Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18→Archive 20

Remove Olivia Rodrigo

REMOVED
Over two weeks since discussion opened, last comment two weeks ago, four votes. Unanimous consensus for removal. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:54, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

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 have been thinking about this case as I have spent time with the music artist cases for the past several days. Basically, I have been trying to add candidates with at least one major multiplatinum album (4x or more, hopefully with multiple #1 singles) and another multiplatinum album. The bare minimum I would generally support would be a case like say Rick Astley (discography). I would assume such cases have more than a couple #1 singles and Grammy wins. E.g. Astley has 6 #1s (all in less than a 15 month period), but no Grammys. Below this line, I am not likely to be moved to support a new nom. This eliminates people with 3 2xplatinum albums like Halsey or several platinum albums like Florida Georgia Line and people who don't sell platinum albums despite singles sales like say Flo Rida.

Getting back to the case at hand, here are the numbers Olivia Rodrigo, (discography) debut album 4x platinum, September 2023 album currently gold certified, 3 Grammys, 3 #1 singles

Rodrigo got declared vital based solely on her debut album due to recentism. A 4xplatinum album is an artistic/professional success, but just the bare minimum lead album for my vitality consideration. Without a supporting multiplatinum album, I have to contest this vitality declaration as inappropriate. The 2nd album, which is currently certified gold, may limp to platinum status, but unless it can get to double platinum or she has way to contest a declaration of WP:TOOSOON for vitality status, I think we should remove her from our list. I'd rather see a Gwen Stefani on the list.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  2. FYI, her addition was never discussed. Agreed with TonyTheTiger that she was prematurely added due to recentism and americentrism. — The Blue Rider 19:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. Definitely a case of recentism. She has her whole career ahead of her still, let's not jump the gun on declaring her vital. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:03, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
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 Stirling

ADDED
Over two weeks since discussion opened, one week since last comment, five votes. More than 55% support for addition.--Grnrchst (talk) 13:51, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

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.

This town is very important historically and geographically, and Scotland needs more cities on the list.

Support
  1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  2. Per nom and earlier comments. --Grnrchst (talk) 19:28, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  3. --Totalibe (talk) 14:46, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Population 37,910. I can't see what makes it important? A millenium of history - half the towns in Europe or frankly Asia are like this. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
  2. The 6th Scottish city (for which Stirling as competition with Perth) is a step far. J947 † edits 01:56, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
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 Dundee

ADDED
Two weeks since discussion opened, one week since last comment, six votes. Unanimous consensus for addition.--Grnrchst (talk) 13:47, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

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 largest city in Scotland (which is well underrepresented relative to England) by population that is not already on this list, it has a significant history and is one of Scotland's largest urban centres outside of the Central Belt.

Support
  1. Support as nom Totalibe (talk) 14:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
  2. Welcome to VT5, Totalibe! Support per nominator; also, the city has an article just for their history, which is a good indicator of their "significant history". — The Blue Rider 14:28, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:31, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom and Blue Rider. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
  5. Support per nom and Blue Rider.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:49, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
  6. Support, easily. J947 † edits 02:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
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 Inverness

ADDED
Two weeks since discussion opened, one week since last comment, six votes. More than 55% support for addition. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:50, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

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.

After Dundee and Stirling, nominated above, I think the biggest omission from the list of Scottish cities is Inverness. One of the main strongholds of the Picts, it became a central location for the Kingdom of Alba and was the site of many battles against the Vikings. As the largest city in the Highlands, its control was sought by many trying to claim rulership of Scotland and notably became a centre of the Jacobite movement, before the Highland clearances. Today it's the administrative centre of the Highlands and Islands, and popularly known as the "Happiest place in Scotland" (I can anecdotally attest to this). --Grnrchst (talk) 14:37, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:37, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
  2. Per nom. --Totalibe (talk) 14:47, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
  3. Per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:59, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
  4. Per Grnrchst. — The Blue Rider 19:04, 28 October 2023 (UTC) Reinstate the supportive vote. The Blue Rider 14:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
  5. Weak support. Seems less influential than I expected; as a growing city its perceived influence may be a little blown out of proportion. Ultimately come out on its inclusion as an effective subtopic of VA4 Scottish Highlands but it only scrapes in. J947 † edits 02:02, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. I am sorry, but IMHO this is a small town (~50k pop) that almost nobody outside Scotland has heard about. It has no history of subarticle. It has some significance for the history of Scotland and arguably UK, but little modern significance. Further, UK has 42 cities and pop of 67 mil. Germany with a pop of about 80m has just 43 cities. Peraps Gemrany is underrepresented, but cities is already over quota. I could support a swap with another UK town, but not addition of this minor entity. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
    Most European cities can't really be judged by their contemporary relevance, the vitality of these cities is mainly historical, architectural and cultural. If Inverness played a big role on the history of Scotland, an important region, then it has consequential vitality. I do agree that since the category is over quota, a swap would be better. The Blue Rider 12:18, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
  2. Piotrus' comment made me realize that this would be the 6th Scotland city listed and that's an over-representation; there a lot of (independent) countries with way less listed cities. Since Grnrschst stated that this is the least important of all of the nominations, I will oppose this one. The Blue Rider 14:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
    Though as an counter-argument, the population disparity between Scotland, England and the rest of the globe wasn't as accentuated as it is today, so perhaps not an over-representation. Population is also not the sole metric to measure this, Portugal was incremental to world history yet it only has 10M of population today. The Blue Rider 14:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Discuss
  • Regarding proportions, I'd just like to point out that England has 42 cities represented on the vital list, out of 55 cities total. That's 76% representation. Scotland only has 8 cities, 3 of which are currently represented and 3 more of which are proposed, which would bring it up to 75% representation. I'd be fine leaving the number of vital Scottish cities there, as I don't think Perth and especially Dunfermline have such strong claims to vitality. As for the quota argument, yes the category as a whole is over-quota, but the Western Europe subcategory (of which Scotland is a part of) is still under quota. If cuts are to be made, well, North America is still 19 entries over quota. Start there. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:10, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
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 Broadway (Manhattan)

NOT ADDED
Two weeks since discussion opened, last comment only a day after that, five votes. Broad consensus against adding. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

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.

This sublocal region is also a culturally significant metonyms I know. This not only represents the highest form of theater. In sports it has all kinds of meanings. Baseball pitchers typically try to throw balls that nip one corner of the strike zone or another, but if a pitcher challenges a hitter with a fastball right down Broadway, it means he threw his fastest, nastiest pitch right down the middle of the plate and dared the hitter to try to hit his best stuff. Although a less common slang use, a small basketball player might drive right down the middle of the lane against (and possibly over the defenses of) big, imposing defenders by taking it right down broadway.

Alternatively, maybe Broadway theatre and West End theatre deserve some VA love, but I'll give this a shot and see where it lands.

Support
  1. Support as nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:08, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose on the basis that Broadway is already a VT4 article (the proposal is to add the street). — The Blue Rider 20:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
  2. Per Blue Rider. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
  3. No need. Broadway isn't known for much outside of its theatre scene, which is already considered vital. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:40, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
  4. Per above. Broadway is vital, but one entry will do. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:31, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Discuss
  1. I actually missed that Broadway theatre and West End theatre are both already VA4s.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:20, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
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 John Bellingham

PASSED
Proposal from ~3 months; 6-3, it thus passes with 66% support for removal The Blue Rider 14:49, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

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.

Per the above, listing the relevant assassination, here the Assassination of Spencer Perceval, is perfectly sufficient. No extra value is added by listing both the key political event and the perpetrator's page, which is just a summary of the event with some biographical meta detail.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:09, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
  2. Support Jaguarnik (talk) 06:06, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
  3. 〜 Festucalex • talk 02:53, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
  4. Per Iskandar323. The Blue Rider 18:57, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
  5. Support – this seems the sort of assassination more likely to have 0 articles on the list than 2, and the assassin is overshadowed by his act here. J947 † edits 02:25, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
  6. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 21:25, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose why are we arguing for the removal of the only person to have killed a British Prime Minister? Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 21:31, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
    This is a good argument for notability, not vitality. 〜 Festucalex • talk 02:53, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
  2. Oppose This assassin is vital because they did something that has never been done again: killed a Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
  3. Oppose I don't know the culture across the pond, but this guy seems as important at John Wilkes Booth.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Discussion
  • I find the above oppose reasoning strange. So this is vital just because it's the isolated killer of a UK PM? Would we add the isolated killer of any prime minister, president of head of state, or is this the same old UK/US disproportion cropping up? And would they then suddenly cease to be vital if a second killer presented themselves? It seems to me that vitality should be based on a broader assessment of notability and the long-term significance attributed to the killer in history and culture, not based on whether the killing was a one-off or not. Has anyone read the article? It's dull as ditchwater. There's barely anything to be said about the man beyond the already listed assassination. How can the topic be vital when even the subject matter itself lacks vitality? Yes, some no name bloke killed a UK prime minster, as already lent vitality by the listing of the assassination page. However, why does the no name bloke need to inherit vitality from the UK PM/their assassination? Iskandar323 (talk) 05:45, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
    I guess in a slight counter to my own vote, this is the only British assassin on the list, so I suppose this entry could be considered warranted if only based on pure geographical spread. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:13, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
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 Elizabeth Smart

PASSED
Proposal from +2 months and 6 votes— 4 in support and 2 to move to the victims category. It passes with 66,(6)% in favour of removal. The Blue Rider 08:49, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

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.

Smart is largely famous for having been kidnapped while she was a teenager, and her subsequent activism seems to stem from that. While she certainly has had a harrowing story, I'm not sure her biography is a particularly vital topic.

Support
  1. Support as nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
  2. pbp 18:00, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
  3. Possible move to victims? I never understood why she got listed under activists. She is way more known as a victim. Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 08:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
  4. Per Grnrchst. Her kidnapping didn't have any lasting effect on the legal system, police's investigating methods, how the media televises this type of crimes, etc. The Blue Rider 15:34, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
  5. Support outright removal, do not move to Victims. Just... not a VA. Making VA as a victim requires something Emmett Till level of cultural and legal impact. SnowFire (talk) 07:37, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Move to victims Rreagan007 (talk) 05:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Discuss
With the removal of George Floyd, the victims section now has a spare entry. — The Blue Rider 09:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
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.

William Henry Harrison, James Garfield, Franklin Pierce and Benjamin Harrison

I think we need to have a conversation about these four gentlemen, in light of some of the issues raised by the Liz Truss discussion. The first two of these gentlemen were president less than a year. The others were president for a full term, but it's hard to point to what they accomplished in their term. Note that in this case I consider a do-nothing president to be less vital than a bad president; for example, I consider James Buchanan's shear incompetence at resolving the sectional struggle to make him vital. pbp 17:03, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Remove William Henry Harrison

REMOVED
Over a week since last comment, eight votes. More than 55% support for removal. Procedurally closing as removal was already boldly carried out over a month ago. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

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.

Support
  1. WHH's presidency is basically a historical joke. Definitely not vital. --Grnrchst (talk) 18:09, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
  2. Support if Liz Truss fails to get added, Oppose if she succeeds. See my rationale under the Liz Truss discussion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyeluvbraixen (talk • contribs) 09:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support This is no US-centered encyclopedia. Rsk6400 (talk) 09:14, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support This guy is little more than a footnote in American history, so definitely not vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:10, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
  5. Support I disagree with the idea that U.S. Presidents are inherently vital. This individual is most famous as a president for dying, that's hardly vital.Jaguarnik (talk) 17:32, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
  6. You can hardly be vital with a 31-day presidency and his early positions also fail to corroborate his entry on this list. The Blue Rider 22:54, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
  7. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 22:44, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. He wasn't just president of the U.S. for a month. He was a member of the House of Representatives as well as a Senator, the 1st Governor of the Indiana Territory, as well as being a famous military leader as a general in the U.S. Army. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:44, 19 September 2023 (UTC)


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.

Remove James A. Garfield

PASSED
Proposal from +3 months, 6 votes— 4 in support and 2 opposes. It passes with 66,(6)% in favour. The Blue Rider 12:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

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.

Support
  1. This one's a begrudging support. I am a fan of Garfield as a person - what with him being a keen mathematician, a staunch abolitionist and almost completely uninterested in gaining personal power - but it would be hard for me to say his presidency was particularly important. Maybe it would have been if he weren't assassinated. (Also tbh I don't think Guiteau is a vital subject either. One could argue that it was incompetent surgeons that killed Garfield, rather than Guiteau's bullet) --Grnrchst (talk) 18:09, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
  2. Support He didn't have time to do anything important before being killed. He is a bit of a borderline case, but this category is at the point where those need to be cut. (Also, Guiteau is definitely not vital.) QuicoleJR (talk) 20:13, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
  3. The United States Post Office and whatever senatorial courtesy is, are not sufficient reasons for his inclusion. The Blue Rider 14:42, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
    Senatorial courtesy does seem like something that should be borne in mind in these VA discussions! J947 † edits 00:51, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support – it's easy to kneejerk oppose this but it's my strong opinion that presidents should be judged to the same standard as all other American politicians. I'm no expert, but I think in terms of impact rather than name recognition and assassinability this removal will probably make space for a better option. J947 † edits 00:51, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. All U.S. Presidents should be listed. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:44, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
  2. Oppose although the oppose above seems a bit of an WP:INHERENT argument, I can see that currently 43 of 46 presidents are considered vital. Although Garfield is among the president's of lesser importance, he has a legacy. Who knows what the United States Post Office would have become without his decisive action. His stand against Senatorial courtesy shows he was a leader among leaders. I think in his short tenure he displayed presidential qualities of import that make him vital.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:29, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
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.
FAILED
Ain't happening, 0-1 pbp 17:17, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

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.

Remove Franklin Pierce

Support
Oppose
  1. Oppose. All U.S. Presidents should be listed. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:44, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Discussion
  • Wasn't Pierce quite an instrumental figure in the lead up to the civil war? Wanted to clarify before I voted. --Grnrchst (talk) 18:09, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
    • Pierce and Buchanan were the two presidents immediately prior to the Civil War. A lot of important events happened in their presidencies, many of them inching the United States closer and closer to war. Pierce and Buchanan let those events happen without providing leadership from the top. Pierce was president during the Kansas-Nebraska Act, but the Act was mostly the work of Stephen A. Douglas, also a vital article, in part for that and in part for other contributions. I guess there's an argument for keeping Pierce as well as Buchanan, maybe? pbp 18:45, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
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.
FAILED
Ain't happening, 1-2 pbp 17:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

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.

Remove Benjamin Harrison

Support
  1. I hadn't even heard of this guy before. On a look over, his presidency seems rather inconsequential, with all the important bills passed during the period being driven by others like McKinley. Probably not vital. --Grnrchst (talk) 18:09, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. All U.S. Presidents should be listed. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:44, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Compared to the other one-termers of the era, I would argue that B. Harrison had more of an impact through his presidency. Curbon7 (talk) 09:05, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
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.

Business removals

Business is rather bloated, especially toward recent Americans pbp 16:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Thomas Willing, add Nicholas Biddle

There is no support for removing Willing besides the nominator, and Biddle is already listed. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:58, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

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.

Biddle is the more significant and well-known representative of American federal banking. pbp 16:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 16:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
  2. Support Biddle, undecided on removing Willing. Curbon7 (talk) 08:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support addition, oppose removal. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose removal. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:30, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
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 Sanford Weill

REMOVED
Nearly a week since last comment, five votes. Unanimous consensus for removal. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:28, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

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.

Just another CEO of a bank. pbp 16:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 16:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
  2. Support How did he make it onto the list? QuicoleJR (talk) 19:47, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 16:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 22:42, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
  5. Support Not particularly stand-out. Curbon7 (talk) 08:27, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
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 Charlie Munger

REMOVED
Over two weeks since last comment, four votes. Unanimous consensus for removal. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

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.

Do we really need TWO people from Berkshire Hathaway? Buffett I get, Munger, not so much pbp 16:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 16:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:53, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 16:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 22:42, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
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 Marie de France

ADDED
Discussion opened almost two months ago, last comment over a week ago, five votes. Unanimous consensus for addition. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:20, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

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 see the writers/poets section is oversubscribed, but I believe Marie de France is an important entry to have as s the first woman to write in Francophone verse, and as being highly influential in the romance/heroic literature genre and an early female author.

Support
  1. Support as nominator Jaguarnik (talk) 18:18, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 22:55, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:45, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
  5. Support per nom. Jusdafax (talk) 01:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
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.

Quota in the Southern Europe's cities category

Discuss at WT:Vital articles/Level/5#Increase cities quota? J947 † edits 06:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

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.

For the past weeks, I've been inconsistently writing proposals for the removal of various Spanish and Italian cities on my sandbox, and I've come to the realization that the current total number of cities listed of these countries is similar compared to identical countries both demographically and importance to world history, such as France, Germany and the UK. Yet only the category for Southern Europe is over-quota (96/80), with 81 articles from these two countries, not to mention that Portugal and Greece most certainly deserve more cities being listed. This means either two things, we listed way too many cities, generally, or that we need more slots for the Southern Europe category. Throughout my research for the proposals in my sandbox, I do think that a lot of Italian and Spanish cities currently listed are not particularly vital, but now I'm reluctant to spend more time on it, since Italy is no less important than say, France. The Blue Rider 17:27, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

  • I'd support another 5 or 10 there. I do think Southern Europe tends to be a little more region/island-based than city-based, but it could do with an up. J947 † edits 00:39, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
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.

African city changes

African cities are an area not very focused on by this project, as we are more focused on debating the American ones. In this section, I have proposed 2 additions to the list and 6 removals. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

"Remove al-Fashir" split out from this section. J947 † edits 00:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Add Kairouan

PASSED
Proposal from +2 months, unanimous support for addition. The Blue Rider 15:24, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

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.

This city has a lot of historical and modern-day importance. It is a UNESCO World Heritage Site in an area that needs more coverage, and is the capital of a Tunisian governorate.

Support
  1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
  2. Per nom. World heritage status clearly demonstrates vitality. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
  3. Tunisia needs more representation comparatively to its neighbouring countries and this city seems vital. The Blue Rider 14:17, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
    Not convinced Tunisia does to be honest. J947 † edits 06:07, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
    Tunisia is a historically important country, plus 13M people is enough to warrant a 4th city being listed. Libya on the other hand is overrepresented. The Blue Rider 21:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
    Looking at it now yes – Libya certainly is overrepresented. There should be wholesale cuts there. J947 † edits 01:29, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 17:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  5. Support, maybe swap with Sousse. J947 † edits 06:07, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
  6. Support Totalibe (talk) 19:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
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 Lubango

ADDED
Discussion opened over a month ago, last comment almost two weeks ago, four votes. Broad consensus for addition. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:32, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

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 second-biggest city in a very large country.

Support
  1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 17:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:17, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support Totalibe (talk) 19:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
Benguela / Lobito seem to be generally considered more likely candidates for Angola's 2nd city. J947 † edits 05:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
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 Masina, Kinshasa

REMOVED
Over a month since discussion opened, almost two weeks since last comment, eight votes. Unanimous consensus for removal. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:32, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

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 article fails to describe any sort of VA-level importance.

Support
  1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
  2. This is not even a city, it's a municipality inside DRC's capital; not vital. The Blue Rider 14:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
  3. A suburb of Kinshasa probably isn't vital. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:29, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
  4. per Grnrchst. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
  5. Support Not vital. Curbon7 (talk) 08:36, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
  6. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 17:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  7. Support, satellite city. J947 † edits 05:31, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
  8. Support as part of Kinshasa that doesn't stand out in its own right. Totalibe (talk) 19:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
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 Likasi

REMOVED
Discussion opened over a month ago, last comment almost two weeks ago, eight votes. More than 55% support for removal. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:32, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

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.

This city has no major importance besides being somewhat close to an important uranium mine. If the mine is important, we should add the mine.

Support
  1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
  2. Per QuicoleJR. The Blue Rider 14:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support Minor city. Curbon7 (talk) 08:39, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 17:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:35, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. Not sure why this is getting so much support. With a swap for another DRC city that looks superior, maybe, but this seems pretty important. Population-wise, it's about 10th in the country. There's 13 DRC cities on the list. The history seems pretty varied and important to me just from the bare article read-through – industry centre, transport hub, uranium mine, refugee centre, and besieged fairly importantly in the Congo Crisis. J947 † edits 05:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
  2. Vitality stablished by J947. The Blue Rider 21:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Another example of Africa being discounted here. Totalibe (talk) 19:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
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 Morogoro

KEPT
Discussion opened over a month ago, last comment almost two weeks ago, seven votes. Less than 55% support for removal. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:32, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

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.

Nothing in the article demonstrates why this city should be listed at VA5. It does not seem nearly important enough.

Support
  1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 17:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:36, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Home to several universities, also an important traffic hub. From my personal knowledge of Tanzania, one of the most important cities of that wonderful country. The article surely needs improvement. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:33, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
    Rsk6400, it would be interesting to know if you think Morogoro is more or less important than Mbeya and Mwanza? J947 † edits 06:46, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
  2. Per Rsk6400. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:16, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per Rsk6400. Local knowledge is gold at this level, and I'm willing to defer to it almost absolutely. J947 † edits 06:46, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Totalibe (talk) 19:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
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 Teyateyaneng

REMOVED
Over a month since discussion opened, last comment two weeks ago, seven votes. Unanimous consensus for removal. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:32, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

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.

This city does not make any valid claims to VA-level importance.

Support
  1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
  2. Support Seems to be a relatively minor town. Curbon7 (talk) 08:44, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
  3. Per QuicoleJR. Other than being home to the Kome Caves couldn't find anything remarkable about this city. The Blue Rider 14:47, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 17:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:36, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
  6. Support --Totalibe (talk) 19:25, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
  7. Support, Lesotho doesn't warrant a 2nd city. J947 † edits 06:41, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
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 Ondo Town

REMOVED
Over a month since discussion opened, almost two weeks since last comment, four explicit votes and one leaning comment. Broad consensus for removal. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:32, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

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 article does not explain why it should be a vital article.

Support
  1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
  2. Per QuicoleJR. Couldn't find anything online that asserted this city's vitality, though non-western topics normally do have less content available in the internet. The Blue Rider 14:47, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 17:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:37, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
Would only support as a swap with another Nigerian city. With 9 at VA4 and currently 30 at VA5, Nigeria clearly isn't over quota. J947 † edits 02:58, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Just because a section is not over the quota does not mean that everything in the section is vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:12, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Not voting due to inconclusive info but I'm leaning Keep based on size and assumed regional importance. Totalibe (talk) 19:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

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 Second Intifada and Blockade of the Gaza Strip

ADDED
Over a month since discussion opened, last comment almost two weeks ago, five votes. Unanimous consensus for adding Second Intifada, broad consensus for adding Blockade of the Gaza Strip. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:17, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

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.

Both of these should sit under the level-4 Israeli–Palestinian conflict entry, which currently only holds the First Intifada below it - and that is arguably a lesser event than the Second Intifada. The blockade meanwhile is, in the 2014 words of Filippo Grandi of the UNRWA, a siege that stands as the longest in modern history, "longer than that of Sarajevo, Berlin and Leningrad".[1]

Support
  1. Support as nom. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
  2. Support adding the Second Intifada. Neutral on adding the Blockade. --Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 19:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support QuicoleJR (talk) 13:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support both. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:20, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
  5. Support both. Jusdafax (talk) 05:44, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Seems like the Second Intifada is already listed. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 17:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Blockade on Gaza Strip: A Living Hell on Earth" (PDF). Journal of Political Studies. 2016. pp. 157–182. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)
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 Israeli Declaration of Independence

REMOVED
Over a month since discussion opened, over three weeks since last comment, five votes. Broad consensus for removal. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:19, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

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.

This overlaps heavily with 1948 Arab–Israeli War, to which the declaration is essentially the preamble. Moreover, there are no other declarations of independence in the history category, presumably because all declarations (without a war to reinforce them) are basically just pieces of paper. Not even the United States Declaration of Independence is listed, and I would hazard that this is by far the most famous instance of such a declaration in history, but again, still just paper. (NB: Last point is incorrect. See discussion.)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
  2. Support. Not really vital to include both. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support. Much less vital than the 1948 war (which should be kept). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:46, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 17:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I am neutral on the proposal, but I just step in to indicate to you that declarations of independence and such are not "pieces of paper", but they are akin to constitutions and possibly even more important because of the fundamental ideas they contain. The United States Declaration of Independence is listed and it's considered a level-4 vital article, you didn't find it because the Israeli Declaration of Independence is in the "History" section, while the United States Declaration of Independence is under "Human rights instruments" in the "Politics and economics" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.61.27.72 (talk) 14:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Ah ok, yes, you are right, I did search the history section. It makes sense that the US one is somewhere. But beyond that there are a great many declarations, and it should really be all or none. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:10, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
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 Proportionality (law)

ADDED
Discussion opened over a month ago, last comment two weeks ago, four votes. Unanimous consensus for addition. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:32, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

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.

An extremely important principle in legal and military ethics and international humanitarian law.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 07:12, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:11, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
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 William Thornton

ADDED
Discussion opened over a month ago, last comment over three weeks ago. Four votes. Broad consensus for addition. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

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.

He was ranked as top importance article by Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team. How about addition of him? Dawid2009 (talk) 20:26, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. nom
  2. Support The architect of the US capitol is certainly vital. Very influential on urban planning. --Grnrchst (talk) 18:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  3. Per Grnrchst. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Ping User:Dawid2009 - you forgot to start a vote. I added one. I presume you want to support as a nom. I've no strong opinion here, need to think a bit more (I worry a bit about this being too US-centric, but for V5 it is probably ok-ish). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

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 "Kumbaya"

ADDED
Discussion opened over a month ago, last comment almost two weeks ago, six votes. Unanimous consensus for addition. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:42, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

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.

This is a very spiritual song that is widely referenced for its symbolic representation.

Support
  1. As nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:40, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
  2. This wasn't on here yet? QuicoleJR (talk) 13:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support Self-explanatory. Curbon7 (talk) 08:45, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 17:18, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  5. Per TonyTheTiger. — The Blue Rider 20:03, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
  6. Support per nom. Jusdafax (talk) 05:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
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 Graham Hill

ADDED
Over a month since discussion opened, almost three weeks since last comment, four votes. Unanimous consensus for addition. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:46, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

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.

Because he is the only driver ever to win the Triple Crown of Motorsport (defined as winning the Indianapolis 500, the 24 Hours of Le Mans, and the Formula One World Drivers' Championship), he is no doubt vital at this level.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:41, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
  2. Per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:39, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:22, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
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 Kunimitsu Takahashi

ADDED
Discussion opened a month ago, last comment three weeks ago, four votes. More than 55% support for addition. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

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.

Being known as the father of drifting guarantees his vitality at this level.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:12, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
  2. Support. The Japanese drifting scene is quite widely known, and its populariser is likely vital (more so than the below-mentioned Italian driver, who may have been first but didn't popularise it). I'll say that the Drift King Keiichi Tsuchiya is already considered vital, but I don't think that bars Takahashi. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:49, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
  3. Per Grnrchst. The Blue Rider 12:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Being a father of something is not necessarily vital. Subjetive bias: I've never heard of drifting until now. I'd say that people being called fathers (mothers) of something almost everyone know are likely to be vital, but this is not the case here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
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 Gonzalez v. Google LLC

PASSED
Proposal from ~1 month and unanimous support for removal. The Blue Rider 09:14, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

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 don't think this is vital enough. The court case started in 2022, nothing much really happened. The "notable legal court" section is also pretty US-centric / Western Centric. There are 13 articles there and 11 are US and the other 2 are the United Kingdom. The politics and economics section is also over 200 articles over budget. (The politics section quota was originally 1850 but went down to 1600).

Also note that Supreme Court of the United States and Law of the United States are only level 5 articles.

115.188.126.180 (talk) 04:20, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. as nom 115.188.126.180 (talk) 04:20, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
  2. Americanism, recentism... nothing makes this minor case vital. Just one of many US SC cases. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
  3. Per nom and Piotrus. --Grnrchst (talk) 20:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 17:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:42, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
  6. Despite its recency has not attained anywhere near the viewership of the other 10 U.S. decisions. J947 † edits 06:02, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
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 Paula Abdul/Remove Carly Rae Jepsen

REMOVED
Discussion opened almost a month ago, last comment over three weeks ago, five votes. Unanimous consensus for removal, but less than 55% support for addition. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:37, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

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 have been involved in discussions regarding expanding WP:VA and people have described a lot of problems with Level 5. I started bouncing around and was amazed at how quickly someone could get support in this field for Level 5. Billie Eilish (discography), and Olivia Rodrigo (discography) are both already listed with their first two albums having similar certifications to Paula Abdul (discography). Abdul is an Emmy Award winning choreographyer and was an original judge on American Idol from (2002-2009, its first 8 seasons). Since Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Artists, musicians, and composers is overquota (2,281/2,175) and within that popular music is over quota (916/880 articles) and its subcategory General (96/90 articles) is over quota, I suggest removing Carly Rae Jepsen (discography). I am basing my consideration largely on album success although I should note that I don't think Jepsen has ever won a Grammy.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Quick comparision

Add Paula Abdul 1 Grammy, 2 Emmys, 2 Multi-platinum albums, 6 #1 singles as lead artist
Remove Carly Rae Jepsen 0 Grammys, 0 Multi-platinum albums, 2 #1 singles as lead artist--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Just pointing out as I did in the discussion below that the first six singles that she released from albums all went to #1. Thus, for a nearly 3-year period all her releases went to #1. It does not speak to influence, but her popularity for a nearly 3 year period is likely rivalled almost exclusively by VA subjects.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:14, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Support
  1. as nom -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
  2. Per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support removal. The artists and musicians section was further cut from 2175 to 2000 to make more room for scientists and politicians. We should get the numbers under control before adding too many people. Being an American Idol judge doesn't strike me as pivotal, as the show has only given rise to two artists of lasting popularity. Eilish and Rodrigo are also acclaimed songwriters with more global fan bases. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 18:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support the removal. Paula Abdul's biography doesn't strike me as vital. — The Blue Rider 21:31, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  5. Support removal Rreagan007 (talk) 19:43, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
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 Dua Lipa/Remove Demi Lovato

SWAPPED
Almost a month since discussion opened, over three weeks since last comment, five votes. Broad consensus for removal, more than 55% support for addition. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

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.

Going along with the above. I also think Dua Lipa (discography) is way more vital than Demi Lovato (discography) who has never had a multiplatinum album anywhere, a number one single or won a Grammy. Lipa has had about 10 number ones in 7 different years spanning from 2015 to 2023, won multiple Grammys and both of her albums are multi platinum in at least 3 countries.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:44, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Quick comparison

Add Dua Lipa - 3 Grammys, 2 Multi-platinum albums, 9 #1 singles as lead artist
Remove Demi Lovato 0 Grammys, 0 Multi-platinum albums, 0 #1 singles as lead artist-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Support
  1. as nom -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:44, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
  2. Per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support removal per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 18:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support removal Rreagan007 (talk) 19:47, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
  5. Support addition, neutral on removal, per my comment about ballanvr in discussion about George Flyod. Dawid2009 (talk) 11:56, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
  1. Comment @Dawid2009: although Lovato's activism appears in her bio (in fact her WP:LEAD), she is not notable as an activist and definitely not vital as one. She has a lot of mental health and substance abuse issues. I think she is just opening up to the world about them in a way that we give credit for activism. I don't really give full credit for that. -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:10, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
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 F. J. Robinson, 1st Viscount Goderich

Discussion has stopped and there is unanimous consensus to remove. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

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 successor to George Canning, who was recently removed from the list. This PM is not vital either, as their only real action as PM was resigning. The other government positions they held are not enough to make them vital, since they did not do very much in those positions either.

Support
  1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom and my previous comments on the matter. --Grnrchst (talk) 20:55, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
  3. Not seeing what makes him vital? Just a run-of-the-mill British PM. Some made their mark on world history, but he is not among them. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  4. Per above supports. The Blue Rider 21:51, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
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 Nelly Furtado/Remove Robyn

REMOVED
Almost four weeks since discussion opened, last comment over a week ago, four votes. Unanimous consensus for removal, less than 55% explicit support for addition. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

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.

Add Nelly Furtado (discography) 1 Grammy, 3 multiplatinum albums, 5 #1 singles
Remove Robyn (discography) 0 Grammy, 0 multiplatinum albums, 2 #1 singles
Support
  1. As nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:27, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
  2. Support removal pbp 00:48, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support removal Rreagan007 (talk) 22:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support removal. The Blue Rider 15:15, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Sadly will have to oppose this lusophone-descendent artist; she doesn't seem particularly instrumental in the pop genre. The Blue Rider 15:15, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
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 Lee Harvey Oswald

KEPT
Almost four weeks since discussion opened, last comment a week ago, seven votes. Less than 55% support for removal. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:36, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

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.

Assassination of John F. Kennedy is vital 5, fine - important event in US history, to some degree, even world history. His assassin is important however only due this event. We don't need two articles for that. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nom. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  2. Sorry Grnrchst, but weak support. The assassination is the one who is subject of the conspiracies theories, most of them are not related to Oswald at all. Having said that, he does still have a good degree of consequential vitality, since he is the one who triggered all of this, but the assassination article already covers him pretty well. The Blue Rider 12:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
  3. I don't see assassins as generally vital. The assassination is enough coverage. J947 † edits 05:04, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Strongest possible oppose. Oswald has been the focus of many a biography, novel, film, and conspiracy theory. His article is absolutely vital for the encyclopedia. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  2. Strong Oppose per Grnrchst. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Rreagan007 (talk) 22:19, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
  4. Oppose - I'd say he belongs at Level 4. Jusdafax (talk) 06:39, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
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 Gavrilo Princip

KEPT
More than two weeks since discussion opened, about two weeks since last comment, four votes. Less than 55% support for removal. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:22, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

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 logic as above. Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand is a V5, fine - arguably even more important event for world history that assassination of Kennedy - but his assassin is important however only due this event. We don't need two articles for that. Additionally, Princip was only one of several folks involved in the plot, so he is even less vital (to that event) than Oswald for Kennedy - he was just the person chosen to throw the bomb. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nom. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Princip is a household name across Europe for assassinating Franz Ferdinand. Of all the assassins to consider for removal, Princip wouldn't even cross my mind. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  2. Per Grnrchst. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  3. Per Grnrchst. This assassination and assassin is much more vital than the other two; its popularly known as the trigger of WWI. The Blue Rider 12:46, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
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 John Wilkes Booth

KEPT
Almost three weeks since discussion opened, a week since last comment, eight votes. Less than 55% support for removal. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

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 logic as above. Assassination of Lincoln is a V5, although I think it is less famous and less relevant to world history than Kennedy's or Ferdinand. Additionally, he was also part of a group, making him just the tigger man. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nom. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  2. Support. "Notable" as an actor, yes, but "vital"? Hyperbolick (talk) 07:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I believe he is notable beyond this one event as an actor. For a notable person to assassinate a president is a different thing.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:50, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I do not agree with this logic. This person is a household name because of this event. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per QuicoleJR. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:14, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. Absolutely not. He is a paragon assassin. I'd remove the assassination article before I would remove this one. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:00, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
  5. He wasn't just the trigger man, he was the one who plotted the conspiracy to assassinate all the high-ranking politicians of the US. The Blue Rider 13:00, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
  6. Oppose - Clearly vital. Jusdafax (talk) 06:41, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Discuss
  1. Piotrus: Leon Czolgosz is a good proposal for removal, I think you would get much more support. The Blue Rider 12:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
    @The Blue Rider Good point, will suggest it shortly if you don't do it first. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
    Funnily enough, I also oppose Czolgosz being removed, although I'm considering proposing John Hinckley Jr. and Mark David Chapman for removal. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
    Yeah, the moment I saw he was an anarchist I knew you would most likely oppose it :) The Blue Rider 21:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
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.

Possible process violation

ENDORSED
No one opposed to the move. In the interests of transparency, I've done the same thing with Bob Simpson (cricketer). J947 † edits 23:54, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

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 WP:BOLDly moved Sue Bird. I see above that there is a discussion about Greece being moved. People can ratify this or let it go. It seems obvious she was a player and not another type of contributor.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. as nom -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
  2. Per TonyTheTiger. The Blue Rider 23:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
  3. Endorse. Moving articles around to different sections is generally something that can be done boldly. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:49, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
  1. If this doesn't pass, do we have to move this back to the wrong section?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
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 Sophia Perovskaya

ADDED
Almost three weeks since discussion opened, last comment over a week ago, four votes. More than 55% support for addition. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:58, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

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 noticed that the assassins category entirely consists of men, so I thought it would be prudent to suggest one of the most consequential female assassins in history. Sophia Perovskaya was one of the leading members of Narodnaya Volya, the nihilist organisation that led the opposition to the Tsarist autocracy during the 1880s. Perovskaya is most famous for orchestrating the assassination of Alexander II of Russia, an action that caused heightened repression in the Russian Empire, arguably setting into motion a series of events that would lead to the Russian Revolution. Perovskaya inspired many a dedication and copycat, including notably an attempt on the life of Emperor Meiji by the Japanese feminist Kanno Sugako. Given how exceedingly rare it is for women to participate in a political assassination, much less plan one, I think Perovskaya is a natural addition to the list of vital assassins. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  2. Per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 18:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. The execution of the Romanov family, which encompasses the killing of a VT4 and VT5 person and is much more connect to the revolutions of 1917 is not rightfully listed. With that in mind, I don't think she is vital. The Blue Rider 22:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
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 1972 Miami Dolphins season

Unsuccessful. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

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.

This was the only perfect season in the history of the NFL. Not even Tom Brady's best team (2007 New England Patriots season) could produce a perfect season.

Support
  1. Support as nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:24, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Absolutely not, this is so niche. — The Blue Rider 10:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
  2. The Miami Dolphins themselves aren't yet considered vital, why should a specific season be? --Grnrchst (talk) 12:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
  3. Just don't believe sports seasons are vital at this level. pbp 12:50, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
  4. What Blue Rider said. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:30, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
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 1927 New York Yankees season

Unsuccessful. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

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.

This is regarded as the greatest team in baseball history.

Support
  1. Support as nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. The team is already VT5, a baseball season will very hardly be vital. — The Blue Rider 10:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
  2. Incredibly niche proposal. I can't find any examples of specific seasons being included in the vital list, so I can't see why we should include one for a sport that has barely any popularity outside of the United States. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
  3. Just don't believe sports seasons are vital at this level. NYY at LV5 is enough pbp 12:49, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
  4. Can't imagine how this element of sport history is vital (and this is also very US-centric). How many Olympic evens are vital, I wonder? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Discuss
  1. You are using the word team a bit differently than me. I mean the team that season is regarded as the greatest of all time.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
    I understood that, but with the NYY being a VT5 it will encompass all the previous teams. Besides the title of the 'greatest season of all time', what specific impacts did the season bring to society or even just the sport itself? — The Blue Rider 12:24, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
  2. User:Piotrus, In terms of Olympic events, I would go with Miracle on Ice. It is U.S. centric, but still quite vital.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
    I could see that one being vital, as it was a global event. Unlike the Yankees season, which has zero cultural impact etc. outside USA. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
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 Mutiny on the Bounty, remove Fletcher Christian, William Bligh and John Adams (mutineer)

PASSED
swap completed pbp 16:11, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

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.

Fletcher Christian led the mutiny, John Adams was its last survivor, and William Bligh was the ship's captain. Christian, the master's mate, instigated the mutiny after disputes with Bligh. William Bligh was set adrift on a launch and later became the governor of New South Wales, where his actions led to the Rum Rebellion. After the mutiny, the mutineers settled in Pitcairn and Tahiti but conflicts with natives left only John Adams standing, who is the namesake of Adamstown, Pitcairn's capital. All the islanders are descendants of those mutineers (see descendants of the Bounty mutineers).

As per the discussion with QuicoleJR, it's a good idea to combine the biographies of Fletcher Christian, John Adams, and William Bligh into a single article about the mutiny. This makes sense because the biographies are not independently vital and the mutiny article covers more stuff, like other mutineers, some of them independently notable, and the several adaptation in movies, books and plays. The Blue Rider 23:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Support

  1. As nominator. The Blue Rider 23:32, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
  2. Per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
  3. Agree that it is an elegant way to preserve this while reducing article count. What is vital is indeed the event, which is more famous than the names of individuals involved. (That said, see my assassinations discussions above, where it seems we want to keep both the events and people - frankly, I don't see the difference). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 07:10, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
  5. Support addition and all removals except John Adams. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose removal of John Adams. He's not only vital for the mutiny but for founding the Pitcairn Islands community, as the mutiny's last survivor. As noted above, the capital bears his name, as do many of the islanders to this day. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
    From reading the articles, I don't think John Adams founded the city per se and the islanders are descendants of all the mutineers that settled in Pitcairn, not just Adams. The Blue Rider 16:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

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.

Swap: Remove St. Johns River, Add Usumacinta River

SWAPPED
Discussion opened three weeks ago, last comment three weeks ago, four votes. Unanimous consensus for swap. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

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.

We have 51 North American rivers, but none that drain Central America, and none but the Rio Grande that drain Mexico. The Usumacinta is also twice as long as the St. Johns, which is one of the shorter rivers on the list. Indeed, while the St. Johns is the longest ''entirely'' in Florida, the Chattahoochee River/Apalachicola River system is considerably longer. pbp 17:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 17:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. --Grnrchst (talk) 19:59, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
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: Remove Schuylkill River, Add Potomac River

SWAPPED
Three weeks since discussion opened, almost two weeks since last comment, six votes. Unanimous consensus for swap. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:11, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

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 Potomac is roughly 3x as long and more historically significant, as it is the river that flows through the nation's capital. In addition to being one of the shortest American rivers on the list, the Schuylkill is one of two rivers that flow through the same city pbp 17:58, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 17:58, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. --Grnrchst (talk) 19:59, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
  5. Support per nom. J947 † edits 01:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
  6. Support per nom. Well done. Jusdafax (talk) 20:08, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
  1. Comment User:Purplebackpack89, I don't understand the point "one of two rivers that flow through the same city"-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:59, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
    1. @TonyTheTiger: The Schuylkill flows through Philadelphia. The Delaware, also a VA5, also flows through/around Philadelphia. This is particularly relevant because what's notable about the Schuylkill other than that it flows through Philadelphia? pbp 19:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
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 Ringo Starr and George Harrison

KEPT
Over two weeks since discussion opened, last comment over a week ago, five votes. Less than 55% support for removal. --Grnrchst (talk) 21:45, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

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 know The Beatles are VA3, but have these guys done enough as solo artists to be VA. Harrison had the only multiplatinum album of the pair (All Things Must Pass) while he was still really a Beatle. Neither has really done anything to exhibit vitality since the band broke up.

Support
  1. Support as nominator. --TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
  2. Support. I don't think they are independently notable from the main Beatles article the same way that Lennon and McCartney are. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:48, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. I'm actually stunned by this proposal... --Grnrchst (talk) 21:56, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
  2. Definitely oppose Harrison, I seem to recall he's notable for his ventures into Eastern music. Neutral to weak oppose on Ringo pbp 22:18, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
  3. Oppose with astonishment and more. Jusdafax (talk) 01:41, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Discuss
  1. User:Grnrchst, I don't view these guys much differently than I view Sam Jones (basketball, born 1933) and K. C. Jones who both won 8 consecutive NBA championships. We don't have all of the Celtics on the list. We have Russell, Cousy and Havlicek.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:05, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
So you view the Boston Celtics as as vital as the Beatles? pbp 22:18, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
The 1960s Celtics may be the greatest dynasty in sports history with championships 8 years in a row, 10 of 11, and 11 of 13 years. Not as important as the Beatles are to the world. But that is because one can not continue playing basketball for 50 years. McCartney is still playing. Harrison is Sam Jones and Starr is K.C. Jones. I really don't think Starr is one of the 10 best drummers of all time and have never heard him mentioned in that way.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Mate this beyond an apples to oranges comparison. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:35, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Do you think Ringo is one of the 10 greatest drummers of all time? I don't view his non-Beatles life as if it is more important than some of the classic rock bands above. Harrison is borderline. This is really a WP:INHERITED situation.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
The issue is that the Beatles are an ongoing subject of import. They released The Beatles: Get Back during the pandemic. They released "Now and Then (Beatles song)" today. Starr's importance to the band continues. That does not mean that Starr's individual notability outside the Beatles is any more important.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Looking more closely, he seems to have had some influence and does have a #5 rating at Rolling Stone. Do leading drummers now use the matched grip. Is that what youth are taught now?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:09, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
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 Flint

PASSED
Added 7–0. J947 † edits 01:38, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

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.


This rock type used to be at level 4 but was removed 5-2 nearly 10 years ago. Wow how time flies. [[2]]

I think this is at least level 5, important material for tools, weapons, both cutting and firearms, construction, and also some use in jewellery and ceramics. Particular significance but not limited to the Stone Age.

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  08:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
  2. Support I'm actually a little surprised it was removed. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support probably more a 5ish subject than a 4ish one.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:52, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support, and you may just want to boldly add Chert & Agate too (apparently those aren't listed either). I doubt anybody would challenge that in the Earth Science section. If you want to balance with some removals, I can guarantee there are lower-priority items under minerals (from a systematic, batch-add I did). Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
  5. Support. Milestone for civilization. At least level 5. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
  6. Support--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 14:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
  7. Support - Also surprised it was removed. Jusdafax (talk) 01:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

How common is it for an article to go from VA4 to Former VA rather than VA5?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:52, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Level 5 didn't exist until 2017, years after this was removed from level 4.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 14:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
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 Ankle and Wrist

PASSED
Both added 7–0. J947 † edits 01:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

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.

Of interest to medicine, anatomy, sport, fitness, evolution. Arm, leg, foot, and hand are at level 4; knee and elbow are at level 5. I think level 5 warrants a bit more detail on the human body, and I don't think they are in any way obscure topics only specialists are aware of. We list many more less known, obscure parts/topics of the human body already.

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  08:35, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
  2. Support. Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. J947 † edits 22:33, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
  4. Human body parts are quite vital. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
  5. Obviously. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
  6. Support-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:40, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
  7. Support per nom. Jusdafax (talk) 20:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
  1. I've brought it up before, but do we even need to vote on these? I know recently a lot of people have said so, but the policy still on the Lv5 landing page (it's different from the other levels) is you only need to propose additions if the section is >98% of its quota, or you're unsure. Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
    This policy was designed for the beginning of VT5, where it would be too laboriously to formally propose all new entries. That's no longer the case, so it's sensible to inform your peers of all changes to the list. The Blue Rider 15:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
    Should we have a discussion to update the policy explicitly then, just so there's no confusion? And do we really want to change the policy for the incomplete sections? Even though Level 5 is at its overall quota, it's still very incomplete in detail, plus I think the complete sections all initially reached quota through batch additions. Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:08, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
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 Davy Crockett

Davy Crockett is a legendary folk hero and thus widely portrayed in media. Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Military personnel, revolutionaries, and activists is under quota.

Support
  1. As nom. --TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:01, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

@TonyTheTiger: Davy Crockett is currently listed under politicians; would you like him moved elsewhere? pbp 02:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Drastic changes to specific TV programs (Swaps)

Muppets discussion moved into its own nomination. J947 † edits 01:59, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Swap Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? (British game show) and Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (American game show) with Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?

SWAPPED
Two months since discussion opened, almost two weeks since last comment, nine votes. Unanimous consensus for swap. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:11, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

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 know I just swapped the Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? article that's about the franchise in general to the one that's specifically about the original British version, but that's only because I'm pretty sure the British version was the one that was meant to be listed.) As I mention in the Pop Idol discussion, I believe that we only need one version of a show. Unfortunately, both shows have a case on being the one that gets to stay on. (The American version was the one that was on air the longest, while the British version is still making new episodes). So as a comprise, I think we should swap both of these shows for the franchise in general. (We'll obviously put the franchise under UK.) --Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 10:38, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support Sensible condensing. Curbon7 (talk) 20:53, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support per very sensible proposal. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:33, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  5. Support This franchise does not need two articles at VA5. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  6. Support per Eyeluvbraixen. The Blue Rider 13:53, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
  7. Support-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
  8. Support --Totalibe (talk) 19:25, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
  9. J947 † edits 02:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
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.

Swap The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet with It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia

SWAPPED
A week since last comment, four votes. Unanimous consensus for swap. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

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.

Is The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet on here for being the longest-running sitcom? Because it got beaten by It's Always Sunny. Besides that, It's Always Sunny has a huge cult following. --Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:40, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 10:38, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:33, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
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.

Swap The Addams Family (1964 TV series) with The Addams Family (and possibly move it to Comics in Arts after swap)

PASSED
Addition passed 5–0, removal passed 5–0. No quorum on move, but any editor can do so without discussion if they have a strong feeling on the issue. J947 † edits 01:56, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

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 initially swap the 1964 series with the article the about the franchise in general, because it feels like The Addams Family is a lot bigger that. Like when people think of Wednesday Addams, they usually think of the Christina Ricci portrayal of the character. However, this will to an interesting dilemma: if we decide to switch the article, do we keep in the Television section in the Culture page, or put in the Comics section in the Arts page. Now, we do have four franchises listed in the TV section that did not started out as a television program, and if we did put the The Addams Family in Comics that would make it the only single-panel cartoon in the section. --Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support swap, weak keep on leaving The Addams Family in TV. --Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 10:38, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support swap. Neutral on move. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:33, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support swap per nom. No opinion on move. --Kammerer55 (talk) 02:05, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  5. Support swap. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:01, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
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.

Swap The Powerpuff Girls with Space Ghost Coast to Coast (or just remove The Powerpuff Girls)

NOT DONE
Nearly two weeks since last comment, six votes. Less than 55% support for proposed swap. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:31, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

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 will admit, this is the weakest swap proposal of the bunch. If we want to have a 1990s Cartoon Network show (which we probably don't need to), then it needs to be Space Ghost Coast to Coast. It was their first original program, and no doubt was responsible for the creation of Adult Swim, what with how proto-Adult Swim this show was. --Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. Weak support as nom. --Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
  2. Weak support for removal of The Powerpuff Girls even though it was adapted to an anime and rebooted. Oppose Space Ghost Coast to Coast since it is not one of the most well known Adult Swim shows.CrisBalboa1 (talk) 21:30, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Powerpuff Girls is certainly vital IMO, considering the anime adaptation, reboot, and just how iconic the show is. Meanwhile, the other show does not seem to have much of an impact besides creating Adult Swim. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:51, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
  2. Oppose If SGCtC's influence is mainly limited to the creation of Adult Swim then I'd rather include Adult Swim (I Ctrl+F:ed through its "What Links Here" pages and no Vital Article page seems to link to it).--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 15:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 10:38, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
  4. Oppose It sounds cool, but sadly, I've never heard of of it, unlike of the Powerfuffs. Less subjectively, the article's reception/legacy and such don't suggest it made a particularly big impact to warrant inclusion on the Vital list. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:50, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
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 Ogaden War

ADDED
Discussion stopped over 3 weeks ago, unanimous consensus for addition. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

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.

Important conflict of the Cold War. Many countries involved. Led significantly to Somalia's status as a failing state.

Support
  1. As nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 19:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  2. Per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  3. Per nom. --Grnrchst (talk) 19:28, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  4. The term 'failed state' is obsolete, nevertheless a vital article due to its internationalization. — The Blue Rider 19:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  5. --RekishiEJ (talk) 12:35, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
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 Split, Croatia

ADDED
Two weeks since last comment, unanimous consensus for addition. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

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.

A 4th Croatian city, the 2nd largest in the country and quite historically important. Certainly more important than the 30th Italian or Spanish city, IMO.

Support
  1. Support as nom. J947 † edits 22:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
  2. pbp 04:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support Surprised this isn't already here, especially given the presence of smaller (though important) Croatian cities. --Totalibe (talk) 18:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support QuicoleJR (talk) 20:50, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
  5. Nice catch. Very important historical city indeed. The Blue Rider 22:17, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
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 The Addams Family (1964 TV series)

MOOT
Replaced with The Addams Family in another nomination. J947 † edits 02:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

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.


Nothing in the article suggests the series was influential, culturally or commercially. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

  1. As nominator. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Agreed, this page is getting quite crammed. Thanks for closing all these discussions. The Blue Rider 12:31, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
No bother, if you could help with archiving that would be great. The page is almost at 600,000 bytes, it's getting difficult to load. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:34, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
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 Jon Fosse

NOT ADDED
5 votes, broad consensus against adding. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

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.

Because now he is a Nobel laureate in literature, and his literary works have been translated into more than 50 languages, he is no doubt vital at this level.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:41, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. There is a clear bias in giving Nobel Prizes to Swedes, Norwegians and Europeans in general; this is specially true in literature. So Jon Fosse receiving one it is not that impressive. I fail to see how the number of translations alone corroborates vitality. The Blue Rider 10:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
  2. The Nobel in Literature is honestly one of the least prestigious Nobels; they have some seriously weird taste (Dario Fo?!). Obviously some recipients are VAs but for their other contributions. SnowFire (talk) 18:25, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
  3. I have spent a lot of time on WP working on vital authors. To me an author is vital if his works have articles and in those articles you find a lot of adaptations and derivitives of his works. When you go to the bottom of the Charles Dickens article you will see a show button for works by Charles Dickens. I have created the majority of templates that you find there as I have for most VA authors who are eligible to have such templates by virtue of their work. This guy has not done work which has resulted in notable topics and notable derivatives and adaptations of that work in the encyclopedic sense.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:14, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per above. Gizza (talk) 04:59, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Discuss
  • Are Nobel Prize Laureates necessarily vital? I understand that a Nobel Prize is an extremely prestigious award, but as we get more and more laureates, they cannot all possibly fit in the vital list. With that being said, the article says he is the most performed Norwegian playwright after only Ibsen; being the one of the most performed Norwegian playwrights of all time and the most performed Norwegian playwright currently living would be a better argument for vitality.Jaguarnik (talk) 13:44, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
I don't agree, that's too specific of an achievement. He is not the first, he is the second, not internationally, from a specific country, Norway, performed playwright. The Blue Rider 14:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Article states "Fosse is currently—with productions presented on over a thousand stages worldwide—one of the most performed contemporary playwrights globally." The source is in Norwegian, so I can't check to confirm, but certain English-language sources also claim that he is one of the most widely performed globally.(https://www.npr.org/2023/10/05/1203690242/norwegian-playwright-jon-fosse-wins-the-2023-nobel-prize-in-literature, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/jon-fosse-receives-the-2023-nobel-prize-in-literature-for-work-probing-anxieties-and-inner-reckonings-180983023/, https://www.theatlantic.com/books/archive/2023/10/jon-fosse-nobel-prize-literature-winner-2023/675550/) Clearly he has global renown as well if he's been translated into at least 50 languages. There is also has an international festival named after him.(https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/10/05/books/nobel-prize-literature)
You also say there is a bias to giving the Nobel Prize to Norwegians; that may be true of the other Nobel prizes (I have not looked), but this is the first Norwegian Nobel Literature Prize winner in nearly a century, and the first Norwegian laureate to write in Nynorsk. (https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/10/05/books/nobel-prize-literature, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/jon-fosse-receives-the-2023-nobel-prize-in-literature-for-work-probing-anxieties-and-inner-reckonings-180983023/) It is certainly true though that there is a bias to giving the Nobel Literature Prize to Europeans, and the Europe section for writers has 402 entries, more than all other continents (although the great majority of it is Western Europe and UK+Ireland), so... not sure if he is a necessary addition.
To be honest I don't know whether I would support or oppose adding Fosse in, as I don't know enough about him or his work to say yes or no. Jaguarnik (talk) 03:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
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 Joe DiMaggio's 56-game hitting streak

FAILED
Removal not passed 1–3. J947 † edits 23:09, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

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.


This is the highest profile record in baseball.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support As nominator.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. If Joe DiMaggio himself is at VA5, that's enough pbp 16:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
  2. Per Purplebackpack89. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:51, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per pbp although I am generally sympathetic to the independent vitality and notability of such passages. J947 † edits 01:26, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Discuss
  1. We have painters and some of their paintings, sculpter and some of their sculptures, architects and some of their architecture, musicians/composers and some of their musical works, authors and some of their works. This is a person and one of their works.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
    @TonyTheTiger You are right, but we need to review this on case-by-case. It's possible some of the art needs to be removed too, but this article here has no interwikis and I argue that it is of no interest to people outside US. American baseball and similar sports (football) do not translate well internationally, unlike art (and media). Of course, this is a generalization. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:58, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
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 Italian newspapers

Withdrawn by nominator. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:26, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

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 selection of newspapers appears unbalanced: 16 articles on US newspapers, 7 on UK, 5 on India, Russia and Germany. See also the Level 4 selection. There are no Italian, Polish or Canadian newspapers, nor newspapers from any country in South and Central America, Africa or the Middle East.

This thread remedies to the lack of Italian newspapers and proposes we add the three major newspapers in Italy, which are Il Corriere della Sera, La Repubblica and La Stampa. I'm not taking into account specialised newspapers such as Il Sole 24 Ore (financial newspaper) and La Gazzetta dello Sport (dedicated to sport). Source: Accertamenti Diffusione Stampa.

Support # As nominator. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Oh sorry, I didn't notice @QuicoleJR. I strike through this thread then. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
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 Business park

REMOVED
18 days since discussion opened, 13 days since last comment, four votes. Unanimous consensus for removal.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:31, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

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.

This concept seems to overlap with some of the other things on the list, and it is not particularly important IMO. Besides, this section is over the quota and this seems like the least vital article in the section.

Support
  1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:07, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
  2. Support – relatively niche 21st century concept in an over-quota section. J947 † edits 03:43, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
  3. Per QuicoleJR and J947. The Blue Rider 15:02, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
  4. support removal Lorax (talk) 03:25, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
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.

Contemporary paintings, and thoughts on visual arts topics in general

NO CONSENSUS
I'm reticent to close/archive this, but the page size is becoming an issue. No consensus on any specific proposal; plenty of ideas raised but unfortunately this discussion is going nowhere fast (not helped by a thoughts suggestion being converted into a formal proposal). J947 ‡ edits 09:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

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.


On the level 3 talk page, I was challenged by User:TonyTheTiger to suggest improvements to the selection of contemporary paintings on level 5. I'll do that here. My general impression after looking at the list more carefully is that we list too many individual paintings compared to other genres. For example, there are ten paintings listed as "contemporary", while the "contemporary art" section covering miscellaneous genres only has five entries. This ratio should really be the other way around, since painting no longer dominates the art world like it used to. Meanwhile we have far from enough on other aspects of art, so I will also suggest improvements in other directions.

Potential swaps of paintings

The main issues with the ten contemporary paintings we've selected are:

  1. A bias towards paintings that have sold for high prices at auctions;
  2. Too much of a propensity to include multiple works by the same artist;
  3. Lack of representation of painters who aren't white, male, and from the US or UK.

I suggest removing:

These could be replaced with:

Cobblet (talk) 22:08, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support the removal of everything except Drowning Girl and Whaam!. The Blue Rider 23:19, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose the addition of everything except Three Studies for Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion and America Invertida (which I support). The Blue Rider 23:19, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
  2. Oppose removing The Drowning Girl and Whaam! It doesn’t matter if those works came later; these are the two most well-known pop art. Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 01:00, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
  3. Oppose removal of The Drowning Girl and Whaam!. I'm frankly quite astonished that these were suggested for removal in the first place. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  4. Oppose formally opposing removal of The Son of Man, The Drowning Girl and Whaam!-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:51, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Roy Lichtenstein and Andy Warhol are both pioneers and representatives of the pop art movement. Drowning Girl and Whaam! are Lichtenstein's most influential, famous, and significant works. They explore new themes such as consumerism and advertising, and reopen the old philosophical debate if imitation is considered art.
Furthermore, Drowning Girl is one of the earliest paintings to tackle the role of modern women in society, specially their agency and power (or lack thereof). "Whaam!" is an anti-war painting that opposes the Cold War and had a profound impact during its time. I do support the removal of the other works. I also agree with the inclusion of the Bacon's; there are other more notable works by Rauschenberg; instead of "SAMO," we could potentially list a Banksy's or Haring's. I am unsure about including América Invertida and Mountains and Sea. The Blue Rider 00:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
I am going to abstain on the additions, but as the WP:FA nominator of both Drowning Girl and Whaam!, I think they are of extreme importance. Regarding the Rothko, there should be some sort of Color field work. I am not sure which work this should be. I don't think two Magritte works could be overemphasis.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm not surprised at the pushback at my suggestions, which is why I purposely framed my comments as responding to an invitation to discussion, and not as a formal proposal. It's unproductive if people start throwing in formal !votes before they've fully familiarized themselves with contents of the list (e.g., we do in fact list a Banksy, Girl with Balloon), so I did not want to encourage !voting. I'm not the one who added the support/oppose/discussion headings.
People are understandably shocked by my position that we don't have room for two works by Lichtenstein or Magritte. Obviously Lichtenstein and Magritte are two of the most famous artists of the 20th century. I commend Tony for having written excellent articles on the Lichtenstein works: certainly that is the sort of contribution to Wikipedia that this list aims to encourage, and so it does make sense that somebody put these works on the list to begin with.
But as I said under "Other missing visual arts topics" below, I feel that whoever came up with the list as it stands now was too focused on listing individual artworks and did not pay enough attention to listing articles on broader themes in art. We're almost certainly going to have to reduce the number of individual works in order to fix this, since arts section is already over quota. I don't believe the current arts list was the result of any significant consensus-building discussion; we can't let a bias towards the status quo affect our judgment.
Again, under "Other missing visual arts topics", I had already come up with a long list of articles that I think would be more appropriate for this list than many of the artworks we've chosen. Here's a few more that are relevant to the points raised above. Why should we list a Rothko painting instead of listing the topic Color field? Of course Originality, Consumerism, Gaze/Male gaze, and Protest art are important artistic themes, but shouldn't we be listing the articles on those themes before listing a second work by Lichtenstein? And if we sincerely want to address the role of women in society, I'd like to see Drowning Girl replaced by Women artists.
I don't mean to pick on Magritte or Lichtenstein – I did so only because I was specifically asked to comment on the contemporary paintings. There are many other questionable inclusions on the list of modern paintings, e.g., Luxembourg Gardens, Paris, but also big omissions as well, e.g., Portraits of Vincent van Gogh. Here's a 2004 survey of 500 experts on the ten most influential works of modern art; our list of over a hundred modern works in all genres only contains the top four from that list. Does it make sense to list two works by Lichtenstein and Magritte when we only list one by Matisse, and it isn't L'Atelier Rouge? Likewise I believe Dalí is only represented by The Persistence of Memory, and I'd say he's also more significant than Lichtenstein or Magritte.
I appreciate everybody's input here. But we're going to need multiple well-informed people to invest significant time and effort in understanding the strengths and weaknesses of the current list if we want to make significant improvements to it. I've had a hard enough time convincing people to do it at level 4, and doing it at level 5 is exponentially harder. Cobblet (talk) 19:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
User:Cobblet, You may be right on needing to deemphasize specific works. I also believe that we need to expand in different directions. To the best of my understanding we do not have a watercolor work among the 302 specific works so I have nominated View of the World from 9th Avenue. I am unaware of a more significant watercolor painting. Nothing in Category:Watercolor paintings is currently vital although it is possible that some current VAs are lacking that category.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:07, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Even if we treat ink wash painting as a separate category, we do list a watercolour, Klee's Twittering Machine. We also list The Birds of America and Kunstformen der Natur, which I would consider works of mass-produced illustration based on watercolours. In that sense they are related to View of the World from 9th Avenue. If we didn't already list both Knight, Death and the Devil and Melencolia I (we should probably limit ourselves to one work by Dürer, and certainly not more than two), Young Hare would be worth consideration – I'd consider it more vital than anything by Klee. Cobblet (talk) 11:46, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Other modern/contemporary artworks worth including

Canonical works by female artists: Migrant Mother, Identical Twins, Roselle, New Jersey, 1967, The Ballad of Sexual Dependency, Maman, and an article Yayoi Kusama's Infinity Room installations would make a lot of sense as well.

Specific contemporary works in unrepresented/underrepresented genres: I Like America and America Likes Me (performance), Spiral Jetty (land art), Wrapped Reichstag (public art; I'm shocked we don't list Christo and Jeanne-Claude under biographies), "Untitled" (Portrait of Ross in L.A.) (installation) or NAMES Project AIDS Memorial Quilt (community art; but one work related to the AIDS epidemic is enough), Kollwitz's Peasant War series of prints (see e.g., [3]; again Wikipedia lacks articles related to female artists; Käthe Kollwitz is also strangely not on our biographies list) Cobblet (talk) 22:08, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Other missing visual arts topics

The fact that I feel compelled to mention a couple of redlinked artworks that are more vital than what's already listed makes me think that we list too many specific works of art in general, or at least from Western art history. (There are extremely prominent works from other traditions that are missing from the list, like Pillars of Ashoka, Leshan Giant Buddha, Muisca raft, Aztec sun stone, and the Benin Bronzes.) Many other types of articles will be of interest to readers, like:

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_16&oldid=1187151320"