Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 78

{{atopg

| result = Removed 5-0, nominated nearly 3 months ago and no comments in a week. starship.paint (RUN) 14:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

}}

VA4 is at 21 articles over quota, VA4 Physical sciences is at 1 article over quota. This is a sparse article on rocks that seems more suitable for V5. We already list {{VA link|Stratigraphy}}. starship.paint (RUN) 09:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

;Support

1. as nom. starship.paint (RUN) 09:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
2. J947 ‡ ^edits 05:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
3. _pbp 03:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
4. Interstellarity (talk) 00:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
5. Makkool (talk) 14:13, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{Clear}}

{{atopg

| result = Removed 5-0, nominated nearly 3 months ago and no comments in a week. starship.paint (RUN) 14:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

}}

Much fewer interwikis than all the other engineering articles listed there (this has 20, the second lowest has 37, the highest has 101). We're over quota in total V4 and V4 Technology. starship.paint (RUN) 08:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

;Support

1. as nom. starship.paint (RUN) 08:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Aszx5000 (talk) 17:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
3. Per nominator. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 23:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
4. Interstellarity (talk) 00:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
5. Makkool (talk) 14:13, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

• I wonder if {{VA link|Computer engineering}} should be swapped in here? Aszx5000 (talk) 20:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

{{abot}}

Histories of two high population non-Western countries that would help reduce sysbias. Vileplume (talk) 23:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

;Support

1. As nom. Vileplume (talk) 23:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
2. Weak support Bangladesh. See my rationale in the Oppose section. feminist🩸 (talk) 06:07, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
3. Per nom. Interstellarity (talk) 10:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Oppose DRC. Both countries are relatively recent social constructs (DRC 1960; Bangladesh 1971). While Bangladesh is perhaps a middle power with significant exports of clothing, the DRC has little influence internationally. feminist🩸 (talk) 05:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discussion

1. Any suggestions for compensating removals? (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 05:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
2. Looking back at this, something like {{VA link|History of Kenya}} is more vital than that of the DRC. Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 21:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

{{atopg|1=Removed 5-0, proposed over 1 month ago and no comments in over 1 week. starship.paint (RUN) 15:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)}}

We are over quota in Level 4 and {{VA link|Booting}} is nowhere near as important as other computer topics at this level. Given the rise of flash memory chips and instantaneous-booting, I am not sure that this is even a level 5 topic. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

;Support

1. As nom. Aszx5000 (talk)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 13:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
3. Interstellarity (talk) 00:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
4. As nom, but I still think this should be a VA, just at level 5. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 12:05, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
5. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 03:33, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

{{abot}}

{{Clear}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Added 5-0, proposed 58 days ago, no votes in 17 days. Makkool (talk) 19:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

}}

I think {{VA link|Climbing}} is at least Level 4. It is the head topic for the established Level 4 sub-topics of {{VA link|Mountaineering}} and of {{VA link|Rock climbing}}, as well as other Level 5s (e.g. {{VA link|Sport climbing}}). It also includes the Olympic sport of climbing, which is Competition climbing, and should itself be at VA 5 (there are other climbing sub-topics which should also be VA 5). Climbing is equivalent to other Level 3 R&E topics such as {{VA link|Swimming}}. I think Climbing should ultimately be Level 3 but it must get to Level 4 first. Aszx5000 (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

;Support

1. Nom. Aszx5000 (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
2. Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 14:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
3. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 14:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
4. per nom. Interstellarity (talk) 19:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
5. I agree that this should probably be Level 3. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discussion

{{abot}}

{{Clear}}

{{atopg

| result = Removed 5-0, nominated 3 months ago, no comments in 10 days. starship.paint (RUN) 14:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

}}

VA4 is at 21 articles over quota, VA4 Technology is at 44 articles over quota. This is a sparse article that does not appear important enough at this level. Compare with {{VA link|intensive farming}}. starship.paint (RUN) 09:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

;Support

1. as nom. starship.paint (RUN) 09:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 13:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
3. SailorGardevoir (talk) 20:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
4. Interstellarity (talk) 23:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
5. Makkool (talk) 14:13, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{Clear}}

{{atopr

| result = Not added 1-3, nominated over two months ago and no comments in over two weeks. starship.paint (RUN) 14:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

}}

I feel this is closer to level 3 than to level 5 since it is more common these days. I think level 4 is sufficient for this article. Interstellarity (talk) 16:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

;Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 16:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Sigh, sad oppose from someone who identifies with a nonbinary gender. I would add both {{VA link|Third gender}} and {{VA link|LGBT}} first. Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 23:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
2. Closer to level 3? A sub-type of a level 5 article? No way; strong oppose. The Blue Rider File:Postal horn icon.svg 14:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
3. We added LGBT to level 4 (Cewbot is screwing up presently so it does not show) and I think LGBT is sufficient at level 4 over non-binary gender which is less common. starship.paint (RUN) 12:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discussion

{{abot}}

{{Clear}}

{{atopg

| result = Removed 5-0, proposed 3 months ago and no comments in over a week. starship.paint (RUN) 02:22, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

}}

VA4 is at 21 articles over quota, VA4 Technology is at 44 articles over quota. This topic on a textile does not appear important enough at this level. starship.paint (RUN) 09:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. as nom. starship.paint (RUN) 09:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
2. Per nominator. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 23:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
3. Per nom. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
4. Interstellarity (talk) 23:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
5. Makkool (talk) 16:08, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{Clear}}

{{atopg

| result = Removed 5-0, proposed over two months ago, no comments in over a week. starship.paint (RUN) 14:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

}}

The article was merged into {{VA link|Moggy}}, which has no interwikis. The content on "domestic short-haired cat" is less than 260 words. starship.paint (RUN) 02:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

;Support

1. as nom. starship.paint (RUN) 02:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
2. Support domestic pet breeds are overrepresented at this level. Gizza (talk) 00:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
3. Per nom. Aszx5000 (talk)
4. Without a doubt. Interstellarity (talk) 18:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
5. This could be removed boldly, as it's a redirect now. Makkool (talk) 14:13, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

• Can we WP:BOLDly swap with Moggy? Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 01:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• {{re|OhnoitsvileplumeXD}} - why should we? We don't list {{VA link|Mongrel}} (21 interwikis) at V4. starship.paint (RUN) 15:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• :{{ping|Starship.paint}} Domestic short hair cat apparently has 14 interwikis, and Moggy was the article it was merged into. Have we done the same with other articles in the past, or have we removed them? I do agree that this is only a V5 concept, though. Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 01:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{Clear}}

{{atopg

| result = Added 5-0, nominated 1 month ago and no comments in 10+ days. starship.paint (RUN) 11:29, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

}}

Just added to V5. We (and many other animals) all need to do this to stay alive. Humans can't go without it for 30 minutes. This should be more common than most of the proposals on this page. starship.paint (RUN) 15:11, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

;Support

1. as nom. starship.paint (RUN) 15:11, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
2. 'Support Often gets mistaken for respiration, which is level 3 I believe. The different article about moving ones chest to intake air etc, is still probably lev 4 vital separate from respiration.  Carlwev  15:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
3. Per nom Mathwriter2718 (talk) 03:07, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
4. I agree. Basic function of life. Interstellarity (talk) 19:38, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
5. 'Support --Thi (talk) 07:45, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{Clear}}

{{atop

| result = Added Nirvana (band) 6-1, removed The Velvet Underground 7-0, did not add Sex Pistols 1-2. Discussion ran for around 50 days, last vote regarding Pistols was over a month ago. starship.paint (RUN) 11:58, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

}}

Yes, the last thing we need is more rockers, but as you can see through this link, we don't have anyone from the alternative or punk scene. To me, this is a glaring omission, especially when it comes to alternative rock which has arguably been the main form of rock since it broke through. And no, the Velvet Underground does not count for either subgenre; alternative deserves to have someone whose music was made after the initial punk wave, while your average person is probably more likely to categorize VU as art/experimental rock than proto-punk.

For alternative, I'm just going to go with the most obvious candidate. Although R.E.M. were technically the one who demonstrated the commercial viability of alternative rock with Out of Time (they're also usually held to be one of the first alt rock band), most people consider {{VA link|Smells Like Teen Spirit}} to be thing that truly pushed alternative into the mainstream. There's also the whole "voice of the generation" personality cult that surrounds {{VA link|Kurt Cobain}}.

For punk, I'm not going to lie; it is kind of weird to nominate a band that's usually held to only have one album. But these guys played a huge rule in both spearheading the British punk scene and in shaping punk fashion. They also possess a notoriety that none of the other punk rockers really have.

;Support

1. Support both. Swap with VU if necessary. SailorGardevoir (talk) 01:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
2. Support addition of Nirvana. Relevant in contemporary culture. Swap with The Velvet Underground is also possible. --Thi (talk) 11:45, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
3. Support swap of {{VA link|The Velvet Underground}} for {{VA link|Nirvana (band)}}, as a clear improvement. Aszx5000 (talk) 16:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
4. Swap VU for Nirvana Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 02:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
5. Support removal λ NegativeMP1 02:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
6. Support Nirvana and swap 49p (talk) 19:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
7. Support swap for Nirvana. Kevinishere15 (talk) 22:01, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Oppose both additions After thinking about this for a while, I fail to see how either of these are worthy of V4. There's too much rock representation here (and at V5, for that matter) to begin with, and even with the removals recently proposed I don't think either of these acts are worthy of V4 in terms of global impact to society as a whole. Nirvana's relevancy in modern culture can basically be summarized to T-shirts and one song. And while I don't deny that they both are certainly influential, I can't see them being impactful or widespread on a similar level as Queen (band) or Elvis Presley. I think V5 is a good spot for them. λ NegativeMP1 02:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
2. Oppose Sex Pistols, we can probably use a better punk band. Ramones and the Clash are much better picks imo. 49p (talk) 19:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

;Discuss

1. {{ping|SailorGardevoir}} V4 is drastically over quota, and this proposal even if fully enacted would bring the count up by one. Is there one more artist/band even outside of this genre that you would want to propose the removal of? λ NegativeMP1 02:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
2. :I've already made it clear that I'm content with swapping Joan Baez, Dolly Parton and/or Buddy Holly out for Run-DMC and Kanye West, but other than Baez no one has shown any interest in removing them. SailorGardevoir (talk) 03:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{Clear}}

{{atop

| result = Added Run-DMC 7-0, removed Joan Baez 6-2, did not add Kanye West (3-3 at best), did not remove Dolly Parton (1-3) and Buddy Holly (0-3). starship.paint (RUN) 11:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

}}

We got to have more rappers than just Tupac Shakur. Hip-hop just celebrated its 50th anniversary last year, and it’s one of the biggest genres in the world right now. It is certainly more popular than country or (European) folk, which we decided for each genre to list three of its musicians on here (four if you count Bob Dylan and to a much lesser extent Taylor Swift). I think we need at least two more hip-hop musicians on here.

Run-DMC is probably the easiest group we can promote. They are frequently called “the Beatles of hip-hop”, and for good reason. Besides being the first rappers to have their videos played on MTV and be featured on the cover of Rolling Stone, they are also the first hip-hop act to go gold, platinum, and multi-platinum. Not only that, they are arguably single-handily responsible for transforming hip-hop from old-school to new-school, with not just their music (rejecting the disco-driven party anthems in favor of hard-edge rhymes and drum machine-heavy beats) but even with the way they dress. (Before, rappers used to wear dramatic, flashy outfits when performing. Run-DMC eschewed that with, well, regular street clothes, including most famously Adidas shoes.)

Now, I would prefer if we just add these guys, but I understand if we need to swap someone out in order to include them. Baez is probably the least vital person in country and folk. For one, we have her former boyfriend, Bob Dylan. I know he’s listed under rock, but unlike Swift who has abandoned country completely, Dylan’s music by in large still has some folk elements to it. More importantly however, she is just largely not known as a songwriter. For folk musicians, especially contemporary ones, singing your own compositions is pretty big deal, and while she has written her own material, they are not on par with those of Woody Guthrie and Joni Mitchell.

I will admit that it took me quite a while to come up with another person to promote to Level 4. I ultimately decided to nominate Ye, but if someone thinks that there’s a better person to promote, feel free to speak up. West is usually held to be one of the hip hop musicians of all time. Maybe not as a rapper, but definitely as a producer. Six of his albums are on the latest version of Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time. Him beating 50 Cent on the album charts with his third album is usually held to bring end of gangsta rap-era of hip hop.

Again, I understand if we need to swap someone before we include him. Again, I don’t think country and folk needs that many people, and after Baez, Dolly Parton is probably the least vital. However, I am open to swapping West with Buddy Holly. We got plenty of rockers, and while his death is tragic, I don’t think his music or status as an icon is as revolutionary or as big as Nirvana.

;Support

1. As nom. Swap with Joan Baez and Dolly Parton respectively if necessary. SailorGardevoir (talk) 21:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
2. Support Add Run DMC. I was an occaisional college radio station DJ/contributor in these days. They are the group that commercialized rap with their first three albums that went gold, platinum and multiplatinum. Those three albums paved the way for "Licensed to Ill" and then the floodgates for Rap music.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
3. Support addition of Run-DMC with no other changes. Baez, Parton and Holly each independently warrant level 4. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 21:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
4. Support additions and removal of Joan Baez. Hip-hop has been the world's most popular music genre for over a decade, while Baez has become a bit of a cultural totem, I'm afraid. An enduring figure, but her actual music (songs, albums) is rarely celebrated compared to other V4 pop artists. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 01:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
5. Support both addition (Kanye is weak support, just due to recentism + other comparable acts), removal of Baez as well. Holly and Parton are too vital. 49p (talk) 06:45, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
6. Support Run DMC and removal of Baez. Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 02:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
7. After a bit of thinking, I support the addition of Run DMC and removal of Joan Baez, but I maintain my oppose towards Kanye West. λ NegativeMP1 16:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
8. Support removal of Joan Baez. --Thi (talk) 08:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Oppose addition of Kanye West as too recent. --Thi (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
2. I concur the comment below outside of voting that {{VA link|Eminem}} is likely more worthy of V4 than Kanye West. λ NegativeMP1 20:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
3. Oppose, bites off too much. Run-DMC maybe, but Kanye is better known for antics than rap. Debate over who is the most vital rapper is far above this. Disagree offhand with all proposed removals. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
4. :So you're content with just having 2Pac on here? Because right now he is the only rapper we have. SailorGardevoir (talk) 01:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

;Discuss

The best selling hip hop artist is {{VA link|Eminem}}, who also ranks higher than Ye in the Billboard and Vibe's 50 Greatest Rappers of All Time. I think he is ahead of Ye. Run DMC is significant for different reasons though as early pioneers and it's harder to compare them with contemporary rappers. Gizza (talk) 23:56, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

{{abot}}

Spain looks a bit underrepresented with only five cities compared to Poland and Ukraine getting six each. Bilbao has a metro area of over a million, more than 50% larger than {{VA link|Zaragoza}} and the largest city in Northern Spain, and particularly the {{VA link|Basque Country (autonomous community)}}. I'd also add {{VA link|Lille}}, but France is already well-represented. Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 00:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

;Support

1. As nom. Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 00:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 08:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Bilbao is not a level 4 city, would rather add the historical {{VA link|Salamanca}}. The Blue Rider File:Postal horn icon.svg 14:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
2. :If Bilbao is not V4-worthy, neither is Salamanca. Bilbao has 121 interwikis compared to Salamanca's 100 and over triple Salamanca's pageviews. Salamanca is also much smaller than the other European cities excluding {{VA link|Syracuse, Sicily}}. Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 15:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
3. :: Not sure why people love to use these metrics so much; Salamanca might not be a big city population wise but it has a strong historical, cultural and theoligical influence, contrary with Bilbao. The Blue Rider File:Postal horn icon.svg 15:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discussion

Setting aside on whether we should place the Sufis in their own separate section, why is he not under the Sunni section? Wahhabism is very strictly a Sunni thing.

;Support

1. SailorGardevoir (talk) 10:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 12:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

{{Clear}}

{{Archive top

|status = withdrawn

|result = The two articles had been split. IDBLWK (talk) 08:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

}}

The former article was merged into the latter. IDBLWK (talk) 13:16, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

;Support

1. IDBLWK (talk) 13:31, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
2. per nom Aurangzebra (talk) 20:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. There was no consensus for such merge, I will be reverting it. The Blue Rider File:Postal horn icon.svg 23:17, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

;Discuss

{{Archive bottom}}

{{Clear}}

{{atopg

| result = Swapped 5-0, proposed over a month ago and no comments in over a week. starship.paint (RUN) 13:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

}}

The territory is more important than its primary settlement.

;Support

1. As nominator. feminist🩸 (talk) 17:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 18:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
3. per nom Aurangzebra (talk) 06:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
4. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 09:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
5. I think that {{VA link|Gaza Strip}} has overtaken in terms of notability and vitality. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

1. Neutral, leaning support per Carlwev. Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 02:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

;Discuss

The city is thousands of years old, the territory only came into in the 1940s. Gaza Strip is of similar importance as West Bank should we include one without the other? Should we have both or neither? And why? Was discused 11 years ago when Gaza was added [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/4/Archive_19#Add_Gaza_and/or_Gaza_Strip].  Carlwev  09:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{Clear}}

{{atop

| result = Withdrawn by nom. Makkool (talk) 17:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

}}

The fertile crescent in the Near East is more a region that's relevant in geography even today, rather than a historical concept that happened in the past. The article even talks about biodiversity and climate before its history. So I'm proposing moving it away from Ancient History to Regions and country subdivisions.

;Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 00:07, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

{{abot}}

VA4 is at 21 articles over quota, VA4 Technology is at 44 articles over quota. This is the third largest hydroelectric dam in the world, which produces the second most hydroelectric energy, but it has been eclipsed in both regards by the {{VA link|Three Gorges Dam}}. starship.paint (RUN) 09:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

;Support

1. as nom. starship.paint (RUN) 09:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 13:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. It got named as one of the seven modern wonders of the world. SailorGardevoir (talk) 20:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
2. :{{re|SailorGardevoir}} - That was in [https://books.google.com/books?id=O2YEAAAAMBAJ&q=itaipu&pg=PA50&redir_esc=y#v=snippet&q=itaipu&f=false 1995], in a publication that simultaneously named the 7 Wonders of the Future, which lists ... the {{VA link|Three Gorges Dam}}, which according to this publication will be {{tq|outmuscling Itaipu by 50%}}. starship.paint (RUN) 08:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

;Discuss

The opposite of {{VA link|Mobile phone}}. Has historical significance though not as common as it used to be. Interstellarity (talk) 23:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

;Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 23:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
2. {{VA link|Telephone}} and {{VA link|Mobile phone}} are both VA3, and this used to be very important as the main type of phone before mobile phones, so it makes sense at VA4. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. I would prefer to see {{VA link|History of the telephone}} elevated to Level/4. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 08:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
2. :+1 This proposal makes more sense given that Landline will be dispatched to history. Aszx5000 (talk) 14:11, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discussion

Smilodon isn't really more taxonomically significant compared to other machairodontines like Machairodus which has an older taxonomic history and is the defining type genus. While it may be the most culturally significant one based on stereotypical machairodontine designs, there's not much strong indication that people are necessarily familiar with the specific genus. Level 5 should suit it fine. PrimalMustelid (talk) 17:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

;Support

1. per nom. PrimalMustelid (talk) 17:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. per [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=all-time&pages=Machairodus|Machairodontinae|Smilodon|Felidae|Canidae|Carnivora|Mustelidae|Procyonidae all recorded pageviews], Smilodon is at over 1,467 per day, Machairodus is at 72 per day, and Machairodontinae is at 181 per day. Smilidon is close to {{VA link|Carnivora}} at 1,527 per day and above {{VA link|Mustelidae}} at 1,335 per day. starship.paint (RUN) 14:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
2. :We don't list all individual pages that amount to over 1,000 views a day to level 4, though. Smilodon has a weaker paleontological influence unlike say Mammuthus which not only is culturally iconic but has over 3 centuries of taxonomic importance that has been recognized by many paleontological historians. PrimalMustelid (talk) 14:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
3. ::[https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=all-time&pages=Mammoth Mammuthus] has even fewer views (1,337 per day) than Smilodon. I interpret this that people are actually familiar with the specific genus Smilodon. Machairodus may have been discovered 15 years earlier but is basically culturally irrelevant today. I see both Mammuthus and Smilodon as viable representatives of Pleistocene megafauna. starship.paint (RUN) 14:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
4. :::If we're talking about Neogene-Quaternary faunas, I can name plenty of genera that have been credited with more paleontological significance while having strong cultural influences, and I wouldn't place too much weight on Wikipedia pageviews. The issue with Smilodon here is that even if it is the most iconic machairodontine, it doesn't necessarily stray too far from other machairodontines, either; rather Smilodon and other machairodontines are represented as "saber-tooth cat" archetypes that do not closely align with any specific genus. This is unlike specific dinosaur genera that are clearly intended to be represented individually in fictional works. Or well, mammoths, which are clearly well-represented even if primarily known by the woolly mammoth. There's nothing wrong with it being a level 5 vital article at all, it's still on par with plenty of important genera like Palaeotherium, Coryphodon, Deinotherium, Hipparion, Mammut, Megaloceros, Megatherium, and such. PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
5. ::::The alternative is to replace Smilodon with the Machairodontinae as a compromise, but I'm not particularly confident over that idea. PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
6. ::::[https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=all-time&pages=Smilodon|Palaeotherium|Coryphodon|Deinotherium|Hipparion|Mastodon|Megaloceros|Megatherium|Machairodontinae Clearly] not on par for most of them. starship.paint (RUN) 03:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
7. Well, it only gets more views because it is a carnivore. Nevertheless, saber-toothed tigers are culturally and paleontologically relevant. The Blue Rider File:Postal horn icon.svg 16:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
8. :If we are willing to define the "saber-tooth cats" as a group as "vital," we can perhaps consider if we should swap out Smilodon with the Machairodontinae. PrimalMustelid (talk) 18:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

;Discuss

Scams involve over a trillion dollars [https://www.livemint.com/news/world/global-scams-take-away-1-4-trillion-from-people-singapore-leads-victims-list-study-11697804103292.html each year], and are here to stay.

;Support

1. as nom. starship.paint (RUN) 09:49, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
2. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
3. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 01:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Oppose don't think it stands out compared to other types of fraud at this level. Gizza (talk) 23:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

;Discuss

• Is this sufficiently distinct from {{VA link|Fraud}}? Aszx5000 (talk) 17:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

VA4 is at 21 articles over quota, VA4 Technology is at 44 articles over quota, so we've got to take action. This was big in its heyday in the 1930s, but seems to have been eclipsed in all regards today. Not sure if it would be listed if it was not American. starship.paint (RUN) 09:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

;Support

1. as nom. starship.paint (RUN) 09:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
2. Per nom, American bias. The Itaipu Dam, also proposed for removal, is bigger and better and costlier. The role history and iconicness has to play here is IMO not massive – dams are listed primarily for technological reasons. J947 ‡ ^edits 05:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Major tourist attraction. SailorGardevoir (talk) 20:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
2. Regularly listed as the most iconic dam in history, E.g. [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2015/jan/12/12-dams-that-changed-the-world-hoover-sardar-sarovar-three-gorges here], [https://interestingengineering.com/lists/13-of-the-worlds-most-fascinating-dams here]. Aszx5000 (talk) 17:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
3. :{{re|Aszx5000}} - your links do not back up {{tq|most iconic dam in history}}, Guardian just says {{red|iconic}} and Interesting Engineering says {{red|one of the most iconic}}. starship.paint (RUN) 03:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
4. ::Doesn't the Interesting Engineering say {{tq|Hoover Dam in the USA is probably one of the most iconic of all dams}} in it header? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 08:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
5. :::{{re|Aszx5000}} - it absolutely does say that, but that's a double qualifier, {{red|probably}} and {{red|one of the most}}, not {{tq|the most iconic dam in history}}. It's like [https://edition.cnn.com/2024/05/17/style/unseen-photos-royal-family-gbr-scli-intl/index.html CNN] saying {{red|Elizabeth II was probably one of the most photographed women in history}}, but me claiming Elizabeth was the most photographed woman in history. starship.paint (RUN) 15:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

;Discuss

Per Landline discussion. Interstellarity (talk) 12:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

;Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 12:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discussion

{{Clear}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Moved 5-0, proposed 84 days ago, no votes in 15 days. Makkool (talk) 11:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

}}

Yes, Tyre is a historical city and appears in ancient history. It is one of the oldest continously inhabited cities, but it is continously inhabited, even today. We do list other ancient cities like {{VA link|Alexandria}} and {{VA link|Syracuse, Sicily}} in the Geography section, so I can't see why we shouldn't list Tyre there as well.

;Support

1. per nom. Makkool (talk) 05:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
2. Per nom Mathwriter2718 (talk) 03:05, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
3. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 03:14, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
4. Iostn (talk) 22:47, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
5. Per nom. Nervelita :3🏳️‍⚧️ (talk) 09:56, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

Reading this list (specifically Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Arts) made me notice that we list no examples of television series at V4. I feel that, if we list any video game related subjects here and around 33 films, there's probably room for a few TV series, even more so since Arts is technically 25 articles under its quota. Is there a specific reason why none are listed? λ NegativeMP1 23:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

:We do have a few, under Society/Mass media. Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 23:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

::Wasn't where I expected them to be, my bad. λ NegativeMP1 23:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

::An unintuitive inconsistency, I'd rather have broadcast fiction under Arts too.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 06:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

:::Yeah I agree. With some of the listings, putting individual shows under that might make sense (ex. {{VA link|Sesame Street}}) but the vast majority as well as the category itself do not. Should we consider a wider discussion to move them over to Arts? Would also redistribute items from an over-quota area to an under-quota area. λ NegativeMP1 18:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Should be on the same level as Public transport which is an important type of transit. Interstellarity (talk) 13:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

;Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 13:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. The concept itself isn't that important and that shows in the interwikis; {{VA link|Car}} should already cover it. The Blue Rider File:Postal horn icon.svg 14:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discussion

We don't include any people known for {{VA link|skateboarding}} in VA4, but we do have two for {{VA link|Speed skating}} so I believe we should have at least one or two. The easiest suggestion is Tony Hawk or Rodney Mullen. Rodney Mullen is known as "the godfather of skateboarding." He created multiple skateboarding tricks, such as the flatground ollie, kickflip, heelflip, etc. (which are considered the basis of skateboarding) Tony Hawk is much more known for his work in the media. He performed the first ever "900," (where many people doubted the possibility of it happening) had a popular game series of his own name, and pioneered vertical skateboarding. Hawk is arguably the most known figure in skateboarding, but Mullen is possibly the most influential in skateboarding. I'm fine with adding either or both.

; Support

1. per nom49p (talk) 00:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
2. Support Tony-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

; Oppose

1. The speed skaters are obscure figures, leagues below footballers we don't list and should be removed. Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 01:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
2. Oppose per above. --Thi (talk) 08:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

; Discuss

{{Clear}}

{{atop

| status = withdrawn

| result = Dialysis (chemistry) was already proposed for removal in another discussion. Makkool (talk) 20:11, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

}}

The article Dialysis (chemistry) is about a concept in chemistry, but it is listed in Biology and health sciences. I believe the intention has been to include dialysis as medical treatment, but the article for that is hemodialysis. I suggest we swap the articles, or at least add hemodialysis and move dialysis (chemistry) to Chemistry.

;Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 20:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{Clear}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Removed 5-0, proposed 39 days ago, no votes in 12 days. Makkool (talk) 18:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

}}

Has never been contested in the Olympics and seems to be primarily contested in a handful of countries in Southeast Asia _pbp 15:35, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

; Support

1. _pbp 15:35, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 18:07, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
3. Per nom. Nervelita :3🏳️‍⚧️ (talk) 09:41, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
4. Per nom. Aszx5000 (talk) 16:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
5. Makkool (talk) 18:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

{{abot}}

{{Clear}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Added 5-0, proposed 141 days ago, no votes in 13 days. Makkool (talk) 18:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

}}

Remains an inescapable concept in the way we talk about music.

;Support

1. As nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 01:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
2. λ NegativeMP1 18:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
3. Interstellarity (talk) 00:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
4. Per nom. Nervelita :3🏳️‍⚧️ (talk) 09:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
5. Per nom. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:15, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{Clear}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Added 5-0, proposed 173 days ago, no votes in 16 days. Makkool (talk) 12:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

}}

Key economic concept that we interact with very commonly (just promoted to V5). 75 interwikis. starship.paint (RUN) 01:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

;Support

1. as nom. starship.paint (RUN) 01:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:06, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
3. per nom. Interstellarity (talk) 00:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
4. Per nom. Nervelita :3🏳️‍⚧️ (talk) 09:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
5. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 08:55, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{Clear}}

{{archive top|status=passed|result=Removed, 6-2 _pbp 15:38, 6 October 2024 (UTC)}}

VA4 is at 21 articles over quota, VA4 Everyday life is at 23 articles over quota. This is a niche sport more suitable for V5, I believe. starship.paint (RUN) 09:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

;Support

1. as nom. starship.paint (RUN) 09:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
2. Of the three sports you suggested removing, orienteering seems to be the most niche by a good amount. Seems less vital to me than your typical V4. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 03:02, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
3. Per nom. Aszx5000 (talk)
4. Makkool (talk) 17:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
5. Not in the Olympics 17:34, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
6. support as someone who actively participates in orienteering. I think all sports are overrepresented and over-emphasized in the vital articles.

;Oppose

1. Oppose  Carlwev  12:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 13:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

;Discuss

{{ping|Carlwev}}, {{ping|Thi}} I'm curious: what's your rationale for this at VA4? _pbp 21:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

{{Clear}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Added 5-0, proposed 106 days ago, no votes in 43 days. Makkool (talk) 18:42, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

}}

Related discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Society#Add_Coup_d’etat

I am nominating this here although it isn't quite level 5 yet and will very likely be so once the discussion closes. There was also support to add this article to level 4 in that discussion and I think starting this discussion now is probably sufficient. Interstellarity (talk) 22:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

;Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 22:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
2. As someone who stated it should be V4 over in the V5 discussion. λ NegativeMP1 16:06, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. Aszx5000 (talk) 12:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
4. Very important. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
5. Important, support per nomination. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 18:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

# Per WP:VANOSKIP, this should be added for Level 5 first, and then considered after. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

::@Aszx5000: This article is now level 5, would you consider switching to support now that this article is level 5? Interstellarity (talk) 12:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

::: Supported that now Interstellarity. thanks for that. Aszx5000 (talk) 12:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discussion

{{abot}}

I know we list Human behavior at L3, I think adding this article to level 4 would be helpful since it is important to cover the behavior of other organisms. Interstellarity (talk) 23:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

;Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 23:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discussion

There seems to be an issue with trying to reach quota. I was figuring that the way to solve this is to only allow additions if we are under quota and removals if we are over quota so that we can reach a reasonable compromise on what articles we can add and remove. Interstellarity (talk) 22:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

:As a permanent rule, it is too unflexible and impractical, but at some point we can start a campaign to meet the quotas. --Thi (talk) 09:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

This is an important state we don't list. It is higher in population and is similar in GDP to other states in India. Interstellarity (talk) 22:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

;Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 22:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
2. Support addition. On the topic of country subdivisions, there are open discussions about adding São Paulo or swapping with Minas Gerais, swapping British Columbia with Ohio (I can name at least half a dozen US states that aren't listed but deserve to be here more than BC), and your proposal to remove Northern Ireland and Wales (which has no chance of passing, but I'd still support a swap between Cardiff or Belfast and Bristol). Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 02:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discussion

Does anyone know how to move interwikis? Someone just did a bold merge with both domestic short-haired cat and domestic long-haired cat to moggy, and now all the original interwikis for both pages are sitting at redirect pages. SailorGardevoir (talk) 10:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

:I've merged items in Wikidata before, but I think in this case it should stay as it is until every language version does the same merge. We can't move all the interwikis to the same item as long as some Wikis have separate articles on short-haired and long-haired house cats. All we could do now is move all the interwikis that are about house cats in general to moggy. Makkool (talk) 17:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

We don't list {{VA link|Brother}} or {{VA link|Sister}} when we list {{VA link|Sibling}}. I feel it would make sense to swap these two out. I might also consider removing either {{VA link|Parent}} or both {{VA link|Father}} and {{VA link|Mother}}. Interstellarity (talk) 21:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

;Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 21:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 08:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. J947 ‡ ^edits 22:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Oppose most societies have stronger gender differences and there are vast differences is the role of husbands and wives. Spouse is just a boring legal term, which is why the articles is much shorter in length. There isn't much to talk about spouses which isn't in the marriage article itself. Gizza (talk) 00:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
2. :@DaGizza: Interesting you oppose this nomination. I would also like to point that we list Parent as well as Father and Mother. Would you consider supporting removing Parent if that were nominated? I would feel inclined that you would oppose removing father and mother, so I'm interested in your thoughts on whether you support the removal of parent. Interstellarity (talk) 01:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
3. Oppose, I do think Gizza has a point that around the world, the roles/concept of Husband and Wife are still at Level 4 in importance, so they should remain for now. Perhaps we should add Spouse in the same way/fmt that we have Parent and Father/Mother? They seem like an equivalent situation. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:03, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discussion

I don't think it makes sense to list cousin when we don't list {{VA link|uncle}} or {{VA link|aunt}}. Interstellarity (talk) 00:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

;Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 00:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
2. : Per nom. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discussion

• Thinking about this again, I think we should add {{VA link|Uncle}} and {{VA link|Aunt}}. These are some of the most important relationships/concepts in any human's life, no matter where they are in the world. They should be at Level 4 (there is plenty of stuff in Level 4 that would rank well behind these two concepts in importance to a given human). Aszx5000 (talk) 10:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Seems to be the right place for them. They are there at level 5. Interstellarity (talk) 16:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

:I feel that these are more companies/businesses than a "technology" (i.e. like {{VA link|internet}}). Aszx5000 (talk) 14:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

::Agree. They are listed in technology only because on level 5 they are considered as "web sites" rather than "companies". It seems we can't achieve a satisfying solution and we'll have to list some of them at Society and social sciences and some of them at Technology on level 5. Makkool (talk) 12:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

These terms are important relatives of the family. They are a big part of many families. Interstellarity (talk) 21:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

;Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 21:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discussion

The opposite of Father and Mother, these should be listed since these are part of almost every family. Interstellarity (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

;Support

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

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discussion

We list anarchism, but not this article. Interstellarity (talk) 22:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

;Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 22:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Conditional oppose. I will note that of the major forms of governance, {{VA link|Anarchy}} comes alongside {{VA link|Democracy}}, {{VA link|Oligarchy}} and {{VA link|Autocracy}}. At their current levels, I can't support anarchy being moved up to VA4 while autocracy remains at VA5. I'm saying this as someone working on improving the anarchy article. If autocracy is also moved to VA4, I'll consider supporting. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discussion

Per suggestion in Anarchy discussion. Interstellarity (talk) 19:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

;Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 19:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discussion

Recently added at VA5, worth discussion here I reckon.

;Support

1. Support as nom. J947 ‡ ^edits 02:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
2. Interstellarity (talk) 00:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

• {{re|J947}} - can you propose to remove something? We are already over quota. I firmly believe that nominators and supporters should do the work to keep us within the quota, instead of having other editors have to put in the effort to find more articles to remove. starship.paint (RUN) 07:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Why isn't he under writers? SailorGardevoir (talk) 20:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

• {{re|SailorGardevoir}} - just go ahead and shift him. starship.paint (RUN) 07:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
• :Are you sure? I just want to know what's the rationale of him being under Hindu figures and not writers. SailorGardevoir (talk) 10:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
• ::{{re|SailorGardevoir}} {{tq|the first author in all history to bring himself into his own composition.}} starship.paint (RUN) 12:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
• :::Yeah, I'm just going to make this topic a move discussion. Other than moving people who are placed in the wrong time period, I'm not comfortable messing with the level 4 and higher pages. SailorGardevoir (talk) 20:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

OK, this is now officially a move discussion. Other than the {{VA link|Ramayana}} being an important Hindu text, there doesn't seem to be any rationale for why he's under religious figures and not writers.

;Support

1. SailorGardevoir (talk) 20:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
2. Makkool (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Biology and health sciences is at 1481/1500. I propose to lower the quota to 1480. Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Technology is at 744/700. I propose to increase the quota to 720. I've looked through the whole list and I am not sure what else to remove from Technology, if you oppose this, please help remove something. starship.paint (RUN) 09:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

;Support

1. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 09:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
2. Biology also needs a quota reduction at V5 to a much greater extent. Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 12:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
3. Makes sense. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
4. Makkool (talk) 06:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

• Should we also reduce ~20 quota each for Arts and Philosophy and increase quota for Everyday Life and Society? Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 12:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
• {{re|OhnoitsvileplumeXD}} - I haven’t comprehensively looked through both everyday life and society to conclude that everything there is indeed (on the surface) vital. Everyday life will be easier to do since it’s half the size of society. Essentially, we could possibly trim more from those categories. starship.paint (RUN) 01:17, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Just added to L5, might be worthy of L4. Interstellarity (talk) 20:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

;Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 20:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discussion

We list Great Pyramid of Giza at level 3, so I think it makes sense to list this at level 4. Interstellarity (talk) 12:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

;Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 12:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
2. Hoben7599 (talk) 15:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Both Great Pyramid of Giza and Great Sphinx of Giza are listed at this level. Case for pyramid and other specific structures at level 3 is not very strong. --Thi (talk) 16:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

;Discussion

Other than the US, where we list its major regions, this is the only region of India that we list. Assam contains the majority of this region's population so we could consider a swap considering that I think Assam is worthy of level 4 on its own. Interstellarity (talk) 23:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

;Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 23:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discussion

There is an [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/History_and_geography#c-Flemmish_Nietzsche-20240725045000-Swap_out_Qajar_dynasty_5_and_Safavid_dynasty_4_for_Qajar_Iran_and_Safavid_Iran ongoing discussion] to swap out {{VA link|Safavid dynasty}} for Safavid Iran on the Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/History and geography page that pertains to this talk page as well. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:34, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

An important type of book alongside Biography. Interstellarity (talk) 22:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

;Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 22:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discussion

{{Clear}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Moved 5-0, proposed 33 days ago, last vote 23 days ago. Makkool (talk) 12:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

}}

Dentures are an example of a medical device. We have every other medical device listed in the medical technology section except this.

;Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 20:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 21:15, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
3. per above. starship.paint (RUN) 02:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
4. per nom. Jusdafax (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
5.  Carlwev  04:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{Clear}}

{{atopr

| status = failed

| result = Not removed 2-4, proposed 63 days ago, last vote 32 days ago. Makkool (talk) 19:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

}}

VA4 Everyday life is currently at 18 articles over quota. This seems to be another niche sport more suitable for V5.

;Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 17:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 20:56, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Softball isn't a niche sport tf. It's been contested in the Olympics. If everyday life is over quota, there are better removes _pbp 18:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
2. Per PBP. The opinion of this being a "niche sport" over many other sports or everyday life lists here is absurd. λ NegativeMP1 05:08, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
3. Played in over 100 countries and in the Olympics as well. starship.paint (RUN) 11:28, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
4. Even if it was only played in the US, it's such a core part of the American cultural fabric that I believe it would still merit VA4 (similar to how {{VA link|American football}} is basically only played seriously in the US and is still VA4). But as everyone above mentioned, it is a fairly international sport and has been represented in the Olympics on and off (it will be back in 2028). Aurangzebra (talk) 23:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discussion

{{ping|Makkool}} {{ping|Thi}} Could you explain your support more in detail, and could you also explain why softball in particular is a "niche sport" and not some of the other sports that are listed at VA4 are not? _pbp 22:25, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

:Baseball is not popular in all countries. I doubt the varition of a particular game is significant. --Thi (talk) 08:38, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

::My opinion is the same as Thi's. It's a variant of another sport, and it doesn't have wide international popularity. Makkool (talk) 11:34, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

:::In the sports section, we also have Kabaddi, netball, sepak takraw, roller skating, jiu-jitsu (both regular and Brazilian), capoeria, kickboxing, Muay Thai, arm wrestling, ten-pin bowling, bullfighting, two types of cue sports, rodeo, and squash, none of which have ever been in the Olympics and several of which have their popularity confined to a single country or small handful of countries. Why is softball being singled out, when it's been contested in the Olympics and those haven't? We also have ten different permutations of track and field. And what about some of the more arcane terminologies elsewhere in the everyday life section? _pbp 14:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

::::Many of those have grounds for removal, feel free to propose them too! I wasn't singling out softball, starship.paint has suggested several other sports to be removed. Even if this doesn't get enough support, we're gonna have a sufficient group of sports to cut. Makkool (talk) 15:57, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{Clear}}

{{atopg

| status = Passed

| result = Passes 6-0 and more than 15 days have passed Aurangzebra (talk) 23:13, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

}}

No matter what your criteria is for VA4 inclusion, Stevie Wonder has them all covered:

- You care about innovation and contributions to the field? Stevie Wonder drove R&B into the album era and was the first to successfully use albums to craft a cohesive statement as opposed to a hodgepodge of singles. He is also considered a pioneer in soul, funk, and R&B and has been an influence for a countless number of musicians. His albums during his classic period determined "the shape of pop music for the next decade" according to the Rolling Stone Record Guide.

- You care about awards and achievements? He has won 25 Grammys (the most of any solo male artist ever). He is also the tied-record holder for most Best Album of the Year wins and the only artist ever to win the award with three consecutive releases. He has been inducted into the Rhythm and Blues Music Hall of Fame, Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, and Songwriters Hall of Fame.

- You care about critical acclaim? He is the 7th greatest vocalist according to the Rolling Stones' 200 Greatest Singers of All Time and the 15th greatest artist of all time according to the Rolling Stones' 100 Greatest Artists of All Time (every single person ahead of him on the latter list is VA4). His three 'classic period' albums are in the top 60 of the Rolling Stones' 500 Greatest Albums of All Time and Songs in the Key of Life is at #4 (he also has another album in the top 300). He has 5 songs in the Rolling Stones' 500 Greatest Songs of All Time including Superstition (song) which is at #12. He is also Top-importance at both WikiProject Musicians and WikiProject R&B and Soul Music.

- You care about global popularity/legacy/influence? He is a household name and he is included on the list of best-selling music artists of all time with 30 top-10 hits, 10 #1 hits, and 20 R&B #1 hits. Elton John once said that only four musicians will stand the test of time centuries from now: {{VA link|Louis Armstrong}}, {{VA link|Duke Ellington}}, {{VA link|Ray Charles}}, and Stevie Wonder. He's even had social impact; he was a key figure in getting Martin Luther King Day established as a federal holiday in the US and he was heavily involved in civil rights and desegregation busing efforts.

I don't know who I would choose to replace him. I feel like {{VA link|Marvin Gaye}}, {{VA link|Aretha Franklin}}, and {{VA link|Ray Charles}} deserve to be on here (though I will say that Stevie Wonder probably deserves to be on here more than some of these articles). I think {{VA link|The Supremes}} have the weakest claim to VA4 in that category but I hesitate to remove them because I still think they are VA4-worthy. Ideally we can slot Stevie Wonder in here without removing anyone but if we must, we can also look at other musical categories. Aurangzebra (talk) 06:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

; Support

1. per nom Aurangzebra (talk) 06:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
2. I'm actually surprised he wasn't listed already. He's easily more worthy of this level than several other artists or bands. I would normally be hesitant to support a proposal to add someone without a swap, but he's a perfect fit for this level. It would also seem that People is technically under quota (by 6), so I don't see any problem with adding him right now. λ NegativeMP1 01:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
3. :I looked into it after I proposed it and it seems like he was on here but was removed [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/4/Archive_52#Remove_Stevie_Wonder]. There wasn't really any reasoning beyond the fact that the proposer thought he was on the same level as Elton John who they had just removed and the fact they didn't believe he was in the top 150 musical artists of all time. The former is untrue considering the fact that Elton John himself considers Stevie Wonder one of the four greatest musicians of all time (and he doesn't include himself on that list) and the rankings/stats I bring up above seem to suggest that the latter is untrue as well. Aurangzebra (talk) 03:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
4. Absolutely. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 11:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
5. Also surprised he’s not listed already. Jusdafax (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
6. Per nom. Although I'd like to hear the arguments against Elton John being VA-4 as well, does he just not have the same level of critical acclaim? CopiousAmountofCannons (talk) 17:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
7. Easy choice, someone needs to explain to me why Elton John isn't V4. Idiosincrático (talk) 10:49, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
8. :Though I feel less strongly about Elton John than I do Stevie Wonder, I would support a VA4 proposal for Elton John. Aurangzebra (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{Clear}}

{{atopr

| status = failed

| result = Not added, 1-3. feminist🩸 (talk) 03:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

}}

Very clear that the sex pistols addition isn't getting added, and certainly V4 is getting overflowed. But we list punk rock at V4, yet don't include any bands. We also list electronic music at V4 and have 2 artists that are electronic (namely, {{VA link|Brian Eno}} and {{VA link|Kraftwerk}}). So it seems fair to have at least one punk artist listed. The Clash is probably the safest bet to put at VA4 for punk rock, other than maybe Ramones or Patti Smith. They were arguably commercially successful, and {{VA link|London Calling}} is extremely praised. Top importance on the wikiproject for rock music.

; Support

1. 49p (talk) 17:00, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

; Oppose

1. _pbp 18:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
2. Hmmm, as much as I like The Clash, I would say that {{VA link|Green Day}} is more influential within and outside of punk rock. The Blue Rider File:Postal horn icon.svg 14:35, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
3. Ehhh... we have a lot of rock bands at V4 and I'm not sure if these guys meet the mark V4 stands for even as representation for punk. I don't deny their influence, they are definitely important and I do agree that we should have a punk-related group at V4, but at this level we still need to consider their impact on a global scale, and I think the only punk group that might meet that mark is Green Day. But I could probably be convinced otherwise. λ NegativeMP1 05:14, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

; Discussion

1. I am aware they are not punk, but from heavy metal or rock in general, we have removed Metallica, U2 and Bruce Springsteen among others. My instincts say The Clash are not more vital than them.  Carlwev  15:27, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

:Metallica should be readded. I don't believe we have any representation of {{VA link|Heavy metal music}}, a very popular genre, at this level. They are a globally popular (literally, they've even played in Antarctic) and influential band on similar levels as {{VA link|Nirvana (band)}}, which we just added (though I still somewhat disagree with that addition). λ NegativeMP1 05:14, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

1. Don't want to dogpile the opposes but I don't believe any punk rock artists have made the cut for VA4. However, I will say that if we do decide a punk band should be included in VA4, The Clash would 100% be the best addition (followed by the Ramones then the Sex Pistols imo). Aurangzebra (talk) 23:53, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{Clear}}

{{atopr

| result = Not removed 3-4. starship.paint (talk / cont) 02:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

}}

VA4 is at 21 articles over quota, VA4 Everyday life is at 23 articles over quota. This is a niche sport more suitable for V5, I believe. starship.paint (RUN) 09:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

;Support

1. as nom. starship.paint (RUN) 09:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Nervelita :3🏳️‍⚧️ (talk) 09:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
3. Per nom. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Unlike some of the other sports nominated, it IS contested in the Olympics _pbp 03:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
3. Makkool (talk) 13:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
4. Idiosincrático (talk) 20:12, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

;Discuss

1. {{VA link|Ole Einar Bjørndalen}} is a biathlete listed as level 4 vital sports figure. Should he be removed as well, if we lose biathlon? Makkool (talk) 17:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{Clear}}

{{atopg

| status = partially passed

| result = Bangui and Nouakchott added 5-0, Gaborone and Windhoek not removed 4-2. Proposed 275 days ago, no votes in 121 days. Makkool (talk) 17:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

}}

{{VA link|Gaborone}} and {{VA link|Windhoek}} are significantly smaller cities in smaller countries than {{VA link|Bangui}} and {{VA link|Nouakchott}}. The current listing is a result of bias against CAR and Mauritania, less generally visible African countries in English media than Botswana and Namibia.

;Support

1. Support as nom. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
2. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 01:04, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
3. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 14:26, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
4. SailorGardevoir (talk) 20:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
5. Support additions Interstellarity (talk) 20:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Oppose removals. The Blue Rider File:Postal horn icon.svg 19:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Oppose removals Interstellarity (talk) 20:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

;Mixed

;Discussion

• Not too sure, Botswana and Namibia are more economically powerful. The Blue Rider File:Postal horn icon.svg 06:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop

| result = Fixed Idiosincrático (talk) 04:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

}}

The Pupa page does not exist, this is supposed to refer to 'pupa'. HoleyFrijoles (talk) 21:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{Clear}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Removed 5–0. Discussion started 200 days ago. 10 days from last comment Makkool (talk) 17:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

}}

VA4 is at 21 articles over quota, VA4 Technology is at 44 articles over quota, so we've got to take action. The addition of this dialysis article could have been a mistake, perhaps the intended target was {{VA link|Kidney dialysis}}. Either way this should be removed. starship.paint (RUN) 09:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

;Support

1. as nom. starship.paint (RUN) 09:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
2. Interstellarity (talk) 00:37, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
3. Makkool (talk) 20:11, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
4. Lorax (talk) 00:45, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
5. Idiosincrático (talk) 04:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

• If anyone were to click the "5" button, you'll see that this is listed under Medical technology. There's obviously been a mistake... starship.paint (RUN) 15:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
• {{re|Makkool}} - this proposal was for remove, but you added it? starship.paint (talk / cont) 02:26, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
• Mistake copying a sentence while closing this. It's removed. Makkool (talk) 15:42, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

{{abot}}

Other than my nomination of Northeast India above, there is no other country where we list the specific regions within the country. While I can understand the significance of the regions in some respects, listing individual states like Ohio (which is nominated above with a swap for BC, Canada), Georgia, North Carolina, and Michigan would be a better representation of the diversity of the United States. Interstellarity (talk) 23:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

;Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 23:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Oppose Southern United States, neutral on the other two. Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 01:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
2. We have subdivisions of a lot of countries, either formal or informal ones _pbp 15:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discussion

May I also add Virginia is a better VA4 candidate than North Carolina...founded earlier (Jamestown), birthplace of lots of historic people (Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Wilson, Robert E. Lee), importance in the American Civil War, larger in population until very recently. _pbp 16:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

:Agreed, I might make a swap proposal at some point in the future. λ NegativeMP1 16:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

{{atop

| status = partially passsed

| result = Added 5–0, not removed 1-4; 31 days from last comment. Makkool (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

}}

SP was unfairly removed for being “redundant” to the city, which is V3 ({{VA link|São Paulo}}). SP has a higher population than any U.S. state by over 3 million, and if anything, MG is more redundant to {{VA link|Belo Horizonte}}. Vileplume (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

;Support

1. As nom. Vileplume (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
2. : Changing my vote to support addition, oppose removal per TBR. Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 22:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
3. feminist🩸 (talk) 10:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
4. Support adittion. The Blue Rider File:Postal horn icon.svg 11:00, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
5. Support addition Interstellarity (talk) 20:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
6. Support addition. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
7. Support addition, oppose removal. Idiosincrático (talk) 19:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Oppose removal. No need to remove an important state demographic/economic-wise, there's room for both. The Blue Rider File:Postal horn icon.svg 11:00, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
2. Oppose removal Interstellarity (talk) 20:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discussion

{{abot}}

{{atopy

| status = partially passsed

| result = Removed British Columbia 6-1, Ohio not added 3-3. λ NegativeMP1 01:59, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

}}

Canada is overrepresented in the country subdivision section for a county of 40 million. Ontario and Quebec are obviously vital, but the other two have insufficient populations and meh economies for V4. I also proposed the removal of Alberta above.

Ohio is a leading U.S. state historically, demographically, and economically. We list the top six in the latter two, and Ohio ranks seventh. Interwikis are 137-194, daily views are 3042-4099. Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 23:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

;Support

1. As nom. Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 23:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
2. More than half of Canada's population lives in just two provinces (Ontario and Quebec). Given that Canada has way less people than the US has, it seems to make more sense to add more US states and less Canadian provinces. Interstellarity (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
3. Support removal per nominator. The Blue Rider File:Postal horn icon.svg 14:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
4. Per nom. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:12, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
5. Support addition. feminist🩸 (talk) 06:49, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
6. :To repeat what I said below in the nomination for removing {{VA link|Illinois}}: I would support listing {{VA link|Ohio}} at V4 in place of Illinois, given that Ohio has three primary settlements as opposed to only one for Illinois, and Ohio is only slightly less populated.
7. Support removal only per nom. I explained my opposition to the addition below. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
8. Support removal only. Idiosincrático (talk) 20:11, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Oppose adittion due to over-representation of the United States, they already have plenty of states and cities; {{VA link|Cleveland}} should be enough. The Blue Rider File:Postal horn icon.svg 14:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
2. Oppose addition because Ohio is definitely not Level 4, and a proposal to remove the more vital Illinois is seemingly going to pass soon. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
3. Oppose addition If we add Ohio I have a list of states we should also add that is about 50 long. See proposal below for discussions on that. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
4. Oppose removal Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discussion

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Removed 6–0, 22 days from last comment. Makkool (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

}}

VA4 is at 21 articles over quota, VA4 Society and social sciences is at 27 articles over quota, so we've got to take action. This is a sparse article on a subset of {{VA link|anthropology}}. starship.paint (RUN) 09:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

;Support

1. as nom. starship.paint (RUN) 09:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
2. To get to quota. Interstellarity (talk) 00:37, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
3. Per nom. Nervelita :3🏳️‍⚧️ (talk) 09:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
4. Makkool (talk) 20:11, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
5. Lorax (talk) 00:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
6. Idiosincrático (talk) 04:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Added 5-0 λ NegativeMP1 02:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

}}

The precursor to {{VA link|Book}} that was used for centuries, is still used by the Jewish, and has a lot of pop culture influence.

;Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
2. Interstellarity (talk) 00:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
3. Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 15:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
4. per nom. Jusdafax (talk) 20:00, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
5. Idiosincrático (talk) 04:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
6. Support, just to note that modern maps are often printed and stored as scrolls. Think giant roll in your classroom over the wipe board. They are much less common today, but still quite prevelant. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:41, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = passsed

| result = Removed 5-0. λ NegativeMP1 17:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

}}

It is one type of {{VA link|Herding dog}}, which is already V4. starship.paint (RUN) 02:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

;Support

1. as nom. starship.paint (RUN) 02:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
2. Per Nom. Aszx5000 (talk) 22:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
3. per nom. Interstellarity (talk) 18:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
4. Per nom Mathwriter2718 (talk) 02:37, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
5. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 16:27, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Added 5–0, 22 days from last comment. Makkool (talk) 18:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

}}

We use these everyday. Interstellarity (talk) 15:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

;Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 15:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
2. Hoben7599 (talk) 15:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
3. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 16:28, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
4. Vital at this level, at the least. Jusdafax (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
5. Long overdue. PrimalMustelid (talk) 13:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discussion

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Added 5-0. λ NegativeMP1 01:59, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

}}

An influential person in kids' television, he has changed the lives of hundreds of children. Interstellarity (talk) 13:44, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

;Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 13:44, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
2. Hundreds is an understatement. He left a cross-generational legacy. Easily V4 worthy. λ NegativeMP1 01:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
3. Idiosincrático (talk) 04:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
4. Fred Rogers had one of the biggest impacts on education and moral values for children in the 20th century, so V4 is very justified. PrimalMustelid (talk) 13:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
5. Support. The most vital among us. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:12, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discussion

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Removed 5–0, 66 days from last comment. Makkool (talk) 18:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

}}

Technology is way overquota, and this overlaps with {{VA link|Second Industrial Revolution}}.

;Support

1. As nominator. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 20:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
2. Too much overlap with {{VA link|Electric power distribution}} and {{VA link|Electricity generation}}. How those come into use isn't quite as important.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 20:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
3. Support per others. --Thi (talk) 22:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
4. Makkool (talk) 20:11, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
5. per above. starship.paint (RUN) 02:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Moved 5-0. Makkool (talk) 12:36, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

}}

They are currently listed under television, but that isn't really the right place, as they were theatrical shorts. I realize the reason, as most people have seen them on TV over the decades. Should we move them to the proper place? {{VA link|Tom and Jerry}} on VA5 would have to be moved too.

;Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 17:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
2. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 02:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. BD2412 T 22:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. Jusdafax (talk) 01:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
5. Kevinishere15 (talk) 18:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Removed 5–0, 66 days from last comment. Makkool (talk) 18:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

}}

I just think this is more suited for VA5.

;Support

1. As nominator. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 03:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
2. per nom Aurangzebra (talk) 00:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 22:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
4. Makkool (talk) 20:11, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
5. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 02:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Removed (5-0), swapped with Bohemian Rhapsody (4-0) λ NegativeMP1 01:59, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

}}

Vital 4 (understandably) has very few listed individual modern songs/albums. And those that are listed at Vital 4 should be those that are indisputably one of the most important works in modern history. For example, {{VA link|Thriller (album)}} is the best selling album of all time and represents pop, {{VA link|Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band}} represents rock and is probably the most critically acclaimed album of all time, and the list goes on. These are globally recognized, important works. You could make a pretty good justification for all of the works that appear here, even if that justification is only to represent an important genre or an artist at V3. But one of these works doesn't seem to have any reason to list at V4, and that's "Heartbreak Hotel".

For starters, the article for the song (which is GA, so I will assume it contains most relevant information needed for argument) isn't very convincing on why it is one of humanities defining musical works. All it does is demonstrate that the song is popular, got covered a lot, inspired a few musicians, and was a defining moment for {{VA link|Elvis Presley}}. Not the world, but just Elvis, who is V4 himself and thus makes it harder to justify one of his songs being at the same level as him. On the critical acclaim side, the song is only #45 on the Rolling Stones list for the best songs of all time, which is a low enough number to where even V5 would throw it out the window. Now, what about international recognition? Based on the song only having 23 interwikis (the fewest out of all other V4 modern musical works, followed by {{VA link|Rhapsody in Blue}}'s 28), it's not convincing that this song is relevant internationally. Hell, even {{VA link|Jailhouse Rock (song)}} has more interwikis. As for the representation of a genre argument, {{VA link|Like A Rolling Stone}}, the aforementioned Sgt. Peppers, and {{VA link|Johnny B. Goode}} represent rock perfectly fine. So while the song itself is definitely popular and influential to some extent, it's not more influential than a song like {{VA link|Bohemian Rhapsody}}, which is only V5, and so I doubt that Heartbreak Hotel is worth anything more than that level.

There is also the option of swapping it with something else as opposed to a flat out removal. And while I can't think of any specific work I'd swap this out with, what can be considered is the genres that are unrepresented at V4 with a specific work. The only widespread enough genre that I think could warrant a represented work at V4 is maybe {{VA link|Hip hop music}}, but even that feels like a stretch given the genre itself is only V4. There's also the idea of listing a work by {{VA link|Louis Armstrong}}, who seems to be the only artist unrepresented at V4. Or maybe even a work from V5 could be bumped up to V4 like the aforementioned Bohemian Rhapsody? I'm unsure. Either way, this is only suggesting removal, but a swap could be proposed below and I might support it.

;Support

1. As nom. I also support a potential swap with Bohemian Rhapsody, but again, this nomination is just about removing HH. λ NegativeMP1 22:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
2. Support swap with aforementioned Bohemian Rhapsody. We also recently removed {{VA link|Respect (song)}}, which is #1 on Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time. 🍋‍🟩 OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 21:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
3. Support removal --Thi (talk) 09:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
4. Support removal, would also support a swap with Bohemian Rhapsody, considering the section is under quota. Idiosincrático (talk) 10:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
5. Support removal and weak support swap with Bohemian Rhapsody. Kevinishere15 (talk) 04:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

:After thinking about this for a bit, it seems that the arts section of Level 4 is actually underquota by 23. I still don't think this song is V4 worthy, but maybe having a few more modern musical works (maybe rounding up the number to 10, so adding 4 songs/albums assuming this gets removed) wouldn't hurt. Assuming there are enough works that have V4 levels of influence or popularity. λ NegativeMP1 04:40, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{archive top|status=Withdrawn|result=Withdrawn _pbp 04:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)}}

While I understand that this may incredibly controversial Society and social sciences is 25 over quota. So I don't know if Wikipedia is as a major player as {{VA link|Amazon (company)}} or {{VA link|Facebook}}. While the page does have 312 interwikis due to the nature of the subject that number might not be the best barometer in vitalness, page views are also likely inflated due to the article being promintely linked on the main page. I understand there is likely better cuts to be made but you have start somewhere.

I also would request those who vote to acknowledge they may have a slight

bias.

;Support

1. Worth nothing as an contributor to the site I do have a conflict of interest Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 18:52, 26 November 2024 (UTC).

;Oppose

1. Didn't people already vote on this not too long ago? Anyways, oppose as it's become one of the major players of the wider internet and information technology realms internationally, and that's not going away anytime soon. It has single-handedly surpassed all other contemporary encyclopedias, including much older ones, in vitality including Encyclopædia Britannica (already Level 4). Yeah, of course I come from a biased perspective, but who doesn't. PrimalMustelid (talk) 18:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
2. Already failed here, still opposed. Acknowledging possible bias as requested, however I believe the bias to be small.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 19:09, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
3. The fear of navelgazing is getting to the point where it is detrimental to the project. Wikipedia literally changed the Internet and the way human information is distributed forever. Yes, it is Vital-4 worthy. Infact, w should have MORE Wikimedia related subjects (probably at V5) like the foundation and Commons. λ NegativeMP1 19:16, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

;Discussion

Was unaware of the previous discussion and wish to withdraw my nomination Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:05, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

Several people above have thrown around the term "niche sport, doesn't belong at VA4". What exactly are y'all's definition of a "niche sport". If forced to define it, I would say a "niche sport" is a sport that lacks popularity to be contested in the Olympics _pbp 16:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

:Agree, and also if it's a former Olympic sport. I think removing {{VA link|bandy}} was a right call. Some current Olympic sports can be too niche to be included in Level 4, especially if we don't list any athletes from that sport at the people section of Level 4. Makkool (talk) 17:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

:Agreed. Let's remove {{VA link|American football}}. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:01, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

::I don't know if this is serious or not, but if it is, this probably won't happen since we list several American football players as well as the {{VA link|Super Bowl}}. λ NegativeMP1 06:50, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

::: Clearly a joke regarding OP's faulty definition. The Blue Rider File:Postal horn icon.svg 01:08, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

:::I support scrubbing all American Football references from the list. Internationally irrelevant, it just shows how highly U.S. centric English Wikipedia is GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:21, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

{{atopg

| status = passsed

| result = Removed 6-2. Kevinishere15 (talk) 06:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

}}

VA4 is at 21 articles over quota, VA4 Everyday life is at 23 articles over quota. This is a niche sport more suitable for V5, I believe. starship.paint (RUN) 09:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

;Support

1. as nom. starship.paint (RUN) 09:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
2. Per mon. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
3. weak support per nom. Makkool (talk) 17:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
4. Weak support, mostly in the interest of reaching quota. Idiosincrático (talk) 04:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
5. Relatively niche compared to others. Kevinishere15 (talk) 03:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
6. per nomination and place at level 5. Jusdafax (talk) 00:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Oppose  Carlwev  13:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
2. _pbp 17:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{Clear}}

{{atopr

| status = failed

| result = Current vote is 2–4. Last vote 2 weeks ago. Been open for 7.5 months. Not going to pass. -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:09, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

}}

VA4 is at 21 articles over quota, VA4 Technology is at 44 articles over quota. This topic is on the science of {{VA link|agriculture}}, so there should be considerable overlap with that. The Agronomy article is sparse, and so is agricultural science. starship.paint (RUN) 09:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

;Support

1. as nom. starship.paint (RUN) 09:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
2. Interstellarity (talk) 00:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. The science of a level 2 topic is important enough to be at level 4. The Blue Rider File:Postal horn icon.svg 18:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
2. Makkool (talk) 20:11, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
3. Per above. Idiosincrático (talk) 04:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
4. Per BlueRider. Kevinishere15 (talk) 18:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

;Discuss

{{abot}}

I would like to know if you would be open to the idea of transcluding the level 4 subpages so that they all appear on one page similar to the expanded list of the List of articles every Wikipedia should have. I understand that a concern for this would be slow loading times, but we can easily solve this by creating a subpage that shows all the subpages. What do you think? Interstellarity (talk) 01:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

:Makes sense to me. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

So I did a little shuffling in the level 5 philosophy and religion page, and I would like to apply it here. I would also like to move some stuff in the Arts page.

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Moved 5-0, proposed 131 days ago, no votes in 8 days. Makkool (talk) 18:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

}}

The concept itself should be placed here. Let's reserve the mythological creatures section for specific beasts.

;Support

1. SailorGardevoir (talk) 06:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
2. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
3. Makkool (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
4. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 02:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
5. --Thi (talk) 22:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Moved 5-0, proposed 21 days ago, no votes in 8 days. Makkool (talk) 19:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

}}

Same thing with this one. While this and the next proposal will leave the mythological places section with only Atlantis and El Dorado, I still think that section should just be reserved for actual places.

;Support

1. SailorGardevoir (talk) 06:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
2. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
3. Makkool (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
4. --Thi (talk) 07:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
5. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 02:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Moved 5-0, proposed 21 days ago, no votes in 8 days. Makkool (talk) 19:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

}}

I placed it under mythology: general for now in the Level 5 page, but this is more of a fictional setting type of thing. (Or possibly a philosophical type of thing.)

;Support

1. SailorGardevoir (talk) 06:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
2. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
3. Makkool (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
4. --Thi (talk) 07:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
5. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 02:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Moved 5-0, proposed 21 days ago, no votes in 8 days. Makkool (talk) 19:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

}}

These articles are entirely written to be about the short stories, not the titular characters.

;Support

1. SailorGardevoir (talk) 06:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
2. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
3. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
4. Makkool (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
5. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 02:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Moved 5-0, proposed 7 month and 8 days ago. Last vote 14 days ago.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:17, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

}}

General concept article. Everything else besides this and the two articles I mentioned are specific characters.

;Support

1. SailorGardevoir (talk) 06:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
2. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
3. Makkool (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
4. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 02:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
5. Per nom. Kevinishere15 (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Moved 5-0, proposed 7 month and 8 days ago. Last vote 14 days ago.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:17, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

}}

The names "Devil" and "Satan" has frequently been used interchangeably to describe the same entity, while tradition holds Lilith to be the first female demon.

;Support

1. SailorGardevoir (talk) 21:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
2. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 02:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
3. Makkool (talk) 06:49, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 22:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
5. Per nom. Kevinishere15 (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

{{abot}}

N.B.: There is no fairies section, but this has been moved under Fairy in the same mythological creatures section.

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Moved 5-0, proposed 7 month and 8 days ago. Last vote 14 days ago.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:17, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

}}

I have seen a lot of people consider the leprechaun as some type of fairy.

;Support

1. SailorGardevoir (talk) 01:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
2. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 02:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
3. Makkool (talk) 06:49, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
4. --Thi (talk) 22:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
5. Kevinishere15 (talk) 04:18, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Added 5-2, proposed 6 months and 7 days ago. Last vote 19 days ago.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

}}

Similar to how we list Father and Mother, I see no issue with listing these two terms. Interstellarity (talk) 21:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

;Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 21:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Nervelita :3🏳️‍⚧️ (talk) 10:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
3. Why is this not already included?GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
4. PrimalMustelid (talk) 13:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
5. Per nom. Kevinishere15 (talk) 18:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. We already list Sibling, which encompasses both. Sibling roles are somewhat less traditionally gender-defined than parental roles. BD2412 T 20:01, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
2. Per BD2412 🍋‍🟩 OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 03:00, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discussion

{{abot}}

{{atopr

| status = failed

| result = Not added 3-4. Proposed 3 months and 2 weeks ago. last vote 26 days ago.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:02, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

}}

This was added to level 5 and looks well-suited for level 4 since this has many meanings. Interstellarity (talk) 19:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

;Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 19:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
2. Iostn (talk) 12:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
3. Support - Well-written, comprehensive, well-cited, and I agree with the nominator, this is a multifaceted topic. Jusdafax (talk) 01:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Oppose Covered by other articles. --Thi (talk) 22:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
2. Oppose - I think this is too vague, and per LaukkuTheGreit below. starship.paint (RUN) 14:32, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
3. Idiosincrático (talk) 04:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
4. The different meanings are covered by {{VA link|Earth}}, {{VA link|Universe}} and {{VA link|Society}}. Kevinishere15 (talk) 03:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discussion

I wonder about overlap with {{VA link|Universe}}.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 13:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Removed 7-0, proposed 3 months and 2 days ago. last vote 9 days ago.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

}}

We list only a few occupations at this level ({{VA link|Farmer}}, {{VA link|Teacher}}, {{VA link|Soldier}}). This one doesn't stand out enough as a Technology entry, an oversubscribed section.

;Support

1. As nominator. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 22:01, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
2. Makkool (talk) 20:11, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
3. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 02:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
4. Idiosincrático (talk) 04:39, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
5. PrimalMustelid (talk) 00:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
6. per nomination. Jusdafax (talk) 01:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
7. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Removed 7-0, proposed 3 months and 2 days ago. last vote 9 days ago.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

}}

Another technology entry. Not all that significant, economically or historically.

;Support

1. As nominator. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 22:03, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
2. Makkool (talk) 20:11, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
3. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 02:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
4. PrimalMustelid (talk) 00:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
5. Kevinishere15 (talk) 18:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
6. per nomination. Jusdafax (talk) 01:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
7. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| result = Swapped with unanimous support. Interstellarity (talk) 15:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

I just think the broader concept is more important. It would also be a convenient swap quota-wise.

;Support

1. As nominator. Add Bias to Philosophy ---> Logic Tabu Makiadi (talk) 18:42, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
2. Per nom. PrimalMustelid (talk) 00:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
3. λ NegativeMP1 17:08, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
4. Why not.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 17:11, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
5. Per nom. Kevinishere15 (talk) 18:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
6. Per nominator. Jusdafax (talk) 01:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atop

| result = Removed with unanimous support. Interstellarity (talk) 15:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

I am not convinced this is common enough for this level. Note the relatively low pageviews and interwikis. I think it's sufficiently covered by {{VA link|Cable transport}}.

;Support

1. As nominator. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 18:47, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Kevinishere15 (talk) 19:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
3. Interstellarity (talk) 21:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
4. Too much overlap at this level.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 11:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
5. support. Cable transport is broader and includes a section on Aerial Tramways Lorax (talk) 01:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| result = Removed with unanimous support. Interstellarity (talk) 15:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

Incheon is an integral part of the Seoul Capital Area, serving as the location of its main international airport, and is thus adequately covered by {{VA link|Seoul}} at level 4. For comparison, we list neither {{VA link|Dongguan}} nor {{VA link|Foshan}} at this level, despite either of the two cities having a much larger municipal population, because both cities are an integral part of the {{VA link|Guangzhou}} metropolitan area; nor do we list {{VA link|New Taipei City}}, despite it having a higher population to Incheon, because it is adequately covered by {{VA link|Taipei}}.

;Support

1. As nominator. feminist🩸 (talk) 03:13, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Idiosincrático (talk) 04:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
3. Per nom. Kevinishere15 (talk) 04:07, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
4. Per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 22:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
5. support. well argued. Lorax (talk) 01:11, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

{{abot}}

While some states do make sense to be included at level 4, some on the list seem a bit random compared to ones in level 5. Some states, like Alaska and Hawaii, are a bit weird to include in my opinion as they have relatively low populations and only stand out because of their status as exclaves. Yes, a lot happens in them and they have history, but so do other states that have more people and aren't included. Illinois is an odd one as it is the 6th most populous state based on List of U.S. states and territories by population, which seems like an odd cutoff. The top 5 through 10 states by population have a surprisingly small range, and there is a pretty sharp difference between the fourth and fifth slot. My first proposal would be to move them all to level 5 to make room for countries or other important articles and eliminate the possible future discussions about what states warrant inclusion or not. The next would be to limit it to only the top four largest states: California, Texas, New York, and Florida. I will add voting for each though below and they can be considered on a case by case basis. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

:{{ping|GeogSage}} I'm interested to see what exactly you propose to replace the removed states with, more specificity as to what "countries or other important articles" refers. Every country, including the really tiny ones, is already listed at VA4 _pbp 14:43, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

::Personally? I don't have a plan at all for exactly what to replace them with. I noticed a general flow where more stuff is proposed to be added to the lists then removed, and am trying to make room for other proposals. Countries were what jumped out to me as a possibility, I didn't notice they were already all level 4. In terms of other important articles though, there are many concepts in geography I think deserve to be a bit higher, more then places. I don't have anything specific in mind though, although I might propose stuff in the future obviously. I've been doing the same kind of removal pushes on Level 5 for various topics. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

{{atopr

| status = failed

| result = This is not happening. feminist🩸 (talk) 04:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

}}

;Support

1. as nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Almost 40 million people, 5th largest economy, so much more _pbp 03:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
2. There are so, so many reasons why California should be V4 that it would feel redundant to even explain them all. If we could only list one U.S. state, I'd pick California. λ NegativeMP1 03:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
3. California has had more of an impact on the world than some countries. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
4. Might be the most vital country subdivision 🍋‍🟩 OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 19:21, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
5. Per everyone else. There are plenty of states I would remove first before California. The largest economy and highest population in the US are convincing reasons to keep it on the list, not to mention the cities (LA and SF) and unique culture (Hollywood) compared to other states. Interstellarity (talk) 23:52, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
6. per above Idiosincrático (talk) 19:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
7. More people than {{VA link|Canada}}

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{archive top red|status=Failed| result=Not removed, 1-5, with last comment 15 days ago _pbp 04:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)}}}

;Support

1. as nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Possibly biased since I live here, but I think there's equal reasons for Texas to be V4 as California (or at least, the reasons are close). Texas has a larger economy than {{VA link|Russia}}, literal centuries worth of history (including being its own country briefly {{VA link|Republic of Texas}}), and a population of over 30 million people. I'd list Texas itself before literally any of the Texas cities listed at V4 except maybe {{VA link|Houston}}. λ NegativeMP1 03:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
2. Not quite as vital as California, but vital enough for VA4. A vast, vast area with close to 25 million people and a wide array of different cultures. El Paso, Texas is as close to San Diego, California, on the American West Coast, as it is to Orange, Texas; Orange is as close to Jacksonville, Florida, on the American East Coast, as it is to El Paso. They say the Rocky Mountains end in West Texas, the Great Plains end in North Texas, the Old South ends in East Texas, and Mexico ends in South Texas. _pbp 15:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
3. Texas is such a diverse state and like California, it is an economic powerhouse in the US. The presence of multiple major cities, the culture, the history all help its case to stay on this list. Interstellarity (talk) 00:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
4. per above Idiosincrático (talk) 19:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
5. above Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:25, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

;Discuss

{{archive bottom}}

{{archive top yellow|status=NO CONSENSUS|result=4-4. Kevinishere15 (talk) 23:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)}}

;Support

1. as nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
2. Weak support Idiosincrático (talk) 19:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
3. There is not much to New York state once NYC and its surrounding metro area are removed. feminist🩸 (talk) 04:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
4. Interstellarity (talk) 23:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. While you could argue that it's covered under {{VA link|New York City}}, it does have several other cities at VA5. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:25, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
2. Somewhat redundant, but larger than Illinois and NYC is V3 🍋‍🟩 OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 02:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
3. I would not argue that listing New York itself is redundant when it is still a highly populated state and has several cities still listed at V5. This isn't like Illinois where there's practically nothing outside of its largest settlement. λ NegativeMP1 23:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
4. Still punches above its weight despite declining pop.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

;Discuss

I'm wondering if the only reason we list New York State is because of New York City. NYC contains almost half of the state's population and other than the NYC metro area, the rest of the state seems insignificant similar to how Illinois is dominated by Chicago, but the rest of the state is insignificant. California and Texas have multiple major cities listed at level 4. I'd be willing to support, but I would like to hear other people's opinions before casting my vote. Interstellarity (talk) 23:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

{{archive top red|status=FAILED|result=Not happening, 1-5 _pbp 19:20, 30 November 2024 (UTC)}}

;Support

1. as nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Third most populated state in the country. λ NegativeMP1 03:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
2. Oppose Idiosincrático (talk) 19:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
3. Oppose Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:25, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
4. Florida is a diverse state with many major population centers. We only list one city from there (Miami), but its metro area doesn't take up most of the population unlike other states. Interstellarity (talk) 23:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
5. I would much rather add Tampa (which was a 6-4 vote a while back) or Orlando than remove Florida. 🍋‍🟩 OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 04:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

;Discuss

{{archive bottom}}

{{archive top yellow|status=No consensus|result=No consensus, 1-1, having been open for a month and no votes in three weeks _pbp 20:47, 30 November 2024 (UTC)}}

;Support

1. as nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Oppose Idiosincrático (talk) 19:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

;Discuss

Of the six states considered in this proposal, two (New York and Illinois) are “dominated” by a single city and its suburbs: over half of NY lives in and around New York City; over half of Illinois lives in and around Chicago.

This cannot be said for the other four. California (LA, San Diego, San Jose, San Francisco, Sacramento) Florida (Miami/Ft. Lauderdale, Tampa/St. Petersburg, Orlando, Jacksonville) and Texas (Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, Austin, El Paso) all have several cities/metros. Pennsylvania has a fairly large city/metro (Philadelphia), a somewhat smaller one (Pittsburgh) and a least a little going on outside those two (Amish, Gettysburg, coal and steel regions) _pbp 15:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

:The problem with Pennsylvania is that it is where the top 20 largest states by population start to blur together into a homogenous "sameness." While Pennsylvania has a lot of people and is unique, it isn't that much more so then Ohio and Indiana. It is historically relevant, but not that much more then Virginia. It has cultural diversity, but so does Louisiana. As a geographer, California, Texas, Florida, and New York all are huge outliers among U.S. states in terms of economies, populations, and cultural impact. Hawaii is of biological and geological significance globally. I don't think Pennsylvania has the same kind of global impact as them, and think if it is included the case can easily be made for at least ten more states to be added to level 4 (Specifically, Utah for significance to Mormonism, Virginia for historical significance in early colonies, and Louisiana for the port of New Orleans and French heritage, Nevada for Las Vegas and nuclear tests, New Mexico for the Mexican/Native American heritage as well as being the birthplace of nuclear weapons, and others). GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:37, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

{{atopg

| result = Removed 7-1, consensus is clear Kevinishere15 (talk) 05:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

}}

;Support

1. as nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
2. This is the strongest proposal of them all, I agree with removing it. The Blue Rider File:Postal horn icon.svg 03:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
3. Weak support, the state itself is fairly insignificant outside of {{VA link|Chicago}} (at least other states have some things going on outside of their major cities), and I do agree cutting it off at #6 is arbitrary. I could also see it having served as a representation of the {{VA link|Midwestern United States}}, but that region itself is V4. So... yeah, I agree with demoting it.
4. No real importance outside of Chicago and Abraham Lincoln. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
5. I would support listing {{VA link|Ohio}} at V4 in place of Illinois, given that Ohio has three primary settlements as opposed to only one for Illinois, and Ohio is only slightly less populated. feminist🩸 (talk) 04:46, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
6. Per above Idiosincrático (talk) 19:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
7. Per Feminist, I would also support swapping out Ohio. Infact I'll begin drafting up a proposal.Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. STRONG STRONG oppose. Illinois has historically been one of the largest states in the union. Would we consider "Thailand" less notable because Bangkok has too much of its population? This logic is fallacious. -1ctinus📝🗨 14:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

;Discuss

{{abot}}

While Ohio has less people it has the same amount of interwikis (197) and more page views (159,095 > 116,962). Additionally while most of IL population is centered in {[VA link|Chicago}}, OH has three major population centers {{VA link|Cincinnati}}, {{VA link|Cleveland}}, and {{VA link|Columbus, Ohio}}. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

;Support

1. As nom
2. Weak support 🍋‍🟩 OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 20:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
3. Support primarily because Ohio has three major population centers, but beyond that it also has major manufacturing sectors not necessarily centralized into cities. feminist🩸 (talk) 03:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
4. Weak support. Kevinishere15 (talk) 18:29, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Oppose, as Ohios inclusion begins to cross a threshold that opens the door for many/most other states. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:02, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
2. :Not really? Among the states with >10M population which we don't currently list at Level 4, Ohio is by far the most polycentric; none of its metro areas comprise more than 20% of the state's population. Only North Carolina is close, but the Charlotte metropolitan area is larger than any metro area in Ohio despite NC being a smaller state. feminist🩸 (talk) 04:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
3. Leaning oppose. Ohio is sort of the average of states. Illinois overtook Ohio in population in 1890 and has never since looked back. I can't see the case for a circumstance where Illinois is removed and Ohio is added. BD2412 T 22:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
4. :Chicagoland is ~75% of the population of Illinois, so there is less value added for listing Illinois separately of Chicago compared to listing Ohio separately of its three largest cities. feminist🩸 (talk) 04:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
5. :: Our article on Illinois says 65% for Chicagoland. That leaves quite a large population outside of it. BD2412 T 19:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
6. :{{ping|BD2412}} I'm a bit lost on how Ohio is "the average of states" when it's the 7th-largest and 17th-earliest admitted. Are we saying all but the four with populations over 15 million are "average"? (New York has about 20 million; next are Illinois and PA which are about 13). That doesn't feel like what the word "average" means to me. _pbp 16:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
7. :: Granted that it is, perhaps, above average. However, 7th and 17th are still not great arguments for elevation to a higher level. BD2412 T 23:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
8. Ohio is no more important than IL except in US elections since it is a swing state.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:41, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

:::Ohio is no longer considered a swing state as of the 2024 election. Sahaib (talk) 11:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

{{atopr

| status = failed

| result = Not removed 1-3. λ NegativeMP1 01:59, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

}}

;Support

1. as nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Oppose per historical reasons ({{VA link|Russian colonization of North America}} and {{VA link|Alaska Purchase}}), biological reasons (Wildlife of Alaska), its importance to indigenous people (Iñupiat and Aleuts), economical reasons (vast natural resources), political reasons (Arctic policy of the United States), among other less notable reasons. The Blue Rider File:Postal horn icon.svg 03:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
2. Idiosincrático (talk) 19:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
3. Oppose per above. --Thi (talk) 10:54, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

;Discuss

1. @User:The Blue Rider, many of those things apply to other states as well. Based on this argument, I would think Lousiana should be included due to the Lousiana purchase, importance to the War of 1812, and status as a port at the end of the Mississippi river. The argument about indigenous people applies to many if not all U.S. states. They have some very unique culture, music, food, and biology as well. Utah is wildly important to the Mormon religion. New Mexico is where the Atomic bomb was developed and first tested, and has a long history involving numerous Native populations. I don't actually think Lousiana, Utah, or New Mexico should be included at this level, but becasue of that I struggle to think the 48th least populous state should be.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
2. :Louisiana is in the middle of the country, though, it borders three other states. A lot of Alaska's notability stems from its discontinuity from the rest of the country, as well as its vast size (Alaska is considerably more extensive than the state of Louisiana, and is almost as large as the entire Louisiana Purchase, which BTW would be a good candidate to bump up to VA4). A better comparison to Alaska would be {{VA link|Greenland}}. Also, I think Blue Rider's point was that there are a lot more Aboriginal cultures that exist/existed in Alaska and nowhere else in the United States then there are that exist/existed in Louisiana and nowhere else in the United States. Same goes with New Mexico: New Mexico has a long-established Spanish/Mexican/Hispanic culture, but there are three other U.S. states with Spanish outposts. It has an established Navajo and Hopi culture, but those cultures are present in Arizona and Colorado too. The atomic bomb was developed partly at White Sands and Los Alamos, and partly in Chicago, IL and Berkeley, CA. _pbp 15:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopr

| status = failed

| result = Withdrawn by nominator. feminist🩸 (talk) 07:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

}}

;Support

{{Strikethrough| #as nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC) }}

;Oppose

1. Oppose due to historical reasons ({{VA link|Hawaiian Kingdom}} and {{VA link|Ancient Hawaii}}), biological reasons (Endemism in the Hawaiian Islands; some of the flora and fauna being vital), geological reasons ({{VA link|Hawaii hotspot}}), ethnic reasons ({{VA link|Native Hawaiians}}), linguistic reasons ({{VA link|Hawaiian language}}), geographical reasons ({{VA link|Hawaii (island)}}), cultural reasons ({{VA link|Music of Hawaii}} and {{VA link|Ukulele}}), among many other things less notable. The Blue Rider File:Postal horn icon.svg 03:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
2. Per Blue Rider _pbp 03:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
3. @User:The Blue Rider convinced me, I no longer support removing Hawaii. I didn't consider the geologic or biological significance, and was looking at it only as a U.S. state. The status as a former Kingdom is interesting, but I think other states Native American populations can make the same or similar claim. Music and innovations are going to be a much weaker argument, as other states have some fairly impressive contributions in that regard as well. Taken together though, I think Hawaii really matters in a global context outside its status as a U.S. state. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
4. : When I think of innovations from the U.S., such as those by {{VA link|Nikola Tesla}}, {{VA link|Albert Einstein}}, and {{VA link|Tim Berners-Lee}}, I don't really associate their inventions with a specific state. The fact that Hawaii was an independent kingdom for a long time—and in some ways, that identity still prevails—makes such associations more pronounced. Native Americans in the United States didn’t form sovereign countries; most were semi-nomadic and therefore couldn’t project as much soft or hard power. Being somewhat in voluntary isolation, their influence has largely been limited to within their own communities. The Blue Rider File:Postal horn icon.svg 03:59, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
5. ::The Native American's in the United States are complicated as there isn't a single group but many distinct ones, but I'd point to the Iroquois and Puebloans as examples of groups approaching European ideas of countries or city states. The Iroquois got some of the worst of the U.S. approaches to Native populations, so they aren't really what shape public view of Native Americans today. There are several Native American groups today that are treated as and referred to as nations within the U.S. today. Utah is another case where a group was semi-autonomous and seeking autonomy and today has an identity very related to that. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
6. Oppose straight removal but would consider a swap for Hawaiian Islands. The Midway Atoll is not part of the state, but is part of the chain and has some historical importance which I think is worth including especially WW2 history. Interstellarity (talk) 00:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
7. :I would support that as well. Do you want to propose? GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
8. ::See below. Interstellarity (talk) 02:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
9. Idiosincrático (talk) 19:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
10. Oppose  Carlwev  12:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

;Discuss

Even though it is a state, it is although an island and group of islands, with a significant population, history and culture. I would not remove this before something like Novaya Zemlya which although larger has always had under 3000 pop compared to Hawaii's 1.5 million, and has much less interesting history and culture. Although strangely both first settled in the 11th century.  Carlwev  12:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

{{abot}}

The islands are more historically important than the state.

;Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 02:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
2. Support per nom and above discussion. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
3. Idiosincrático (talk) 19:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Hawaiian Islands is a physical geography article that only briefly touches on history, and that's how it should be. J947 ‡ ^edits 04:19, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
2. Oppose  Carlwev  12:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
3. Per J947, the two articles have two different scopes. The Blue Rider 18:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
4. Per above. Kevinishere15 (talk) 18:59, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discussion

I won't link examples as there too many. But if you look at any article on a place such as a country, or sub-national entity like a US state or other similar, there is, vast majority of the time a history section that explains the history of said region, much of said history before the state/country officially existed, just the history of the region that would later become the state/country. With Hawaii the argument being the islands are more important than the state. However, if one wants to read about what has happened on the islands since it's been a state and before, the article "Hawaii" article has 3 times as much text in history of the islands before it was a state compared to since it was a state, and about 8 times as much text about the history of the islands compared to the text about the history of the islands in the article "Hawaiian Islands". The article about any state or country nearly always explains the history of the general area the state or country occupies including events long before the state or country existed, and often explains climate and geology of the area too, this seems normal practice. There are other countries that have officially existed for a relatively short time but who's regions have long histories stretching back further than the states have existed, but the article on the country usually explains the history of the region beforehand, and in the vital article list, we list the article about the official state/country at a higher level than the article about the geographical body/region which technically has a longer history than the official state does. Example UK is lev3, Britain (and Ireland and British Isles) are lev4. Japan is lev3, Japanese archipelago is at no level. India lev3, Indian Subcontinent lev5. Bangladesh, lev3, Bengal lev5. South Korea lev3. Korea lev4 (Korean Peninsula also redirects). Many of these only came into existence in the 20th century but articles explain in detail events of the regions before. I could list more but I won't. I am aware Hawaii is a state not a country (although was prev a kingdom) but I think this argument holds anyway, and I do not see why we should treat Hawaii different to other places I listed in what levels to list them. Also if a person just wants to randomly search for the general area of Hawaii state or islands or what ever to read about it's history or climate or whatever, I have to say I would believe they would simply search for Hawaii, not Hawaiian Islands, and they would arrive at an article with more information about the events that happened there too as a bonus. The article on Hawaii has over 4 times as many page views as the article Hawaiian Islands, so suggests this. [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-20&pages=Hawaii|Hawaiian_Islands]. The article on the islands does have more info on the geology and climate, although the article on the state does have some info but less, though this is true of other comparisons eg Britain vs UK, but we still list UK higher, and I would imagine most people would see Hawaii's historical events as more vital than reading about it's soil or rainfall. I am aware the islands include Midway and the state does not, but I think this is a small point. Would be like saying British Isles should be higher than UK as British Isles includes Isle of Mann and UK does not. Carlwev  12:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

{{atopg

| result = Added with unanimous support. Interstellarity (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

This is an article that should very likely be at level 2 or level 3, possibly replacing Mass media to cover all forms of media.

;Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 21:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
2. Agree that it could potentially be level 3 at most. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
3. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 10:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
4. Per nom. Kevinishere15 (talk) 18:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
5. Per nominator. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 22:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
6. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:55, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discussion

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| result = Removed with unanimous support. Interstellarity (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

A device fulfilling more of a background supporting role, not something people often think or care about in their daily lives (compared to e.g. {{VA link|Seat belt}} or {{VA link|Match}}); suits better for level 5. Rated Low-importance in Engineering. Technology is 41 over quota (although some quota could be reassigned from Arts) and I think this one can go.

;Support

1. As nom.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 10:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 12:00, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
3. Per nom. Kevinishere15 (talk) 18:36, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
4. PrimalMustelid (talk) 23:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
5. Sure. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 22:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| result = Added with unanimous support. Interstellarity (talk) 15:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

Since we list 4 comic book characters at this level ({{VA link|Superman}}, {{VA link|Batman}}, {{VA link|Wonder Woman}}, and {{VA link|Spider-Man}}), it makes sense to have comic books themselves also be V4, in addition to just being an important type of media.

;Support

1. As nom. Kevinishere15 (talk) 00:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
2. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
3. Makes sense to me. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
4. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:45, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
5. Interstellarity (talk) 21:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discussion

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Done with overwhelming support, 8-0. λ NegativeMP1 23:35, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

}}

For good or ill, we're at the point where we need to discuss if Elon is at the point to bridge up to VA4. He's the richest man on the planet and has his fingers in a whole bunch of pots. His money and misinformation also just BOUGHT the American presidency.

David Sarnoff is obviously quite influential in the media/communications fields, but he's not particularly well-known, and only 26-27 interwikis is low for a VA4; half or less of most of the other businesspeople at VA5, including Ted Turner, the other American media/communications businessman at VA4. Sarnoff is much less known than the companies (RCA and NBC) he founded _pbp 23:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

;Support

1. _pbp 23:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
2. After careful consideration, I do agree that Elon Musk should be at this level. He's probably one of the most influential people of this century so far, for better or for worse. Even putting the election aside. λ NegativeMP1 01:53, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
3. Support  Carlwev  04:51, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
4. Support. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:52, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
5. 🍋‍🟩 OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 03:17, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
6. per nom Aurangzebra (talk) 07:49, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
7. Support. Setting aside the POV-pushing in this proposal, Musk is important enough to be included and his businesses have long-term significance. Oholiba (talk) 20:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
8. Support per Oholiba. Jusdafax (talk) 01:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

{{abot}}

{{atop

| status = passed

| result = I think this is quite un-controversial move, so I'm just going to do it boldly. Makkool (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

Currently it is listed under Media and communication technology, although it would be more logical to have it under Internet. {{VA link|Search engine}} is listed there already, and social media is similarly another major use for the internet nowadays.

;Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 20:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

{{abot}}

{{edit extended-protected|Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Geography|answered=yes}}

Remove Illinois since consensus is clear above to remove it. Kevinishere15 (talk) 05:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

:{{Done}}. λ NegativeMP1 02:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

{{atop

| status = NO CONSENSUS

| result = Voting process had gone on for awhile with 5+ votes and more than 60 days without another vote. Seems like additions of the two articles would prove controversial for now, so closing as no consensus. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC) PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

We list the {{VA link|Chinese Communist Party}} at this level, so it make sense to add the two major political parties in the US at this level. Interstellarity (talk) 22:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

;Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 22:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
2. Support both Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 01:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
3. :Why one but not the other? The Democratic Party is older, but only by what? 20-30 years? _pbp 16:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
4. :: At the time, I kinda felt the same way as Aszx5000; I just wasn't sure how many major parties we needed at V4, since we only have 20 or so at V5. Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 21:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
5. Support both. The argument could be made that the party structure has done more to direct the course of the nation than any individual politician belonging to it. In other words, it doesn't so much matter that FDR/Truman were individually Democrats and Reagan/Bush were individually Republicans, than that those were periods of Democratic and Republican policies prevailing. BD2412 T 22:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Way to focused on American politics. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
2. As GeogSage said below, {{tq|The CCP is essentially the same thing as the government of China at this point.}} The same can't be said for any American party. feminist🩸 (talk) 07:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discussion

• I think this is a worthy consideration, but once we go down the road of adding major parties, where will it stop? There are at least 20 more major political parties that could be included? We would almost need to drop another section to make room for them. However, I don't see why the {{VA link|Chinese Communist Party}} would be here and not the Democrats and Republicans. Bit of a conundrum? Aszx5000 (talk) 17:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
• I think the requirement for a political party to reach VA4 should be major influence both within and outside of their home country. The CCP has that in my opinion. Is the same true for the Democratic and Republican parties? QuicoleJR (talk) 21:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
• :* The CCP is essentially the same thing as the government of China at this point. I really hope no political party ever has that kind of power Domestically, much less abroad. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop

| status = FAILED

| result = 1 support and 3 opposes in more than 60 days means that the proposal has not passed. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC) PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

A common concept which is a subtopic of suicide. Interstellarity (talk) 00:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

;Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 00:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Some of its methods such as {{VA link|Medication}} and {{VA link|Therapy}}, etc, are quite important but the concept itself isn't. The Blue Rider File:Postal horn icon.svg 14:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
2. :Curious as to why you think the topic as a whole isn't important but topics contained within are important. Nervelita :3🏳️‍⚧️ (talk) 10:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
3. :: Medication and therapy are essential tools for treating various health conditions, not just suicide prevention. They're also pretty vital in their own right; so no, I wouldn't say that suicide prevention is more broad than medication and therapy. The Blue Rider File:Postal horn icon.svg 16:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
4. :::Ok fair enough. I agree with that. Nervelita :3🏳️‍⚧️ (talk) 04:24, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
5. Per BlueRider, related things like {{VA link|Psychotherapy}} are already vital, this just doesn't seem to pass the bar. Kevinishere15 (talk) 04:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
6. Unfortunately, I'm not convinced that this is level 4 in terms of vitality. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discussion

• Social issues that society may try to prevent, crime prevention may be thought of as a wider and more important topic.  Carlwev  11:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
• : Suicide is illegal in some countries, so it would also partially include suicide prevention in it. The Blue Rider File:Postal horn icon.svg 16:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop

| status = FAILED

| result = 3 opposes and only 1 support in far more than 60 days means that this proposal is not passing. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC) PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

May be a better addition than nonbinary. Interstellarity (talk) 00:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

;Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 00:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. {{VA link|Transgender}} should already cover this at this level. The Blue Rider File:Postal horn icon.svg 14:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
2. per above. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
3. Per above. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discussion

{{abot}}

{{atop

| status = PASSED

| result = Clear support for a level 4 addition, no swap needed. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC) PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

Just added to level 5, makes sense to add to level 4. May support a swap with History of Iraq. Interstellarity (talk) 19:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

;Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 19:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
2. Support addition, not the proposed swap. Jusdafax (talk) 01:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
3. Very important, not sure about the swap. Kevinishere15 (talk) 18:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
4. Support addition, neutral on the swap. Lorax (talk) 01:00, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
5. Support addition, unsure about swap. PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discussion

The history of Mesopotamia is far more important than the history of the modern state of Iraq. I would be more inclined to support a straight swap to move the history of Iraq to V5. Idiosincrático (talk) 04:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop

| status = FAILED

| result = No support and three opposes for the proposal in far more than 60 days. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC) PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

I am not actually supporting this, but we removed {{VA link|Domestic shorthaired cat}} from V4, and that was merged into {{VA link|Moggy}}. So, should we list Moggy or not? starship.paint (RUN) 14:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

;Support

;Oppose

1. From reading the article, most cats are moggy, so there's just too much overlap with {{VA link|Cat}}. We also do not list {{VA link|Mongrel}} for dogs. starship.paint (RUN) 14:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
2. Per Starship. Kevinishere15 (talk) 18:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
3. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

1. We should either not add this, or add both Moggy and Mongrel imo. Nervelita :3🏳️‍⚧️ (talk) 09:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop

| status = FAILED

| result = With 3 opposes, 2 supports, and a considerable amount of time passed, this proposal does not appear to be progressing towards clear support. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC) PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

Has never been contested in the Olympics and seems to be primarily contested in India, Iran, and surrounding area. _pbp 00:27, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

;Support

1. _pbp 00:27, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
2. weak support per nom. Makkool (talk) 17:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. {{VA link|Australian rules football}} and particularly {{VA link|Rugby sevens}} are much much less important, and so is {{VA link|Sepak takraw}} IMO. Really surprised this is seen as low-hanging fruit – the pole vault, tug of war, and angling are amongst many niche sports listed whilst kabaddi is certainly mainstream. It will likely be at the Olympics if India win the 2036 bid, in much the same way as a version of the similarly prominent {{VA link|American football}} is being introduced in 2028. J947 ‡ ^edits 01:07, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
2. :First off, laughing at pole vault being "low-hanging fruit" considering what recently happened to Anthony Ammirati... [ok, lol at that –J947]
3. :Also confused why pole vault would be "low-hanging fruit" unless you consider it already covered by track and field. It's been contested in the Olympics since 1896 and also as part of the decathlon.
4. :Angling perhaps needs to be swapped for a different example of fishing for sport or leisure, but there DOES need to be a representative of that concept at this level.
5. :If Kabbadi DOES make it into the Olympics then (and perhaps ONLY then) should it be added to VA4.
6. : And finally, I wish people would stop throwing around the term "niche sport" without any sort of definition of what constitutes a niche sport. _pbp 14:55, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
7. ::I am using "niche" to refer to sports with a small following: the number of sport competitors and fans in the pole vault, competitive angling, and tug of war is (comparatively) exceptionally small. Kabaddi, in which 200–400 million watch one league alone each year, does not appear niche to me. Using the Olympics as the primary bar for inclusion of sports places undue emphasis on traditional Western sports with a global but restricted reach (archery, triathlon, modern pentathlon, sailing, canoeing, the 10 (!) subtopics of track and field) over newer sports that are prominent but localised, particularly those outside of East Asia and the West. It bears repeating that I am absolutely shocked kabaddi and sepak takraw are being considered for removal over Aussie rules; the number of kabaddi viewers is 10 times Australia's population! J947 ‡ ^edits 00:20, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
8. :::Track and field as a "traditional Western sport" with a "restricted reach"? At last week's Olympics, athletes from all six continents won medals. Discus and javelin are "traditional Western sports", in the sense that they originated in ancient Greece. The other tricky thing about track and field is that the disciplines within it are very different...high jumping is much different than sprinting, which is much different than throwing. _pbp 02:07, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
9. This shouldn't be removed for the same reason why {{VA link|American football}} and {{VA link|Australian rules football}} shouldn't be removed, worldwide popularity isn't required at this level, being extremely popular/important in one area or country is enough. Kevinishere15 (talk) 04:15, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
10. Oppose We have sports mostly within western nations, be it Australia or US, also La Liga and Premier League for Football in Spain and England, and India has 25x England's pop and almost 30x Spain's. Although Kabaddi is mainly Indian, it isn't completely confined to India either.  Carlwev  08:17, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

;Discussion

{{abot}}

{{atop

| status = PASSED

| result = Clear consensus to swap the steamboat article with the steamship one. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC) PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

Not sure which one of two is more vital, but I'm leaning towards steamship since it has moved people over long distances but interested to hear your thoughts. Interstellarity (talk) 22:41, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

;Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 22:41, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
2. {{VA link|Steamship}} had a greater impact on humanity. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
3. per above. starship.paint (RUN) 02:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
4. Support swap. Lorax (talk) 01:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
5. Sure. PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discussion

{{abot}}

{{atop

| status = PASSED

| result = Clear consensus to move the Golden Temple article from philosophy and religion to arts. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC) PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

The article is about a specific structure, and we list every other specific structure in the Arts section. We already list places important to several religions there already, like {{VA link|Kaaba}} and {{VA link|Sistine Chapel}}.

;Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 18:43, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Nervelita :3🏳️‍⚧️ (talk) 09:33, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 22:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
4. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 02:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
5. support, agree with move  Carlwev  05:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discussion

{{abot}}

{{atop

| status = PASSED

| result = General consensus favors an addition of Novak Djokovic and a removal of Rod Laver in level 4 by 6 support votes. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC) PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC) This discussion was quite complex. Level 4 only had 3 male tennis players. Laver (who competed from 1956-79), Roger Federer (1998-2022), and Rafael Nadal (2001-2024). The nomination was to add Djokovic (2003-present) and remove Laver, which would make the only three male tennis players all modern guys. Although addition was unanimous, removal is fractured. Looking more closely, 4 discussants were indifferent on the removal. Nadal had 4 supports for removal and an oppose. Laver had a pair of opposes. The discussion here is complicated and no removal is warranted based upon it. Laver is being restored.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

Arguably the greatest tennis player of all time. I'll let his lede do the talking: "He has been ranked No. 1 for a record total of 428 weeks in a record 13 different years by the ATP, and finished as the year-end No. 1 a record eight times.[7] Djokovic has won a record 24 Grand Slam men's singles titles, including a record ten Australian Open titles. Overall, he has won 99 singles titles, including a record 72 Big Titles: 24 majors, a record 40 Masters, a record seven year-end championships, and an Olympic gold medal. Djokovic is the only man in tennis history to be the reigning champion of all four majors at once across three different surfaces. In singles, he is the only man to achieve a triple Career Grand Slam, and the only player to complete a Career Golden Masters, a feat he has accomplished twice. Djokovic is the only player in singles to have won all of the Big Titles over the course of his career, having completed the Career Super Slam as part of that accomplishment."

I don't know a whole lot about tennis but when deciding who to swap him with, it seems like Rod Laver is the best candidate. Though he has won the most single titles by a player in history and was considered by many to be the greatest tennis player in history, it seems like he has since been surpassed by the other VA4 male tennis players on this list. I do not feel too strongly about removing him but I just include him as an option here for those who wish to maintain balance in the section.

;Support

1. As nom. Aurangzebra (talk) 20:15, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
2. Djokovic is objectively the greatest player of all time, and did it in the modern era. Aszx5000 (talk) 18:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
3. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 01:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
4. Add D, remove either Nadal or Laver is fine for me. starship.paint (RUN) 02:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
5. Same opinion as Starship. Kevinishere15 (talk) 04:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
6. Agree and he still has not retired yet. Sahaib (talk) 11:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. This is the wrong swap. It will leave VA4 with three male tennis players ({{VA link|Rafael Nadal}} and {{VA link|Roger Federer}}) who have won major titles in the last ten years and no other male tennis players.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
2. As a 'tennis editor' I certainly oppose removing Rod Laver. He is widely regarded as the most significant male player in history (the only one to have won two Grand Slams) and should be the first name on the list.--Wolbo (talk) 10:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Add Djokovic, remove Nadal.

;Support

1. Add Djokovic, remove Nadal. We cannot have the three men's tennis players listed be all from the exact same era. (But Djokovic has surpassed Nadal.) J947 ‡ ^edits 10:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
2. :I'd be fine with this too. Aurangzebra (talk) 00:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
3. Aszx5000 (talk) 12:49, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
4. It is not concievable to me that the 3 most vital tennis players of all-time are all players who have won majors in the last ten years.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Djokovic, Nadal and Federer constitute the Big Three of contemporary men's tennis. Each individual member of the trio is simply incomparable to literally any other player in history due to their unprecedented grand slam achievements. All three are of equivalent status and should be included in V4. Idiosincrático (talk) 00:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
2. :If there are still concerns for generational bias, I'd be tempted to keep Rod Laver and simply add Djokovic. Idiosincrático (talk) 00:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
3. ::Would also be prefer to add Djokovic who, given his achievements and status, should be on the vital level 4 list.--Wolbo (talk) 10:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

;Discussion

{{ping|Tabu Makiadi}}, thanks for the support on the proposal! I'm looking to close this. Would you support swapping with Nadal instead of Laver per J947? Aurangzebra (talk) 23:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

:Sure, support swap. Sorry for the late reply. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 08:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

:: If Djokovic can not simply be added to the list (my preference as stated above), I would support this swap.--Wolbo (talk) 10:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop

| status = FAILED

| result = Far more than 30 days have passed, and with three opposes and one support, this proposal is unlikely to have passed. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC) PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

The major war of the last twenty years, it have a major impact on the global economy.

;Support

1. As nom--Hoben7599 (talk) 12:34, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Once again, oppose adittion. Not a level 4 war by any metric, just a case of recentism. Take a look at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/History and you will see the type of wars we have listed at this level; do you think this compares to {{VA link|Korean War}}, {{VA link|Crimean War}}, {{VA link|Second Opium War}}, {{VA link|Thirty Years' War}}, etc? The Blue Rider File:Postal horn icon.svg 14:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
2. Oppose both, since the war is definitely a case of recentism and no rationale was given to remove Boyar. I see no reason to remove a historical title several people claimed across half of Eastern Europe with no reason given. λ NegativeMP1 01:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
3. Oppose addition, neutral on removal. Kevinishere15 (talk) 04:09, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discussion

{{abot}}

{{atop

| status = PASSED

| result = Clear consensus based on 5 supports and 1 oppose shows that this proposal can pass. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC) PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

File under Abrahamic religions. Recently added as V5, and suggested on the talk page to be included in V4 also. It's a significant concept in of itself, even though we already list {{VA link|Eschatology}}.

;Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 16:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
2. Support per nomination. Quite a separate topic from Second Coming, in my view. Jusdafax (talk) 01:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
3. Per nom. Interstellarity (talk) 21:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
4. The concept of the apocalypse goes well beyond just the Second Coming. λ NegativeMP1 03:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
5. Support. PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Oppose Second Coming is also listed. --Thi (talk) 17:32, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atop

| status = PASSED

| result = With 5 support votes against 1 oppose, this proposal has passed. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC) PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

The peacock network is the oldest american broadcast network. 90 interwikis and 77,000~ monthly viewers. They produce several long running television such as {{VA link|Meet the Press}} 77 seasons, {{VA link|Saturday Night Live}} 50 seasons, {{VA link|Today (American TV program)}} 70 seasons. I think if this is not added then either ABC or CBS should be.

;Support

1. As nom Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
2. Yes, it's on the decline, but it's still an important, long-lasting network. It's not like the company itself will cease to exist in a few years, stuff like {{VA link|Peacock (streaming service)}} is still going fairly strong. λ NegativeMP1 23:29, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
3. per nom Aurangzebra (talk) 02:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
4. Per NegativeMP1. Would also be open to listing CBS, American Broadcasting Company, or Fox Broadcasting Company. Interstellarity (talk) 21:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
5. PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Public broadcast is on the decline. It's importance/vitality is waning.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
2. :NBC isn't PBS... _pbp 04:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop

| status = PASSED

| result = Proposal passes due to five supports with no opposes. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC) PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

What keeps capitalism running.

;Support

1. As nominator. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 22:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
2. Interstellarity (talk) 21:35, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
3. Support, Lv4 already lists the even more technical {{VA link|Deflation}} and {{VA link|Perfect competition}}. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
4. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
5. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atop

| status = FAILED

| result = Closing early, but it's very clear that this proposal is not passing anytime soon. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC) PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

He just died today and I think now is a good time to nominate him. I'm not nominating him because of his presidency, his presidency is irrelevant for this level. I think his post-presidential work such as Habitat for Humanity is important enough to get him listed at this level.

;Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 21:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. I think today is a poor day to open unbiased assessment of this subject's vitality. Today is a day where our glasses are at their peak rosiness and prior to today, i don't think I would have supported this yesterday.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:19, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
2. Sorry, but I don't think that he crosses into level 4 territory like other US presidents listed there. I don't think that his other contributions cross into there, either. PrimalMustelid (talk) 22:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
3. I can kinda see why you think he could be level 4, but I just don't really think he has had that much of an impact besides the label of the longest living president. λ NegativeMP1 05:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
4. Longevity ≠ vitality, nor even does charity. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
5. Unfortunatly not really vital, and U.S. politicians are over represented. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discussion

Jimmy probably falls just out of VA4. If we only have a couple dozen American politicians, he probably falls just a little short. _pbp 22:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop

| status = PASSED

| result = Overwhelming consensus to pass the proposal. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC) PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

Belated addition of rationale: N.B. This is an important {{VA link|Firearm}} and {{VA link|Weapon}} We list several Specific_firearms that are guns (including 3 with the gun as part of their name: {{VA link|Gatling gun}}, {{VA link|Dreyse needle gun}} and {{VA link|M134 Minigun}}). We list several implements/mechanisms with gun in their name, including {{VA link|Nail gun}}, {{VA link|Rivet gun}} and {{VA link|Field gun}}. VA includes {{VA link|Handgun}}s such as {{VA link|Revolver}} and {{VA link|Pistol}}. It includes {{VA link|Long gun}}s such as {{VA link|Arquebus}}, {{VA link|Musket}}, {{VA link|Rifle}}, {{VA link|Assault rifle}}, {{VA link|Sniper rifle}}, {{VA link|Submachine gun}} and {{VA link|Shotgun}}. We also list {{VA link|Machine gun}} and {{VA link|Taser}}. Gun or gun-releated elements include {{VA link|Action (firearms)}}, {{VA link|Firing pin}}, {{VA link|Magazine (firearms)}}, {{VA link|Gun barrel}}, {{VA link|Bullet}}, {{VA link|Trigger (firearms)}}, {{VA link|Bolt (firearms)}} and {{VA link|Cartridge (firearms)}}. Other subjects including the word gun include {{VA link|Gunship}} and {{VA link|Gunboat}} as well as {{VA link|Shotgun slug}} and {{VA link|Shotgun cartridge}}.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

;Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
2. Yes. If {{VA link|sword}} is VA4, gun should be too. Aurangzebra (talk) 01:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Absolutely. Interstellarity (talk) 01:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Yes. We have so much extremely specific stuff that gets listed, I think people forget the general stuff like this. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
5. I also think that certain specific firearms / "guns" could be worthy of this level. I might nominate one or two. λ NegativeMP1 04:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
6. Per nom Mathwriter2718 (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
7. Organizational grounds alone are enough for me; this subsumes both {{VA link|Firearm}} and {{VA link|Artillery}}. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
8. Not sure why this wasn't already listed. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discussion

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = PASSED

| result = Based on a voting ratio of 5 supports to 2 opposes, this level 4 article proposal passes. PrimalMustelid (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC) PrimalMustelid (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

Meaning selfish personal desire for something, greed is one of the most iconic and infamous personality traits in written human history. I think that it should probably even be level 3, but for now, it should definitely be level 4.

;Support

1. As nom. PrimalMustelid (talk) 00:48, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
2. Support, per nom. Greed, for lack of a better word, is good. BD2412 T 20:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
3. Definitely an important topic. You could argue that most of human history was caused or driven by greed. λ NegativeMP1 23:48, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
4. Interstellarity (talk) 21:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
5. Strange omission compared to the other emotions and traits listed. J947 ‡ ^edits 22:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. I don't think it is much more important than the other vital deadly sins that I listed below.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
2. :It’s not about greed as one of the seven sins alone. It’s about human drive to have more than they need, what motivates that, and how such greed impacts the world around them. Alone, greed is very important within the context of different fields like economics, philosophy, religion (besides Christianity), history, etc. PrimalMustelid (talk) 22:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
3. Oppose per above. The [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2015-07-01&end=2025-01-17&pages=Seven_deadly_sins|Wrath|Greed|Lust|Gluttony|Envy|Sloth_(deadly_sin)|Pride views] for the 7 deadly sins over the past 10 years put Greed at dead last in number of daily page views. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
4. :Again, my nomination of greed isn't about it being one of the seven sins of Christianity (not alone anyways), it's about what motivates humans to try to obtain more than what they at the expenses of others and possibly even themselves. I don't think that pageviews should be playing a major role in determining how important individual personalities are, and somehow I doubt that lust was listed as a level 4 article because of it in the context of being a deadly sin. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
5. ::The 7 sins are a close proxy for these desires and traits, and are the best things I can think to compare this to. Views are one of the criteria listed to judge an articles "vitalness." Lust has more then double the page views of greed over the past 10 years. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
6. :::As I said here, I've nominated greed not in the context of it as a deadly sin but as a personality trait that influences people to take more than what they need, and there are way more examples of how greed influences the world around us. Put the deadly sins concept aside for a moment here, because greed is a very important aspect in multiple fields like biology, history, philosophy, religion, economics, and the like. Views can be a factor towards vitality, but it doesn't inherently determine whether an article is vital or not by itself; context behind the pageviews is important. It's not like the greed somehow has low pageview counts anyways, since it has a considerable amount. I'd like to urge you to reconsider based on my arguments, but I suppose that's up to you. PrimalMustelid (talk) 05:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discussion

Let's see where this ranks among the {{VA link|seven deadly sins}}: {{VA link|pride}}, {{VA link|greed}}, {{VA link|wrath}}, {{VA link|envy}}, {{VA link|lust}}, {{VA link|gluttony}}, and {{VA link|Sloth (deadly sin)}}

{{abot}}