Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17→Archive 20

Remove entire list of individual airports

The airports listed do not have any objective importance over others; the list appears to be an arbitrary collection of airports that seem important. There are many important airports not featured, and the list does not adhere to rankings based on aircraft movements, cargo processed, or passenger numbers. For example, Tokyo Haneda is listed while Tokyo Narita is not, despite the latter being arguably more important given it carries more passengers and serves more destinations. Some other examples where one is listed but another not is DEL and BOM, JFK and EWR, LAX and SFO, and PVG and PEK. The entire continent of Africa is not represented when major, important airports such as JNB, ADD, and CAI are present there! The same is true with South America! What happened to BOG, GRU, and CGH? In North America, what happened to MEX, YYZ, and YUL? There is also an overrepresentation of American airports. Some other airports not mentioned above that are missing but are clearly important include IST, BKK, and ICN. Thus, either this list should be removed from the Vital Articles, or a better, extremely large list be added.

Tl;Dr: Current airports list has 0 representation of many regions and is completely subjective, and should be removed. VT-ALM (talk) 17:42, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Support
Oppose
Discuss
  1. @VT-ALM: Can you please give a list of removals and additions that we can vote on? 〜 Festucalex • talk 17:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
    Alright, good idea.
    Remove:
    1. Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International Airport
    2. Beijing Capital International Airport
    3. O'Hare International Airport
    4. Dubai International Airport
    5. Hong Kong International Airport
    6. Heathrow Airport
    7. Los Angeles International Airport
    8. Charles de Gaulle Airport
    9.  Haneda Airport
    10. Shanghai Pudong International Airport
    11. Sheremetyevo International Airport
    12.  Indira Gandhi International Airport
    13.  John F. Kennedy International Airport
    14. Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport
    If the list isn't removed, we should add the following, in no particular order:
    1. Tokyo Narita International Airport (Yes, in addition to HND. It is larger and serves more people to more destinations than HND.)
    2. Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport (Mumbai)
    3. Newark Liberty International Airport (Yes, in addition to JFK. It serves more European destinations and is a major int'l transit hub.)
    4. San Francisco International Airport
    5. Beijing Capital International Airport
    6. O. R. Tambo International Airport
    7. Addis Ababa Bole International Airport
    8. Cairo International Airport
    9. Bogota International Airport
    10. Guarulhos International Airport (São Paulo)
    11. Mexico City International Airport
    12. Toronto Pearson International Airport
    13. Montreal International Airport
    14. Sydney International Airport
    15. Istanbul International Airport
    16. Amsterdam Schiphol International Airport
    17. Madrid International Airport
    18. Lisbon International Airport
    19. Hamad International Airport
    While such a list would be not only extremely large, it would remain a subjective list created by the individual opinions of Wikipedia users. Thus, I still firmly believe that the entire list of individual airports should be remove from the Vital Articles list. VT-ALM (talk) 18:50, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
    @VT-ALM: This list just makes no sense. Not only is Beijing Capital included in both add and remove, you're proposing the removal of some of the most important and busy airports in the world (Charles de Gaulle, Heathrow, JFK, LAX, ATL etc.) If this was indeed your proposal, I'd oppose. 〜 Festucalex • talk 02:56, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
    Sorry, I forgot to remove PEK. However, you are only further proving my point. Yes, CDG, LHR, etc are very important. But what about the rest of these busiest airports? IST is busier than CDG, LHR, and JFK! AMS is busier than HND and SVO! While you are correct, it would be biased to keep these limited airports in the list because they are so big, and not include others which are either bigger or vital to their region (JNB, SYD, etc.). VT-ALM (talk) 03:13, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Without going through the entire list, I can't see how we remove Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International Airport, which is both one of the oldest mega-airports in the world, and has spent fifteen straight years as the busiest airport in the world in passengers coming through. BD2412 T 01:56, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
    @BD2412 I am trying to get rid of all individual airports in the vital articles list. These airports happen to be there. Please see my reply to another user above. Apologies for the confusing title. VT-ALM (talk) 02:56, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
    I don't know if it can reasonably said that not a single individual airport qualifies as a level 5 vital article. I would think that we would be better served trying to reduce the number to a handful, perhaps the top five. BD2412 T 04:20, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
    @BD2412 But the problem is, top 5 of what? Passengers, aircraft movements, cargo, etc. Also, the top 5 in all of these exclude airports vital to certain regions which are also large airports, such as JNB and SYD. VT-ALM (talk) 11:47, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
    This is not a problem unique to airports. Every collection of vital topics in a field requires weighing such considerations. BD2412 T 15:37, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose Adding Newark while removing LAX and O'Hare pbp 22:49, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Move George M. Cohan from stage actors to composers of musical comedy

His lasting notoriety is from writing Over There, Grand Old Flag, Yankee Doodle Dandy and others more than it is from his acting. pbp 21:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 21:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

pbp 21:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Stength properties of materials

The stength properties of materials are really important in all fields of engineering LJFIN2 (talk) 15:46, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Strength of materials (already included)
Yield (engineering)
Ultimate tensile strength
Young's modulus (already included but should be moved)
Toughness (already included but should be moved)
Fracture toughness (already included but should be moved)

Support

  1. I support because I'm me LJFIN2 (talk)

Oppose

  1. Strength of materials as VIT4 seems sufficient here czar 15:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

  • @LJFIN2: Can you clarify where you are moving these articles to?

Swap Mount Aso and Mount Usu with Khangai Mountains and Yablonoi Mountains

PARTIAL SWAP
Eight weeks since last comment, four votes. While there is >55% support for swapping Mount Usu with the Khangai Mountains, there's no consensus on removing Mount Aso. The Yablonoi Mountains are also already listed. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:38, 14 September 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.

Japan is already well-represented in Physical geography / Land relief. Khangai and Yablonoi are major mountain ranges in Mongolia and Siberia respectively (I have a wall world map where both are marked). I'm not an expert in geography, I just chose something to remove. I'm open for suggestions for some other articles to replace. --Makkool (talk) 13:07, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. --Makkool (talk) 13:07, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 09:59, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
  3. Partial support. Swap Mount Usu for Khangai Mountains to offer a more diverse selection of articles. --Onwa (talk) 14:04, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Aso especially is much more significant than either Khangai or Yablonoi. 〜 Festucalex • talk 18:12, 12 June 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 Half-Life (series), add The Witcher (video game series)

SWAPPED
Eight weeks since last comment, nine votes. Broad consensus for removal, just slightly over 55% support for addition. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:57, 14 September 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 already have original Half-Life of 1998. The only other game in the series is Half-Life 2 of 2004, which has less views (27,252) in the past 30 days than both Half-Life I (38,520) and the series (29,982).

I've never heard nor played either game although I'm sure they are great, however Witcher 3 is one of my favorite games. It is considered among the best video games just like Half-Life 1 and Half-Life 2: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_games_considered_the_best". I wasn't sure whether to propose adding Witcher 3 (93,192 views) or the series (43,728 views), but I decided on the series because The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt is already GA status, with 3 great paragraphs explaining gameplay, whilst the Witcher series article currently only says this under Gameplay: "In the series, the player controls Geralt of Rivia, one of the few remaining witchers on the Continent. He is a traveling monster slayer for hire, mutated and trained from an early age to slay deadly beasts." So maybe this is the article that needs work.

Also The Witcher video games were so successful they inspired Netflix to adapt the books into what I think is a great show so far.

Support:

  1. As nom LightProof1995 (talk) 03:08, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
  2. Agree, but I would favor The Witcher 3 instead of the series. (I'm in the opinion that individual games or movies are almost always more vital than series articles.) --Makkool (talk) 18:53, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
    What if we add The Witcher 3 on the condition we also write a great Gameplay synopsis of all Witcher games on the series' article? LightProof1995 (talk) 07:24, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support Per nominator (the article which is not good is approciate choice) and per @Piotrus: comments in the archives. I was sceptical about recent video games games some.time ago but nowdays I definietly chsaged opinion about Witcher and my view on video game section when now list is bit more stable. Also, most games ehich we cover are from USA/Japan/United Kington. The Witcher is by far one of the most promient video games which are not from English-speaking world or Japan. Is ok. Perhaps creating sections by "country production" cluld be ok. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:53, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Support removal, oppose add:

  1. pbp 16:07, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
  2. Single Half-Life is fine, but "Witcher 3 is one of my favorite games" is not how this works. Not "highest importance" in its field. No assertion of its enduring importance or essentialness in its category. Not vital. czar 02:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
  3. 〜 Festucalex • talk 09:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
  4. The person who loves reading (talk) 00:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Neutral on removal, support add:

  • I certainly support adding The Witcher, it is arguably one of the most important games (game series) of the last decade+. However, I am not convinced Half-Life is less important, it's older but it was an important series a while back. Is Witcher more important than Half-Life? Honestly, I am unsure. But I concur it is at least as important and more famous now, so switching this would I guess make our list more "up-to-date" if we cannot keep both. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
I agree, but I was under the impression that the question was for the removal of Half-life (series) article and not Half-Life 1998, which should definitely be kept. --Makkool (talk) 10:18, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
@MakkoolYes this is true, the proposal is to remove the Half-Life (series) article, but keep the first Half-Life game. LightProof1995 (talk) 05:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm putting myself here becuase I don't want to make more sections but I think both should be included. Both series are highly popular and influential to vide games as a whole. LJFIN2 (talk) 14:04, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion:

  • Comment: More to the point might be to add the likes of Valve Corporation, for their general contributions to the evolution of video gaming, with releases such as Half-life, Counter-Strike (which could also be removed as vital), Dota and Team Fortress, etc. etc., as well as the Steam platform itself. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts here. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:25, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
The video game section could generally do with a bit of a shake-up, and include more key companies. The likes of Activision, Blizzard, Firaxis should really be included. I can only see LucasArts adventure games. Maybe the whole setup should move away from games, the individual relevance of which is extremely subject to change. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:50, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Companies would go under Politics and economics. "LucasArts adventure games" isn't really about the company (which has produced other kinds of games too) but a subset of the games by the company. I agree that Valve Corporation probably merits addition, in the page I linked.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 11:22, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Ah, ok, gotcha. Thanks. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:35, 19 July 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 Caffè Americano, Caffè mocha, Cappuccino and Latte; add Arabic coffee

DONE
Three weeks since last comment, four votes. Broad consensus for all removals except cappuccino and for the addition of Arabic coffee. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:06, 14 September 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.

There is a glut of highly specific espresso-based coffee preparations in the list that are redundant, generally speaking, to Coffee preparation and Espresso. All of the coffee preparations proposed for removal are espresso-based, as mentioned and signposted at the end of Espresso's lead. There is a lot more to coffee than espresso-based drinks, and the current overemphasis on these is a poor attempt at a global perspective. The most notably absent coffee entry is Arabic coffee, which I would propose for immediate addition. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:02, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as proposer Iskandar323 (talk) 06:04, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
    I also support the motion with the modifications proposed below, i.e. keep cappuccino. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:00, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
  2. Support except for Cappuccino. 〜 Festucalex • talk 13:19, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom, except for cappuccino. Arabic coffee is "top importance" in its field. czar 23:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
  4. Add arabic cofee, keep cappucchino, remove the other two. Onwa (talk) 16:57, 24 August 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 Indian castes

ADDED
Two weeks since last comment, five votes. >55% support for addition. --Grnrchst (talk) 21:53, 19 September 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 society section has the Caste system in India and Dalit so it should also have the rest of the castes. Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, and Shudra LJFIN2 (talk) 03:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as proposer: LJFIN2 04:36, 13 May 2023 (UTC) (vote added here by Festucalex)
  2. Support—We have enough space in the "Society and social sciences" category to accommodate them all. Seems reasonable enough. 〜 Festucalex • talk 04:35, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support The person who loves reading (talk) 23:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. Caste system in India (VIT4) is sufficient. The idea of untouchables has a wide cultural currency beyond the caste system itself. czar 23:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
  2. Per Czar. The Blue Rider 10:25, 5 September 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.

Medicine and health changes

Add some psychiatric drugs

PARTIAL ADDITION
Eight weeks since last comment, four votes. Broad consensus for adding the four top level proposals, but <55% support for others. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:51, 14 September 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.

One in six Americans are on psychiatric drugs and there's similar numbers across the developed world so it should be more represented on this list.

Support
  1. Support as proposer: LJFIN2 09:01, 13 May 2023 (UTC) (vote added here by Festucalex)
  2. Support only Antidepressant, Anxiolytic, Antipsychotic, and Mood stabilizer. We're overbudget already on the drugs and medication category. 〜 Festucalex • talk 08:50, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
    I think all of them belong when you consider that they are some of the most widely used medications in the world LJFIN2 (talk) 09:18, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
    @LJFIN2: Again, we're overbudget. Including the broad categories seems reasonable enough if we can't fit any more in. 〜 Festucalex • talk 15:21, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support The person who loves reading (talk) 23:28, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support only four higher level per Festucalex. Close out this old thread. czar 12:52, 21 July 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 some personality disorders

REMOVED
Removed, per 55% czar 14:27, 15 July 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.

It seems like someone went and added every personality disorder from the info box on the Personality disorder page. I think all of them that aren't listed in the DSM-5 or the ICD-11 should be removed. Psychopathy can stay because of its cultural significance and because it’s still used in legal settings.

Support
  1. Support as proposer: LJFIN2 09:01, 13 May 2023 (UTC) (vote added here by Festucalex)
  2. 〜 Festucalex • talk 09:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support The person who loves reading (talk) 23:28, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 14:11, 6 July 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 some mental disorders

ADDED
Added, per 55% czar 14:27, 15 July 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.

Seeing that the section is incomplete, here are some more diagnoses that I think are notable enough. I've decided to include hysteria even though it an outdated term because of its historical significance.

Support
  1. Support as proposer: LJFIN2 09:01, 13 May 2023 (UTC) (vote added here by Festucalex)
  2. 〜 Festucalex • talk 09:03, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support The person who loves reading (talk) 23:29, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 10:07, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
  1. Since the health section is over 300 articles off its target, these can be BOLDly added without discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.188.134.165 (talk) 10:27, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
    @115.188.134.165: Be that as it may, I still think it's better to add things after discussion instead of having to remove them later. VIT5 needs cleanup, not BOLD additions. 〜 Festucalex • talk 10:30, 13 May 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 history of military logistics

ADDED
Eight weeks since last comment, six votes, >55% support. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:28, 14 September 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 split History of military logistics off from Military logistics. It has all the features of a vital article, covering over 2,000 years. This is a pretty important subject, so I propose adding it. The War and Military category still has space.

Support
  1. As proposer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
  2. Support --Lorax (talk) 03:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support, agree it's important enough for Vital. DFlhb (talk) 03:09, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support: it is an important topic, and its lessons have not always been learnt, as a recent faltering Russian advance in Ukraine demonstrated. Well put together article too. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:06, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Military logistics (VIT5) alone is sufficient. It should include the vital details of the topic in summary style. czar 15:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
  2. per Czar 〜 Festucalex • talk 14:38, 20 July 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.

American television personalities removals

We have 119 American television hosts, panelists and contestants, part of the reason the entertainers section is over quota. That seems excessive. Some of these are questionable. How many game show CONTESTANTS do we need, for example? CONTESTANTS? I get Charles Van Dorn because of the game show scandal. Ken Jennings won 70+ Jeopardy episodes, participated in several all time tournaments and now hosts the show so that’s reasonable. But beyond that, IDK pbp 14:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Norm Abram, add LeVar Burton

SWAPPED
Two weeks since last comment, six votes. Unanimous consensus for removal, broad consensus for addition. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:27, 14 September 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 TWO personalities from This Old House? TWO? I propose a swap with the host of Reading Rainbow , who also made significant appearances in Roots and Star Trek: The Next Generation

Support
  1. pbp 14:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
  2. Very good proposal. Strong agree. 〜 Festucalex • talk 14:42, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
  3. czar 15:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support, per well-reasoned proposal. Speaking as someone not from the US, I have never heard of this Norm Abram, but I've seen LeVar Burton all over tv. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
  5. Onwa (talk) 07:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
  6. Support removal Rreagan007 (talk) 07:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose addition. Doesn't seem vital to me. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:21, 31 August 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 Samantha Bee

REMOVED
Two weeks since last comment, six votes. Unanimous consensus for removal. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:27, 14 September 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 get that female hosts are underrepresented, but her show was cancelled after only a few seasons pbp 14:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 14:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
  2. 〜 Festucalex • talk 14:42, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support. Not "highest importance" in the topic's field. No assertion in the article's lede section of the topic's enduring importance or essentialness in its category. Not vital. czar 15:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
  5. Support per nom and Czar. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
  6. Support removal Rreagan007 (talk) 07:21, 31 August 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.

Remove Joy Behar

REMOVED
Two weeks since last comment, seven votes. Broad consensus for removal. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:27, 14 September 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.

Really? Really? Somebody thought Joy Behar a vital article? pbp 14:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 14:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
  2. 〜 Festucalex • talk 14:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support. Not "highest importance" in the topic's field. No assertion in the article's lede section of the topic's enduring importance or essentialness in its category. Not vital. czar 15:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
  5. Support per Czar. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
  6. Support removal Rreagan007 (talk) 07:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. No reason for removal was given. Onwa (talk) 07:00, 9 August 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 David Brenner

REMOVED
Two weeks since last comment, six votes. Unanimous consensus for removal. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:27, 14 September 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.

First off, probably better classified as a comedian. Maybe it’s because I was born in 1989, but I’m not seeing how his fame rises to VA5 status. Is he as important to the history of the world as any of the politicians I’ve proposed for removal?

Support
  1. pbp 14:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
  2. 〜 Festucalex • talk 14:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support. Not "highest importance" in the topic's field. No assertion in the article's lede section of the topic's enduring importance or essentialness in its category. Not vital. czar 15:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
  5. Support per nom and Czar. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
  6. Support removal Rreagan007 (talk) 07:21, 31 August 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.

Remove Steve Burns

REMOVED
Two weeks since last comment, six votes. Unanimous consensus for removal. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:27, 14 September 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.

Never won an Emmy. Is he as notable as LeVar Burton, who is missing from the list? (See swap above). pbp 14:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 14:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
  2. 〜 Festucalex • talk 14:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support. Not "highest importance" in the topic's field. No assertion in the article's lede section of the topic's enduring importance or essentialness in its category. Not vital. czar 15:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
  5. Support per nom and Czar. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
  6. Support removal Rreagan007 (talk) 07:21, 31 August 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.

Remove Les Crane

REMOVED
Two weeks since last comment, six votes. Unanimous consensus for removal. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:27, 14 September 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.

Competed with Johnny Carson. Carson won that competition. pbp 14:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 14:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
  2. 〜 Festucalex • talk 14:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support. Not "highest importance" in the topic's field. No assertion in the article's lede section of the topic's enduring importance or essentialness in its category. Not vital. czar 15:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support per Czar. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
  5. Support Lorax (talk) 04:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
  6. Support removal Rreagan007 (talk) 07:21, 31 August 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.

Remove Carson Daly

REMOVED
Two weeks since last comment, six votes. Unanimous consensus for removal. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:27, 14 September 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 don’t need EVERYONE who ever hosted a late-night talk show!

Support
  1. pbp 14:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
  2. 〜 Festucalex • talk 14:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support. Not "highest importance" in the topic's field. No assertion in the article's lede section of the topic's enduring importance or essentialness in its category. Not vital. czar 15:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
  5. Support per Czar. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
  6. Support removal Rreagan007 (talk) 07:21, 31 August 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.

Remove Jared Fogle

REMOVED
Two weeks since last comment, six votes. Unanimous consensus for removal. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:27, 14 September 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.

Seriously, the Subway mascot? There are dozens of ad spokespeople and pitch men who are equally notable that we don’t have, and shouldn’t pbp

Support
  1. pbp 14:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
  2. 〜 Festucalex • talk 14:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support. Not "highest importance" in the topic's field. No assertion in the article's lede section of the topic's enduring importance or essentialness in its category. Not vital. czar 15:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
  5. Support per nom and Czar. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
  6. Support removal Rreagan007 (talk) 07:21, 31 August 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.

Remove Joey Greco

REMOVED
Two weeks since last comment, six votes. Unanimous consensus for removal. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:27, 14 September 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.

Too obscure for the Vital Articles list

Support
  1. pbp 14:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
  2. 〜 Festucalex • talk 14:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support. Not "highest importance" in the topic's field. No assertion in the article's lede section of the topic's enduring importance or essentialness in its category. Not vital. czar 15:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support per Czar. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
  5. Support Lorax (talk) 04:24, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
  6. Support removal Rreagan007 (talk) 07:21, 31 August 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.

Remove Richard Hatch (Survivor contestant)

REMOVED
Two weeks since last comment, six votes. Unanimous consensus for removal. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:27, 14 September 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.

How many game show CONTESTANTS do we need, for example? CONTESTANTS? I get Charles Van Dorn because of the game show scandal. Ken Jennings won 70+ Jeopardy episodes, participated in several all time tournaments and now hosts the show so that’s reasonable. But beyond that, IDK pbp 14:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 14:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
  2. 〜 Festucalex • talk 14:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support. Not "highest importance" in the topic's field. No assertion in the article's lede section of the topic's enduring importance or essentialness in its category. Not vital. czar 15:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
  5. Support per nom. I struggle to see any game show contestants as particularly vital. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
  6. Support removal Rreagan007 (talk) 07:21, 31 August 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.

Replace Khloé Kardashian and Kourtney Kardashian with Kardashian family

REPLACED
Two weeks since last comment, six votes. Unanimous consensus for replacement. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:27, 14 September 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 Kardashian family independently notable beyond Kim?

Support
  1. pbp 14:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
  2. 〜 Festucalex • talk 14:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
  3. czar 15:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. I appreciate that the Kardashians as a collective are notable but I couldn't name any off the top of my head other than Kim. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
  5. Support Lorax (talk) 04:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
  6. Support removal Rreagan007 (talk) 07:21, 31 August 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.

Remove Jamie Hyneman

REMOVED
Two weeks since last comment, six votes. Broad consensus for removal. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:27, 14 September 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.

Too obscure for the Vital Articles list

Support
  1. pbp 14:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
  2. 〜 Festucalex • talk 14:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support. Not "highest importance" in the topic's field. No assertion in the article's lede section of the topic's enduring importance or essentialness in its category. Not vital. czar 15:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support per Czar. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
  5. Support removal Rreagan007 (talk) 07:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose --Thi (talk) 18:06, 4 July 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 Jenny Jones (presenter)

REMOVED
Two weeks since last comment, seven votes. Unanimous consensus for removal. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:27, 14 September 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.

Too obscure for the Vital Articles list

Support
  1. pbp 14:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
  2. 〜 Festucalex • talk 14:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support. Not "highest importance" in the topic's field. No assertion in the article's lede section of the topic's enduring importance or essentialness in its category. Not vital. czar 15:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
  5. Support per Czar. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
  6. Onwa (talk) 17:46, 19 July 2023 (UTC) Per Czar. The article's contents doesn't look it's a vital article.
  7. Support removal Rreagan007 (talk) 07:21, 31 August 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.

Remove Christopher Kimball

REMOVED
Two weeks since last comment, six votes. Unanimous consensus for removal. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:27, 14 September 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.

Too obscure for the Vital Articles list

Support
  1. pbp 14:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
  2. 〜 Festucalex • talk 14:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support. Not "highest importance" in the topic's field. No assertion in the article's lede section of the topic's enduring importance or essentialness in its category. Not vital. czar 15:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
  5. Support per Czar. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
  6. Support removal Rreagan007 (talk) 07:21, 31 August 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.

Remove Leo Laporte

REMOVED
Two weeks since last comment, six votes. Unanimous consensus for removal. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:27, 14 September 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.

Too obscure for the Vital Articles list

Support
  1. pbp 14:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
  2. 〜 Festucalex • talk 14:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support. Not "highest importance" in the topic's field. No assertion in the article's lede section of the topic's enduring importance or essentialness in its category. Not vital. czar 15:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support per Czar. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
  5. Support Lorax (talk) 04:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
  6. Support removal Rreagan007 (talk) 07:21, 31 August 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.

Remove Jack Lescoulie

REMOVED
Two weeks since last comment, six votes. Unanimous consensus for removal. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:27, 14 September 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.

Too obscure for the Vital Articles list

Support
  1. pbp 14:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
  2. 〜 Festucalex • talk 14:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support. Not "highest importance" in the topic's field. No assertion in the article's lede section of the topic's enduring importance or essentialness in its category. Not vital. czar 15:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
  5. Support per Czar. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
  6. Support removal Rreagan007 (talk) 07:21, 31 August 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.

Remove Riki Rachtman

REMOVED
Two weeks since last comment, six votes. Unanimous consensus for removal. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:27, 14 September 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.

Too obscure for the Vital Articles list

Support
  1. pbp 14:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
  2. 〜 Festucalex • talk 14:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support. Not "highest importance" in the topic's field. No assertion in the article's lede section of the topic's enduring importance or essentialness in its category. Not vital. czar 15:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support per Czar. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
  5. Support Lorax (talk) 04:20, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
  6. Support removal Rreagan007 (talk) 07:21, 31 August 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.

Remove Adam Richman

REMOVED
Two weeks since last comment, six votes. Unanimous consensus for removal. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:27, 14 September 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.

Too obscure for the Vital Articles list

Support
  1. pbp 14:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
  2. 〜 Festucalex • talk 14:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support. Not "highest importance" in the topic's field. No assertion in the article's lede section of the topic's enduring importance or essentialness in its category. Not vital. czar 15:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
  5. Support per Czar. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
  6. Support removal Rreagan007 (talk) 07:21, 31 August 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.

Remove Rick Steves

REMOVED
Two weeks since last comment, six votes. Unanimous consensus for removal. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:27, 14 September 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 watch his show sometimes, but a VITAL ARTICLE? pbp 14:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 14:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
  2. 〜 Festucalex • talk 14:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
  3. Weak support. Beyond the individual, this is a major tourism brand, but the article does little to assert this. Would be open to future reconsideration. czar 15:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support per Czar. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
  5. Support Lorax (talk) 04:19, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
  6. Support removal Rreagan007 (talk) 07:21, 31 August 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.

Remove Steve Wilkos

REMOVED
Two weeks since last comment, six votes. Unanimous consensus for removal. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:27, 14 September 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 a spinoff of Jerry Springer, who’s already on the list pbp 14:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 14:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
  2. 〜 Festucalex • talk 14:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support. Not "highest importance" in the topic's field. No assertion in the article's lede section of the topic's enduring importance or essentialness in its category. Not vital. czar 15:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
  5. Support per nom and Czar. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
  6. Support removal Rreagan007 (talk) 07:21, 31 August 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.

Remove Left–right political spectrum

REMOVED
Four weeks since last comment, six votes. Broad consensus for removal. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:33, 14 September 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.

Political spectrum, left-wing politics and right-wing politics are all already listed as vital articles, so including the "left-right political spectrum" as well just seems redundant.

Support
  1. Support as nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:19, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
  2. Support as proposed. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
  3. 〜 Festucalex • talk 13:13, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support seems well covered by other articles Lorax (talk) 04:26, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
  5. Support. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:58, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. The article is an excellent summary of left-wing and right-wing politics, and we're talking about a removal in a level-5 VA list, thus it should not be removed.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:03, 16 August 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 COVID-19 pandemic in "Health, medicine, and disease"

PROCEDURALLY REMOVED
Unanimous consensus to remove. As this is a procedural issue, there's no reason to keep this open longer. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:33, 21 September 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.

It is a duplicate and appears in the "History" sublist. CrisBalboa1 (talk) 18:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nominator. CrisBalboa1 (talk) 09:36, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
  2. The 1918 pandemic (Spanish Flu) is also under history, this one should be in the same place. Lorax (talk) 02:26, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
  3. Yes, makes sense to just have it once. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:50, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom, although I think this is the kind of procedural thing that could be done boldly without discussion. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:09, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
    I apologise, I did not know that this type of issue does not need a nomination. CrisBalboa1 (talk) 10:02, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
    No need to apologise! It's always good to seek consensus. :) --Grnrchst (talk) 21:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
  5. Support, but a formal nomination was unnecessary for this. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:52, 19 September 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.

Replace Major League Lacrosse with Premier Lacrosse League

While the MLL was the only Field Lacrosse league for quite some time, it has now merged with the PLL which was founded in 2018, while the MLL has a much more storied history dating back to 2001 and the PLL is young, the PLL is currently the only professional men's field lacrosse league Jsfxmn (talk) 02:50, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

add IBAN

as nom Dawid2009 (talk) 04:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Add Hector, Patroclus and Menelaus

FAILED
Proposal from +3 months ago, 3 votes against and 1 in favour; it thus fails. — The Blue Rider 09:55, 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.

All significant figures in the Iliad and secondary Greek literature, e.g. plays, odes, etc. Agamemnon and Helen of Troy are already listed at this level (with Achilles and Odysseus at level 4). Priority is on Hector I suppose. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:53, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nominator. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:31, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Section already overbudget. 〜 Festucalex • talk 06:31, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Festucalex. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:08, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
  3. Per Festucalex. — The Blue Rider 09:53, 27 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 Ghassan Kanafani and Mahmoud Darwish

Unanimous consensus. This is successful. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:18, 9 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.

Palestine's foremost novelist and poet, respectively. Both left lasting effects on Palestinian and Arab literature.

Support
  1. As proposer 〜 Festucalex • talk 06:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:07, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom.Jaguarnik (talk) 03:45, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support QuicoleJR (talk) 23:10, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
  5. Support - had not realised they were not already there. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:46, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
  6. Support. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 23:40, 30 September 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.

FAR for Proteasome

I have nominated Proteasome for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 21:26, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Add Larisa Shepitko

ADDED
Over a week since last comment, five votes (not including unsigned nominator). Unanimous consensus for addition. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:36, 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.

Quoting from the lead section, «considered one of the best female directors of all time» and «considered one of the most prominent Soviet filmmakers during both the Khrushchev Thaw and the Era of Stagnation».

Support
  1. Support, per nom. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:42, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
  2. Support, per nom Jaguarnik (talk) 00:30, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 19:48, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
  4. Seems to be a prominent and pioneering figure in the seventh art. The Blue Rider 23:07, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
  5. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 22:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.61.30.16 (talk) 17:28, 14 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 Islam by country

REMOVED
More than two weeks since last comment, eight votes. Unanimous consensus for removal. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:40, 19 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.

This is sitting oddly in isolation as the only "Religion by country" article listed here. It's not due, and, for the sake of consistency, it should be all or none - and since all would be ludicrous, the answer must surely be none. Most pages on adherents, such as Muslims, already contain ample demographic information.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:25, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
  2. Muslim World, a much more appropriate article for VT5, is already listed. The Blue Rider 09:28, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
  3. 〜 Festucalex • talk 20:15, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
  4. per nom. and per The Blue Rider. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:46, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
  5. Support --Thi (talk) 19:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
  6. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 03:23, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
  7. Support QuicoleJR (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
  8. Support If this is the only “[RELIGION] by country” article on here, get rid of it. Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 00:56, 2 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.

American cities removals

Remove Tuskegee, Alabama

NOT REMOVED
Four weeks since last comment, seven votes. Less than 55% support for removal. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:29, 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.

I get how Tuskegee Institute might be notable at this level, but is the small town it's located in notable as well? I say nay

Support
  1. pbp 20:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
  2. Support. A town of less than 10,000 people is not vital. If Rosa Parks is vital, then we list Rosa Parks, not the town she was from. If Tuskegee Institute is vital, then we list Tuskegee Institute, not the town it's in. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:10, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. The article explicitly states that Tuskegee has been important in African-American history and highly influential in United States history since the 19th century., meaning it should be vital at least at level 5.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
    Looks like peacock terms since there are no sources in the article that back up such statement.The Blue Rider 09:18, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
  2. Tuskegee is the birth place of Rosa Parks and the city was vital in the Civil Rights Movement; voting rights and equal education for black people were acquired through court cases that took place in the city, such as Gomillion v. Lightfoot (1958) and Lee v. Macon County (1963). It is home to the Tuskegee Institute, a pioneer for the right to access to education for black people. Additionally, the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, which is "arguably the most infamous biomedical research study in U.S. history" took place in the city.
    These are just three reasons I could find after a quick Google search, I'm sure the vitality of this article could be further deepened. The Blue Rider 11:58, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
  3. Oppose, per The Blue Rider. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:30, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
  4. Oppose --Thi (talk) 19:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Simply reading the article's History section establishes how important the city was to American history, and I don't think we are too far over the quota to start cutting cases like this. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:12, 22 September 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 Ann Arbor, Michigan

REMOVED
Over a week since last comment, five votes. Unanimous consensus for removal. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:29, 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.

Depending on how you look at it, it's either a suburb of Detroit or an anchor of a not-that-large (<400,000) metro area. I'm not sure being the location of the University of Michigan is notability enough; we do not have State College, Pennsylvania, Berkeley, California, Champaign, Illinois, Charlottesville, Virginia or College Park, Maryland. Had previously been proposed for removal in 2018 and closed as no consensus with 1 in favor, 0 opposed, and 1 comment. pbp 20:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 20:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
  2. Apart from technologically, not a administratively, architecturally, commercially, culturally, historically, or any other possible -lly important city. It's technological significance does not compare to cities such as San Francisco and as so it isn't a vital article. The Blue Rider 10:58, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support, per above. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:30, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
  4. The city only has the college. There is no good reason to list it as VA5. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
  5. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 22:50, 11 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.

Remove Boulder, Colorado

REMOVED
Over a week since last comment, five votes. Unanimous consensus for removal. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:29, 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.

Depending on how you look at it, it's either a suburb of Denver or an anchor of a not-that-large (<350,000) metro area. I'm not sure being the location of the University of Colorado is notability enough; we do not have State College, Pennsylvania, Berkeley, California, Champaign, Illinois, Charlottesville, Virginia or College Park, Maryland. Had previously been proposed for removal in 2018 and closed as no consensus with 1 in favor and 0 opposed. pbp 20:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 20:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
  2. The city seems to have some importance due to its surrounding nature (Flatirons, Great Plains and Rocky Mountains) and is known for hosting a wide range of events, such as the Bolder Boulder, Colorado Music Festival, Conference on World Affairs, eTown, among some other less notable. Nevertheless, the events are too localized and thus not sufficiently widely known to make the city vital. The same argument applies to the Flatirons. The Blue Rider 12:32, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support, per above. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:30, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
  4. The city only has the college. There is no good reason to list it as VA5. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:44, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
  5. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 22:50, 11 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.

Remove Columbia, Missouri

REMOVED
Four weeks since last comment, four votes. Unanimous consensus for removal. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:29, 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.

I'm not sure being the location of the University of Missouri is notability enough; we do not have State College, Pennsylvania, Berkeley, California, Champaign, Illinois, Charlottesville, Virginia or College Park, Maryland. Half the size of most of the U.S. cities on the list except for state capitals and states' largest cities

Support
  1. pbp 20:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
  2. Missouri, the state, is hardly a VT5 so I fail to see why its 4th largest city would be as vital. The Blue Rider 12:38, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support, per above. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:30, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
  4. The city only has the college. There is no good reason to list it as VA5. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:45, 22 September 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.

Remove Triboulet

REMOVED
Nearly a month has passed with no new comments, and the consensus is unanimous. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:45, 19 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 fail to see how a minor historical figure should be listed as a vital article. He was a jester for a French king with little influence or relevance to the modern day - and apparently, much of his fame comes from apocryphal anecdotes.

EDIT: would also like to add that the individual is listed under the entertainer category, which has overfilled the quota - 2000 entries is the quota, there are 2343 entries.

Support
  1. Support as proposer Jaguarnik (talk) 00:34, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
  2. The article fails to establish the vitality needed for its inclusion. The Blue Rider 10:10, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
  3. 〜 Festucalex • talk 20:13, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. --Grnrchst (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 03:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
  6. Support This article would not even make a hypothetical VA6. They have minimal importance. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:42, 22 September 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 Ford Model T

Closing this as successful due to the unanimous consensus. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:59, 9 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.

The first mass-affordable automobile.

Support
  1. Support as proposer 〜 Festucalex • talk 20:14, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
  2. Support - the most influential car (and one of the most sold cars) deserves a spot Jaguarnik (talk) 05:17, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
  3. It is illogical to list some aircrafts (which definitely should) but not some automobiles in the list.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
  4. Famous historical model that changed the world.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 07:36, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
  5. Support --Thi (talk) 19:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
  6. Support I'm actually a little surprised that this isn't already on the list. --Grnrchst (talk) 18:24, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
  7. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 03:25, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
  8. Support Obviously vital, to the point where I'm shocked it wasn't already on the list. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:53, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
  9. Support Let me join the choir in saying, “this isn’t on the list?” Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 00:53, 2 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 Yuya (YouTuber), add Khaby Lame

PARTIAL PASS
Proposal from +1 month, unanimous support for removal and 1 support for addition; only removal passes. — The Blue Rider 10:00, 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.

Yuya is a Mexican YouTuber and beauty guru with a large amount of subscribers (24 million), but I don't see why she is vital as a YouTuber. She is neither the most subscribed individual YouTuber from the Spanish-speaking world nor the most influential beauty vlogger, and nothing in the article indicates her vitality. She has a makeup line, but then many internet beauty gurus do - that doesn't make her stand out as particularly vital or influential.

Khaby Lame is currently one of the biggest content creators on the Internet, possibly the most well-known African-born content creator, and the most followed Tiktoker, not just from Europe but in the world. This is not a case of recentism, as he's held the title for over a year now. He's also been acknowledged by Forbes magazine as a 30 Under 30 member in 2022 and by Fortune's 40 Under 40, and now has a career as a judge on Italia's Got Talent. I'm not nominating him just for having a lot of followers - there are many people who have a lot of followers, but aren't vital - but also because he's been acknowledged as being influential and vital by these two magazines and because he seems to have a career and influence beyond Tiktok.

EDIT: I found also that he served as a juror in the Cannes Festival in 2022 (albeit for Tiktok shorts), which is certainly a high honor for a web personality, although I don't know if that helps the argument for his vitality.

Support
  1. Support as proposer Jaguarnik (talk) 04:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
  2. Support removal Rreagan007 (talk) 03:25, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support the removal. Khaby Lame is indeed receiving a lot of spotlight but his rise to fame is quite recent and as so we should wait a couple of years to evaluate his vitality, especially since many of these type of celebrities come and go. The Blue Rider 23:23, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support removal, niche recentism, nothing in her start-class article suggests vital-level of importantce, more like boderline notability. Barely encyclopedic, far cry from vital. How did it even get here in the first place? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
  5. Support removal. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
  6. Support removal, per above. As for the proposed addition, I think we should wait and see. A big part of the inclusion criteria on the vital list is ensuring the subjects have an enduring vitality. Adding recently-notable people is always a gamble, and we've seen multiple cases where someone that was big in the news cycle at the time of their addition completely falls out of popular consciousness after a few years. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:25, 20 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.

Women in science and mathematics additions

ADDED
Procedural close. Last comments were over three weeks ago and the additions were carried out by Zar2gar1. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:24, 19 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 noticed that the scientists, inventors, and mathematicians category is currently under-quota, and upon looking at it I noticed that it is also quite lacking in representation of women. Women currently make up only about 6% of this category,[1] which makes it the most gender-imbalanced section of the entire vital articles project. To move towards rectifying this, I thought I'd suggest some people that would make natural additions. --Grnrchst (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, at this point, I think you can just add all of the articles boldly if you want. The subcategory is still 15 articles below its old quota of 1150, much less the new one of 1500, which I personally think may be a little too ambitious.
So any contribution to the scientists et al. list is welcome, especially if it helps balance out representation some. I would say the same goes for Jaguarnik's nominations below and any others that come to mind. Zar2gar1 (talk) 20:25, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Is there a process for adding vital articles, or do I just add the vital article template to the talk page? Jaguarnik (talk) 21:03, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
In this case, you can just directly add all the links to the list in a single edit. Then Cewbot will automatically add and fill-out the VA template on their talk-pages overnight.
The bot doesn't re-sync everything 100% for the VA project, but it automates a lot. So whatever the bot misses, one editor or another will eventually update. You don't need to worry about that though; just make sure the article wiki-links are written correctly and try your best to organize them under appropriate subheaders.
In general for any VA level, you would open a vote just like you did and not boldly edit the list. Adding to a Lv5 category still below quota is an exception though. Votes only come into play once the brainstorming is done and we're at the quota, or if you want to suggest removals. Zar2gar1 (talk) 21:27, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the explanation! If there's no objections, I'll probably add these over the weekend then. --Grnrchst (talk) 21:47, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
One issue: I began to add scientists, but it seems the quota is in fact 1150 and not 1500? I'm confused where the 1500 quota came from. I feel the candidates grnrchst offered should absolutely included in the list. Jaguarnik (talk) 04:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Never mind, it looks like the quota was adjusted and the page wasn't edited to reflect it.Jaguarnik (talk) 20:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

These are all great suggestions; I've just gone ahead & added most of them to the page. The Scientists section is currently still under quota so you don't need to vote on additions to that list. Even if the section quota drops back some, I don't see it going below 1200 for now, which would leave ~40 slots for any further nominations. The only one I didn't add was Margaret Cavendish; I've left an explanation under the specific proposal. Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:02, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Add Sofya Kovalevskaya

Easily one of the most egregious oversights in this section, one that actually surprised me. Her extensive contributions to mathematics aside, Kovalevskaya was the first woman to earn a doctorate in mathematics, to work as a professor and to edit a scientific journal. Ann Hibner Koblitz described her as "the greatest known woman scientist before the twentieth century". Her name is consistently used by institutions and programmes that encourage women to get into STEM. Anecdotally, I can attest to her influence on women in STEM up to the modern day. I don't know what arguments could possibly be made against her inclusion.

Support
  1. Support as nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom Jaguarnik (talk) 19:12, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support One of the most influential mathematicians in modern history, and the main pioneer of women in mathematics, should be included. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:18, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 23:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
  5. Onwa (talk) 22:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC) per nom.
Oppose
Discuss

Add Maria Sibylla Merian

Another massive omission. Merian was the first scientist ever to document the life cycle of insects, including the metamorphosis of the butterfly. Before Merian came along, people literally thought insects were just born from mud. Today she is recognised as one of the most important figures in her field, including by world-renowned naturalist David Attenborough.

Support
  1. Support as nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
  2. Support Jaguarnik (talk) 04:44, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 23:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
  4. Onwa (talk) 22:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC) per nom.
Oppose
Discuss

Add Eunice Newton Foote

Once again, I'm very surprised by the absence of this person. Eunice Newton Foote was the first scientist ever to demonstrate the greenhouse effect. I shouldn't really need to explain why this makes her a vital subject for the encyclopedia.

Support
  1. Support as nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
  2. Support Jaguarnik (talk) 04:44, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support Seems much more important than the similar John Tyndall, who is already listed. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:21, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 23:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
  5. Onwa (talk) 22:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC) per nom.
Oppose
Discuss

Add Louise Boursier

Boursier massively advanced the medical approach to child birth, as one of the most consistently successful midewives of her period. She wrote one of the first books on obstetrics and raised the potential of the field to a state of the art science.

Support
  1. Support as nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
  2. Support Jaguarnik (talk) 04:44, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 23:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
  4. Onwa (talk) 22:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC) per nom.
Oppose
Discuss

Add Eva Ekeblad

Ekeblad discovered how to extract alcohol and starch from potatoes, which has had enormous consequences on the culinary and industrial use of the staple crop over the centuries. She was also the first woman to serve at the Swedish Academy of Sciences.

Support
  1. Support as nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
  2. SupportJaguarnik (talk) 04:44, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 23:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
  4. Onwa (talk) 22:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC) per nom.
Oppose
Discuss

Add Aglaonice

One of the earliest astronomers and possibly the first to have discovered how to predict eclipses. Her influence extends into the modern day, with noted influences on Wicca.

Support
  1. Support as nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
  2. SupportJaguarnik (talk) 04:44, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 23:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
  4. Onwa (talk) 22:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC) per nom.
Oppose
Discuss

Add Christine Ladd-Franklin

Ladd-Franklin was one of the first scientists to develop the modern understanding of the evolution of colour vision, from achromatic to full spectrum.

Support
  1. Support as nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
  2. SupportJaguarnik (talk) 04:44, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 23:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
  4. Onwa (talk) 22:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC) per nom.
Oppose
Discuss
  • I've gone ahead and added her article but under the psychologists in the Social Scientists section, which is also under quota. I'm not super-familiar with her biography, but the current article emphasizes her work in color theory. Looks like her formal training and other contributions are in logic & mathematics though so someone can move the article there if they feel strongly about it. Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:02, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Add Trota of Salerno

A medieval physician who compiled the period's most extensively-used works on women's health and medicine, which gained popularity throughout medieval Europe. Could easily be considered one of the most important women of her time.

Support
  1. Support as nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
  2. SupportJaguarnik (talk) 04:44, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 23:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
  4. Onwa (talk) 22:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC) per nom.
Oppose
Discuss

Add Edith Anne Stoney

Stoney was the first woman to work in the field of medical physics, and was a pioneer in the use of x-rays to diagnose ailments, which she made extensive use of during World War I.

Support
  1. Support as nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
  2. SupportJaguarnik (talk) 04:44, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 23:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
  4. Onwa (talk) 22:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC) per nom.
Oppose
Discuss

Add Maria Cunitz

One of the most important women in astronomy, and the most during her period. She advanced Kepler's development of the field and today has a minor planet named after her.

Support
  1. Support as nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 23:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
  3. Onwa (talk) 22:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC) per nom.
Oppose
Discuss

Add Margaret Cavendish, Duchess of Newcastle-upon-Tyne

Another early influential figure on women in STEM, being the first woman to be formally invited to the Royal Society. Could alternatively be included in the writers section.

Support
  1. Support as nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
  2. Support Jaguarnik (talk) 04:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 23:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
  4. Onwa (talk) 22:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC) per nom.
Discuss
  • Looking over her article, I think the writer section would be most appropriate so I didn't add her article boldly. It looks like she's also considered a (natural) philosopher though, and that section's not at quota yet. If someone wants to add the article there, I don't think you need to vote on it. Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:02, 30 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 Game Boy Color and PlayStation Vita

There is broad consensus to remove PlayStation Vita, but there is no consensus to remove Game Boy Color. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:53, 19 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.

These handheld consoles were not very important compared to the other consoles on this list, and I do not think we need to list every console produced by these companies.

Support
  1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:33, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
  2. Support removal of PS Vita, as it was a bit of a joke at the time just how irrelevant and unsuccessful it was. Neutral on removal of Game Boy Colour, as it was a transitional console and I can see the argument for either removal or retention. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:25, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:31, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
  4. Partial support: remove PS Vita. --Onwa (talk) 22:13, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
  5. Support removing PS Vita. --Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 21:01, 28 September 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 George Canning

REMOVED
4 votes, unanimous support for removal. — The Blue Rider 10:40, 23 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.

The above discussion on Liz Truss seems to be coming to the conclusion that not all British prime ministers are automatically vital, and looking at this one in particular, he does not seem to have done anything important as prime minister before dying. He ended up basically being the British equivalent of William Henry Harrison, who is seemingly also headed for removal. Therefore, I propose that we remove him from the list.

Support
  1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:22, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
  2. Support. As I mentioned above, Canning accomplished nothing while prime minister, he just took over and promptly died. I don't think merely having been the prime minister of the UK is a sufficient demonstration of vitality. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:39, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. Basic chaff from the wheat stuff. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:54, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
  4. He hold important positions before being nominated PM, nevertheless from a quick glance nothing of vitality worthiness. — The Blue Rider 10:39, 23 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 Charles J. Guiteau

REMOVED
Two weeks since last comment, four votes. Unanimous consensus for removal. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:32, 25 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.

As highlighted in the above discussion on James Garfield, this seems like a bit of a case of presumed inherited vitality from Garfield. Is the subject of importance to American history? Yes. But a vital topic here on the same level as Garfield? No. NB: Assassination of James Garfield is already listed separately under American history, so the key thing here, i.e. the event, is already listed elsewhere.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:45, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
  2. Support He is not a vital person. It could be argued that the surgeons are the ones who really killed Garfield, not this assassin. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:40, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support as above. Of the presidential assassins, his biography is probably the least vital to the encyclopedia. And to reiterate, it's often argued that incompetent surgeons played a far bigger role in Garfield's death than Guiteau's bullet did. --Grnrchst (talk) 07:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 22:55, 11 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.

Remove Nathuram Godse, add Assassination of Mahatma Gandhi

There is consensus to add the assassination, but there is consensus against removing Godse. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:56, 19 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.

This has the same premise as the above. No need for disproportionate emphasis on political killers. I really don't think inherited vitality should be a thing - in the exact same way that we don't allow inherited notability. The event is actually key, so that should be added.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm actually fine leaving Godse in too for the moment with the lay of the land as it stands and with assassins being over emphasised in general. Godse is far from the least unimportant of these entries, and the only India entry I suppose. The priority should be on listing Gandhi's assassination. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:42, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
  1. Support adding the Assassination, Oppose removing Nathuram Godse. We don't have the "Assassination of Mahatma Gandhi" on here? That's an article on the assassination of a Level 3 person, it should have been one of the first articles on here. It's such an important event that... still makes Nathuram Godse vital. Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 21:20, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
  2. Support addition, oppose removal. I agree with Eyeluvbraixen. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose removal. Godse is a very important figure in modern Indian history, his biography is absolutely vital to the encyclopedia. --Grnrchst (talk) 07:30, 24 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.

Merge assassination into murder

Withdrawn by nominator. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:49, 9 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.

It seems somewhat arbitrary to split off assassination while having "Murder, serial killing, mass murder" all clumped together. The line between political assassination and political or non-political murder is a fine one, and it comes down purely to motives. It is not the best means of classifying. The difference between assassination/murder, singular, and serial killing/mass murder, plural, is actually something of a sharper divide. And then, per the above discussions, "assassinations" more generally seem to be being given over-inflated status somewhat by virtue of inheritance by way of their victims. Where assassinations are actually of top vitality, you can tell because the assassination events have the notability to have standalone pages, e.g. Assassination of James Garfield and Assassination of Mahatma Gandhi, but by that point there is no reason to list the killers as well unless there is some other, more expanded reason why they are distinctly vital.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
    I think I recant here, having looked at the category from all angles. Is there a way to speedy close a discussion if the nominator has a change of heart? I withdraw if that suffices. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. The murderer section has a designated quota of fifty people. Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 21:27, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. I don't agree with the argument that assassinations aren't clearly distinct from other forms of murder, or that the assassins are inheriting vitality from their victims. And I very much disagree with the assertion that assassinations are given an overinflated status. In fact, I would argue the opposite, that murderers and serial killers are given far too much weight in this section. This category outnumbers assassins, war criminals and terrorists combined. --Grnrchst (talk) 07:29, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
Discussion

@Eyeluvbraixen: What exactly is your point here? By merge I mean unify the murderer category; I don't see how quotas would be affected, or are directly relevant to the proposal. How best to re-split this category, if they were merged, would surely be another conversation, but I think single versus serial, or even single versus serial versus mass, would be plausible divides. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:00, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

@Grnrchst: Sure, the weighting of the entire people-crime category is a bit skewy, and I 100% agree that mundane murderers are almost certainly get too much attention. This is all the more reason to recombine and re-sort this material. I think serial killers should likely be split out: the like of Jack the Ripper etc. is a category unto itself, and mass murderers possibly again. What would be left - the perpetrators of assassinations and single murders - would be more readily assessed and compared for vitality, hopefully on a basis slightly more equitable than inherited. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:55, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
If we just merge the assassins section with the murderers section and change the quota to sixty-nine, then the next person suggested would most likely not be another assassin. I’m sorry to tell you this, but for the general public the killing of a political figure, especially for political reasons, is usually seen as being distinct from standard murder. Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 18:35, 24 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.

Add fiscal policy and monetary policy

PASSED
Proposal from +1 month ago, unanimous consensus for additions; it thus passes. — The Blue Rider 10:10, 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.

Two of the most important concepts in economics.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 0:43, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
  2. Support Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 21:14, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 18:52, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
  4. Onwa (talk) 22:04, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
  5. Support -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:48, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
  6. Per Tabu Makiadi. — The Blue Rider 10:08, 27 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.

Add Hasan-i Sabbah to assassination

ADDED
Two weeks since last comment, seven votes. Unanimous consensus for addition. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:37, 25 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.

Probably remiss to exclude, you know, the founding father of assassination, the Lord of Death, the Old Man of the Mountain, head of the Hashshashin, the one and only, Hasan-i Sabbah of the Order of Assassins. Bit of a no-brainer this one really.

Support
  1. Support as nom, and for obvious reasons. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:38, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
  2. Support Jaguarnik (talk) 08:26, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support An argument could be made for Level 4. This guy basically invented assassinations. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:11, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support Clearly vital. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:38, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
  5. Support Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 18:37, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
  6. Support And agree with the statement that this could even be considered for Level 4. Curbon7 (talk) 20:43, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
  7. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 22:56, 11 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.

Remove George Floyd

REMOVED
Proposal from +2 weeks ago, 5 votes and all in support of removal. — The Blue Rider 09:15, 24 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.

We currently list Murder of George Floyd and George Floyd protests at level 5. Those articles are what is vital to list. It's questionable whether the separate George Floyd biography article even meets the threshold of notability to even exist on Wikipedia, because generally we don't have separate bio articles for individuals notable for only one thing, especially when that one thing is their death. In any event, the other 2 articles are more than sufficient at this level.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:00, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
  2. Per Rreagan007. The Blue Rider 10:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 22:41, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support and I'd support removing the Murder of... as well. Protests are important - but overall, this is too much recentism and Americancentrism here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
  5. Support per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

If we’re going to remove George Floyd, can we move Rodney King to victims? He’s currently listed under activists, which I don’t think is an accurate place to put him. --Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 18:06, 7 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.

Politician additions by Interstellarity

NOT ADDED
Last comment was one week ago, six votes. Unanimous consensus against additions. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:57, 1 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 few weeks ago, Interstellarity (talk · contribs) unilaterally added half a dozen more American politicians to this list: Marjorie Taylor Greene, Hakeem Jeffries, Kevin McCarthy, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Mike Pence and Chuck Schumer.[2] Given concerns that have been expressed recently by multiple users regarding recentism and Americentrism, I certainly find it odd that so many serving USian politicians of various different levels are being added at once without discussion or even explanation. Least of all when it adds more to the already overinflated "Others" section of modern USian politicians, bringing it to over 50 people, which outnumbers many countries. I've gone ahead and reverted the additions,[3] as I think discussion about such additions is procedurally necessary. If anyone supports or opposes these additions, here's a good place to do it. Grnrchst (talk) 08:02, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Support
Oppose
  1. Oppose addition on all counts. I personally think there's an argument to be made for removing some modern USian politicians, not for adding even more. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:02, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
  2. @Interstellarity: you have been around this project for a long time, you should know that you need to seek consensus before adding any kind of entry. The Blue Rider 09:22, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
    @The Blue Rider: I apologize for the trouble I have caused. I have never added or removed any article from the first four levels of vital articles without seeking consensus. I read at one point that for this level, additions and removals can be done without discussion on talk page, but just to be clear, if I need to discuss additions and removals of level five, then I'll discuss them on the talk page. Hope this clears everything up. Interstellarity (talk) 00:10, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
  3. We have plenty of recent American politicians already, I think keep them the size they are rather than add more. And @Interstellarity:, Grnrchst is correct that it was inappropriate to add those politicians BOLDly pbp 11:55, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
  4. Oppose QuicoleJR (talk) 13:26, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
  5. Oppose pro forma - we discuss things here first. All changes without prior discussion should be reverted on sight. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:12, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
  6. Oppose respect the process.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Discuss

Let me in depth address the vitality of some of these:

The only one of the six I see as having any kind of case is Schumer. pbp 14:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Somewhat prophetically, since I wrote this, Mike Pence has suspended his campaign, meaning at least 5 more years before he gets a major-party presidential nomination. pbp 20:35, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I normally avoid getting involved with discussions over People, and I'm fine with the additions being challenged / reverted. But, I also want to back Interstellarity (talk · contribs) some in that I don't think his addition was against protocol. The Leaders section is technically still below 98% of quota; if anything, I'd suggest clipping the Leaders quota by some multiple of 100 to impose more discipline on the category. Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:44, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

While there are no concrete policies regarding adding or removing entries the de facto standard procedure is to seek consensus to the proposed changes on the talk page independently of the quota %. Interstellarity thought this only applied to the other VT levels, it's fine; the problem has been solved. The Blue Rider 23:01, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Yup, it didn't seem like a major misunderstanding. Honestly though, I've been under the same impression: that at Lv5, proposals were only necessary for batch removals or upon reaching the quota.
Should we update the instructions on the Lv5 landing page then? It currently says you only need to discuss additions "if the sections are complete (>98% at capacity) or you are unsure...."
And I know the People sections are different, but if we have to vote on filling out the remaining sections (especially the sciences), they may stay incomplete indefinitely. Zar2gar1 (talk) 00:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
I would be in favour of doing that. On a side-note, if we want this project to be taken seriously we need to formalize our processes by creating more defined rules, setting project coordinators, mechanizing the proposals, among others.
For VT4 and VT5, but specially the latter I don't even think that manually creating single proposals is the best route, it has so many problems, from the nominators often misrepresenting the vitality of certain articles to the tremendous amount of labour and time that goes into writing well-informed proposals. We need to brainstorm some ideas for this project. The Blue Rider 01:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
I totally agree there, and I've had thoughts similar to some you mention below. I've actually come up with my own list of process ideas already, and I think I'll raise them at Level 3 sometime (it's a meta-discussion and that's where the most participation is).
I'm kind of waiting for a lull though so everyone has more bandwidth. But if you've got some ideas and think the time's right, I could probably throw in some ideas too, especially if you write it up as a series of sub-proposals. Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps the best way is actually not requiring consensus building for every entry and create a system where you can add, remove, swap in mass (or not), even if above the 98% quota, and then merely inform of your changes in the talk page in case someone disagrees. That way we would perhaps have more fluidity and get things done faster. The Blue Rider 01:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
On a second thought, that would dilute the sense of belonging of the project, which could be detrimental to the retention of participants. Though, we could also do edit-a-thons, set weekly/monthly vital article(s) to improve or any other variation that would focus on content creation, which after all is the main purpose of the project. The Blue Rider 01:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
I don't know if anyone's actually noticed this but we have already reached 50000 articles and gone 80 articles over the total. 115.188.126.180 (talk) 08:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Yup, though I'd consider it an issue with other sections rather than these changes. The Leaders section is technically still below quota.
And I think it's good we just let the total float some and keep working on each category against its own quota. The alternative would bring even incomplete lists or batch changes to a standstill. Zar2gar1 (talk) 01:19, 25 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 Military dictatorship (maybe VA4) under Dictatorship (VA3)

ADDED
Last comment was one week ago, seven votes. Unanimous consensus for addition. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:00, 1 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.

There are plenty of them out there in the world right now - seems at least on a par with "oligarchy".

Support
  1. Support as VA4 preferably, or VA5 failing this. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:10, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
  2. Support for V5 at minimum. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:44, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support QuicoleJR (talk) 17:36, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
  4. --RekishiEJ (talk) 03:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
  5. Support per above. Although if this is going to be made VA4, it needs to go through this first and then be nominated at the Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4. We can't be signing off on VA4 on this talk page. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
  6. Support as vital. I am not likely to be active in the VA4 discussion, but it seems that I would support that when the time comes. I imagine the discussion there might call into question higher vitality given its VA3 parent.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
  7. Military dictatorship is not level 4 vital, it has too much overlap with authoritarianism (VT5), totalitarianism (VT4), plutocracy (VT5), oligarchy (VT4) and dictatorship (VT3). — The Blue Rider 19:24, 25 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 David Baldacci

Unanimous consensus to remove. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:13, 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.

The American and Canadian writers section is way too full, and this guy does not seem like he is nearly vital enough.

Support
  1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:53, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
  2. Support per above Jaguarnik (talk) 09:16, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
  3. Agreed, nothing in the bio suggests he is vital. Notable, yes, but vital? Why? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 17:18, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:40, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
  6. Support Doesn't seem particularly vital. Not sure how he stands out from other thriller novelists. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:51, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
  7. Per below discussion. The Blue Rider 12:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Look at his bibliography and adaptations sections, it's impressive he has so many blue links. The Blue Rider 14:31, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
    I do not think that having a lot of blue links in the bibliography makes a person vital. He seemingly has not won any awards, and most of the aforementioned blue links lead to articles with no secondary sources. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
    It doesn't make someone vital but having many notable works implies that the person is popular and/or influential. Nevertheless, I will support the proposal because the section is indeed way to full and his vitality his borderline. The Blue Rider 12:27, 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.

Cites: Move Greece from "Central and Eastern Europe" section to "Southern Europe" section

MOVED
A week since last comment, six votes. Unanimous consensus for move. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:33, 4 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 all the regions of Europe, I have never seen Greece referred to as part of Eastern Europe, on any map or categorisation. It is almost uniformly considered to be a part of Southern Europe, together with Italy, Spain and Portugal. I don't know how the categorisation ended up this way, but I think it needs to be changed. --Grnrchst (talk) 20:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 20:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
  2. I agree with the nominator. Though what are the proposed quota changes to both categories? The Blue Rider 21:59, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
    I'm thinking bringing CEE down by 10 and SE up by 10. How's that? --Grnrchst (talk) 11:13, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
    Looks good to me. The Blue Rider 01:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support This seems routine based on common conventions.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 11:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
  5. Support. Seems like an obvious error. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
  6. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:41, 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 Salamanca

ADDED
Over a week since last comment, four votes. Unanimous consensus for addition. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:31, 4 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 understand that the Southern European Cities section is already quite over-budget, so I'll get around to making a list of removal proposals at some point. But one glaring omission I found on the list of Spanish cities is Salamanca. The capital of its province, Salamanca is one of the oldest and most important cities in Spanish history, with its extremely influential university shaping much of Spanish philosophy, language, politics and literature. The city itself is also considered a UNESCO World Heritage Site. People from all over the world come to visit this city specifically. That it's not yet included but random sub-cities in the metropolitan areas of Madrid and Barcelona are, is strikingly odd. --Grnrchst (talk) 20:55, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 20:55, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
  2. The nominator justifies pretty well the vitality. Just as a note though, its university, an important reason for its vitality, is already rightfully listed so that's perhaps why it was omitted. Also, the section is indeed very over-budget and Portugal is highly unrepresented on it. The Blue Rider 21:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
  3. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:08, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 17:14, 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.

Spanish city removals

REMOVED
One week since last comments, four votes each. Unanimous consensus for removal. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:29, 4 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 promised I'd come back and recommend some minor Spanish cities for removal, so here I am. There's a couple others I considered but just barely made it over the line for me. I'll probably also suggest some Italian cities for removal at some point. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:31, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Remove Badalona

This is literally just a sub-city of Barcelona, not really noteworthy for much more than its liquor industry. Even as far as Barcelona's sub-cities go, it's less noteworthy than L'Hospitalet. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:31, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:31, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  2. Per Grnrchst. — The Blue Rider 10:50, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  3. Per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 22:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Remove Fuenlabrada

I can't even conceive of why this was added to the list in the first place. It's a glorified suburb of Madrid. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:31, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:31, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  2. Per Grnrchst. — The Blue Rider 10:50, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  3. Per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 22:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Remove Móstoles

Another glorified suburb of Madrid that I don't remotely understand the vitality of. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:31, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:31, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  2. Per Grnrchst. — The Blue Rider 10:50, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  3. The article even admits in the lead that it was not important historically. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 22:16, 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.

Remove Fletcher Christian

WITHDRAWN
Proposal withdrawn by nominator. The Blue Rider 00:23, 30 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 did not put this in the activist removal section above because this person is not a modern American. We have several other bios on the list representing the mutiny on the Bounty, which is not a vital article itself, and this specific person is not nearly as vital as the others.

Support
  1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Fletcher Christian was the one who lead the mutiny. I would support removing John Adams (mutineer) instead. The Blue Rider 22:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
    The mutiny is not on the vital list though. How does leading something that isn't vital make you vital? QuicoleJR (talk) 22:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
    The article about the mutiny is not on the list, but multiple biographies of mutiny participants are VT5. This implies the that the mutiny is vital, but to avoid redundancy, you can choose to list either the event or the associated biographies. The Blue Rider 22:13, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
    That makes sense. I would also be fine with removing Adams. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:21, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
    @QuicoleJR: what do you say of removing the three biographies, William Bligh, Fletcher Christian and John Adams (mutineer), and adding just the article about the mutiny? The Blue Rider 22:37, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
    I think that makes sense. I would support that. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:39, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
    @QuicoleJR: I've made the proposal, if you don't mind I will be withdrawing this, okay? The Blue Rider 23:31, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
    That is fine. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:17, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
    Thank you :) The Blue Rider 00:23, 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.

Quota change

I would like to propose that we take 5 from the "video game consoles" section and give those five to the "specific video games and series" section. Consoles is already 3 under quota, with another one seemingly on its way to removal.

Support
  1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Call for more modern American activist removals

I wanted to propose some additional African, Asian and Latin American revolutionaries be added to the list of rebels, revolutionaries, and activists, but the category is currently still slightly over-quota. The late modern period of this category accounts for the vast majority of the category, and of this, the subsection that is clearly the most bloated is the United States one, with 146 entries; about as many as Europe and Asia combined. I've already proposed a bunch of removals from this category, which resulted in 24 removals, while 6 were kept and a couple either swapped or moved. Given this, I thought rather than myself proposing more candidates for removal, I'd ask other editors on the discussion board for suggestions. Does any entry in the list strike you as a candidate for removal? Consider suggesting it here! --Grnrchst (talk) 12:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Remove Naomi Wolf

REMOVED
Over two weeks since discussion opened, last comment almost two weeks ago, five votes. Unanimous consensus for removal. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:01, 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.

Looks like a run-of-the-mill conspiracy theorist to me. Nothing really makes them stand out.

Support
  1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:14, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  2. Her article is extensive; there are quite some things that stand out. She is the author of The Beauty Myth, The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot and a couple of other less notable books. Prominent journalist, political consultant and she is an overall important third-wave feminist activist. With that said, too recent, too American and thus not widely influential. — The Blue Rider
  3. Going over her article, aye, she doesn't seem vital. I actually only know of her because she's often mixed up with the more clearly vital Naomi Klein. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 22:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
  5. pbp 15:57, 30 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 Bettina Aptheker

REMOVED
Over two weeks since discussion opened, almost two weeks since last comment, five votes. Unanimous consensus for removal. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:01, 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.

Sure, she may have won a few awards, but I do not think she is vital enough for the list.

Support
  1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:18, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  2. Per QuicoleJR.— The Blue Rider 17:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  3. Per nom. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 22:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
  5. Article reads like a CV pbp 15:57, 30 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 Passmore Williamson

REMOVED
Over two weeks since discussion opened, almost two weeks since last comment, five votes. Unanimous consensus for removal. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:01, 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 person has very little claim to vitality. They are just a run-of-the-mill abolitionist.

Support
  1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:33, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  2. Notable, but not vital, for helping to escape two slaves, Henry Box Brown and Jane Johnson (slave), alongside with other activists from Pennsylvania Anti-Slavery Society. — The Blue Rider 17:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  3. Per The Blue Rider. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 22:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
  5. We should probably have several abolitionists on the list, but I'm not sold on him specifically pbp 15:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
  • @Purplebackpack89: Just regarding abolitionists, I certainly agree that there should be a good list of them on here, as it was probably the most consequential activist cause in US history. Other than the level-4 abolitionists, on level-5 we still have John Brown, William Lloyd Garrison, Harriet Jacobs, Lucretia Mott, William Still and Theodore Dwight Weld, all of whom I think are more clearly vital than Williamson. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:27, 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 Dorothy Ray Healey

REMOVED
Two weeks since discussion opened, last comment almost two weeks ago, four votes. Unanimous consensus for removal. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:01, 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 article does not show vitality. This person is not nearly vital enough.

Support
  1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:11, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
  2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 07:54, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
  3. pbp 15:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:57, 30 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_15&oldid=1184610240"