Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 111: Line 111:
# --[[User:Thi|Thi]] ([[User talk:Thi|talk]]) 22:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
# --[[User:Thi|Thi]] ([[User talk:Thi|talk]]) 22:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
# [[User:Makkool|Makkool]] ([[User talk:Makkool|talk]]) 13:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
# [[User:Makkool|Makkool]] ([[User talk:Makkool|talk]]) 13:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
# [[User:Idiosincrático|Idiosincrático]] ([[User talk:Idiosincrático|talk]]) 20:12, 9 November 2024 (UTC)


;Discuss
;Discuss

Revision as of 20:12, 9 November 2024

General Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
Level 5 Subpages

People History and geography Society STEM

Introduction

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

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

All proposals must remain open for !voting for a minimum of 15 days, after which:

  1. After 15 days it may be closed as PASSED if there are (a) 5 or more supports, AND (b) at least two-thirds are in support.
  2. After 30 days it may be closed as FAILED if there are (a) 3 or more opposes, AND (b) it failed to earn two-thirds support.
  3. After 30 days it may be closed as NO CONSENSUS if the proposal hasn't received any !votes for +30 days, regardless of tally.
  4. After 60 days it may be closed as NO CONSENSUS if the proposal has (a) less than 5 supports, AND (b) less than two-thirds support.

Nominations should be left open beyond the minimum if they have a reasonable chance of passing. An informed discussion with more editor participation produces an improved and more stable final list, so be patient with the process.

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

For reference, the following times apply for today:

  • 15 days ago was: 01:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC) (Purge)
  • 30 days ago was: 01:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
  • 60 days ago was: 01:49, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

African capitals: swap Gaborone  4 and Windhoek  4 out for Bangui  4 and Nouakchott  4

PARTIALLY PASSED
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)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Gaborone  4 and Windhoek  4 are significantly smaller cities in smaller countries than Bangui  4 and Nouakchott  4. 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)[reply]
  2. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 01:04, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 14:26, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SailorGardevoir (talk) 20:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support additions Interstellarity (talk) 20:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose removals. The Blue Rider 19:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose removals Interstellarity (talk) 20:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mixed
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Swap Minas Gerais  4 with São Paulo (state)  5

SP was unfairly removed for being “redundant” to the city, which is V3 (São Paulo  3). SP has a higher population than any U.S. state by over 3 million, and if anything, MG is more redundant to Belo Horizonte  4. Vileplume (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. As nom. Vileplume (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [reply]
    Changing my vote to support addition, oppose removal per TBR. Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 22:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. feminist🩸 (talk) 10:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support adittion. The Blue Rider 11:00, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support addition Interstellarity (talk) 20:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support addition. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support addition, oppose removal. Idiosincrático (talk) 19:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose removal. No need to remove an important state demographic/economic-wise, there's room for both. The Blue Rider 11:00, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose removal Interstellarity (talk) 20:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion

Swap British Columbia  4 with Ohio  5

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)[reply]

Support
  1. As nom. Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 23:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  3. Support removal per nominator. The Blue Rider 14:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per nom. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:12, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support addition. feminist🩸 (talk) 06:49, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To repeat what I said below in the nomination for removing Illinois  4: I would support listing Ohio  5 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.
  6. Support removal only per nom. I explained my opposition to the addition below. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support removal only. Idiosincrático (talk) 20:11, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose adittion due to over-representation of the United States, they already have plenty of states and cities; Cleveland  4 should be enough. The Blue Rider 14:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion

Remove Biathlon  4

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)[reply]

Support
  1. as nom. starship.paint (RUN) 09:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per nom. Nervelita :3🏳️‍⚧️ (talk) 09:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per nom. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Unlike some of the other sports nominated, it IS contested in the Olympics pbp 03:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Thi (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Makkool (talk) 13:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Idiosincrático (talk) 20:12, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss
  1. Ole Einar Bjørndalen  4 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)[reply]

Remove Croquet  4

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)[reply]

Support
  1. as nom. starship.paint (RUN) 09:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per mon. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. weak support per nom. Makkool (talk) 17:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose  Carlwev  13:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. pbp 17:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

Remove Agronomy  4

VA4 is at 21 articles over quota, VA4 Technology is at 44 articles over quota. This topic is on the science of Agriculture  2, 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)[reply]

Support
  1. as nom. starship.paint (RUN) 09:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Interstellarity (talk) 00:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. The science of a level 2 topic is important enough to be at level 4. The Blue Rider 18:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Makkool (talk) 20:11, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

Remove Dialysis (chemistry)  4

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 Kidney dialysis. Either way this should be removed. starship.paint (RUN) 09:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. as nom. starship.paint (RUN) 09:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Interstellarity (talk) 00:37, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Makkool (talk) 20:11, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Lorax (talk) 00:45, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Remove Biological anthropology  4

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 Anthropology  3. starship.paint (RUN) 09:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. as nom. starship.paint (RUN) 09:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. To get to quota. Interstellarity (talk) 00:37, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per nom. Nervelita :3🏳️‍⚧️ (talk) 09:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Makkool (talk) 20:11, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Lorax (talk) 00:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Add Scroll  5

The precursor to Book  2 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)[reply]
  2. Interstellarity (talk) 00:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 15:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. per nom. Jusdafax (talk) 20:00, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discuss

Reshuffle some things

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.

Move Legendary creature  4 to mythology: general

PASSED
Moved 5-0, proposed 131 days ago, no votes in 8 days. Makkool (talk) 18:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The 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)[reply]
  2. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Makkool (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 02:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Thi (talk) 22:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move Paradise  4 to mythology: general

PASSED
Moved 5-0, proposed 21 days ago, no votes in 8 days. Makkool (talk) 19:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)[reply]
  2. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Makkool (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Thi (talk) 07:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 02:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Place Utopia  4 under Fiction  3 (in Arts:Literature:Basics)

PASSED
Moved 5-0, proposed 21 days ago, no votes in 8 days. Makkool (talk) 19:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I 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)[reply]
  2. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Makkool (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Thi (talk) 07:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 02:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move Cinderella  4 and Aladdin  4 to specific works of fiction

PASSED
Moved 5-0, proposed 21 days ago, no votes in 8 days. Makkool (talk) 19:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)[reply]
  2. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Makkool (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 02:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Place Superhero  4 under Character (arts)  4 (in Literature:Basics)

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)[reply]
  2. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Makkool (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 02:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Move Satan  4 and Lilith  4 to legendary creatures (under Devil  4 and Demon  4 respectively)

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)[reply]
  2. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 02:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Makkool (talk) 06:49, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 22:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Place Leprechaun  4 under fairies

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)[reply]
  2. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 02:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Makkool (talk) 06:49, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Thi (talk) 22:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Remove Sublimation (phase transition)

We don't list the opposite which is Deposition (phase transition) so it would probably make sense to remove at this level. Interstellarity (talk) 22:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Interstellarity (talk) 22:29, 12 June 2024
  2. per nom. Makkool (talk) 19:03, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(UTC)

Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Remove Livestock guardian dog  4

It is one type of Herding dog  4, which is already V4. starship.paint (RUN) 02:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Add Brother and Sister

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)[reply]

Support
  1. Interstellarity (talk) 21:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per nom. Nervelita :3🏳️‍⚧️ (talk) 10:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Why is this not already included?GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 02:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Democratic Party (United States)  5 and Republican Party (United States)  5

We list the Chinese Communist Party  4 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)[reply]

Support
  1. Interstellarity (talk) 22:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support both Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 01:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Way to focused on American politics. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 02:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 Chinese Communist Party  4 would be here and not the Democrats and Republicans. Bit of a conundrum? Aszx5000 (talk) 17:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Add Suicide prevention

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

Support
  1. Interstellarity (talk) 00:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Some of its methods such as Medication  3 and Therapy  4, etc, are quite important but the concept itself isn't. The Blue Rider 14:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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 16:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok fair enough. I agree with that. Nervelita :3🏳️‍⚧️ (talk) 04:24, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion

Add Third gender

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

Support
  1. Interstellarity (talk) 00:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Transgender  4 should already cover this at this level. The Blue Rider 14:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. per above. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 02:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral


Discussion

Add Invention

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

Support
  1. Interstellarity (talk) 15:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Hoben7599 (talk) 15:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 16:28, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Vital at this level, at the least. Jusdafax (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Giza pyramid complex

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)[reply]

Support
  1. Interstellarity (talk) 12:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Hoben7599 (talk) 15:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Discussion

Add Multimedia

This encompasses all forms of media we use for communication. Interstellarity (talk) 23:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Interstellarity (talk) 23:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per nom. Nervelita :3🏳️‍⚧️ (talk) 09:55, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Transcluding the level 4 pages on the front page of the main level 4 page

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)[reply]

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

Swap Northeast India for Assam

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)[reply]

Support
  1. Interstellarity (talk) 23:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Remove Midwestern United States, Southern United States, and Western United States

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)[reply]

Support
  1. Interstellarity (talk) 23:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose Southern United States, neutral on the other two. Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 01:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. We have subdivisions of a lot of countries, either formal or informal ones pbp 15:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

Add The Clash

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, Brian Eno  4 and Kraftwerk  4). 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 London Calling  5 is extremely praised. Top importance on the wikiproject for rock music.

Support
  1. 49p (talk) 17:00, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. pbp 18:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Hmmm, as much as I like The Clash, I would say that Green Day  5 is more influential within and outside of punk rock. The Blue Rider 14:35, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Metallica should be readded. I don't believe we have any representation of Heavy metal music  4, 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 Nirvana (band)  4, which we just added (though I still somewhat disagree with that addition). λ NegativeMP1 05:14, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]

Notice of level 4 VA discussion

There is an ongoing discussion to swap out Safavid dynasty  4 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)[reply]

Add Memoir

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

Support
  1. Interstellarity (talk) 22:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Remove Softball  4

FAILED
Not removed 2-4, proposed 63 days ago, last vote 32 days ago. Makkool (talk) 19:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)[reply]
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 20:56, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  3. Played in over 100 countries and in the Olympics as well. starship.paint (RUN) 11:28, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  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 American football  4 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)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion

@Makkool: @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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add History of Mesopotamia  5

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)[reply]

Support
  1. Interstellarity (talk) 19:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Moggy  5

I am not actually supporting this, but we removed Domestic shorthaired cat from V4, and that was merged into Moggy  5. So, should we list Moggy or not? starship.paint (RUN) 14:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
Oppose
  1. From reading the article, most cats are moggy, so there's just too much overlap with Cat  3. We also do not list Mongrel  5 for dogs. starship.paint (RUN) 14:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss
  1. We should either not add this, or add both Moggy and Mongrel imo. Nervelita :3🏳️‍⚧️ (talk) 09:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Kabaddi  4

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)[reply]

Support
  1. pbp 00:27, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. weak support per nom. Makkool (talk) 17:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Australian rules football  4 and particularly Rugby sevens  4 are much much less important, and so is Sepak takraw  5 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 American football  4 is being introduced in 2028. J947 ‡ edits 01:07, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    First off, laughing at pole vault being "low-hanging fruit" considering what recently happened to Anthony Ammirati... [ok, lol at that –J947]
    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.
    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.
    If Kabbadi DOES make it into the Olympics then (and perhaps ONLY then) should it be added to VA4.
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
Discussion

What is a niche sport?

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)[reply]

Agree, and also if it's a former Olympic sport. I think removing Bandy  5 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)[reply]
Agreed. Let's remove American football  4. J947 ‡ edits 00:01, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 Super Bowl  4. λ NegativeMP1 06:50, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly a joke regarding OP's faulty definition. The Blue Rider 01:08, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Swap Steamboat  4 for Steamship  5

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)[reply]

Support
  1. Interstellarity (talk) 22:41, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Steamship  5 had a greater impact on humanity. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. per above. starship.paint (RUN) 02:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Move Golden Temple  4 from Religion to Arts/Architecture

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 Kaaba  4 and Sistine Chapel  4.

Support
  1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 18:43, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per nom. Nervelita :3🏳️‍⚧️ (talk) 09:33, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 22:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 02:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Novak Djokovic  5, remove Rod Laver  4

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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  3. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 01:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Add D, remove either Nadal or Laver is fine for me. starship.paint (RUN) 02:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Other
  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)[reply]
    I'd be fine with this too. Aurangzebra (talk) 00:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    +1. Aszx5000 (talk) 12:49, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

@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)[reply]

Add Russo-Ukrainian War  5 and remove Boyar  4

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)[reply]
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 Korean War  4, Crimean War  4, Second Opium War  4, Thirty Years' War  4, etc? The Blue Rider 14:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion

Add Fred Rogers  5

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

Support
  1. Interstellarity (talk) 13:44, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Hundreds is an understatement. He left a cross-generational legacy. Easily V4 worthy. λ NegativeMP1 01:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Crime prevention

A subtopic of crime, of top interest today in all societies. Interstellarity (talk) 13:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Interstellarity (talk) 13:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Remove Electrification  4

Technology is way overquota, and this overlaps with Second Industrial Revolution  4.

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

Remove Smoking cessation  4

More of a VA5 topic. Too much overlap with Health effects of tobacco  4, which is already contained in Smoking  3 and Tobacco  4.

Support
  1. As nominator. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 01:53, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. I'd rather remove Health effects of tobacco instead. Smoking cessation is clearly something that many people are doing. Interstellarity (talk) 19:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

Move Looney Tunes  4 under Arts/Film

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? Tom and Jerry  5 on VA5 would have to be moved too.

Support
  1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 17:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 02:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Remove Launch pad  4

I just think this is more suited for VA5.

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

Add Stevie Wonder  4

PASSED
Passes 6-0 and more than 15 days have passed Aurangzebra (talk) 23:13, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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: Louis Armstrong  3, Duke Ellington  4, Ray Charles  4, 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 Marvin Gaye  4, Aretha Franklin  4, and Ray Charles  4 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 The Supremes  4 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)[reply]

Support
  1. per nom Aurangzebra (talk) 06:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
    I looked into it after I proposed it and it seems like he was on here but was removed [1]. 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)[reply]
  3. Absolutely. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 11:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Also surprised he’s not listed already. Jusdafax (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. 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)[reply]
  6. Easy choice, someone needs to explain to me why Elton John isn't V4. Idiosincrático (talk) 10:49, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add World

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)[reply]

Support
  1. Interstellarity (talk) 19:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Iostn (talk) 12:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose Covered by other articles. --Thi (talk) 22:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - I think this is too vague, and per LaukkuTheGreit below. starship.paint (RUN) 14:32, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion

I wonder about overlap with Universe  2.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 13:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Courier  4

We list only a few occupations at this level (Farmer  4, Teacher  4, Soldier  4). 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)[reply]
  2. Makkool (talk) 20:11, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 02:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Remove Urban agriculture  4

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

Support
  1. As nominator. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 22:03, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Makkool (talk) 20:11, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 02:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Add Apocalypse  5

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 Eschatology  4.

Support
  1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 16:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose Second Coming is also listed. --Thi (talk) 17:32, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

Move Dentures  4 from Biology and health sciences to Technology/Medical technology

PASSED
Moved 5-0, proposed 33 days ago, last vote 23 days ago. Makkool (talk) 12:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)[reply]
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 21:15, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. per above. starship.paint (RUN) 02:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. per nom. Jusdafax (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Carlwev  04:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Heartbreak Hotel  4

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, Thriller (album)  4 is the best selling album of all time and represents pop, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band  4 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 Elvis Presley  4. 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 Rhapsody in Blue  4's 28), it's not convincing that this song is relevant internationally. Hell, even Jailhouse Rock (song) has more interwikis. As for the representation of a genre argument, Like A Rolling Stone, the aforementioned Sgt. Peppers, and Johnny B. Goode  4 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 Bohemian Rhapsody  5, 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 Hip hop music  4, but even that feels like a stretch given the genre itself is only V4. There's also the idea of listing a work by Louis Armstrong  3, 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)[reply]
  2. Support swap with aforementioned Bohemian Rhapsody. We also recently removed Respect (song)  5, which is #1 on Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time. 🍋‍🟩 OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 21:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support removal --Thi (talk) 09:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Remove Confirmation bias  4. Add Bias  5

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)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Remove Aerial tramway  4

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 Cable transport  4.

Support
  1. As nominator. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 18:47, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Remove Incheon  4

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 Seoul  4 at level 4. For comparison, we list neither Dongguan  5 nor Foshan  5 at this level, despite either of the two cities having a much larger municipal population, because both cities are an integral part of the Guangzhou  4 metropolitan area; nor do we list New Taipei City  5, despite it having a higher population to Incheon, because it is adequately covered by Taipei  4.

Support
  1. As nominator. feminist🩸 (talk) 03:13, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Fix 'The Pupa' with 'Pupa'

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

Move Some or All U.S. states from level 4 to level 5.

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Move California  4 to level 5

Support
  1. as nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 02:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Almost 40 million people, 5th largest economy, so much more pbp 03:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  3. California has had more of an impact on the world than some countries. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Might be the most vital country subdivision 🍋‍🟩 OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 19:21, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  6. per above Idiosincrático (talk) 19:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

Move Texas  4 to level 5

Support
  1. as nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 02:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 Russia  3, literal centuries worth of history (including being its own country briefly Republic of Texas  5), 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 Houston  4. λ NegativeMP1 03:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  4. per above Idiosincrático (talk) 19:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

Move New York (state)  4 to level 5

Support
  1. as nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 02:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak support Idiosincrático (talk) 19:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
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)[reply]

Move Florida  4 to level 5

Support
  1. as nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 02:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Third most populated state in the country. λ NegativeMP1 03:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Idiosincrático (talk) 19:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

Move Pennsylvania  4 to level 5

Support
  1. as nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 02:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose Idiosincrático (talk) 19:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Move Illinois  4 to level 5

Support
  1. as nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 02:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This is the strongest proposal of them all, I agree with removing it. The Blue Rider 03:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Weak support, the state itself is fairly insignificant outside of Chicago  4 (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 Midwestern United States  4, 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)[reply]
  5. I would support listing Ohio  5 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)[reply]
  6. Per above Idiosincrático (talk) 19:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Move Alaska  4 to level 5

Support
  1. as nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 02:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose per historical reasons (Russian colonization of North America  5 and Alaska Purchase  5), 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 03:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Idiosincrático (talk) 19:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
    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 Greenland  4. 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)[reply]

Move Hawaii  4 to level 5

Support

#as nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 02:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Oppose
  1. Oppose due to historical reasons (Hawaiian Kingdom  5 and Ancient Hawaii  5), biological reasons (Endemism in the Hawaiian Islands; some of the flora and fauna being vital), geological reasons (Hawaii hotspot  5), ethnic reasons (Native Hawaiians  5), linguistic reasons (Hawaiian language  5), geographical reasons (Hawaii (island)  5), cultural reasons (Music of Hawaii  5 and Ukulele  5), among many other things less notable. The Blue Rider 03:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Blue Rider pbp 03:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
    When I think of innovations from the U.S., such as those by Nikola Tesla  3, Albert Einstein  3, and Tim Berners-Lee  4, 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 03:59, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  4. 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)[reply]
    I would support that as well. Do you want to propose? GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 00:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See below. Interstellarity (talk) 02:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Idiosincrático (talk) 19:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

Counterproposal: Swap Hawaii for Hawaiian Islands

The islands are more historically important than the state.

Support
  1. Interstellarity (talk) 02:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per nom and above discussion. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 02:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Idiosincrático (talk) 19:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/4&oldid=1256404868"