Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/History and geography#rfc 11C8093

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1990265150}}

The purpose of this discussion page is to select 50,000 topics for which Wikipedia should have high-quality articles.

Any article currently on this list may be challenged. The discussion is open to the following rules:

{{Vital article level 5 rules}}

The following link represent all current Level 5 Vital articles that are classified as History and Geography subjects:

{{See|Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History}}

{{See|Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Geography/Physical}}

{{See|Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Geography/Countries}}

{{See|Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Geography/Cities}}

Since Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History is under quota at 3266/3300, I nominate Fleur-de-lis, Trident and Star (heraldry) for their importance in {{VA link|Heraldry}} and {{VA link|Vexillology}} for listing in Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/History#Auxiliary_sciences_of_history.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

:I belatedly added Trident after first placing it in Technology for its military and farming/hunting history. However, its symbolism for deities, superheros, corporations, athletic institutions, and military forces is probably even more vital.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Weak support, we have the room for now. Long run, if we list them primarily as symbols, I wonder if they belong somewhere with Culture. But let's not worry about that just yet. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Weak support. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 19:01, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Mixed

1. Support first two; oppose Star. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

;Discussion

Operation paperclip was a program at the end of WWII where the United States brought NAZI scientists to the United States. {{VA link|Wernher von Braun}} was one individual brought to the U.S. through this program. Check the "Advancements in aeronautics" of the article if you need to see why this was vital to the history of the technology.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Sure, after some thought, we're still filling in the section. We can worry about over-representation of WWII later. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
3. :I don't really think of this as WWII, this is a major part of the history of the United States space program. It is a {{VA link|Swords to ploughshares}} situation, coming out of the ashes of WWII, but I think of it more as part of the post war period then the war itself. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Makkool (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
5. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
6. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:24, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

{{atopg

| status = Passed

| result = Added 4–0. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:28, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

Added in earlier, but it is a significant event in which hundreds of Indians were killed by British Indian soldiers to crush the pro-independence movements, leading to massive backlash that fueled Indian resentment towards the United Kingdom and may have been a factor leading to eventual Indian independence. PrimalMustelid (talk) 23:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. As nominator. PrimalMustelid (talk) 23:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Definitely. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Makkool (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:15, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

• User:PrimalMustelid could you please remove the addition that you made until a consensus evolves here.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
• :Done. PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• Hi, can we have one more supporter here? Thanks. PrimalMustelid (talk) 15:14, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = Passed

| result = Added 4–0. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

This historic event came to mind after reading several other disaster proposals. This event was part of the {{VA link|War of 1812}} when the British took and burned Washington D.C.. Related to the Kamikaze and Spanish Armada link in terms of weather, per the articles lede "Less than four days after the attack began, a heavy thunderstorm, possibly a hurricane and a tornado, extinguished the fires and caused further destruction."

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Sure, this is another good one to fill out the "forces of nature" theme. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Makkool (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
4. per nom --EleniXDD※Talk 08:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

I originally had this idea from the proposal to add the {{VA link|Badakhshan}} region of Central Asia. Would presumably go under Physical Geography. Also, for precedent, we do already list the {{VA link|Darién Gap}}. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

AKA the White Mountains, not a pass, but the specific mountain subrange the Khyber Pass traverses. We actually don't list it though so may as well toss it out there now.

;Support

1. As nom. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 14:20, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
5. Weakly: less than 1,000 monthly pageviews. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

Technically a region of Afghanistan, and apparently never a primary link in the {{VA link|Silk Road}}, but this contains the only feasible direct link between modern-day Afghanistan and China.

;Support

1. As nom. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Easily. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

Leaving Central Asia and moving to Central Europe, this may not have been as notable until more recently, but it has historical importance particularly related to Cold War military planning.

;Support

1. As nom. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 15:40, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Added 4-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 19:48, 30 April 2025 (UTC)}}

Another land pass between modern-day Poland and Lithuania, relevant to contemporary geopolitics. Also historically a common route for military maneuvers in the area.

;Support

1. As nom. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
4. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:54, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

{{abot}}

Suburb of {{VA link|Okayama}}. Compare Remove Wolverhampton or Remove Gelsenkirchen and Oberhausen.

;Support

1. As nominator. feminist🩸 (talk) 04:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
2. I'm not a big fan of having sub-regions of cities included. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Makkool (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Per nom. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:39, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

Suburb of {{VA link|Tokyo}} well-integrated with the capital via public transport.

;Support

1. As nominator. feminist🩸 (talk) 04:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
2. I'm not a big fan of having sub-regions of cities included. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Makkool (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Has 640,000 people _pbp 10:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Weakly, per pbp. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

Besides pbp's point about population, I'll have to think a bit more about how these relate to other suburbs, or non-suburbs in general. I'm guessing we'll want to trim the Cities section more; that probably means being a little systematic though. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Same question as Espoo near by.... At level 4 we list both Rotterdam and The Hague which are kind of in the same metro area, and Google says they are around 24 km apart, closer than this to Tokyo, which Google says they are 36 km apart. We also list London at level 3, then City of London and City of Westminster at level 5. If we are to discus whether these suburb/close-by-cities of other cities are vital or not, I think the discussion needs to be more thorough than "close to, or within, another city" as some almost identical cases exist and are not brought up and are almost given a free pass. Especially if we list all of New York Boroughs... Also we list Wall Street at level 5 which is about an individual street as well as New York Stock Exchange, which is about the financial topics at level 4, Central Park at level 4 and Manhattan at 5.  Carlwev  19:21, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

{{atopg|status=passed|result=added 4-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 16:01, 5 May 2025 (UTC)}}

These are 3D computer graphics representation of elevation data to represent terrain or overlaying objects, commonly of a planet, moon, or asteroid. Widely used in cartography and spatial analysis. They are often generated with Radar, LiDAR, or photogrammetry.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Sure, adds depth and Cartography still has the room. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Makkool (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 12:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

From the lede "The Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) is an international research effort that obtained digital elevation models on a near-global scale from 56°S to 60°N, to generate the most complete high-resolution digital topographic database of Earth prior to the release of the ASTER GDEM in 2009." The space shuttle basically took a Radar photo of large sections of the planet. We still use these products widely today. Could also go under STEM but I thought I'd propose it here first.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Sure, adds depth and Cartography still has the room. Let's keep it with Geography even if it has a highly-technical back-story. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Makkool (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 21:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

Most commonly used GIS software in the United States. Widely used in the creation of maps.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Sure, adds depth and Cartography still has the room. Let's keep it with Geography even if it's a technical product. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Changing to oppose, I think {{VA link|geographic information system}} is enough. I'd rather list all computer software on the Technology page. Makkool (talk) 09:37, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Don't think this is quite on the same level as others at Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Technology#Specific_software. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:46, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

Widely used open source GIS software.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Sure, adds depth and Cartography still has the room. Let's keep it with Geography even if it's a technical product. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Changing to oppose, I think {{VA link|geographic information system}} is enough. I'd rather list all computer software on the Technology page. Makkool (talk) 09:37, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
2. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:46, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Added 5-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 15:45, 9 May 2025 (UTC)}}

One of the most common types of {{VA link|Thematic map}}. They show statistical data aggregated over predefined regions, such as countries or states, by coloring or shading these regions.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Sure, adds depth and Cartography still has the room. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Makkool (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
4. This kind of map is used everywhere; good for a vital article. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
5. Per nom. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

One of the most common types of {{VA link|Thematic map}}. They use point symbols of different sizes (height, length, area, or volume) to represent quantitative statistical values associated with different areas or locations within the map.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Sure, adds depth and Cartography still has the room. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Makkool (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. We list a grand total of 5 types of charts at Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Mathematics#Statistics_and_probability. There's already 5 types of maps listed. These are a step below those, and I can't see how they're anything other than VA6. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

One of the most common types of {{VA link|Thematic map}}. They place small point symbols over a given space to indicate the distribution of a given phenomenon.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Sure, adds depth and Cartography still has the room. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Makkool (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

One of the most common types of {{VA link|Thematic map}}. They use line symbols to portray movement or relationship between two or more places, such as air travel, monetary aid, or economic trade.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Sure, adds depth and Cartography still has the room. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Makkool (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Coming up to ten years since this began. According to the article around 40% of the country is controlled by Jihadist forces leading to the displacement of over 2 million people and the deaths of at least 10,000 civilians and combatants. See also Template:Campaignbox Jihadist insurgency in Burkina Faso for the long list of related articles.

;Support

1. As nom. Sahaib (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Makkool (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Sure, history still has the room / cushion. We can revisit for recency issues more systematically later. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
4. :r/historymemes has a "20 year rule" for what is allowed. Perhaps some similar guideline could be suggested to avoid recency debates. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
5. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 19:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

Also I would add that for [https://theconversation.com/displaced-by-violent-conflict-the-worlds-most-neglected-crises-are-in-africa-six-essential-reads-231768#:~:text=The%20report%20covers%20those%20forced,African%20Republic%2C%20Chad%20and%20Sudan. two years] it has been the "world's most neglected crisis" according to the NRC. Sahaib (talk) 17:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|status=partial pass|result=North Yemen civil war added 4-0
Yemeni unification not removed 2-2
Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:20, 3 May 2025 (UTC)}}

The North Yemen civil war has more language links and is more impactful as it led to the abolition of the monarchy and the country becoming a republic. It is also likely the deadliest civil war in the last 100 years that is not already listed as vital on Wikipedia with a death toll of 100,000–200,000. Per the article, it is also described as Egypt's Vietnam war. Yemeni unification did not last very long as Yemen has been de-facto divided since the Yemeni civil war (2014–present).

;Support

1. As nom. Sahaib (talk) 15:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Makkool (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Mixed

1. Strong support add, oppose removal. The civil war is definitely a huge event, but History has the cushion, and we arguably don't include enough diplomatic events, especially one's that form states like this. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Per Zar. Kevinishere15 (talk) 21:20, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

After Sahaib noticed we don't include the {{VA link|North Yemen civil war}}, that got me wondering about Oman next door. Sure enough, we're missing both the {{VA link|Jebel Akhdar War}} and {{VA link|Dhofar War}}.

Both during the Cold War, these 2 wars are arguably what created the modern state of Oman and also demonstrate a lot of foreign skullduggery. Prior to these wars, the Sultanate of Oman was largely a colonial and coastal affair, with the Oman interior controlled for over a millennium by an effectively independent, elected imamate.

As for space, History is just about at the quota, but we have a 2% cushion so I'm just going to propose these as straight additions.

;Support

1. As nom. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Sure. I'll go through history a bit and see if anything jumps out for a removal proposal as well. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Support Dhofar only. The other one doesn't have enough interwikis. The JA War also resulted in less than 1,000 killed; less than loads of battles and offensives we DON'T have _pbp 05:54, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
4. :Fair enough, though TBF we list a lot of things that killed way fewer people too. Not trying to change your mind, but like I said above, it's more notable for the level of Cold War intrigue and how completely it reshaped the political map of Oman, which is a country with some pull. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
5. Makkool (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discussion

I've added the Dhofar war to the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lophotrochozoa (talk • contribs) 19:24, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Different from {{VA link|Churchill River (Hudson Bay)}}. Largest river in {{VA link|Atlantic Canada}} and likely of importance to the region.

;Support

1. As nom. B3251_(talk) 20:45, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Sure, Phys Geo is still under quota so no need to overthink it. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Makkool (talk) 19:13, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discussion

Large river in Mexico that seems to be of pretty good importance. Empties into {{VA link|Lake Chapala}}. Would maybe make a good addition to a subsection which currently only has one article (Rivers > Mexico and Central America).

;Support

1. As nom. B3251_(talk) 20:45, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Sure, Phys Geo is still under quota so no need to overthink it. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Makkool (talk) 19:13, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
4. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:10, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discussion

1/2 of {{VA link|Newfoundland and Labrador}}, along with {{VA link|Newfoundland (island)}}. Though sparsely populated, the region of Labrador is of importance and should be recognized as VA. Part of the {{VA link|Labrador Peninsula}}.

;Support

1. As nom. B3251_(talk) 20:45, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Sure, Countries/Regions are under-quota (and should still be if our lists + quota cut works). No need to overthink it. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Makkool (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 11:39, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. I think there's already sufficient coverage of this area – the human geo stuff is covered in Newfoundland and Labrador, and the physical geo stuff is covered in Labrador Peninsula. With a population of only 27,000, Labrador doesn't command its own article at VA5 in my opinion. J947 ‡ ^edits 22:09, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
2. :@J947 just a suggestion to at least make some additions to the under-quota category. There is more specific history related to Labrador that isn't covered in the NL&L and peninsula articles. B3251_(talk) 13:19, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discussion

Connects {{VA link|Nova Scotia}}, a peninsula province, to the mainland {{VA link|New Brunswick}}. Lots of history from back during the {{VA link|Acadia}} days (see Raid on Chignecto (1696) & Battle at Chignecto, as well as the Battle of Fort Beauséjour for example), and is extremely vital for transportation between the two provinces. This has been highlighted more recently due to the largely low elevated land on the isthmus which has been prone to flooding.

;Support

1. As nom. B3251_(talk) 20:45, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Sure, Phys Geo is still under quota so no need to overthink it. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Makkool (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 13:51, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discussion

Region in Oman, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. Related articles include Kingdom of Hadhramaut, Hadhramaut Governorate, Hadramautic language, Hadhrami Arabic and Hadharem.

;Support

1. As nom. Sahaib (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Sure, important plus Countries/Regions are under-quota (and should still be if our lists + quota cut works). No need to overthink it. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Makkool (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discussion

Because this city is the largest in Eastern Syria, and was the final destination of the deportees of the Armenian genocide, it is no doubt vital at this level. RekishiEJ (talk) 15:30, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:31, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Sure, I get the feeling we'll try to trim Cities more soon, but this is a decent singular addition. Also larger than {{VA link|Manbij}}, which we already list, and notable as a frontline during the civil war. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:06, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

Bailiwick of Guernsey is more broader as it includes Alderney and Sark which are not listed.

;Support

1. As nom. Sahaib (talk) 07:56, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Mixed

1. Oppose removal, support addition. No need to overcomplicate it. I think we're still under quota in Phys Geo where the island is listed, and should have room for the polity in Countries/Regions, regardless of whether the bulk list-removal goes through. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:38, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Support addition: we should keep Guernsey in Islands and add Bailiwick of Guernsey to Regions and country subdivisions Makkool (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

I would nominate Windscale fire it was a Nuclear Accident in the United Kingdom.

;Support

1. 1keyhole (talk) 04:36, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Sure, we're just about at quota now and trying to represent disasters a bit more came up recently. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:51, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
3. Makkool (talk) 18:00, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Errr... so what? Not famous, just a local industrial accident. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:55, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discussion

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Added 4-1 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 14:59, 3 May 2025 (UTC)}}

This conspiracy theory is bullshit and repulsive, but influential enough to be listed at VA5 _pbp 17:48, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. _pbp 17:48, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Arguably the precursor/underlier of all modern conspiracy theories. Iostn (talk) 23:15, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
3. Per Iostn. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
4. But under culture, per comments below. And I'd suggest moving conspiracy theory from history to culture too. Indeed, sociology is a good fit. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:09, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

Oppose here, neutral if we can fit it under Culture somewhere. The idea has real effects, but since (I hope we'll all agree) it's a mythical meme, I don't really think History is the right place for it. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:13, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

:The reason I nominated it under history is because {{VA link|Conspiracy theory}} itself is currently listed under history. _pbp 23:33, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

::Oh, interesting, and it's there on Lv4 so we probably can't just move it boldly yet. Personally, I would think the general Conspiracy theory article makes way more sense with something like Sociology. Tell you what, I'll change my vote to neutral here, but keep a note we should probably move this with the general article. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 12:48, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

1. Per above GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:21, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

It is obviously important but the article's relatively small number of language links (13) compared to other conspiracy pages that are not listed such as COVID-19 misinformation (42), Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory (26), Great Replacement conspiracy theory (29), John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories (14), White genocide conspiracy theory (21), etc, makes me a little skeptical (no pun intended). Sahaib (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Since we already apparently list the parent {{VA link|Conspiracy theory}} article in History for now, I won't get in the way of adding it. I've proposed moving that to Sociology on Lv4 though so my understanding is we'd move this one too, either before or after it passes. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 14:10, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

;Discussion

{{abot}}

Not as old or influential as the Jewish conspiracy above (and, indeed, derivative of same), but influential enough to contempoary politics and media (i.e. {{VA link|Alex Jones}}) to justify inclusion at this level. Again, bullshit, but influential bullshit.

;Support

1. _pbp 18:07, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Seems vital enough based on language links (41). Sahaib (talk) 18:11, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
3. Sigh. I even know a person who belives in it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:10, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 16:46, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

Oppose here, neutral if we can fit it under Culture somewhere. The idea has real effects, but since (I hope we'll all agree) it's a mythical meme, I don't really think History is the right place for it. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:13, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

1. Per above. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:22, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

;Discussion

I don't know how many conspiracy theories we list, but I think there are extremely few that are actually vital. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:22, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Since we already apparently list the parent {{VA link|Conspiracy theory}} article in History for now, I won't get in the way of adding it. I've proposed moving that to Sociology on Lv4 though so my understanding is we'd move this one too, either before or after it passes. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 14:10, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

The so called "lost city of the Incas". Served as the capital of the Neo-Inca State from 1539 to 1572, the last refuge of the Inca Empire after the Spanish Conquest. Add to Historical cities.

;Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 17:11, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Strong support, especially since listing major historical cities seems less arbitrary to me than filtering contemporary ones. Also, for anyone swinging by, I just want to draw their attention again to the proposals up top, including one to add {{VA link|Pataliputra}}, the capital of the {{VA link|Maurya Empire}}. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:51, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
3. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:28, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

Add it where? Historical cities? _pbp 22:14, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Historically the Arabian Peninsula has been divided into four regions. Currently we list three of them: {{VA link|Hejaz}}, {{VA link|Najd}} and {{VA link|Eastern Arabia}}. I propose we add the remaining one, and a couple of other articles.

Historical region located in the southern part of the peninsula, consisting of mainly modern day Yemen and parts of Oman and Saudi-Arabia. The only of the four main historical regions in the area we don't list.

;Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 17:55, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Sure, and we definitely have the room now. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:57, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
3. Per nom. J947 ‡ ^edits 06:13, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

Historical subregion, located in south-eastern Najd.

;Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 17:55, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Sure, and we definitely have the room now. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:57, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
3. J947 ‡ ^edits 06:13, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

Historical subregion, consisting of the western coast of Arabian Peninsula by the Red Sea. Located in the Hejaz region.

;Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 17:55, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Sure, and we definitely have the room now. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:57, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
3. Thanks for these proposals. J947 ‡ ^edits 06:13, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

A historical subregion, an oasis and a Unesco World Heritage Site, located in the Eastern Arabian region. Two of the largest cities of Saudi-Arabia are found within it. Not sure where to list this one, should it be in regions, oases in physical geography or World Heritage Sites? I'd suggest regions, but I can be open to other places as well.

;Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 17:55, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Sure, and personally, I'd probably put it with oases in Phys Geo. In the narrow sense, I think the historical region is still confined to the oasis and not that large (article says ~33 sq. mi.) In the wider sense, the corresponding article is probably the modern {{VA link|Al-Ahsa Governorate}}. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:57, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
3. Probably oases. J947 ‡ ^edits 06:13, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{VA link|Frisia}}; Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Geography/Countries#Germany. Good example of the sort of article we lack.

;Support

1. As nom. J947 ‡ ^edits 06:21, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

I don't dislike the idea, but would Frisians be better? Both/either would be OK, but Frisians is in more languages, has refs, more page views, looks like it gets more attention. (I am not opposing this, in fact I am considering supporting.)  Carlwev  01:26, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

1. Frisians would belong to Culture/Ethnology. We have many pairs of a nation and their homeland, like {{VA link|Bengalis}} and {{VA link|Bengal}} for example. Makkool (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

{{VA link|German Bight}}; oceanic seas is an area where many (most?) of the articles at VA5 are also VA4. I think adding this sea is a decent idea looking towards making the VA5 makeup more balanced.

;Support

1. As nom. J947 ‡ ^edits 06:23, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

Hi everyone, we're doing a really good job of participating and moving things along on this page. Up at the top though, we still have several open proposals just shy of a clear margin. Whether you're swinging by regularly or once in a while, please consider voting if you aren't completely ambivalent. It's not just about keeping things flowing either, but also a matter of fairness to your fellow participants. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:06, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

:I've bumped this notice to the bottom just to tap the sign once more. I think this section is at a manageable pace with new proposals, but there are still many near the top waiting on a 4th or 5th vote to decide things. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

{{collapse top|title=|The 32 Scottish council areas in order of population are:}}

• Glasgow (city) – 622,820 - already listed at level 4
• Edinburgh (city) – 514,990 - already listed at level 4
• Fife – 371,340
• North Lanarkshire – 340,930 - If the historic county of Lanarkshire existed today it would most likely be vital but since its split it has basically become a part of Glasgow (see Greater Glasgow). It also previously included Glasgow so there is too match overlap.
• South Lanarkshire – 327,430 - see above explanation
• Aberdeenshire – 263,750 - Aberdeenshire (historic) previously included Aberdeen so there is too match overlap. Also see Highland explanation.
• Highland (council area) – 235,710 - the Scottish Highlands and Inverness are both already at level 5 so there is too match overlap. The Highlands also include parts of the council areas of Aberdeenshire, Angus, Scotland, Argyll and Bute, Moray, North Ayrshire, Perth and Kinross, Stirling (council area) and West Dunbartonshire.
• Aberdeen (city) – 224,190 - already listed as level 5
• West Lothian – 181,720 - borders Edinburgh so there is some overlap
• Renfrewshire – 184,340 - location of Glasgow Airport so there is some overlap with Glasgow
• Falkirk (council area) – 158,450
• Perth and Kinross – 151,120 - see Highland explanation.
• Dumfries and Galloway – 145,770
• Dundee (city) – 148,350 - already listed at level 5
• North Ayrshire – 133,490 - see Highland explanation.
• East Ayrshire – 120,390
• Angus, Scotland – 114,660 - historically included Dundee so there is too match overlap. Also see Highland explanation.
• Scottish Borders – 116,820
• South Ayrshire – 111,560
• East Dunbartonshire – 108,980
• East Lothian – 112,450
• Moray – 94,280 - see Highland explanation.
• East Renfrewshire – 97,160
• Stirling (council area) – 92,530 - was previously covered by Stirling at level 5 until it was removed in January 2025. Also see Highland explanation.
• Midlothian – 97,030 - Midlothian (historic) previously included Edinburgh so there is too match overlap.
• West Dunbartonshire – 88,270 - see Highland explanation.
• Argyll and Bute – 87,920
• Inverclyde – 78,340
• Clackmannanshire – 51,750
• Outer Hebrides/Na h-Eileanan Siar (islands) – 26,120 - already listed as level 5
• Shetland Islands (islands) – 23,020 - already listed as level 5
• Orkney (islands) – 22,020 - already listed as level 5

{{collapse bottom}}

The terms "Central Lowlands" and "Southern Uplands" are historical/geographical terms that are rarely used in everyday conversations which can be seen by the [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2015-07-01&end=2025-02-22&pages=Central_Lowlands%7CCentral_Belt%7CFife%7CScottish_Highlands%7CSouthern_Uplands%7CLothian%7CLanarkshire%7CScottish_Borders%7CAberdeenshire%7CGreater_Glasgow pageviews] in which the terms "Central Belt" and "Greater Glasgow" get more pageviews. However, I believe it makes sense to swap them with Fife as it also includes the city of Dunfermline which is somewhat close to being vital as the de facto capital of the Kingdom of Scotland, as well as the important but not vital towns of Kirkcaldy, Glenrothes and St Andrews (the location of the University of St Andrews which is at level 5). All Ceremonial counties of England are already listed at level 5 with five of them having lower populations than that of Fife (Northumberland, Herefordshire, Isle of Wight, Rutland and the City of London), so population shouldn't be an issue. Fife also gets [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2015-07-01&end=2025-02-22&pages=Fife%7CNorthumberland%7CHerefordshire%7CRutland%7CCity_of_London%7CIsle_of_Wight more pageviews] than two of the English ceremonial counties previously mentioned (Herefordshire and Rutland) and so that also shouldn't be an issue.

;Support

1. As nom. Sahaib (talk) 18:49, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

Another surprising omission. We have been having gaps in significant historical regions. {{VA link|East Prussia}} has more interwikis, but it seems to be more about the former province of Germany. That should better belong in History then? I think this article is the best one to include in Geography.

;Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 10:07, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
2. We list {{VA link|Prussia}} and {{VA link|Kingdom of Prussia}} but I think it's fine to be redundant here. Aurangzebra (talk) 19:13, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

{{atopg|status=passed|Result=Removed 4-0 ~~}}

Northern most point of Africa - but only been designated in 2014 before which is was said to be another location? There is a monument the article is only a stub and only in 22 other languages, most of them are also stub, or few start class, There doesn't seem to be much there, there is not much to say about it. Not as significant as Africa's most southern point Cape Agulhas which is more significant to navigation as is sticks out more. Ras ben Sakka does not project that much out into the sea compared to the southern cape. Also for context - we do not list Africa's eastern or western most points Pointe des Almadies, or Ras Hafun. Also none of the four Extreme points of Asia are listed either.

;Support

1. As nom.  Carlwev  15:27, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
2. I'm having trouble understanding why Ras ben Sakka and Cape Angela are separate articles. One is the cape and the other is the tip of the cape? But they show the same landscape and monuments? Anyway, I agree with the reasoning above that this is not vital. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:13, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
3. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 09:54, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
4. Solid rationale. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

{{abot}}

{{atop|status=procedural close|Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)}}

This is not to understate the impact that the 2007 Greensburg tornado had on the residents of Kiowa County, but it is a little odd that this is the only tornado listed in the entire Level 5 history section when it doesn't even rank among the 25 deadliest tornadoes in American history. It is notable in that it was the first tornado to be designated an EF5, but I think if we are going to include a tornado in this list--particularly in Contemporary section--then the 2011 Joplin tornado would be a better candidate given that it is currently the deadliest tornado of the 21st century and the second deadliest tornado of the contemporary (post WW2) period. As far as loss of life and financial damage inflicted, the 2011 Joplin tornado was more destructive than the 2007 Greensburg tornado by an order of magnitude. Or maybe the 1925 tri-state tornado or Daulatpur-Saturia tornado would be better candidates for elsewhere in Level 5, given that they were much deadlier than either Greensburg or Joplin. Bcbroughton (talk) 00:02, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

• Recommend procedural close: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/History_and_geography/Archive_8 The discussion to add the Greensburg tornado] occurred just 3½ months ago _pbp 00:17, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

One thing I've noticed is that we have omitted archaelogical cultures from the vital articles list, and many topics of Archaeology in general. For starters, I'll propose a couple of cultures that seem most important to a non-expert.

A Western and Central European Bronze Age culture with a wide influence which shaped the continent for several centuries.

;Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 19:47, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. We should have more of these. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
3.  Carlwev  10:53, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

An archaelogical culture related to the expansion of the Indoeuropean languages around Eurasia. One of the most important Neolithic cultures, and the focus of several lines of research.

;Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 19:47, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Significant Copper and Bronze Age culture lasted seven centuries, spread over what is now several nations,  Carlwev  10:59, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

Another archaeological culture. Known for its cord-impressed pottery, early pastoralist economy, use of wheeled vehicles, and role in spreading Indo-European languages into Europe.

;Support

1. As nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
2.  Carlwev  11:03, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Makkool (talk) 12:05, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

Associated with early Indo-Iranian migrations, known for its metallurgy, horse domestication, and the spread of chariot warfare and steppe traditions.

;Support

1. As nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
2.  Carlwev  11:03, 14 March 2025 (UTC)~
3. Makkool (talk) 12:05, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

I propose we add some of the other regions of (ancient) Israel that we are currently missing. We already list {{VA link|Galilee}} and {{VA link|Golan Heights}} at least. These regions are important historically and are also the area where the Bible takes place.

The historical central region of the land of Israel.

;Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 20:07, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
2. _pbp 20:25, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

A region consisting of ten Hellenistic cities in the land of Israel, and was the center Hellenistic and Roman culture in the area.

;Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 20:07, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Added 4-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)}}

The mountaneous region of Levant, centered around the city of Jerusalem.

;Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 20:07, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
2. _pbp 20:24, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
3.  Carlwev  11:04, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
4. Most famous of the ones proposed here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:12, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

{{abot}}

A region of Transjordan, east of Judea and Samaria.

;Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 20:07, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

JpTheNotSoSuperior recently removed the article {{VA link|Electrification}} from the contemporary history list, saying that it shouldn't be listed there. I agree; energy technology seems to be a better place.

;Remove

;Move to Technology

1. As nom. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 19:46, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
2. As the person who made the move. Of note, electrification was listed in both history and technology, so that's why I removed it from history. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 19:48, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
3. _pbp 20:24, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

;Restore to History

;Discussion

Lophotrochozoa (talk) 19:46, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

{{atopr

| status = failed

| result = Not added 5-1. Kevinishere15 (talk) 02:04, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

}}

This is regarded as one of the most important political speeches of all time.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:35, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. As nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:35, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. The article states that it is one of the most important political speeches in American history. I would rather go for something with more global influence and impact. Makkool (talk) 11:14, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Per above. Also, only six interwikis. λ NegativeMP1 16:07, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
3. We have {{VA link|William Jennings Bryan}} but not {{VA link|Cross of Gold speech}}; we have {{VA link|Enoch Powell}} (who survived [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_18 a removal vote in late 2023]) but not {{VA link|Rivers of Blood speech}}. In almost every instance, the speech isn't as notable as the speaker. One of the few speeches we have is {{VA link|Gettysburg Address}}, given by {{VA link|Abraham Lincoln}}
4. Per comment directly above me. Kevinishere15 (talk) 03:29, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
5. While it is considered one of the greatest speeches in American history, it did not stop the gold standard from being adopted. Also, to expand on the points given above, we list {{VA link|Ronald Reagan}} but not {{VA link|A Time for Choosing}} or {{VA link|Tear down this wall!}}, and we list {{VA link|Barack Obama}} but not {{VA link|A More Perfect Union (speech)}}. Very rarely do we list individual speeches, and I don't believe that this one was impactful enough to be an exception. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:05, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Removed 4-1 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)}}

History is getting crowded, and months ago, a discussion showed sympathy towards removing almost every country's flag. This should cut about a third of the current list (28). Most of these have only existed for a few decades in their current versions, or their adoption is closely tied to events we currently list (the {{VA link|Spanish transition to democracy}}, the end of Apartheid, etc).

1. {{Icon|Start}} Flag of South Africa
2. {{Icon|Start}} Flag of Kenya
3. {{Icon|B}} Flag of Bangladesh
4. {{Icon|B}} {{Icon|DGA}} Flag of the Philippines
5. {{Icon|GA}} Flag of South Korea
6. {{Icon|Start}} Flag of Thailand
7. {{Icon|B}} Flag of Vietnam
8. {{Icon|GA}} Flag of Poland
9. {{Icon|C}} Flag of Spain

;Support

1. As nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 00:37, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Support all Makkool (talk) 16:51, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Very few flags belong at this level. None of the above seem to have cultural significance outside their own countries. Trivia, really. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:14, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
4. J947 ‡ ^edits 22:30, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. The form of this joint nomination is a bit misleading. Each flag has a different set of considerations. The flags themselves may not in their current forms be long-tenured. However, each article is a bit of a History of the flag article. Thus the importance of the current version of the flag is not so relevant. If a VA5 person were to get married, we would not suddenly reasses that person's importance based on their current newfound relationship status. Vitality would continue to be assessed based on the history of that person. I would suggest splitting this nomination and stating the date of the original creation as well as its current form in the split nomination. If properly split, I might support some.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:21, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Swapped 4-1 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)}}

It seems worth bringing these up, as we don't have similar articles about other conflicts.

1. {{Icon|C}} American entry into World War I
2. {{Icon|C}} Austro-Hungarian entry into World War I
3. {{Icon|C}} French entry into World War I
4. {{Icon|C}} German entry into World War I
5. {{Icon|Start}} Ottoman entry into World War I
6. {{Icon|C}} Russian entry into World War I

;Support

1. As nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 00:37, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Support removal, but I would also be willing to support pbp's swap if consensus goes that way. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:06, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Support removal but also pbp's swap Makkool (talk) 16:51, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
4. Support swap. Kevinishere15 (talk) 18:05, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
5. Support swap, after thinking about it a bit - yes, those are significant (vital) history of major countries segments in their own right, at this level. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:16, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

Seems disengenuous to have {{VA link|American entry into World War I}} but not {{VA link|United States in World War I}}, {{VA link|Russian entry into World War I}} but not {{VA link|Russia in World War I}}. Suggest swap. _pbp 01:04, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:I am a little bit confused what this swap is all about.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:10, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

::I.e. Remove American entry into World War I, add United States in World War I, repeat with other countries. _pbp 12:07, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg|status=passed|result=added 4-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:15, 8 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Small from a world-historic perspective. 30,000 and 87,000 people, respectively.

;Support

1. As nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 15:14, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Support both Makkool (talk) 16:51, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Kevinishere15 (talk) 02:03, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Piling on - trivial at this level. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:37, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

{{abot}}

Small from a world-historic perspective. Temporarily embarrassed France. 1 dead.

;Support

1. As nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 15:14, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 16:51, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Kevinishere15 (talk) 18:09, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
4. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

Short-lived Soviet during the Chinese Civil War. Part of the larger Chinese Soviet Republic

;Support

1. As nom. Weak support for a swap with the CSR. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 15:29, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 16:51, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

All of these are former portions of other cities that are already listed at VA5. In comparison to other geographical features (particularly their parent cities), they have relatively few interwikis. These were rented out (at gunpoint) to foreign powers, in some cases not for very long. The concept of Treaty port is more important than any one treaty port. _pbp 01:31, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. _pbp 01:31, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
2. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 00:26, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

Bioko is about 40x more populated than Príncipe but it is not listed. Both of them, along with {{vital article link|São Tomé Island}} and Annobón make up the broader Cameroon line.

;Support

1. As nom. Sahaib (talk) 16:21, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
2. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 05:45, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

So, on paper, I kind of get why this is listed. It was a big part of that eras counter-culture. But it is not a topic that would be in a traditional encyclopedia and articles about pop-culture crazes are things we should not be listing here. Really, what does this article truly provide to a project trying to assemble the most important topics for an encyclopedia. More proof that {{VA link|The Beatles}} were extremely popular? Something that that article covers extensively to begin with? I don't see it.

This article is something good for extended reading about the Beatles by Wikipedia standards, where space is infinite and anything can have an article given that it meets our guidelines. But the vital articles project only has a limited selection of articles, with V5 having 50,000. And across those 50,000 slots, we list the Beatles themselves, all four members ({{VA link|John Lennon}}, {{VA link|Ringo Starr}}, {{VA link|Paul McCartney}}, {{VA link|George Harrison}}), the albums {{VA link|Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band}}, {{VA link|Revolver (Beatles album)}}, {{VA link|The Beatles (album)}}, and {{VA link|Abbey Road}}, plus the individual songs {{VA link|I Want to Hold Your Hand}}, {{VA link|Hey Jude}}, {{VA link|Yesterday (song)}} and {{VA link|A Day in the Life}} and Lennon's solo work {{VA link|Imagine (song)}}. This is 15 articles dedicated to the Beatles, not counting Beatlemania. I'm not campaigning for the removal of any of these right now because they are all important but my point is: when we list all of this, do we seriously need to give another slot to the Beatles. And if we do, would you rather give that slot to something like {{VA link|Let It Be (album)}} or {{VA link|Here Comes the Sun}}, or an article that just reiterates a fact that all of the above articles make very clear: the Beatles were important and popular. The most important and popular music act of all time, yes, but that's still something that can be made very clear without giving the Beatles a 16th article. That's just overkill. Honestly, the amount of representation the Beatles have right now on its own could be labeled as overkill. But that's a story for a different time.

Also, we list Beatlemania under History. I don't know where else it would go, but it being here raises another question and way to look at things: can you think of something like a historical event, a treaty, a battle, a natural disaster, or anything like that which you would rather list over Beatlemania? There's a good chance that you can.

;Support

1. As nom. λ NegativeMP1 19:41, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Unprecedented fan worship, showed that bands/musicians could be brands too and has inspired the commercialization and corporatization of pop music as we know it today. Cultural history is still history and I would go so far to say that Beatlemania is more significant than some of the treaties, battles, and natural disasters we already list. It's easy to discount the importance of cultural history because it doesn't feel as grand as a battle but we can directly point to large aspects of our society, culture, and economy that have changed because of Beatlemania in a way that we can't for some of these other events. Aurangzebra (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Idiosincrático (talk) 07:17, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

The Isthmus of Korea is barely a recognizable geographical feature, just a slightly narrower part of the Korean Peninsula. It's a 1-2 paragraph stub in every language, and doesn't even exist in Korean.

;Support

1. As nominator. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:39, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
2. per nom Aurangzebra (talk) 15:19, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Support  Carlwev  15:51, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

{{VA link|Diosso}} and {{VA link|Tafraout}} are towns, so I don't understand why they are listed on physical geography.

;Remove

1. As nom; I'm unsure if it should be listed with cities. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:47, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
2. support  Carlwev  16:06, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

;Move

;Keep

;Discussion

;Remove

1. As nom. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:47, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
2. support  Carlwev  16:06, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

;Move

;Keep

;Discussion

Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:47, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Casamance is a geographical region that includes 3 of the 14 administrative Regions of Senegal (Kolda region, Sédhiou region, Ziguinchor region). It is unique in that it is one of the few geographic regions that is not itself an administrative region (the others are much more obscure like Petite Côte). Whilst its main city {{vital article link|Ziguinchor}} is listed, the region itself should also be listed due to it being ethnically/culturally/historically different from the rest of the country as it is separated by the Gambia (see also Casamance conflict).

;Support

1. As nominator. Sahaib (talk) 22:04, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

{{VA link|Sanmenxia}} is an administrative division, so I don't see why it is listed as physical geography. None of the other prefecture-level cities (second-level administrative divisions) of China are listed on the countries and regions subpage. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 19:32, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. As nom. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 19:32, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

There are two million people in this Prefecture, including 800,000 urban. For the United States, doesn't every county of 2 mill or more contain a VA5 city, or one adjacent? _pbp 15:02, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|Purplebackpack89}} Good point. Which article should we list to represent the urban area? Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:07, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|Purplebackpack89}} The lack of an article about the urban area in question is regrettable, but this article does not belong on the physical geography list and keeping the misplaced entry does not serve any purpose. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 14:19, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::@Lophotrochozoa That's like saying an article on Los Angeles County would be misplaced because LA County includes the sparsely-populated Antelope Valley and Angeles National Forest as well as the City of Los Angeles and the other 80-odd cities surrounding it. _pbp 14:38, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::If Los Angeles County were listed as physical geography, it would be misplaced since it isn't a physical feature, just like Sanmenxia isn't a physical feature. Did you miss that Sanmenxia is currently listed as physical geography? If you're desperate to compensate for the lack of an article about the urban area in the Hubin and Shanzhou districts, the right place to do so would be cities.

Kingdom of Strathclyde gets more [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2015-07-01&end=2025-03-28&pages=Kingdom_of_Strathclyde%7CScotland_in_the_Middle_Ages pageviews] and has more language links. Not sure why Scotland in the Middle Ages is even listed, since England in the Middle Ages is not listed.

;Support

1. As nominator. Sahaib (talk) 12:58, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Cities are a very important topic across history, and {{VA link|City}} is a Level 2 vital article. When we list the histories of several individual cities, I think we have room to list the history of cities as a whole. Rated Top-Importance by WikiProject History.

;Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:18, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Kevinishere15 (talk) 02:24, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Per nom. --EleniXDD※Talk 08:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

Major city in Kenya, which is currently underrepresented with only 4 cities and over 50 million in poopulation.

;Support

1. Nom Iostn (talk) 22:41, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

{{atopg

| status = PASSED

| result = Added 5-0. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

Not even a general article on animation in the silent era, but even narrower in focus. This covers a time before animation became widely popularized, leaving a very niche topic.

;Support

1. Nom Iostn (talk) 16:41, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Too narrow a topic to warrant level 5 indeed. PrimalMustelid (talk) 17:15, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Support  Carlwev  18:25, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Moderate support; while much of animation innovation apparently happened in the US, this era is covered likely well enough by the 1910s & 1920s sections of {{VA link|History of animation}}, is overshadowed by {{VA link|Golden age of American animation}}, and is from an overall film history perspective less suitable an era to include than {{VA link|German expressionist cinema}} which we don't list.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 07:24, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
5. I could see it making Level 6 if that ever gets created, but it doesn't quite reach VA5. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:05, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

Iostn (talk) 16:41, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

A UNESCO WHS, part of Jeju Volcanic Island and Lava Tubes. Considered a sacred mountain to Jeju and Korean people. Major tourist attraction. Add to Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Geography/Physical#Mountain peaks. Article has 43 language versions and more views than Mount Asama, Mount Hotakadake, and Mount Kita, for starters. More language editions than some of those pages too. More views than other pages like Avachinsky, Ismoil Somoni Peak, Klyuchevskaya Sopka, Koryaksky, Sahand, Peak Pobeda (Sakha), and more.

;Support

1. As nominator seefooddiet (talk) 00:45, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

A brief war with high casualty estimates that ended the {{vital article link|Ayutthaya Kingdom}}.

;Support

1. As nominator. Sahaib (talk) 18:46, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Iceland is one of the most geologically active places on Earth, but we don't list any Icelandic volcanoes - I'd argue this is the most vital, note its Europe-wide reputation as the "Gateway to Hell", everything listed under the pop culture section and also "Cumulatively, the volcano has produced one of the largest volumes of lava of any in the world in the last millennium, around 8 km3 (1.9 cu mi)."

;Support

1. As nom Iostn (talk) 22:28, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Surprising omission. Physical Geography has room with quota at 1886/1900.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 10:11, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

{{VA link|San Francisco Peninsula}} is already covered by {{VA link|San Francisco Bay Area}} and {{VA link|San Francisco Bay}}. Its geography makes it stand out on maps, but I think this is over coverage, as it's one part of a metropolitan area which is already covered (also by {{VA link|San Francisco}} and {{VA link|Silicon Valley}}) and which has a strong regional identity.

;Support

1. As nominator. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:47, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

{{VA link|Republic of Artsakh}} was dissolved in 2023. It is covered by {{VA link|Nagorno-Karabakh}} and {{VA link|Nagorno-Karabakh conflict}}. It was also not large, as its population was listed at 145,053 in 2015.

;Support

1. As nominator. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

This is a form of municipality in South Africa. These municipalities are within a province like any other municipality The article is mostly a short list, and I'm not seeing why this needs special coverage. It also doesn't have an article on any of the non-English languages of South Africa.

;Support

1. As nominator. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 20:01, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

The coverage in Africa on Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Geography/Countries seems random. Why do a few countries (Egypt, Ethiopia, Nigeria, South Africa, Somalia) get coverage of all their subdivisions while others get almost nothing or nothing? If it's supposed to be based on population, it's not proportional. For example, Tanzania (which gets none) is more populous than South Africa (which gets 9) and over three times as populous as Somalia (which gets 5/6). If it's based on something else, we should decide on what that is, to avoid systemic bias.

Here is a table of the contents of "Regions and country subdivisions". This is just for reference, I'm not saying coverage should necessarily be based directly on population or area.

Is the court cases section Anglocentric? Out of the dozen or so we list, the decisions are only from the United States and the UK. That might be because both countries use common law, but I'd assume other countries have important legal decisions in their histories. -1ctinus📝🗨 12:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Really confused how this hasn't been nominated yet when every other city has double digit interwikis.

;Support

1. Bluevestman (talk) 20:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

Inspired by this discussion. (Not sure if Burroughs should be demoted, which is why I'm not voting on it. He is definitely less vital than Ginsberg and Kerouac though.) Significant American literary movement, probably the first post-WWII counterculture movement, led to the {{VA link|hippie}} movement.

;Support

1. Bluevestman (talk) 20:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
2. J947 ‡ ^edits 22:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Support swap with {{VA link|Beatnik}} which is currently listed under "subcultures" on the over-quota social sciences page as it did not persist worldwide as a visible subculture (although Beat Generation may belong under Arts rather than History) Iostn (talk) 18:02, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Add to Arts. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:22, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

We have the section for paleogeography under Earth sciences. We should fix this. I think it impacts a level 4 article or two, I'll boldly move those. We include the other "continents" in geography, I don't know why this would be different.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:32, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:32, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Given above comments that Countries/Regions and country subdivisions is under quota, I thought I'd raise an obvious current omission: Oecusse. This is a geographically distinct and politically autonomous municipality of {{VA link|Timor-Leste}}. Looking over the current list it appears that autonomous areas seem to make the list, even for countries where not all first-level divisions are listed, so Oecusse fits that criteria.

;Support

1. as nom. CMD (talk) 12:22, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss]

Article has 20+ interwikis. Very large scale federal operation linked to the downfall of several progressive and left-wing groups. Although the program was officially terminated in the 1970s, similar mass surveillance tactics have since been used by the FBI. I believe this article is vital enough for that reason.

;Support

1. As nom. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 16:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

Huế was moved to Huế (provincial city) and Thừa Thiên Huế province was moved to Huế at the start of the year because the Thừa Thiên Huế province became Vietnam's newest municipality, named Huế in January 2025. The former provincial city was dissolved according to the article.

;Support

1. As nom. Sahaib (talk) 08:33, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

Two deadly school shootings that impacted debates on gun safety.

;Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 01:17, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. I'm sorry if I sound insensitive here but gun debates in the United States have always been perennial since Columbine if not prior. Neither of these two significantly caused them any more debates than many other shootings and I doubt their long term impacts. They are tragic losses of life but they did not impact anything long term on a global scale unlike Columbine or Sandy Hook which are the two prime examples of mass shootings in the United States. After the first few months of the initial shock, there's nothing that separates these from countless other shootings in the United States. I honestly even doubt the vitality of the 2017 Las Vegas shooting or the Orlando nightclub shooting because, while they were very deadly attacks, neither are remembered very well and did not echo through the entire country like Columbine or Sandy Hook did. Even though one of them was the deadliest in the country's history. λ NegativeMP1 01:36, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Sadly agree with NegativeMP1 _pbp 13:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

These shootings are not very vital compared to other shootings like Columbine or Sandy Hook.

;Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 11:55, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
2. _pbp 13:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)