also had a major impact on the gaming industry and on society and culture, more than some films we list. For more details, please read the expanded reasoning.

{{hat|Expanded reasoning}}

At VA4 we currently list three video game franchises: {{VA link|Mario}}, {{VA link|Pokémon}}, and {{VA link|Tetris}}. (Mario arguably doesn't count because we list the character instead of the franchise, but I'll count it anyway) We currently list six individual television shows, and 35 films. {{VA link|Television show}} is only VA4, while {{VA link|Television}} (the technology), {{VA link|Film}}, and {{VA link|Video game}} are both VA3. Television shows are also not much older than video games, only being created a few decades before the Atari 2600 and around the same time as the invention of video game technology. Video games are also more lucrative than TV shows at this point. Therefore, I think we can make room for one more video game franchise.

As for what that franchise should be, I propose Final Fantasy. The other option was {{VA link|The Legend of Zelda}}, but 3/4 would be too much overrepresentation of Nintendo and a proposal to add Zelda failed not too long ago. As for why I picked Final Fantasy, I have several reasons.

First, it is needed for wider representation of what video games are. We do not currently list any story-based games at VA4. All three games currently listed are gameplay-focused, with the story being a minor or nonexistent aspect of the game. Story-based games are an increasingly major section of the gaming market, and they are important enough to warrant at least one VA4 slot.

Second, Final Fantasy had a major impact on the gaming industry. The franchise is credited with popularizing RPG video games outside of Japan, it impacted how Japanese RPGs were made by popularizing an emphasis on storytelling, and Square Enix's decision to have Final Fantasy skip the Nintendo 64 is considered by critics to be the reason that the PlayStation outsold it. It has also been cited as a major influence by many video game creators, including VA5 developer {{VA link|Tim Schafer}}.

Finally, it has had a major influence on pop culture and society, to the point where I would arguably put it above {{VA link|Tetris}}. Final Fantasy is one of the best-selling video game franchises of all time and several of its games are considered among the best ever made, especially {{VA link|Final Fantasy VII}}. The {{VA link|Music of the Final Fantasy series}}, the main work by {{VA link|Nobuo Uematsu}}, has had several real-world concerts, a pair of American bronze medal-winning synchronized swimmers performed their routine at the 2004 Summer Olympics to music from Final Fantasy VIII, and the "Theme of Love" from Final Fantasy IV is part of the Japanese school curriculum. Additionally, Final Fantasy XI's lack of an online method to cancel subscriptions led to new legislation in Illinois. This is a larger societal impact than several of the films we currently list.

In conclusion, due to a need for more video game representation, especially in the area of story-based games, and the massive impact Final Fantasy has had on all parts of society, especially the gaming industry, it should be VA4.

{{hab}}

;Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:08, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
2. The underrepresentation of video games at this level is ridiculous. It is pure, unadulterated editorial bias against video games because, by all metrics, video games are now just as prevalent of a medium as film and television, or at least nearing it. Recentism isn't even a fair reason at this point when you realize that we rejected {{VA link|Pac-Man}} at this level even though it is older and is arguably just as important as Tetris. I know I've went back and forth before on the concept of video games at V4, going from not sure if any belong at this level at all to trying to add several. And maybe the ones I tried to propose had a reasonable justification to not have them at this level. But there is not a singular reason I can think of to not include Final Fantasy at this level, and the rationale given here is incredibly detailed. λ NegativeMP1 20:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Longtime video game franchise and among the most iconic and influential. PrimalMustelid (talk) 20:59, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Support, although with some hesitance since I have a stereotype in my head of VA4 being a very exclusive club which doesn't even list the likes of {{VA link|Fiddler on the Roof}}, {{VA link|Kalevala}}, {{VA link|St Matthew Passion}} or any of Jules Verne's specific works (although maybe it should). That said, if we were to add one videogame article more this would be it, with details such as the worldwide concert tours also being mega popular pushing me over the edge.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 08:47, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
5. Either this or Zelda should be added, both have had a huge influence on video games, have been around for a long time, and are still popular today. Kevinishere15 (talk) 02:09, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
6. Video games are quite underrepresented. Sahaib (talk) 14:54, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
7. Per above. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:09, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
8. --Bluevestman (talk) 23:55, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
9. It's kinda borderline for me, but I'll support. I think there ought to be a wider discussion on biases of importance/vitality thresholds between categories. ALittleClass (talk) 03:05, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Too many video games and TV shows as is _pbp 21:15, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
2. :2 being "too many" certainly is a stance. λ NegativeMP1 21:17, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
3. :{{ping|Purplebackpack89}} I think 3-4 video games is fine when we have 35 films, especially when Final Fantasy has had a considerably larger impact than some of the films that are listed solely for being really good. However, I would be willing to support swapping this with Tetris to keep the numbers the same if necessary, since this series has a much stronger claim to vitality. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:06, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Level 5 is good. --Thi (talk) 07:19, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
5. The ongoing purge of sports in comparison to the additions of video games and manga speaks more to a internet audience, but i feel 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. Pokémon, Mario and Tetris is good enough. Final Fantasy characters are not mainstream recognizable to the average person like Mario, Pikachu and Tetris. That should be the barrier for a cultural property rooted in pop culture at level 4. If something specifically on the barrier of mainstream like this has to be added, it should be Dungeons & Dragons which is the start of role playing games. It would be much better as a history thing. But i don't think that should be added. They're not mainstream enough to be added here. GuzzyG (talk) 23:06, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
6. :{{ping|GuzzyG}} The average video game, manga, book, or film has much more staying power than the average athlete, who typically fades into obscurity after their career ends and their records are broken. I'm fine with listing some athletes at this level if they have had a cultural impact, but refusing to add franchises like Final Fantasy or Dragon Ball, which have had a massive impact on modern culture, in favor of a bunch of sportspeople with good stats and minimal cultural influence, is absurd. Also, I described in detail how Final Fantasy is actually very recognizable and influential, especially in Japan. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:24, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
7. ::I didn't mention athletes, which i'm in agreement of cutting down at this level. (and nominated a bunch). I didn't oppose Dragon Ball either as that does have widespread mainstream recognition. I just don't think Final Fantasy itself meets that barrier. Widespread recognition in Japan means nothing by itself, Grand Theft Auto and Call of Duty are in the same boat, widespread recognition in the west, but not so much Japan. Such a split by location suggest video games are not as widespread globally as other art forms. Jaws (film) is the proto modern blockbuster film (and not listed). Globally recognizable and mainstream shaping on people's perception of sharks. Where is Final Fantasys impact in person? Everyone knows the shark theme, does someone off the street even recognise the Final Fantasy theme, which is touted in the nom? Does Final Fantasy have the same reach and impact of Minecraft? If the only thing that is different is that Final Fantasy is older, than why should that make it more important if every video game is recent in a history sense? Final Fantasy is not a lone global stand out above Pac-Man, Grand Theft Auto, Minecraft, World of Warcraft, The Legend of Zelda like the 3 we list are. Either way the standard of the 3 we list is mainstream average person recognisability, than Final Fantasy has to meet that and does not. That's my standard for pop culture properties on the list. GuzzyG (talk) 23:44, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
8. :::(Sorry to maybe restart this, I meant to respond with something like this at the time but I think it got late and I forgot) I suggested adding Pac-Man, Grand Theft Auto, and The Legend of Zelda not that long ago. All shot down even though there's been studies that say Pac-Man might be more recognizable of a character than Mario. Quicole suggested adding Minecraft not that long ago too; that too was shot down and it's the most popular video game ever made even if a bit recent. Everyone at this point knows what Minecraft is and Pac-Man had and still has global appeal. I also think Call of Duty and World of Warcraft were suggested yet shot down. Is the status quo of a video game at V4 truly about "mainstream average person recognisability"? Because practically every game arguably more important and famous than Final Fantasy ever was have been rejected. This discussion is the first one at V4 that is going towards a game being added rather than removed or failing to be added. And I have read a good amount of the talk page archives. I don't necessarily think video games should be highly represented at this level, but we list 30+ films. Yet any more video games than 2 or 3 would be too much? I don't get that. λ NegativeMP1 03:59, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
9. :::: It's ok to restart this, i don't mind discussing these lists or any form of art (i like them all, even games). The problem with games would be if we're being strict, is that it's 50 years old and the production of them isn't culturally widespread. The Godfather, Seven Samurai, Breathless (1960 film), Sholay, 8½ and modern stuff like Parasite (2019 film) all definitively represent their cultures pop culture. Where as video games are largely situated between the US/Japan/UK production wise, most of the biggest franchises are located there. Alot of the films quota would be to covering every countries most important work, games arent that widespread so would not have that aspect to covering it. It's like how sports may seem big in our coverage compared to everything else like actors; but it's a bunch of different sports that come together unlike top actors which are situated in Hollywood mostly, there's just not as many avenues to cover. If that makes sense. I can see 15 or so games that would fit, but then we would have to compare board game coverage, stuff like Dungeons & Dragons or Magic: The Gathering should arguably be covered too then. Even modern music, paintings, etc. If it's not kept in check, too much video game coverage would look out of place in comparison with other modern art/entertainment. Final Fantasy isn't a stand out compared to the ones you listed. There's not really stand out game franchises other than Pokemon, which is listed. The only solution would be to cut 500 bios from this list, allocate them to arts and include games and sports as a "arts and entertainment" section. It would cover all of the pop culture bios problem and the problem of some things being underrepresented. TV shows have the same problem as games and shows like The Sopranos and Friends should arguably be covered too. GuzzyG (talk) 05:08, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
10. :::::I see your points and I largely agree. I wouldn't have supported adding that many video games to begin with. Even when I suggested adding stuff like Doom and The Legend of Zelda, I think I said something on the lines of I didn't think all should be added and I was just throwing out options so I do think we can keep them in check, as with any other art form. All that being said though, I don't believe a couple more video games (as in, maybe like 2-3 more or something) would hurt. 5 would be a fair number for the medium at this level in my opinion. I will admit though, I don't think I would've started with Final Fantasy even if I'm supporting it at present. It would be pretty high on the list due to it's influence towards video games themselves, though I concede it's not as well known as other franchises. I feel like it's comparable to {{VA link|Jaws (film)}}, one that we've thrown around the idea of listing at this level a bit for its influence towards the film industry (I would roughly consider them to be in the same boat: not as popular as a lot of other works in their field but still very influential). If I were the one in charge of the list, I think Pac-Man and Minecraft would've been among the first to add. The former effectively began the widespread popularity of video games (they existed but there wasn't necessarily a defining title if that makes any sense) and the latter is the most popular video game ever made that I honestly think nears Pokemon in popularity.
11. :::::Also, in relation to the Dungeons & Dragons and Magic: The Gathering thing, I've recently considered nominating {{VA link|Role-playing game}} for this level. There might not be a specific RPG that meets this level based on sheer popularity alone but I think it's plausible that most people have played or actively playe something like an RPG. The concept of one at least is surely well known enough, especially given that it covers many bases (there's traditional roleplaying games like D&D, alongside roleplaying video games). λ NegativeMP1 05:28, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

1. (Moved from "Oppose".)
   I think level 4 is too high. (I went and looked at "Fortnite". It is level 5. Then, why should this game be higher?) --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:35, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
2. :{{ping|Moscow Connection}} Fortnite is not comparable at all. It is much newer and has had much less of a lasting impact on society. I think Final Fantasy is more impactful than a good number of the films we list, and it is definitely more important than something like {{VA link|James Cagney}}. I don't see why it needs to be kept off of the list simply because there are other games that are also somewhat important, especially when Fortnite is much less important than Final Fantasy. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
3. ::I must admit I can't really judge the game's impact cause I have never played it. But the thing is that I don't think I know anyone who has played it.
   As far as I understand, it was a Nintendo game originally and it was popular on Nintendo consoles.
   (Yes, I know this game exists. I've seen it mentioned on the Internet a lot. And the logo looks even iconic.)
   I've only seen the movie Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within. I even saw it a few times. Which is not surprising considering how often it is shown on cable TV. I regard it positively. --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:45, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
4. :::{{ping|Moscow Connection}} If you don't know much about a topic, a good way to figure out how important it is is to read the article. The article about Final Fantasy does a good job of describing how influential the series is, and I summarized the most important points in my expanded reasoning above. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:49, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
5. ::::Okay, I'll strike out my vote and let this be decided without me. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:02, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
6. Although I do think this is a step down in importance from the 3 games currently listed, I do agree that they may be underrepresented, especially when compared to film (That category seriously needs to get trimmed by like 5 or 10 movies, if you compare it to any other category you can see it's getting judged by a different standard). I would support adding Minecraft before this. ALittleClass (talk) 02:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
7. :I would also support adding Minecraft, if we can get enough support. It definitely meets the requirements for popularity and cultural impact. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
8. ::I can't think of a single reason to not include Minecraft here. Industry impact? It's the best selling video game of all time, became widely used in education, and inspired a ton of other sandbox and survival games. On List of video games considered the best, Minecraft is one of the games with the most critics deeming it one of the best games of all time. Several rank it #1. Popularity? Again, best selling game of all time, has roughly [https://mc.163.com/news/20230928/29175_1112811.html 700-million estimated players (claimed)] in China (more than the 350 million combined sales everywhere else in the world by the way), and created a multi-media franchise including a nearly billion-dollar blockbuster. It's practically on the same level of popularity as {{VA link|Pokémon}}, which is at this level. A [https://www.reddit.com/r/Minecraft/comments/1jgwbi3/my_build_landed_in_time_magazine_insane/ recent issue] of {{VA link|Time (magazine)}} even called it the "World's Favorite Game". Recency? We're likely going to be listing {{VA link|Gangnam Style}} at this level pretty soon on the grounds of it basically taking over the world. Minecraft did that too and both are roughly the same age. Minecraft is the most popular video game of all time next to {{VA link|Tetris}}. No reason to not include it. λ NegativeMP1 03:13, 3 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

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)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

Flut is V4. Fine. But why are its substypes (as lited in V4 list, under flute) although V4? They are rather niche and seem like regular V5s to me. I am refrring to Pan flute, Recorder (musical instrument), Western concert flute (42, 49 and 20 interwikis, respectively).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:25, 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?⚔)} 03:29, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Support Pan flute and Western concert flute, they are not important enough for VA4. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:32, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Oppose removal of {{VA link|Western concert flute}}. It's one of the standard orchestral instruments. We list all of them, even those which are less important outside this context, like {{VA link|Viola}} and {{VA link|Bassoon}}. Neutral on removing others. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 04:53, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
2. :I don't see why standard orchestral instruments should be V4. They seem like V5 niche topics to me. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:16, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Oppose except for Pan flute. Important instruments in concert music. --Thi (talk) 07:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Oppose removal of recorder Recorder is a very old yet still fairly-commonly played musical instrument. As noted above, it also has 49 interwikis. _pbp 16:14, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
5. Oppose Recorder per pbp. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:32, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

Pretty niche concept (9 interwikis), I have doubts this should even be V5. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:27, 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?⚔)} 03:29, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 07:16, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
4. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 07:59, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;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)

;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)

;Neutral

;Discuss

Just 2 interwikis. Odd one in the 'Non-Western music' section, listed together with much larger topics such as Arabic music (40 interwiki) and Music of China (32 interwiki). Instead, we should bump it back to V5 and promote broader {{VA link|Music of Africa}}. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:39, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:39, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
2. per nom Aurangzebra (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
3. per above. Sahaib (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Makes sense to me. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:19, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
5. PrimalMustelid (talk) 18:48, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
6. --Thi (talk) 20:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

Looking at Music, there is way too much Western WP:SYSBIAS here. "Specific musical works" section has 32 entries: all Western. Western classical music has 18 entries, vs 5 in Non-Western music. Popular music has a few Latin American genras (samba, salsa, and bossa nova (which seems to be incorrectly listed under jazz rather than salsa). Here are few suggestions:

87 interwikis, major modern genra of {{VA link|Pop music}} (V3), which has currenty no listed subarticles at V4 (unlike Hip-hop with 1, Jazz with 2, Rhythm and blies with 1, and Rock music with 3, pluz dozen+ under classical). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
2. This is certainly a vital genre. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:10, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
3. BTS is close to V4 in my opinion. Sahaib (talk) 17:15, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
4. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:39, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
5. Support. (Actually, J-pop is more vital. I remember the times when K-pop was considered a J-pop copycat.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:31, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
6. Support. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:02, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
7. Support. Per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 21:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

68 interwikis, same argument as above. Note that 68 interwikis is still more than 58 of Bossa nova, for example. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
2. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:39, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Support. --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Support. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:02, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
5. Support. Per nom. J-pop heavily influenced K-pop and is just as vital, plus Japan is one of the major markets of music. A no-brainer. GuzzyG (talk) 21:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
6. Support. Sahaib (talk) 21:24, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

78 interwikis, "a cultural phenomenon" according to our article, and arguably most famous K-pop song. Trying to counter the 32:0 Western bias in individual works listed. I am open to other ideas, but I admit music is not my forte. Sukiyaki (song) could be considered, perhaps, as one of the first Asian modern songs to reach global audience (but just 12 interwikis, it did not age well, I think). Well, hopefully someone else will have some more ideas? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Support. --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Support.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:04, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Per GeogSage in the below discussion. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:09, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
5. I think other musical works could be put onto this level alongside it, as I stated in my below comments, but sure. I can support this. λ NegativeMP1 04:49, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

We think Gangnam Style and Final Fantasy are more notable than John C. Calhoun or Joe Biden? _pbp 16:15, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|Purplebackpack89}} Yes, I legitimately think that Final Fantasy has had more of a lasting global impact than Biden has. Also, your argument here could be used to remove every single pop culture article from this level, when obviously that would be problematic. I think you are underestimating the importance of pop culture to society. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:09, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

::We have more actors listed at VA4 than Presidents of the United States... I get that pop culture is important but it's not THAT important _pbp 18:02, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I think the number of actors should be cut personally, since the works themselves are nearly always more important. However, I don't think we need more U.S. Presidents at VA4, and I say this as an American. Not every president is vital. Biden barely did anything that lasted past the end of his term. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:08, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Agreed. Biden being at V4 is/was pure recentism. I could see Trump here, sure (no comment on politics, just relative significance and impact). A bunch of others. But - Biden? Naaah. I mean, without getting into politics, the reason Democrats lost was partially because Biden was just... not "vital" for anyone and anything. Sorry. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:22, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:I think both of them are more vital then our American football players... Gangnam style is a big deal from a global standpoint and represents one of the first mainstream KPop songs to become popular in the U.S. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:04, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:Quick comment. I don't know, out of the top of my head, who Calhoun is. Shrug. We all have gaps in our knowledge, sure. Subjective. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:17, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I need to think about this one and I think it warrants some sort of discussion. Right now, we only list a small handful of modern musical works at this level. About 7 total: {{VA link|Bohemian Rhapsody}}, {{VA link|Johnny B. Goode}}, {{VA link|Kind of Blue}}, {{VA link|Like a Rolling Stone}}, {{VA link|Rhapsody in Blue}}, {{VA link|Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band}}, and {{VA link|Thriller (album)}}. I can think of good reasons why all of these should be listed and I do sympathize with the argument of trying to counter the recency bias. It's also likely, by far, the most popular song to release in the 21st century. But my question is if this song deserves its placement here more than something like {{VA link|Dark Side of the Moon}}, which used to be at this level but was removed. Is this song more important than {{VA link|Revolver (album)}}, which would 100% be at this level if we didn't list Sgt. Peppers? Is it more important than {{VA link|OK Computer}} or {{VA link|Nevermind (album)}}? Just seeing what we think should or should not be at this level. λ NegativeMP1 01:00, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

1. A while ago I nominated JRock for level 5 I think but it failed. Something to keep in mind I guess. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:02, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
2. :Genres I feel are a completely different beast than individual works. At V4, it's way harder to justify listing an individual work. Especially with how scarce our modern musical selection is to begin with, as I just brought up. I want to support this on the grounds of countering Western bias - but I just don't know how to feel about prioritizing this over however many other works. For example, we still don't have an individual {{VA link|Hip-hop}} or {{VA link|Rapping}} work. λ NegativeMP1 01:42, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
3. ::Gangnam Style was the most viewed Youtube video between (Jan 2012 – Feb 2018). The video was more significant then just as a music video for a song, it was a cross cultural phenomena that highlighted South Korean culture entering the global mainstream. I think this transcends a basic "popular song," as the kind of media (song, music, movie, videogame, book, etc.) is less important in this case then the overall significance as a symbol of global cultural exchange. That said, it was/is a wildly popular song/video in it's own right. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:04, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
4. :::I am perfectly aware of the cultural impact of Gangnam Style and how truly exceptional it is/was. I guess my point is more or less that, I think if we add this, we should start expanding our musical works selection a tad bit more at this level. I can understand adding this—I just think some works warrant being at this level as much as it, if not more deserving. λ NegativeMP1 04:45, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
5. ::::To further elaborate on this and my general stance on adding stuff like this, I would actually be perfectly fine with adding more individual musical works, movies, books, video games, and whatnot while getting rid of some biographies. At both this level and V5. Sometimes the work is more important than the artist (e.g. {{VA link|Carmen}} being at a higher level than {{VA link|Georges Bizet}}). λ NegativeMP1 04:49, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
6. :::::Preaching to the choir on biographies, I think we need tremendous reforms on that part of the project. One thing I think could be fun/helpful is making a BLP "quota" to help with the recency bias. Below I commented several articles on Gangnam style that appeared in peer-reviewed literature. I think think individual media could be evaluated at this level based in part on citation counts in the academic literature. The {{VA link|Mona Lisa}}, for example, would be my gold standard for a level 4 art piece. I'd contend Gangnam Style would be a great model for an individual piece of modern art/music that would fit at level 4. We could compare other music videos/songs to Gangnam style in terms of citations to try and determine how vital it is. I doubt many songs have a chapter in a Springer book and a peer-reviewed article in a Taylor & Francis journal that mention them in the title, but if one did, I'd suspect it might be worth considering for level 4. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:13, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
7. :::::I wholeheartedly agree. I would be glad to drop the biography quotas and give those slots to something else. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
8. ::::::So would I. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:15, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I am concerned that India is the only country that gets two entries at Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/4/Arts#Cinema_by_country. Cinema of India is broader concept but with ~50 interwikis, less vital, here, perhaps, than Hindi cinema (with ~90 iwikis and Bollywood redirecting there). As such, I suggest demoting cinema of India to V5. Hindi cinema will suffice here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:08, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
2. per nom. It's a shame that the structure of these articles is so weird but it just doesn't make sense to have 2 for India when the US only has one because the article for Hollywood redirects to {{VA link|Cinema of the United States}}. Aurangzebra (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Per nom. IMO, it should be Hindi cinema removed as a subset of the larger Cinema of India unless someone makes the claim that Bollywood itself is larger than the fuller picture. GauchoDude (talk) 23:48, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Support. Hindi cinema. If only one has to be listed it should be the former, not the latter as Indian cinema is composed of multiple languages all having a vibrant industry and it's the better all around article to list if we only had one. GuzzyG (talk) 21:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
5. Support removal of Hindi cinema. --Thi (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

26 interwikis, a relatively minor concept, mostly related to UN activities that have not achieved anything significant. V5 - ok. V4? I don't see why. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:27, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:27, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
2. I think that level 5 would be a suitable demotion for it. PrimalMustelid (talk) 18:47, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
3. This can go down to Level 5. It hasn't really accomplished much. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:57, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

There was a comment that we should probably cut actors. I think Cagney is less significant than most people who appear here, regardless of occupation.

;Support

1. As nominator. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
2. He doesn't seem VA4-level vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:51, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 19:59, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 23:49, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
5. I suppose this is what cutting down on actors looks like. Certainly not as notable as John C. Calhoun or Joe Biden. _pbp 18:04, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
6. PrimalMustelid (talk) 18:47, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
7. Support. Per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 21:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
8. Not as culturally iconic as {{VA link|Arnold Schwarzenegger}}.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 12:24, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
9. His legacy hasn't lasted in the way that say, {{VA link|Marilyn Monroe}}'s or {{VA link|Sean Connery}}'s or {{VA link|Clint Eastwood}}'s has. Kevinishere15 (talk) 21:39, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. I disagree. He was very famous. I've looked at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/People#Actors, and I think he is more vital than some others included. --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:57, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

;Discussion

I don't get the support votes. Cagney is number 8 on the AFI's 100 Years...100 Stars list, which is higher than some other people on level 4. He was a major star and won an Oscar for Best Actor. (Could it be that his Wikipedia article doesn't say this prominently enough?)
You act like he's forgotten, which isn't true. He is up there among the stars with the likes of Humphrey Bogart. --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:@Moscow Connection I see your point with the 100 Stars list, so maybe we should remove actors that appear lower on this list or not on the list at all. But 86 men and 80 women have won Oscars for Best Actor/Actress. Surely they're not all more important than Joe Biden or Bill Clinton? EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:22, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::As far as I know, some American kids couldn't name Joe Biden for peanuts when he was president. As for Bill Clinton, it's a hard question, since he is probably very known for his impeachment trial.
And anyway, your argument is similar to "other stuff exists", and some people say such arguments should be avoided. :-) Submit a proposal to add Clinton, but leave Cagney be. --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:::It's because there's only a limited number of spots. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:39, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:::"Other stuff exists" only applies to AFD. We only have room for 2000 people at VA4, and I don't see how Cagney is one of the 2000 most important people to ever live. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:47, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

We currently list three American football players. I do not think we need that many. {{VA link|Tom Brady}} is one of the best players of all time in the most important position in the game, and he has more championship wins than any of the teams. {{VA link|Jim Brown}} had an impactful career as a football player, an actor, and an activist. That leaves Jerry Rice. While he was a really good player, we need to remove at least one of the players. He is less important to league history than Brady was and has less broad importance than Brown, so I think he should be the first one cut.

;Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom, I'd probably vote to keep one of the players, undecided on which. Kevinishere15 (talk) 02:04, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
3. λ NegativeMP1 18:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Let's start reducing the number of biographies at level 4. PrimalMustelid (talk) 18:46, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
5. Support. Per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 21:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
6. --Thi (talk) 20:02, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
7. American football is just one of those sports that's no one other of its home country gives a crap about. I do think it's notable enough outside the US to warrant having a person on here, but that's about it. --Bluevestman (talk) 01:10, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
8. Aye. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:39, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

We definitely do not need two speed skaters at VA4, and {{VA link|Eric Heiden}} has a stronger claim to vitality, so that leaves Blair for removal. She is an impressive athlete, but she can go down to VA5, since she doesn't seem much more vital than the VA5 speed skaters.

;Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:21, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
2. I have to agree, even though it's reducing the number of women. Not at this level of lasting significance. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:23, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Support. Per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 21:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
4. --Thi (talk) 20:01, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
5. Remove Heiden too. J947 ‡ ^edits 05:41, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
6. I don't think we need any skaters besides the figure ones. --Bluevestman (talk) 01:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

A network of universities. It's big - India is big - but so what? Nothing in the lead suggest they are particularly important, certainly not outside India. This topic seems like V5, but not V4, for me. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:19, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:19, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 20:00, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Top ranked universities in India for engineering. And they are influential outside India. Many IIT graduates go the USA and are highly prominent. Also India is a huge country. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 02:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
2. :Damn, beat me to the punch. Aurangzebra (talk) 02:39, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
3. I am an American with no Indian descent and I am very familiar with IIT. In my engineering/computer science circles, it is considered an elite institution (of course, some of the universities are better than others as is the case with the {{VA link|University of California}} system). The article is very poor but just look up the list of IIT alumni in the highest echelons of the tech world. Just to name a few, you have Sundar Pichai (CEO of {{VA link|Google}}), Satya Nadella (CEO of {{VA link|Microsoft}}), Shantanu Narayen (CEO of {{VA link|Adobe}}, Ajaypal Singh Banga (former CEO of {{VA link|Mastercard}}), and Arvind Krishna (CEO of {{VA link|IBM}}). Anecdotally, if you look at the engineering/STEM labs of any top elite American universities and search for Indian international grad students/postdocs/professors, there is a 90% chance they did their undergrad degree at an IIT school. Aurangzebra (talk) 02:38, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Oppose. This inclusion helps balance out western bias. Would trim U.S further. before India. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:22, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
5. :You also voted in Support as a heads up. Aurangzebra (talk) 03:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
6. ::Thanks. I think I thought it was an Add but not sure what I was thinking at that moment. Maybe I came to a different conclusion after reading a second time and thinking about it more, I don't know. Thanks again for the catch. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:49, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
7. We need to list at least one Indian university. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:33, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

I don't believe that we need six baseball players, five of which are American, at Level 4. Mays seemingly did not hold any major MLB records for any significant amount of time, and black players are already represented by {{VA link|Jackie Robinson}} at Level 4, so he isn't needed for that either. He may be considered one of the best, but so are many of the Level 5 players. Ideally baseball would only have 2 or 3 players at this level, but let's start by getting it down to 5.

;Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:23, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 15:07, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Per nom. --Thi (talk) 19:59, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Per nom. PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:44, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
5. Per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 00:28, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

1. Guess we have to cut some baseball players on here, but I don't like how Mays has a higher chance of leaving than Cobb. --Bluevestman (talk) 01:14, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

Do we consider Hank Aaron more vital or important than Willie Mays, even though Sandruno Oh and Barry Bonds have more homers? _pbp 16:10, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:I'd support removing him too. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:I don't think the number of homers a person has makes them vital. I'd be fine getting rid of all three as well. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:23, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{VA link|Barry Bonds}} isn't listed at this level anyway. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:25, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::If we're considering the most culturally significant ballplayers, it's Jackie Robinson and Babe Ruth, and Oh for the international.

::If we're considering Greatest Of All Time, different criteria can be used, with home runs being one of them. Of Hank, Babe and Willie, Hank has the most career homers of the three, Babe has the best pure hitting averages (all-time leader in slugging and OPS), while Willie is the most complete player of the three, considering also fielding and baserunning _pbp 01:05, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I'm more interested in cultural impact at VA4 unless someone is the singular unarguable GOAT for the entire sports. I'd be fine listing only Robinson and Ruth at VA4, but apparently we don't have the votes to remove Cobb, which is annoying because he definitely isn't Level 4 vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:12, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

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)

;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)

;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)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

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

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

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)

;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)

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)

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)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

Somewhat popular activity, but definitely not at VA4 levels of importance.

;Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:20, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. --Thi (talk) 21:47, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Not as vital as {{vital article link|Rock paper scissors}} in my opinion. Sahaib (talk) 22:12, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Seconding Sahaib.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 23:13, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
5. Per nom. I almost nominated this today actually with professional wrestling. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:02, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
6. Yeah, too narrow. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:21, 19 April 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)

;Oppose

;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)

"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)

;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)

;Discuss

We currently only list one manga/anime franchise at VA4, that being {{VA link|One Piece}}. We list 3 western comics and 35 films, so I think we have room for two mangas. Dragon Ball is one of the greatest, best-selling, and most influential manga series of all time, and it ranks among the highest-grossing media franchises of all time. Even people who have never read a single manga or watched a single episode of anime in their life can recognize {{VA link|Goku}}. I would list Dragon Ball above a lot of the biographies we list, as well as some of the aforementioned films. 105 interwikis is also a very large number.

;Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:15, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Definitely among the most prominent anime and manga franchises out there. How was this not listed here already given its high influence? PrimalMustelid (talk) 18:32, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
3. I would actually list this over One Piece. λ NegativeMP1 18:43, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Arguably the most famous manga/anime of all time. Many of its characters/elements are iconic in their own regard. SameOldSameOldSameOld (talk)
5. For sure. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:40, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
6. Agreed. GauchoDude (talk) 20:51, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
7. V4 in culture, somewhere, sure. But {{VA link|Pokémon}} is V4 too, so One Piece is not the only one. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:33, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
8. Per above. Sahaib (talk) 10:53, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
9. ALittleClass (talk) 02:39, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{VA link|Nylon}} is what's important, not the life story of its inventor who's fairly obscure at typically well-below-100 daily pageviews and died early. {{VA link|Neoprene}}, another result of his research, is not even VA5 but gets way more pageviews too.

;Support

1. As nom.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 18:16, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Not vital enough for VA4. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:24, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Per above. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:40, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Agreed. GauchoDude (talk) 20:49, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
5. --Thi (talk) 07:28, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

Probably should be VA3 if not VA2...

;Support

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

;Oppose

;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

;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

;Discuss

{{atop|Withdrawn, I did not know he was this impactful. The article undersold his influence. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:25, 27 April 2025 (UTC)}}

Seems like one of the least vital authors we list at VA4. Article doesn't show that much of an impact, and the article itself describes his level of impact as roughly equal to {{VA link|Dashiell Hammett}}, who is only VA5. For those reasons, Chandler should not be listed at VA4.

;Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:27, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Oppose Chandler is common topic in several encyclopedias and his works are listed in many lists of greatest works of 20th century fiction. He created the archetype of tough private detective, a common trope in popular culture. Stan Lee is better choice for removal. --Thi (talk) 20:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Article sucks but I still recognize the name even as someone who isn't very invested in literature, and his works are pretty influential in of themselves. I would oppose removing Stan Lee, by the way. λ NegativeMP1 20:27, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Same opinion as NegativeMP1. Kevinishere15 (talk) 18:46, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
4. No way, one of the most important writers in crime and such. I see references to him all the time (unlike to Hammett, whom I've never ever heard of - shrug). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:05, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

J947, our resident cricket expert, mentioned this guy as a potential removal in a different section. Six cricket players is too many. I'm not seeing anything in Warne's article that would put him on a higher level than our VA5 cricketers, especially since he doesn't seem to be considered among the greatest of all time. He can go down to VA5.

;Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:05, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 20:13, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
3. λ NegativeMP1 20:28, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Support. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
5. As with the above. Hyperbolick (talk) 23:16, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
6. Support because Cricket only needs Bradman and Tendulkar. "especially since he doesn't seem to be considered among the greatest of all time"; he is actually seen as one of the greatest bowlers ever. Hence him being 1 of 5 people on this list Wisden Cricketers of the Century (crickets top authority); but cricket only needs two reps, one to cover the anglo country popularity base and one to cover it's popularity in South Asia and Bradman/Tendulkar fit that. GuzzyG (talk) 04:53, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
7. Agreed. GauchoDude (talk) 13:38, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
8. The only bowler listed, but no bowler really stands out as a candidate compared to Bradman/Sobers/Grace/(Tendulkar). J947 ‡ ^edits 20:33, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
9. Really don't like GuzzyG's repeated claims there should only be two cricketers on here. That's said I don't think we need this guy. --Bluevestman (talk) 03:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

Francis was a transformational pope that is on par with Pope John Paul II.

;Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 22:00, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. This discussion was inevitable and I knew it was coming. It's worth noting we only have a dozen or so popes at Lv 4, for an office that has almost 300 occupants and has been around for two millennia. Now is not the time per RECENTism. I would recommend waiting 2-5 years to see if his reforms "stick" under his as-yet-unnamed successor _pbp 22:51, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Per pbp, I'd like to wait and see if his reforms stick. If they do, he'd be a good VA4 candidate, but if they get reversed by his successor, he doesn't reach VA4. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Per above, I really think we need to have a cool down period after someone dies of at least a decade. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:42, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
4. A mixed legacy [https://www.politico.eu/article/pope-francis-death-complex-legacy-catholic-church-vatican-city-state/] --Thi (talk) 07:00, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
5. Good, not great, not for this level. GauchoDude (talk) 13:37, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
6. Too early, and I don't think so. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:06, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

1. I don't know whether or not I would list him here regardless, but I don't think we should be making vitality proposals for people on the same day of their death. This happened with {{VA link|Jimmy Carter}} not that long ago, for example. λ NegativeMP1 22:07, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Agree on the notion of waiting until the body has grown quite cold. Probably not before 2026. Hyperbolick (talk) 23:15, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

This seems headed to defeat, but if anyone is keeping score, here are the other popes listed at VA4:

• From antiquity, we have the traditional founder of the church in Rome, the first apostolic father of the church, a "Great" pope and Doctor of the Church who turned back Attila and convoked the Council of Chalcedon, and a "Great" pope who wrote the Dialogues and converted many of the Barbarians. Only four of the first 150 popes are listed at VA4
• The five Popes from the Middle Ages and the Renaissance are listed as politicians, because they ruled over the Papal States and claimed supremacy over the crowned heads of Europe: the pope who initiated Gregorian Reform and papal celibacy, the pope who preached the Crusades, a pope who issued many interdicts and convoked the Fourth Lateran Council while also preaching more Crusades, the pope who compiled canon law and also managed to piss off almost everyone of influence in Europe and the Borgia pope who represents the decadence and hypocrisy of the church that ultimately 1492
• Modernity is overrepresented in popes, even if Francis is not added, especially considering the lack of temporal power of the pope in modernity, with a quarter of VA4 Popes representing the last 200 years: a pope who served for 32 years, lost the Papal States, and pushed back against revolutions, a sanctified pope who convoked Vatican II and a Polish-born pope who served for for 27 years, traveled all over the world and sanctified more people than anyone else.

Am aware that some of these are apples and oranges. And, if you look at the VA4 popes by tenure, at least half of them beat Francis' tenure of 12 years _pbp 01:40, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

1. I started a discussion becasue of this based on something I've been thinking about for a while [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles#Limits_on_Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons_and_recently_deceased here] if anyone wants to join. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:07, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

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)

We list six basketball players at VA4, all Americans. We do not need six basketball players among the 2000 most important people in all of history. Looking through the list, Johnson seems like the weakest of the six inclusions. He has a few records, sure, but there are a lot of records to go around in sports, and having a couple of impressive records isn't enough for VA4 vitality. We don't list {{VA link|Shaquille O'Neal}}, {{VA link|Kobe Bryant}}, or Johnson's rival {{VA link|Larry Bird}} at VA4, so I don't see why we should list Johnson.

;Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:04, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Aye. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:58, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 07:10, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Support Jordan and LeBron are enough for Basketball. Maybe Wilt. Basketballs popularity of 50 years is too new in comparison to Baseball which has over a century of cultural dominance and yet is facing heavy cuts. (even if it's more international, it's way too new as a a thing to have this many people on a list of 2,000 people covering every aspect of human activity and time). GuzzyG (talk) 00:58, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
5. Agree with pbp that there's nothing wrong with basketball having six people. That's said I do find it weird that Magic is a level higher than Larry. --Bluevestman (talk) 03:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. We had a January 2024 discussion that closed without any supports. I don't feel any differently now.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:55, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Oppose. GauchoDude (talk) 11:11, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Oppose. --Moscow Connection (talk) 03:45, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

1. Having five basketball players + Naismith is OK, but Magic shouldn't be one of them _pbp 02:08, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

(From the Angels game) More to the point, we don’t list {{VA link|Bill Russell}} either, who is more decorated (11 rings, 5 MVPs) and more influential (first black superstar). If both Magic and Naismith pass, we go down to just four basketball players. Would also note that we don't list any women basketball players at VA4. _pbp 02:08, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:I don't see an issue with going down to four basketball players. Baseball is about to go down to three, and basketball isn't that much more impactful. QuicoleJR (talk) 11:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::Considering that basketball has been in the Olympics for almost 90 years, including almost half a century by both genders, and is played in a lot more countries than baseball is, I think there is a decided impact gap in favor of basketball _pbp 14:31, 23 April 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)

;Oppose

We definitely do not need 14 track and field players in the 2000 most vital biographies of all time. This guy seems like a good target for reducing that number. He seems pretty good, but I don't see VA4 levels of impact. He can go down to VA5.

;Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:34, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. I don't think we need any athletes at level 4, much less 14 track and field players. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:42, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Agreed. GauchoDude (talk) 13:31, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Per nom. 14 Track and field athletes are too much and the "athletics" in the name is giving alot of leeway here and implies we cover multiple disciplines when they're almost all just runners. Jackie Joyner-Kersee and Sergey Bubka are the only 2 known for primarily "field" sport achievements, with Pierre de Coubertin being the Olympics founder, that leaves 11 people known for running, way, way, too much. Needs heavy cuts here. Jesse Owens, Usain Bolt, Carl Lewis, Florence Griffith Joyner and Haile Gebrselassie are the only needed names here. I'd remove Bubka for Dick Fosbury, who with the Fosbury flop did fundamentally change his sport. (in comparison to Bubka, now surpassed in achievement). 11 runners on the level of association football is too much though, way too much. This guy is not a global popular cultural figure. That's Usain Bolt, Jesse Owens. That should be our standard. Even if he "is" the best long distance runner, there's many "bests" we don't list. I'd cover equestrian and weightlifting instead of long distance running, especially when the attention running gets is predominantly on sprinting. GuzzyG (talk) 01:44, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
5. :I am not arguing for him as the best long distance runner. We have a reliable source that as of 2013 considered him the greatest runner. If we have a half dozen, we need to keep the greatest runner of all-time. It is possible that Bolt may have eclipsed him in 2016, but whether he is the greatest runner or second to Bolt, we need to keep this guy. The people that know running understand that his excellence was a greater achievement than almost any other type of running excellence. Do you contest that he is either the greatest or second to Bolt greatest runner in history. -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:50, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
6. ::For popular culture people on this list (arts, sports) there should be some standard beyond respect and achievement by people in their own industry. There has to be evidence of being globally known too, along with that respect. He is the runners runner, maybe. But this lists standards are Jesse Owens, Usain Bolt, Flo-Jo etc names that Zátopek doesn't match. We wouldn't list the actor's actor, the director's director or musicians musician. I don't think any non sprinting runners have the cultural profile enough to be listed, i'd list Haile Gebrselassie irregardless of that though, to represent Kenyan/Ethiopian dominance today of long-distance running. You can't list every sports individual industry people to be listed. Mark Todd (equestrian) got voted " Rider of the 20th century by the International Federation for Equestrian Sports", we also list nothing for horse racing. We don't list Naim Süleymanoğlu known as the most important weightlifter. Many long term historic and Olympic sports like those two have zero people, so why should running have more than Bolt, Lewis, Owens and Flo-Jo? Ma Long is the one most dominant Chinese athlete at the olympics and his nomination got no support because table tennis doesn't have a global rep, so why should people like Zátopek be listed? Do you see how much we don't list? Why should we list anyone but the sprinting big 4 and Gebrselassie to represent African modern dominance? That's 5 runners, is that not enough? Why does running need more than that? Because of one list a runners site made? GuzzyG (talk) 23:34, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
7. --Thi (talk) 07:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
8. This category should not outnumber the number of soccer players we have on here. --Bluevestman (talk) 03:43, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. My dad (1957 Athlete of the Year for the Republic of Panama, by some accounts) who ran a 10.2 100m when the world record was 10.1 (or so he says), says this is the greatest track athlete ever, which is what Runner's World seems to say. So if we have over 10 track spaces, we must leave this guy. Mainly because of Runners World, but I am compelled to vote out of remembrance for my father.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:39, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

Hero for Scotland during the First War of Scottish Independence. He is referenced frequently in popular media and his story is the subject of Braveheart but there isn't that much here besides that. The First War of Scottish Independence isn't a VA5 event, {{VA link|Scotland}} isn't even an independent nation anymore so the long-term effects of his impact are a bit muted, and he is not a household name. There are better candidates for independence and resistance fighters we can include here. Aurangzebra (talk) 22:05, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. As nom. Aurangzebra (talk) 22:06, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Per nom. Regional historical figure backed by one popular movie. We have lots of Scots already, someone like Owain Glyndŵr would be similar but Welsh. (no Hollywood movie). We cover Robert the Bruce from the First War of Scottish Independence, i don't know why we need two people from this relatively regional event. (i'd support Bruce's removal too, regional Scotland politics of this era is kind of a European niche thing, Robert Burns is enough for a figure that's mainly known for Scottish history. GuzzyG (talk) 01:10, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
4. --Thi (talk) 07:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Oppose. Arguably one of, if not the most famous Scottish people of all time. Not sure how someone in the same breath can say "referenced frequently in popular media" then later "he is not a household name", seems a bit in opposition. The guy's got an entire section regarding the books and movies dedicated to him spanning hundreds of years. GauchoDude (talk) 13:45, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
2. :Actually read his pop culture section. The subject of Braveheart, a cut scene in a movie no one's heard of, a couple of poems and stories written about him, three novels about him that don't have Wikipedia articles, the protagonist of a tutorial in a video game, and several beers named after him. This isn't a VA4 pop culture legacy. And he certainly does not have a VA4 actual legacy. He is also nowhere close to being the most famous Scottish person of all time. Crazy to say that when we have {{VA link|Mary, Queen of Scots}}, {{VA link|Alexander Graham Bell}}, {{VA link|Adam Smith}}, {{VA link|Robert Burns}}, {{VA link|Walter Scott}}, {{VA link|David Hume}}, and {{VA link|James Watt}}. Hell, even {{VA link|Sean Connery}} is a more famous Scot in my opinion. We have better Scottish representation already. I said he is referenced frequently in popular media because he is a legend for Scottish people but this impact does not transcend globally like other national legends do (think {{VA link|Joan of Arc}}, {{VA link|Grigori Rasputin}} etc.). Aurangzebra (talk) 20:35, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

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)

;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

With heavy cuts to baseball, basketball, cricket ongoing, i think we should cut the second Rugby player. This guy has no impact or legacy article section, is not globally popular or had any global impact and only has 13 interwikis. This is not one of the 2,000 most important people in history as of now. Bobby Charlton, George Best, Stanley Matthews are all more popular British athletes and apart of the sport that the UK has a bigger global impact on, so why should Edwards be listed? Is he one of the 50 most important athletes ever? (Lomu is the first global star of the game and the highest regarded star from the country that is most dominant in the sport, so should be the one to stay).

;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. We definitely don't need two rugby players. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:50, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Aye. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:57, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
5. As someone who just nominated someone who has two more interwikis than him under the belief that that's too small of a number to be on here, yeah he gotta go. Sucks cause I do think two is a good number for Rugby. --Bluevestman (talk) 03:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;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)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discussion

Popular Hollywood star who has faded from memory. Not a household name, which should be the standard for Hollywood golden age actresses (Monroe, Bette Davis, Elizabeth Taylor, Audrey Hepburn etc). She's known today for only 2 films, It Happened One Night (Gable and Capra listed) and The Palm Beach Story; two films is not enough work. Carole Lombard was removed and she's remembered more than Colbert in screwball comedies. James Dean isn't listed and he is still remembered as a global star. Colbert isn't on that level, or any other modern actor not listed. (Pacino, DiCaprio, Tom Cruise etc). She's got one big role and nothing else, she's not a globally impactful cultural figure on her own and we don't need to list her biography.

;Support

1. As nom GuzzyG (talk) 02:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. --Thi (talk) 07:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
3. She can go down to Level 5. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Never heard of her. Skimming through the article, the scant statements of importance (a handful of awards, "Modern critics have pointed out that Colbert had a unique set of assets [...] that distinguishes her from other classic cinema") are too weak to put her alongside the likes of {{VA link|Marilyn Monroe}}.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 11:54, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discussion

I believe that film as a whole is already very over represented here, given that the format has only been around for a little over a century, and yet there's more individual films here then there are individual pieces of music. If I had to pick the least important film currently on the list it would be L'Atalante. It might be critically acclaimed but it's not nearly culturally relevant enough to deserve being here, and what it represents (old critically acclaimed French dramas) is covered by Children of Paradise. ALittleClass (talk) 02:28, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. [nom]
2. Agree, this is not as good VA4 film material as e.g. {{VA link|Metropolis (1927 film)}} and {{VA link|The Birth of a Nation}}, fits better on VA5 with the likes of {{VA link|The Passion of Joan of Arc}}. Although it's highly praised with a [https://www.theyshootpictures.com/gf1000_all1000films.htm #20 spot currently at They Shoot Pictures, Don't They], its fame is too limited at ~75 daily pageviews. And we have several French films already, with {{VA link|The Rules of the Game}}, {{VA link|Children of Paradise}} and {{VA link|Breathless (1960 film)}} in the same section.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 07:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 07:25, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Per nom. Too many French films as is. Most important English language movie not listed is Jaws (film) (proto blockbuster film) and Sholay (defining film of Bollywood) would be more important to cover than more art French films, which is covered in-depth - even dipping into something newer than Star Wars, Pulp Fiction or Titanic (1997 film) should be here. Honestly, Children of Paradise should be removed too, it's not popularly known globally and we list many other critically acclaimed dramas.. GuzzyG (talk) 09:33, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
5. I would definitely like to swap out some bios for some more works, but I'm not convinced that this work reaches Level 4. I would personally rather list Jaws or Titanic before this film. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:26, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
6. λ NegativeMP1 23:11, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

1. We list 32 specific musical works in comparison to 35 specific films. There's also the factor that, obviously, every film here was released post-1900. But only 7 musical works at this level were created after 1900. I mean, I agree that we could have more musical works than films. But technically speaking there's really not that much of a coverage gap in terms of numbers. We could try to find some newer musical works to list at this level. λ NegativeMP1 23:11, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

We list too many biographies at Level 4 IMO. Nathaniel Hawthorne is only listed at this level because of {{VA link|The Scarlet Letter}}, which is also listed at this level. None of Hawthorne's other works are listed as vital at Level 4 or Level 5, and none of them have had a level of impact anywhere near The Scarlet Letter, which is by far his most famous and impactful work. For this reason, I believe that Hawthorne should be demoted to level 5, while The Scarlet Letter stays at this level.

For a similar case, see {{VA link|Louisa May Alcott}}, the author of {{VA link|Little Women}} and a set of other books with a similar level of impact to Hawthorne's non-Scarlet Letter works. We don't need to list the creator of every Level 4 work at Level 4, and we already don't, so we have no reason to list Hawthorne at this level.

;Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:14, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Agreed. GauchoDude (talk) 21:02, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Per nom. Not just Alcott, we also don't list writers like Aldous Huxley, Harper Lee and J. D. Salinger because we list their one notable novel. So there's an established standard to not list people notable for just one popular novel but to list the work. But American writers is in a bit of a weird state. We list way too many genre authors (sci-fi etc) and don't really cover anything else in a balanced way. We miss early American authors big in early American Lit history like Washington Irving, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow and James Fenimore Cooper, we're light on the big modern literary American novelists like (Don DeLillo, Norman Mailer, Cormac McCarthy, or Philip Roth). Poetry is well covered surprisingly. But playwrights aren't with Eugene O'Neill being a pretty big miss or even Neil Simon. Stuff like Gravity's Rainbow, Infinite Jest and Maus should be listed as works too. Meanwhile we list, Robert A. Heinlein whose reputation is falling off a cliff yearly and writers like Ray Bradbury (should be swapped for his novel Fahrenheit 451). Or we cover all three main Beat writers (including Jack Kerouac AND his sole known work On the Road, but as seen before we don't list O'Neill, one of American theater's big 3). Either way, Hawthorne is a good start, but there needs to be more of a reorganization of how American literature is covered here, with more of a balance and mix between timeframe, popular genre writers, arguably "small" (in long term history) scene of writers (beat) and established critically acclaimed writers and extra care to see what writers have one main work and who has more of a fuller career. Stan Lee should be moved to comics, it's better to list all comics related people in one spot and you can't compare Lee to someone like Washington Irving but to Jack Kirby. GuzzyG (talk) 22:46, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
5. Support. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:26, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

1. Looking at the VA4 list, there are at least a dozen American authors that I would remove before removing Hawthorne _pbp 00:03, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
2. :Margaret Atwood, Ray Bradbury, William S. Burroughs, Robert A. Heinlein, Ayn Rand and Upton Sinclair are fluff that should be removed wholesale and Hawthorne removed (still has his only known novel listed), Jack Kerouac (only known novel listed) and Kurt Vonnegut swapped for Slaughterhouse-Five. Lee moved to comics to be with other comics people. We don't list the one screenwriter we list in literature but film. If we're doing heavy pop culture cuts, this is it for American literature. Who would you cut? Every section should have a go-over on this list. None of these people are giants like Washington Irving or Eugene O'Neill and can be cut to level 5 easy. GuzzyG (talk) 00:19, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
3. ::Like I said in the Heinlein section, I'm not worried about pop culture cuts, I'm worried about how many people we list. 20% is way too much of the list to be dedicated to biographies. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:22, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
4. :{{ping|Purplebackpack89}} Would you mind sharing who some of them are? I would likely also support cutting most of them. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:12, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
5. ::{{VA link|Margaret Atwood}}, {{VA link|William S. Burroughs}}, {{VA link|Ursula K. Le Guin}}, {{VA link|Sylvia Plath}} and {{VA link|Kurt Vonnegut}} are some that come to mind right away. {{VA link|Robert A. Heinlein}}, {{VA link|Ayn Rand}} and {{VA link|Raymond Chandler}} are already being proposed for removal. I'd probably remove {{VA link|H. P. Lovecraft}} on the same auspices; he doesn't have a work as well known as The Scarlet Letter. _pbp 00:19, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
6. :::Chandler has been withdrawn, but I would not oppose if you wanted to renominate. Other than that, we need to cut more bios, and I would support removing everyone you listed except Lovecraft, who I would keep due to his massive influence on the horror genre and on pop culture. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:27, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
7. ::::Another thing I find concerning is the era distribution of American authors. The early-to-mid-19th century is UNDERrepresented (no Longfellow, Irving, Cooper or J.G. Whittier), and would be even more so if Hawthorne is removed. OTOH, we seem to have a TON of writers from the 1950s or thereabouts _pbp 01:32, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
8. :::::I agree, like i said in my support. Irving, Cooper, Longfellow should all be added and cuts made to the post 40s writers here. American writers is bloated by genre writers and recent ones. International writers are bloated by unknown writers like Patrick White and Halldór Laxness. Writers just as much needs a audit and reexamination as most sections here. Hawthorne is different though, like Salinger and Lee. He has no other prominent work than the Scarlet Letter and that is the established way we do things, to list the novel over the person. GuzzyG (talk) 01:49, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
9. :::::I would support adding {{VA link|Henry Wadsworth Longfellow}} to Level 4. He is arguably the most famous American poet of all time and has had an impact on American society. {{VA link|Paul Revere's Ride}} (should be vital) single-handedly popularized Revere as a national hero, and {{VA link|The Song of Hiawatha}} is listed at Level 5 already. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
10. ::::::Just proposed him for addition. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

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)

;Oppose

;Discussion

"number 50 on TV Guide's "50 Greatest TV Stars of All Time" says it all. We now have 4 American television hosts listed. Johnny Carson, Oprah Winfrey, Fred Rogers and Sullivan. We should have 1 or none. Oprah is the only global one. But Oprah covers daytime, Carson is late night and Fred Rogers is preschool. We certainly should not have the 50th greatest tv star. His importance is based on having Elvis and The Beatles on his show, i don't see how this is vital work, more a holding space for others. David Frost is a television host who interacted with history and he's not listed. The Ed Sullivan Show would be more important. If American footballs 3 is in question, how is American tv any different? These are specifically regional entertainers and have 0 global relevence (except Oprah to an extent).

;Support

1. as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 01:33, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Support per this and previous nominations. --Thi (talk) 07:24, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Gotta agree on him not being that important. --Bluevestman (talk) 20:18, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

FWIW, Ed Sullivan is on there for being an influential kingmaker, not a charismatic personality. Comparing him to Oprah or Mr. Rogers is apples and oranges. Comparing him to David Frost is apples and oranges...Frost didn't make Nixon _pbp 03:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

1. He had a platform that showcased rising talent and two happened to get big. He's not responsible for Elvis or the Beatles, he just made it easier for them. I don't think that's a top 2,000 achievement in history. If he was a total kingmaker, judging from his article, Buddy Holly and The Doors would not have been big. He is on here for circumstance, not himself GuzzyG (talk) 05:21, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

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)

;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

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.

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

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

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)

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'm not sure what would be the appropriate amount of interwikis an article should have to be on here, but fourteen feels too low. Also, hate to harp on article quality, but his Japanese article is on par with our barely better than a stub of a page.

;Support

1. Bluevestman (talk) 22:44, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
2. I've thought about this one before. His legacy is nothing that significant and it even says in this article that his influence was roughly overshadowed by his son, {{VA link|Kanō Motonobu}}, who isn't even vital at any level. None of his works appear to have articles of their own either. And stats wise, 14 interwikis is not an acceptable number for V4. There have been 76 total edits since 2004 (suggests a lack of interest in the subject). [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=all-time&pages=Kan%C5%8D_Masanobu Only about 30,000 page views since 2015]. But he did seem to leave some sort of an impact with the {{VA link|Kanō school}} so I'd say that he's a decent fit for V5. But he just isn't at the level of excellence or importance that V4 requires. λ NegativeMP1 22:50, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Per NegativeMP1. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:29, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Noticed this among the least-viewed people on VA4 but was afraid to actually nominate for sysbias reasons.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 07:05, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
5. --Thi (talk) 07:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

The second has 126 interwikis, the first has 9. I believe the second is the primary topic.

;Support

1. Per nom. -1ctinus📝🗨 01:05, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
2. --Bluevestman (talk) 22:04, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

6 interwikis, doesn't seem to be an important grouping of species to me. V5 seems more appropriate.

;Support

1. per nom. -1ctinus📝🗨 01:05, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

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. I do believe there may be too much rock, but this is indeed a very important album.
4. :Was this meant for Nevermind? --Bluevestman (talk) 22:06, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
5. 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)

;Oppose

;Neutral

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)

;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)

;Neutral

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. On par with {{VA link|Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band}}, so sure. ALittleClass (talk) 08:21, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
4. --Bluevestman (talk) 22:04, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

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)

;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

;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)

;Oppose

;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

;Discuss