Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4

General Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

Level 5 Subpages

People History and geography Society STEM

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

For reference, the following times apply for today:

• 15 days ago was: 15:53, 25 March 2025 (UTC) ()
• 30 days ago was: 15:53, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
• 60 days ago was: 15:53, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Add Land transport

It is one of the major types of transportation.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 00:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
2. Support, per nom. BD2412 T 20:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
3. I suppose that a broad article on one method of transportation could be suitable for level 4. PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Support. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:23, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. This needs to be a swap with another article; we are over quota by 23. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Close call.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

I need to understand where a lot of related topics fall. Here goes: Car  3, Bus  4, Train  3, Truck  4, Horse  3, Highway  4, Road  3, Street  5, Transport  2, Rail transport  4, Land transport  5, Public transport  4.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Add Adam and Winckelmann

Adam

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

---

Support

1. Greatly influenced religion. Pretty much every other biblical character who is at his significance or below is also at level 4. Wikieditor662 (talk) 03:58, 3 December 2024 (UTC) (original commenter)

Oppose

1. We already list Adam and Eve  4 at this level, and the two are very intertwined, almost always discussed as a pair. Listing Adam at this level would be redundant due to the amount of overlap. λ NegativeMP1 04:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

   I see... What about the other person I suggested? Wikieditor662 (talk) 19:12, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

   I'm not sure if I know enough about the Neoclassical movement to make a proper judgement on his influence. He definitely seems important, though. λ NegativeMP1 19:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

2. Oppose Adam per MP1. Kevinishere15 (talk) 03:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
3. per NegativeMP1.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
4. Oppose per above. Sahaib (talk) 12:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

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.

Winckelmann

Support

1. Considered by some to be the father of art history, influenced the Neoclassical movement, influenced Gothe and Nietzche among others Wikieditor662 (talk) 03:58, 3 December 2024 (UTC) (original commenter)
2. Thought about this one for a bit longer, and yeah, I agree. He seems quite important. λ NegativeMP1 23:47, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
3. Interstellarity (talk) 21:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
4. PrimalMustelid (talk) 15:42, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Add Public library

An important type of Library  3.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 21:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
2. Support. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:48, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
3. The innovation of publicly funded libraries is it's own thing and is important Mrfoogles (talk) 20:29, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Very few people understand the difference. Barely V5 for me. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:20, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 18:22, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

Move Technical geography  5 from level 5 to level 4

Within geography, there are several methods for organizing the discipline. Within the branch model, there is Human geography  4 that looks at topics like the distribution of human populations, Physical geography  4 that studies the natural environment, and Technical geography  5 that developes, studies, and applies the techniques like Cartography  4. I believe that technical geography should be on the same level as the other two branches. Ideally, this will be part of a broader project to make how we organize vital articles consistent with other ways of organizing geography, which is in a discussion here. Full disclosure, I originated this page.

Support

1. As nom GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
2. Support, the other 2 branches make the precedent simple. I don't normally participate at Lv 4, but we've discussed the wider reorganization at other levels too. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:47, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
3. Interstellarity (talk) 21:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
4. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Add Benjamin Netanyahu

Longest serving prime minister of Israel, could also swap with Golda Meir whose term in office was short in comparison.

Support

1. As nom. Sahaib (talk) 10:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Weak support, yeah, he probably belongs more at Lv4 than Golda Meir does. Not only is he the longest serving prime minister, but IIUC Israel has changed a lot under his leadership. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
3. Interstellarity (talk) 01:47, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
4. PrimalMustelid (talk) 15:34, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Could support a swap. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:20, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

Add Body of water  5

We have Sea  2 at level 2. The lede for that defines sea as "A sea is a large body of salt water" with "body" linking to the Body of water page. This term is inclusive of both fresh and salt water, and should be higher then level 5.

Support.

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Support, the current article is very listy, but that's arguably more reason to list it (and prioritize improvement). Promoting it at least to Lv4 makes sense on organizational grounds. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Interstellarity (talk) 01:48, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
4. PrimalMustelid (talk) 15:37, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Add Collective Security Treaty Organization  5

This is a current intergovernmental military alliance between Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, and Tajikistan. It is similar to NATO  3 and is what many countries joined after the collapse of the Warsaw Pact  4.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Weak support, seems fair given NATO is at Lv3, though I'd probably support the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation  5 more strongly: it's technically larger than NATO, the CSTO, or the Warsaw Pact in multiple ways, and arguably quite novel if only for including both China and India. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
3. Interstellarity (talk) 01:50, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
4. PrimalMustelid (talk) 15:38, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. It has never done anything outside some military training. Barely V5. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:21, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 18:21, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Per Piotrus. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:37, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Add Central African long-serving leaders

Both Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo and Paul Biya have served for quite a long time with Obiang serving as president of Equatorial Guinea since October 1982 and Biya serving as president of Cameroon since November 1982. Biya would likely be more vital as he was previously prime minister (1975–1982) and also because Cameroon has a much higher population. That being said, Obiang actually got slightly more pageviews in the last decade and is about a decade younger suggesting he could remain leader for longer. Sahaib (talk) 08:49, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Add Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo

Support

1. as nom. Sahaib (talk) 08:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I'm surprised that Obiang has higher pageviews. The influence of leaders is by-and-large confined to their country's population, and Equatorial Guinea is simply too small to justify an article on one of its leaders. J947 ‡ ^edits 21:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

Add Paul Biya

Support

1. as nom. Sahaib (talk) 08:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
2. This is a good addition. J947 ‡ ^edits 21:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
3. I also think this is a good addition, and would balance out Africa not having too many articles in the V4 political leaders section; even if most of the ones currently there are Modern, I think Paul Biya still seems to fit V4 comparing him to the other African leaders in the section. AkiyamaKana (talk) 19:08, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
4. The politics of Cameroon are more vital than those of Equatorial Guinea. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 18:23, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
5. Interstellarity (talk) 01:51, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Add a subarticle of artificial intelligence to this level

We already list Artificial intelligence at level 3, but I think it would be good to list a subtopic of artificial intelligence since it will likely become a part of everyday life in five or ten years time. I will provide my suggestions below. For me personally, I’m leaning towards large language model, but open to other articles as well. Interstellarity (talk) 20:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Generative artificial intelligence  5

Support

1. _pbp 15:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Leaning towards no for this one as this is the only one I can definitively think of as a "recent" concept. While I know that the concept has existed for quite a while, this kind of thing has only really been relevant for the past few years. I also think that this might be covered by LLM if we add that? λ NegativeMP1 21:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Chatbot  5

Support

1. They've existed, or at least been a concept, for a long time. λ NegativeMP1 21:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Interstellarity (talk) 01:52, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. LLMs are what we're really talking about here, though Mrfoogles (talk) 20:33, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Large language model  5

Support

1. As the nominator said, I think this should absolutely be at this level as a sub-topic of AI. λ NegativeMP1 21:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
2. _pbp 15:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Interstellarity (talk) 01:52, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
4. This is acceptably general Mrfoogles (talk) 20:33, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

ChatGPT  5

Support

Oppose

1. Weak oppose, as I think Chatbot probably covers for now. I might support in a few years as I do seriously think that ChatGPT alone has left a significant impact on the world as a whole. However, it could also easily be overtaken since AI chatbots / LLMs right now are in an arms race of sorts (Gemini, Copilot, etc.). Let's wait and see. λ NegativeMP1 21:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Still too recent and specific for this level, I'd rather have the more general AI boom  5 or Large language model  5.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 22:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Per LaukkuTheGreit. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
4. Oppose --Thi (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
5. Too specific Mrfoogles (talk) 20:33, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Interstellarity (talk) 20:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

AI boom  5 (not OP)

More general and so future-proof than more specific AI types or products due to still rapidly ongoing innovation (Diffusion LLMs seem like the newest breakthrough for example, and there's talk about Agentic AI). This one would go instead of Technology to History, which has slightly room at 695/700 quota.

Support

1. As nom.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 08:20, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. This is less important than LLMs themselves, in my opinion. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:33, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Simone Biles  5

Arguably the greatest there has ever been in her sport regardless of gender. It appears this has been supported in 2019, but resulted in a withdrawal. While I'm sure some are familiar with her accolades, she's the most decorated gymnast of all time. She's won 30 World Gymnastics medals and her Worlds gold medal total alone (24) surpasses the second-highest female (Svetlana Khorkina)'s total medal count regardless of color (20). Additionally, she has 11 total Olympic Games medals with 7 of them being gold, both totals the second-highest in history. Throughout her career, she's had five separate skills named after her.

Support

1. As nominator. GauchoDude (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Oppose swapping with another gymnast (Latynina or Comăneci), as three gymnasts is a good number. But we have two speed skaters for some reason, so there's that. J947 ‡ ^edits 21:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
3. per nom Aurangzebra (talk) 01:37, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
4. Interstellarity (talk) 01:53, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose add without swap. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

1. I would support a swap with one or more of the other level 4 sports figures. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@GeogSage: I am unfamiliar with who is included on this list nor the previous why's behind their inclusion, but a quick glance seemingly (to me) provides many potential targets for a swap with far less contributions to their respective areas as well as overall popularity/interest. I would be open to hearing your considerations. GauchoDude (talk) 16:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@GeogSage: Not sure if you plan on weigh in on potential swap options, but for me, again in my humble opinion, she could be easily swapped for Fanny Blankers-Koen or Junko Tabei. GauchoDude (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Merge of Sabaeans to Sheba

Sabaeans, a level 4 vital article, got merged. Can we move the vital level thing to Sheba? Abo Yemen✉ 07:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Sheba at VA4 _pbp 16:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

   @Purplebackpack89 so does that means it gets to be promoted or not? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 16:54, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

   It means promote Sheba from where it is to VA4 _pbp 17:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

2. Makes sense Mrfoogles (talk) 20:34, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Ma Long

Widely regarded as the greatest table tennis player of all time and also holds the record for most Olympic gold medals won by a Chinese athlete. Table tennis being one of the most popular sports globally should definitely have some representation.

Support

1. As nominator. Sahaib (talk) 00:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose add. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

Would support a swap with one or more of the other level 4 athletes only. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@GeogSage: I propose a swap with one of the two speed skaters Eric Heiden or Bonnie Blair as Ma Long has won more medals and gets more pageviews. As I mentioned table tennis is one of the most popular sports in the world whilst speed skating is mainly played in the Netherlands (I was unable to find how many people played it). Sahaib (talk) 13:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose swap with the speed skaters. See no merit in the medal count comparison between entirely different sports. The argument that speed skating is mainly 'played' (sic) in the Netherlands is countered by the fact that both speed skaters on this list are from the United States.--Wolbo (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@Wolbo: This source states "There are 20 long-track ice-rinks in the Netherlands, while there are only six of those in the entire US". You bring up a good point about both of them being American, they could arguably be replaced with Sven Kramer and Ireen Wüst who are both at level 5. Other swap options for Ma Long include Gareth Edwards or Luciana Aymar. Thoughts? Sahaib (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Opposing additions without proposing removals comes off as stubborn and unwelcoming behaviour. That said, how has there not been a stand-alone removal proposal on this page since September? J947 ‡ ^edits 22:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Move Chicken as food  4 and Fish as food  4 to level 5

We include Poultry  4 and Seafood  4 under the "Meat and other animal products" section, I feel like these two pages are redundant at level 4.

Move Chicken as food

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Move Fish as food

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose both

Neutral

Discuss

Chicken and fish are among the top eaten meats in the world, I'm not not sure they're obsoleted by seafood and poultry at this level. By contrast we list Pork, Ham, Bacon, Lard and Sausage, 5 food articles that come from pigs, where as poultry includes meat from several species in addition to chicken including turkey, duck, fowl, quail, goose. And Fish as food includes many many species, and huge amount of the world population eat fish, I'm sure it deserves more than just Seafood. Seams more vital to feeding people than an article like Veal that we list, or mustard, chutney or 8 articles under liquor.  Carlwev  04:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree we could trim those other sections a bit as well. Level 4 is starting to get full, so trying to propose the low hanging fruit I notice first like these. Having Chicken as food and fish as food in addition to poultry and seafood means two other articles aren't included. Veal would be a good one, as well as different types of pork product, but I'd swap Mustard plant  5 with Mustard (condiment)  4. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:19, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Add Göbekli Tepe  5

Göbekli Tepe is a Neolithic archaeological site in Turkey, inhabited from around 9500 BCE to at least 8000 BCE. It was designated a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 2018, recognising its outstanding universal value as "one of the first manifestations of human-made monumental architecture". I believe it should be added, and if necessary have believe that Fallingwater  4, a house museum in Stewart Township in the Laurel Highlands of southwestern Pennsylvania, United States, could be swapped for it. Of the examples in the "Specific structures" section, this appears to be one of the least noteworthy.

Add Göbekli Tepe

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Support swap or add  Carlwev  08:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Would prefer a straight add but, push comes to shove, I'm fine with a swap. Fallingwater is considered by many to be 'the best all-time work of American architecture' (see the lede for Frank Lloyd Wright) so I see why it is here. That being said, I'm not completely opposed to a swap because I know that Fallingwater isn't usually one of the first structures people think of when they think of grand pieces of architecture (but then again, Göbekli Tepe is not much of a household name either). Aurangzebra (talk) 20:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

   Looking at page views, Göbekli Tepe has roughly double during the last 10 years. The site has been featured on a lot of mainstream cable documentaries, and has become the subject for a lot of conspiracy theories. I think this makes it important to have a very strong page for it so when people search it after seeing a crazy meme on Facebook, the page is well maintained. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

   Not sure what you're arguing for here. I support an add and wouldn't be opposed to a swap (neutral on it). I also don't think Gobekli Tepe having more pageviews because it's a common source of conspiracies is a point in its favor. Aurangzebra (talk) 01:35, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

   Ah, just responding to the last part "Göbekli Tepe is not much of a household name either." Just showing that it in addition to its significance, I'd argue it has also become a household name. More discussion then argument. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:08, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

4. --Thi (talk) 16:58, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
5. Support. Clearly one of the most famous archaeological sites from the Neolithic. Dimadick (talk) 08:04, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
6. Support add. GT is extremely significant as an archeological site and cultural milestone. Jusdafax (talk) 05:31, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Swap Göbekli Tepe with Fallingwater

1. As nom, failing straight add. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Support swap or add  Carlwev  08:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Support swap - Frank Lloyd Wright  4 is probably enough to list on this level Iostn (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Fallingwater was once in the vital 1000 list, and to me it stuck out like a sore thumb there. I have no affinity to keep it, I had not heard of it before taking part in VA, I'm not sure how others will feel pushing it down, with it previously being at level 3. I have thought about Göbekli Tepe before, it is one of the most significant neolithic sites on Earth. When we added Çatalhöyük just over 8 years ago Gizza also mentioned this site, but I'll them vote for themselves. I feel more strong about the add then the remove, but I support both.  Carlwev  08:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

There could likely be some cool research on this phenomenon. Articles that get added to the list have a loyalty that make them extremely hard to remove or swap, even if it would be difficult to get it to that level now. If we tried to nominate Fallingwater to level 4 NOW, I highly doubt it would pass. Because it is there now though, there is extreme resistance to change. Perhaps swaps should be framed as "Include ___________ or ____________" rather then "Swap _____________ for _______________." GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Add Influencer  5

User:J947, what do you think is going to happen to digital advertising in the future?

Given that Internet  3, something at Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Society_and_social_sciences/Culture#Internet_medium should probably be Level 4 (either this or Podcast  5 or both).-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Support in spirit. Betting on the internet as a ephemeral phenomenon is a strong position, but not sure one i agree with. I'm much more comfortable saying the internet is permanent and thus advertising on the internet and resultant celebrities built on the internet as a platform will always exist, unlike dying radio or television, the internet is supremely positioned to be a permanent medium. (there's no other way, there will always be devices with global virtual communication and that is what the "internet" will be seen as. there will thus always be "digital" advertising and known celebrities that come from the internet as a result). GuzzyG (talk) 09:33, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Unlikely to be ephemeral. Slight chance it is child of a parent concept that is more vital (ping me if you think so). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:26, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. If this turns out to be an ephemeral phenomenon, then adding this article would look very silly in 20 years' time. J947 ‡ ^edits 22:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Per J947. We don't know for sure yet. λ NegativeMP1 20:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

This is not intended to be misleading. Internet does parent a lot of VAs at Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Technology#Internet.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

FYI here are other Level 4s parented by Internet HTML  4, HTTP  4, Internet protocol suite  4, Social media  4, Search engine  4, Website  4 & World Wide Web  4.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger: so it's not vital yet. This topic will become worth listing if and when it becomes vital. Predicting that today's "fads" will retain their importance for generations is never clearcut. J947 ‡ ^edits 01:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Add John Snow  5

From the articles lede, "John Snow (15 March 1813 – 16 June 1858) was an English physician and a leader in the development of anaesthesia and medical hygiene. He is considered one of the founders of modern epidemiology and early germ theory, in part because of his work in tracing the source of a cholera outbreak in London's Soho, which he identified as a particular public water pump." Currently the section for "Medicine" under people only has 14 individuals, I think that section could be flushed out a bit, and that John Snow would be a good start. I think a straight add would be fine, but can also propose a swap. Under Golf, we have two men, Tiger Woods  4 and Jack Nicklaus  4, and one women Annika Sörenstam  4. I think we can narrow that to 2, and swap Jack Nicklaus  4 to level 5 with John Snow.

Support straight add

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
2. λ NegativeMP1 04:08, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Support swap with Jack Nicklaus  4

1. Failing straight add, as nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose possible removal of Jack Nicklaus. While I understand wanting to reduce sports bias, especially with sports that are more Americentric, Golf is a globally played sport and listing three influential golf figures at this level I believe is completely fair and a reasonable number. And Jack Nicklaus is most definitely worthy of this level when it comes to his impact on the sport. But I do think that the person that the nom wants to add is important enough, so even if V4 is over quota I'm supporting a straight add. λ NegativeMP1 04:08, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

   Fair. Golf  4 is level 4, and I really think we should limit sports to 1 or 2 people at level 4 to represent the "pinnacle", and if we can't narrow it down to one or two, then we shouldn't add one. We have plenty of franchises and bands without individual members added, having multiple people for specific sports feels unnecessary. Look at my proposal to add Bugs Bunny  5, a character that is recognizable around the world. The argument was made that Looney Tunes  4 was adequate. Based on that, I struggle to think we need athletes when the sport is listed. The number of Fictional and legendary characters at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Arts is about where I think we should be with Athletes. Adding a second athlete to a sport is like adding Luigi, although I think Luigi and most video game main characters are more "vital" then almost any athlete, especially when it comes to how impactful they are outside their particular niche sport. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

2. Oppose Nicklaus.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Oppose removal of Nicklaus, but support straight add of Snow. Not sure where that means my vote goes, but closing admin can sort out. GauchoDude (talk) 14:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

   As only one can pass, generally I think a vote under "Support straight add" without one under "Support for swap" would indicate support for one option but not the other. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

4. Oppose removing the Golden Bear. Hyperbolick (talk) 10:22, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
5. Oppose removal: Removal strikes me as rather IDHT _pbp 18:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

   What does the IDHT mean in this context? I've got "I don't have time" and "I definitely hear that" but neither make sense. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:11, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

   WP:IDHT _pbp 16:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

   Lol how exactly is proposing a swap disruptive? What do you think I'm not hearing? If the chart is correct, level 4 is over quota. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:37, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

   Remember when you proposed big cuts to the quota of sportspeople and most people said no? If that failed, why would this succeed? also shocked that you'd compare of the greatest, if not THE greatest, golfers to a sidekick in a series of video games _pbp 18:29, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

   Do you mean the discussion on level 5 that is still open? It has not failed, and I believe there is only 2 people completely opposed to any change in the quota. It has multiple sub-proposals, and you have support for 3 of them. 6 people have supported a more conservative drop in the quota then I initially proposed which I don't consider a failure. Even if it failed outright, that doesn't exempt all sports figures from possible swaps, and it wouldn't prohibit me from proposing such swaps on a case by case basis. If the founder of modern epidemiology is less vital then someone who played a game in your opinion, you're entitled to believe that, but I struggle to find less vital people to propose swaps with then sports figures. That is my opinion, and I'm not barred from it because of the results on extremely broad proposals. This feels like an example of Wikipedia:Casting aspersions in an attempt to stonewall discussion involving athletes by "Avoiding substantive discussion because of who is involved." This doesn't feel like Civil behavior to me. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:49, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Listing recent VA5 architectural element listings

I recently listed a batch of architectural elements at VA5. These all passed within a month. Testing whether any of them belong at this level which has a long listing at Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/4/Technology#Architectural_elements.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:35, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Add Chimney  5

Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:35, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Support, mainly just based on the precedent of Fireplace  4 at Lv4. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

1. I think Level 4 is pushing quota pretty hard. I could support this and maybe a few others with a good case, but we might need swaps. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:49, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

   I'm only expecting a few to pass. It is just that for some reason almost all vital architectural elements are considered level 4: Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Technology#Architectural_elements.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:00, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

   That fact means more should be added to VA5 – not VA4. There's nothing intrinsic to the concept of an "architectural element" that means such articles should be listed at this level rather than any other. J947 ‡ ^edits 03:09, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

2. Support  Carlwev  18:26, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Add Fence  5

Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:35, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Pretty ubiquitous. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:28, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Add Moat  5

Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:35, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:49, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Add Rain gutter  5

Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:35, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak oppose, looks like Drainage  4 is already at this level, and that subsumes this topic enough in my mind. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Oppose Unnecessary at this level. --Thi (talk) 18:24, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

Add History of the Americas

Makes sense to list when we list North American and South American history.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 01:25, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Support. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:33, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

Support swap of this with History of North America  3 AND History of South America  3. I don't think that this should be in level 4 though and the removal is awkward. This is a prime example of when skipping levels should be allowed to minimize discussions. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:33, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

This situation is a bit strange. I wouldn't expect an encyclopedia to have both an article on History of the Americas, and articles on History of North America and History of South America, unless they were separated by time period. It's really an editorial decision of how best to present the content. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 20:53, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I can see this at V3 with the NA and SA moved to V4. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:29, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Move Plant and Flowering plant from Botany to Plants

Flowering plant is a taxonomical category, so it should be in the taxonomical list Plants. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 14:31, 26 January 2025 (UTC) The same applies to Plant, but Weed and Carnivorous plant should stay listed under Botany.

Support

1. As nom. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 15:17, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 17:51, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Support and then some. I've personally always thought it was weird we separate Zoology and Botany (as concepts) from Animals and Plants. It would be a major reorganization so I get if there's little appetite for it, but I think we should consider it someday. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
4. --Thi (talk) 16:59, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
5. PrimalMustelid (talk) 15:39, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

I could do this move on the level 4 page on my own, but on level 5 them move would involve moving both entries, plus Dicotyledon  5, Eudicots  4, Magnoliids  4 and Monocotyledon  4, from the page for biology to the page about plants. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 15:17, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Add some biology topics

I listed several of biology nominees for level 5 and these are the ones that passed in a few weeks. Probably some of these should be at this level.

Whiskers

Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Support. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:29, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

1. I think level 4 is either full or close to it based on the chart (not sure of its accuracy). I could support many of these, but would likely need to see a swap proposal.

Tusk

Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Tooth  5 would be a better addition; overlap with Ivory  4.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 11:10, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Per Laukku. Would support a tooth addition. PrimalMustelid (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
3. Per above. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:29, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Weak support because of the ivory trade. Sahaib (talk) 06:52, 27 January 2025 (UTC) Actually, ivory is at level 4, so I'll remove my support. Sahaib (talk) 18:44, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

Pouch (marsupial)

Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Support. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:29, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Stinger

Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Interesting and widespread enough, plus Biology still has room. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
3. Support. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:29, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Ganglion

Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Support, looks like Biology still has room at Lv4 and this is a pretty general organ. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
4. Support. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:29, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Compound eye

Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Weak support, kind of insect-specific, but interesting enough plus Biology still has room. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 17:01, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
4. Support. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:29, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Why already added

Unless I've missed anything. Compound eye, whiskers, and stinger have already been added to level 4 although discussion about them at that level has only just begun above and not yet passed. Is there a reason for this I've missed? Or is this a simple error?  Carlwev  19:13, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

this diff shows them passing level 5 on 1/25/25.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:31, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/STEM/Archive_6 here is the archive of the discussion.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:31, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

When I was trying to correct some miscategorizations, I mistakenly moved some things into level 4.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:46, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Thx. I have corrected this.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:58, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Swap Mustard (condiment)  4 with Mustard plant  5

Mustard as a condiment is made from the seeds of the mustard plant. The mustard plant is a cultivated crop that has been grown for thousands of years, and Mustard seed is important in many regional foods. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Idiosincrático (talk) 07:54, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Add Carl Barks

Creator of Donald Duck.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 20:08, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
2. A vital creator in the Disney comics world. Jusdafax (talk) 03:23, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 04:48, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. People are not vital just because they had a vital creation. Listing Donald Duck is MORE then adequate, we have a finite number of slots and there are many things more vital then this person we exclude. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:28, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
2. I am with GS on this. "So what?". Is he well known? Barely V5. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:31, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Yeah, I'm not really convinced that he is level 4 material, sorry. I think having Donald Duck at level 4 is enough. PrimalMustelid (talk) 22:14, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

Is he more notable than Ub Iwerks  5, the creator of Mickey Mouse  4? _pbp 20:29, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Quick factual correction, he didn't create Donald Duck, but did develop him to greater depth. He's the creator of a multitude of other characters such as Scrooge McDuck, Gyro Gearloose, Gladstone Gander etc.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 20:40, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Add Paul Kagame

Gaining another five year term in the 2024 Rwandan general election has probably pushed him to level 4. He was one of two main leaders in the Rwandan Civil War (level 5), created a new constitution, improved the economy of Rwanda massively but remains controversial due to elections in Rwanda not being considered fair and is one of the main leaders in the ongoing Democratic Republic of the Congo–Rwanda conflict. Not sure if his Ugandan counterpart Yoweri Museveni is more vital or not, as he has served as leader of a bigger country in terms of population for longer but gets less pageviews, so would like to see discussion on him too.

Support

1. Sahaib (talk) 21:12, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
2. He has already been president since 2000 and held de facto power before that Iostn (talk) 22:27, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
3. From the Rwandan Civil War to the imperialist M23 campaign (2022–present). This guy is one of the most impactful leaders of modern Africa. Definitely should be listed. GuzzyG (talk) 09:28, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
4. One of the most significant and geopolitically active African leaders at present, has been bolstering his country's economy and driving towards imperialism. PrimalMustelid (talk) 15:21, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I think we need a few years of separation before we can determine if he is one of the 10,000 most vital topics of all time. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:35, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
2. per GeogSage. Jusdafax (talk) 03:26, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

Swap E-commerce  4 with Commerce  5

I think this is fairly self explanatory, I believe commerce is more vital then E-commerce, both historically and currently.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:19, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 15:05, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Mixed

1. Support addition, oppose removal. Despite the overlap with Trade  2 and Business  2, I think commerce should probably ascend to VA3 or VA2 as a (the?) top-level article. I think e-commerce, on the other hand, has generally been viewed as a key topic at VA4 and even though this section is significantly over-quota, the fact a major omission to this list in the form of Commerce  5 has been found does not mean there needs to be a corresponding removal. J947 ‡ ^edits 21:58, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

   Fair, I mostly think commerce should be higher and because the list is full this seemed like the most natural swap. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:28, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

2. Per J947-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:20, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
3. Add commerce to VA4 (and probably to VA3), but I do believe e-commerce belongs at VA4. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 22:21, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

Proposal Signature

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:19, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Couple of things

Is Enugu (city) meant to be the vital article? Because right now we have Enugu State listed under cities.

Also I don't think the Amazons are listed in any of the Level 5 pages. 64.124.92.4 (talk) 19:20, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

@Interstellarity:, It’s been a couple of weeks, is anyone going to fix this? 209.133.7.1 (talk) 22:41, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Add Recreational drug use  5

I would like to replace Drug  3 on level 3 with this article since Drug covers both recreational drugs and medications, which are too disparate to share a level 3 article. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:09, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Support

1. Nomination
2. It's a good counterpart to the other entries in "Drugs and pharmacology". EchoVanguardZ (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
3.  Carlwev  00:00, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
4. Support for level 4 only. The idea that recreational and medicinal drugs are too disparate to share an article is really weird to me. "Let food be your medicine, and medicine be your food" is a quote so old it's origins are lost to time. Drugs are drugs, the idea a person in a coat and a government agent is needed to give you a blessing to use them is a relatively new phenomena. A drug is just "any chemical substance other than a nutrient or an essential dietary ingredient, which, when administered to a living organism, produces a biological effect." Level 3 should be fairly general high level topics, which drug is. People using chemical substances for recreation is not as vital as the cheical substances themselves, and therefore recreational drug use is a lower level concept that could fall under drug comfortably at level 4. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
5. Support. It has been a major issue in international politics since the First Opium War (1839-1842). Dimadick (talk) 08:11, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

@GeogSage: I'm not saying that they shouldn't share an article at all, I'm saying that they don't have enough in common to be listed on level 3, as they are important to medicine in different ways. Maybe I wasn't clear enough above. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:24, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Add Innovation  5

Similar in importance to invention.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 17:59, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Probably. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:32, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Idiosincrático (talk) 07:20, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Add gastropod, remove snail, slug and conch

The biological taxon Gastropoda  5 is a better place to put information than the taxonomically imprecise words Snail  4, Slug  4 and Conch  4 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 21:03, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:27, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Support removing conch, adding gastropod  Carlwev  21:53, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
3. Support all. Free up some space. Nom, do you want to include your vote?GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:07, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removing slug and snail.  Carlwev  21:53, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

I will support a swap for conch. gastropod is a significant enough topic for level 4. I wouldn't remove slug or snail. I'm not combing the whole the list, but it wouldn't surprise me if many animal groups are just unofficial general groupings that were used historically and still used in general but are not 100% scientifically accurate with modern taxonomy, but they can still be an important topics that an encyclopaedia can have significant articles on. Evolutionary speaking, I've heard theories that there's no such thing as a fish, that reptile doesn't make sense as it would include mammals and birds but doesn't, and other groups like ants, monkeys and moths among others don't include wasps apes and butterflies when they should, but that's fine I wouldn't remove all of them for that reason. Gastropod I think is an excellent idea. Support.

@Carlwev: That's fair. My primary reason for proposing three removals was that level 4 is over quota. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:27, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Add Lesson

This has reached enough support to be added to Level 5, and someone suggested that it could be included in Level 4 also. Lessons are an important concept of how education is structured.

Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 19:59, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Yep. Might have been me. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:33, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
3. PrimalMustelid (talk) 15:23, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Add American Airlines

We list some of the busiest public transportation systems in the world like the London Underground and the NYC Subway, but we don't list any of the busiest airlines in the world. Obviously, the largest airline in the world depends on how you measure it, but in terms of passengers carried, this is the largest. I would consider adding additional airlines, if this passes. However, I would also be open to removing all the public transportation systems we list to strive for more equality on the list.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 20:37, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Regional, IMHO. And less iconic than these two subways. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:33, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Remove George W. Bush

It's been quite some time since GWB has been president and I think it has been long enough to really determine if he is still vital at this level since he was president over 16 years ago. One thing to keep in mind when discussing recent presidents is recency bias. For example, other than this one, we list Barack Obama and Donald Trump (despite being currently in office), but not Joe Biden. Right now, I think the recency bias has worn off for a better view of him as still being a vital president.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 00:58, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Support. U.S. presidents are not that important, we have a 3 branch form of government. George H. W. Bush  5 and Bill Clinton  5 are at level 5, I don't think Jr. is all that vital. I'd prefer to look into leaders from the other branches if we are going to list anyone, but would really prefer just not listing so many U.S. politicians. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:40, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Support. Other than being the President who failed to face the Great Recession (2007-2009), the Subprime mortgage crisis (2007-2010), and the 2008–2010 automotive industry crisis, I don't see many reasons to remember him or his policies. Dimadick (talk) 08:21, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

   @Dimadick: What about the wars his administration started? _pbp 11:35, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. There is absolutely zero question that George W. Bush belongs at this level. The September 11 attacks  4 happened under his presidency, which promoted him to command (and effectively start) the War on terror  4, a series of conflicts that have spanned across several countries and killed millions. His impact on the world is significant enough to where it is why a lot of people resent the United States' global reach, and many consider him to outright be a war criminal. And keep in mind that the war on terror also includes the Iraq War  4. I can possibly see recency concerns being brought up later on to remove someone like Obama from this level (and maybe Trump, once all of the hysteria dies down in maybe 20 years), but Bush might be the most important leader of the 21st century so far, or at least top three. Again: he led a conflict that spanned several countries, displaced about 40 million people, and killed about 5 million. There is zero way he fades into obscurity. λ NegativeMP1 01:11, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
2. per Negative. Aurangzebra (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
3. I don't want him to be removed because most of the support voters are ignoring the War on terror argument. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 21:24, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
4. War on Terror and it's resulting fall out, from Trump and the popularisation of far right politics to nearly everything ongoing today makes GWB one of the most important 21st century figures so far. We also list Osama bin Laden who go hand and hand with each other, 2001 and onwards has dominated everything this century from it's very start. Would be ludicrous to list Tom Hanks and Tom Brady for this century but not GWB. GuzzyG (talk) 21:18, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

    Comment: for the record I think it is ludicrous that we list Tom Hanks  4 and Tom Brady  4 as well. I struggle to believe that these two are among the most vital concepts of all time, much less that in a century people will agree. I'd ideally like to limit biographies at level 4 to people who have been dead for at least a century, with very few exceptions, to avoid the massive bias towards recent popular western celebrities. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:50, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

5. Idiosincrático (talk) 07:20, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
6. Agree that he was level 4 consequential. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:25, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

I certainly hope we're not in one of those "remove a bunch of Americans" cavalcades that happen from time to time, but never in the areas where we actually NEED to remove a bunch of Americans.

I think it's worth noting that, while we have Bush 43, Obama and Trump at this level from the my lifetime/post-Cold War era, we do NOT have Bush 41, Clinton or Biden. And of the three post-CW US presidents we DO have, Obama is the only one on the list for positive contributions. AFAIU, Bush is on here for starting two wars.

Something that I think would bear discussion is swapping Bush for Clinton or Biden. _pbp 01:29, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I can see adding Clinton to this level directly, but there's no way that either him or Biden should replace Bush. λ NegativeMP1 01:42, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@Interstellarity: Could you expand why exactly you don't think he's influential? I feel like something is missing from your nomination _pbp 02:21, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

So Bush is usually ranked between the middle and the lower half of presidents. Yes, he was president during the Great Recession, but we also don't list Herbert Hoover, who was president during the Great Depression. I don't think we should list a president because of just one historical event. I lean more towards neutral for this one than support, but I will respect whatever consensus builds here. Interstellarity (talk) 12:41, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

You think the Great Recession is the only event in his Presidency? What about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

The problem with historical rankings of presidents is that they are measures of positivity as well as influence. _pbp 14:37, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Any list of the 20 most important presidents is going to be subjective regardless of which presidents we choose. For example, presidents like James Monroe, for his foreign policy, and William McKinley, who saw the rise of the US as an imperial power, might be strong choices for this level. I could see an argument for removing James K. Polk, although known for manifest destiny, had a short term and his legacy might be overshadowed by broader legacies. We do include recent presidents like Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump, and one could make an argument that it's too soon to evaluate those presidents, but maybe time will tell how their legacies will be. Interstellarity (talk) 15:33, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

We could focus on other branches of government, or other countries. The U.S. has 20 "Modern" politicians, Russia and the USSR have 12 combined, Germany has 11, United Kingdom has 9, and China has 9. Only 4 of the listed U.S. leaders were not president based on a quick count, and looking those over I'd say if a president wasn't as influential as John Marshall  4 they don't belong on level 4. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:54, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Let's look under the hood at this:

1. Russia and the USSR have basically had six leaders in the past century; Russia has had two leaders since I was two.
2. China PRC had two leaders from 1949 to 1989.
3. The UK hasn't been a superpower since World War 2 and the immediate subsequent loss of empire, since that time, it's also been much less populous than the USA (hence why only three leaders since WW2)
4. Like the UK, Germany is much smaller than the USA, and in addition was only a Great Power from 1871-1945. Of Germany's 11, three are from 1860-1918, three are from Nazi Germany, and the remaining five are from 1945 to now. Germany is arguably OVERrepresented in 45-now.
5. Of the US' post-1815 politicians, a third of them are from the Cold War era and two more are its leaders during the World Wars. The U.S. has had seventeen different men as President in the last century, six of whom are NOT listed at VA4 (would be seven if this proposal passes; interestingly all but one who are NOT VA4 are either before 1933 or after 1989).
6. You want a different balance between American Presidents and non-Presidents...yet we just removed Calhoun. Among non-politicians, we represent Congress with Henry Clay  4, the Judiciary with John Marshall  4, the Cabinet with Alexander Hamilton  4, government agencies with J. Edgar Hoover  4, and Native American tribes with Sitting Bull  4 _pbp 18:54, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Russia/USSR and China have more leaders at any one time then their head of state. Henry Clay would not be vital outside the U.S..

I'd be fine including one president, one legislator, one judge, and Sitting bull at level 4 and calling it, I don't really think any U.S. politicians belong on level 3 besides maybe Washington, and that is a soft maybe. I don't think Bush, Clinton, or Trump are more vital then Ruth Bader Ginsburg  5 or Nancy Pelosi  5, and wouldn't want to nominate them to level 4 either. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:37, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

I think the recency argument has been rendered moot as what happened in the Bush administration doesn't seem to be fore to mind anymore. _pbp 15:43, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Add Podcast

It's becoming an important form of media nowadays and will likely stick around for a long time.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 01:41, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
2. A bit of a recent medium all things considered, but I don't necessarily see a problem with the podcast article itself being at this level. λ NegativeMP1 02:38, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Pretty much online radio. A vital form of 21st century entertainment. GuzzyG (talk) 21:19, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
4. Agree with others that this is vital at level 4. Jusdafax (talk) 05:17, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
5. Significant form of modern media that's here to stay prominent in the near future. PrimalMustelid (talk) 15:23, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Remove Yang Guifei

It has been noted that we are listing too many socialites on level 5. Does anyone belong on level 4 as a socialite? Yang Guifei  4 is the only person listed as a socialite who is also listed on level 4.

Support

1. As nom. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Might be important but I simply just don't see what would make her worthy of this level. λ NegativeMP1 23:25, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Not convinces by arguments, and systemic bias is an issue (Chinese, women). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:35, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

Replace Eruca vesicaria with Eruca sativa

Eruca sativa was merged to Eruca vesicaria in 2019. The merge has been reversed. While these are sometimes considered a single species under the name Eruca vesicaria, they are usually treated as distinct species. Eruca sativa is the species that is commonly cultivated as a leafy vegetable.

Support

1. As nom. Plantdrew (talk) 19:11, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Agree, as the articles are now, this article and species is more vital. This is an improvement, although part of me is wondering if either are level 4 vital though. Open question, is it more vital than some missing edible plants like red onion which are listed nowhere?  Carlwev  03:16, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 21:44, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Add Mark Zuckerberg

Elon Musk is at level 4, so it makes sense to have Zuckerberg as well due to him being the world's youngest self-made billionaire.

Support

1. As nom. Sahaib (talk) 21:53, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Weak support, at least by our current standards for biography listings at this level. For full clarification, Elon Musk was listed not only because not only was his reach as a businessman far more than just Tesla (for example, SpaceX and Starlink), but also because of his influence over American politics. With that being said, we do list Steve Jobs  4 at this level (though I think he could be V3), and I could see a reasonable argument to believe that the owner of the company that effectively holds a monopoly over the world's social media usage (Facebook  4, WhatsApp  5, Instagram  5, and more) would be worthy of inclusion at this level. But if whatever reason our businessperson listings are trimmed or the standards of biographies at this level shift more, I think Zuckerberg could very easily be on the chopping block. λ NegativeMP1 22:18, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Support We list like 6 of the big Gilded age business people, which was a massive historical period for business figures. I think the big 3 modern internet/tech billionaires, cited together [1] commonly, (Musk/Zuckerberg/Bezos) are just as vital. Someone like Leland Stanford never had Zuckerberg/Bezos level of global reach with Metas social media platforms and Amazon. Zuckerberg the dominant figure of the social media age and Bezos of web commerce. (more global reach than listed Sam Walton and Walmart). We're 25 years into the 21st century and these 3 have had global relevance for the majority of it. I don't think they'll be forgotten in year 2150 but if they are they can be removed then. Larry Page, Sergey Brin and Larry Ellison are examples of not as globally important level 5 figures. Zuck and Bezos are a step above. GuzzyG (talk) 01:29, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

   It's somewhat ironic you consider Zuck more influential than Leland Stanford when Silicon Valley grew up around a university Stanford founded _pbp 15:03, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I think this might be a bit of recency. Tom Anderson  5 was extremely well known for his role in Myspace  5, and I would not nominate him to level 4. Facebook  4 is level 4, I don't think Zuckerberg is one of the 10,000 most vital topics in all of history, and think we should be trimming down the biographies included in Vital articles overall. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:18, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Weak oppose Idiosincrático (talk) 07:21, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Learning oppose. I don’t he’s level 4 of vitality (yet). PrimalMustelid (talk) 15:51, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I DON'T equate Zuck with Musk or Jobs. Musk has a car company and a space penis company in addition to a social media network, plus he has a greater net worth and more influence in government. With the possible exception of Bill Gates, Jobs may be the most influential tech sector businessman ever (and he owned Pixar Animation too!). _pbp 18:15, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

• Compared to Jeff Bezos, is he more significant? EchoVanguardZ (talk) 05:54, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

• @EchoVanguardZ: Zuckerberg has more language links (135) compared to Bezos (95) which suggests that he is more significant, though not by much. Sahaib (talk) 07:11, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
• @EchoVanguardZ: I think Bezos and Zuck are both in the gray area between VA4 and VA5 _pbp 18:15, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Move Eminem up to L4-Vital

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I'm aware that rapper Eminem is already a L5-Vital Article but I feel as if he should be moved up to Level 4. Reasons for this are because his two studio albums The Marshall Mathers LP and The Eminem Show were groundbreaking commercial successes worldwide, most notably the later—and both albums had a 1 million+ sales week in the United States. Aside from the two albums, Eminem has influenced many other artists via the Legacy section of his Wikipedia page, being considered "Hip-hop Elvis", having won or been nominated for various accolades, and setting various records and achievements throughout his career. Additionally, on SethAllen623's vital articles—he listed Eminem under the Level-4 Vital Article section, likely for reasons similar to mine. Someone please let me know what you think about my thoughts as I would greatly appreciate it, thank you. JustTryingToBeSmart (talk) 01:11, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Support

1. assumed support by nominator
2. The reasonings in the nomination aren't necessarily of the standard arguments expected when proposing someone for V4, but I do think Eminem should be here. We only list two representatives of hip-hop / rap: Tupac Shakur  4 and Run-DMC  4, and no hip hop work at all. As such, I believe that V4 has a lack of representation for the genre, and I think Eminem is objectively the best third option. I'm pretty sure he's the most commercially successful rapper ever (minus maybe Drake, but his success is from the streaming era) and he kinda broke the genre into the mainstream. While Tupac and Run-DMC may have left a greater impact on the genre in almost every other way, Eminem's commercial success basically brought it to the masses and The Marshall Mathers LP  5 was a major moment in the genres history. Infact, I'm pretty sure the Eminem Show is one of the top 3 best selling hip hop albums ever. I would also sort of consider him one of the greats when it comes to the history of modern music in general, and I see no reason why people like him or Elton John  5 shouldn't be here when we list people like Taylor Swift  4 and Stevie Wonder  4 (not saying they don't belong here, but rather just solidifying my point on listing figures on the same level as her, which I'd historically argue Eminem and John to be). TL;DR I think hip-hop / rap is underrepresented by the current standards of BLPs at this level, and I think Eminem's contributions to the genres real mainstream success should put him at this level. λ NegativeMP1 01:31, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
3. V4 is getting neglected and there is little pruning going on to keep it from veering from quota, but I can support this nontheless.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:53, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
4. One of the dominant figures from 1980-2020 music and pop culture, a time in pop culture we don't list alot of big names from. (because we list so much early to mid 20th century pop culture). I think we should start swapping some out for these newer globally big names. GuzzyG (talk) 09:35, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Add Metallica  5

We only list one Heavy metal music  4 act at this level: Black Sabbath  4. A warranted listing for sure, but only one is ridiculous in my opinion. Even if metal isn't the most popular genre in the world, I think two representatives is acceptable. And Metallica is objectively the only one that can fit into that slot (or maybe AC/DC  5 if you consider them to kinda be metal; I'd support adding them too). Even putting the representation argument aside, I firmly believe they belong at this level no matter your definition of what makes an artist V4. I will also note that they were voted for removal back in 2017 (here), but so was Nirvana (band)  4 which we list now and I disagree with the reasons provided (you can understand the history of the world without any musicians, arguably. Doesn't mean we shouldn't list any whatsoever).

Firstly, they are a globally popular band, even more so than Sabbath ever is/was, and are the most successful metal act of all time. This isn't an attempt to undermine Sabbath or their impact, but the numbers speak for themselves and Metallica is objectively more culturally and globally important. They are not only the best selling metal act in history (125 million units sold, versus Sabbath who don't even rank), but they also created the highest selling metal album in history Metallica (album)  5. Sabbath has 85 interwikis, while Metallica has 117, more than the article for heavy metal itself. You could even make the argument that Metallica truly does have "global appeal" because they carry a Guinness World Record for being the first band to perform in Antarctica, which sounds like a weird piece of trivia on the surface but it is a major achievement.

Industry impact wise, while they didn't create the sub-genre, Metallica basically pioneered Thrash metal  5 and are the most important of the "Big Four". Both Master of Puppets (not V5 but it should be) and Metallica are among the most critically acclaimed and important albums to the entire metal genre (with many arguing Master IS the most important metal album; it was the first metal album to be certified platinum and is also the only one preserved by the Library of Congress), and even their lesser well known ones like Ride the Lightning and Kill 'Em All still left a profound impact on the genre ("Kill 'Em All is widely regarded as the first thrash metal album, and one of the album's tracks "Whiplash" has been referred to as one of the first songs of the genre" and "The popularity of thrash metal increased in 1984 with the release of Metallica's sophomore record Ride the Lightning"). And for what it's worth, all of these albums have more interwikis than many of the individual works we list at this level. There's far more to the impact of each of the albums than what I've highlighted here for simplicity's sake but any read of these articles will prove each ones impact.

While metal may have been mainly created and pioneered by Sabbath, it would not be nearly as popular or even resemble what it is today without Metallica's contributions. Their contributions to music history that I just detailed a mere sample of are equal (and possibly surpass) that of many acts like Nirvana, and as such, I firmly believe that Metallica should be bumped up to V4. And if anyone is concerned or wishing for a swap: not only is the people category at V4 technically under-quota by a few spots, but I have a proposal above to remove Benny Goodman  5 that will likely go through at current rates. I'm not saying this is a direct swap, but you could possibly consider it that.

Support

1. As nom. λ NegativeMP1 02:41, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 17:18, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
3. One of the dominant figures from 1980-2020 music and pop culture, a time in pop culture we don't list alot of big names from. (because we list so much early to mid 20th century pop culture). I think we should start swapping some out for these newer globally big names. GuzzyG (talk) 09:35, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
4. Support, per above. JustTryingToBeSmart (talk) 14:31, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
5. I am not a music person and I think they should be here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:35, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Add Alexander Lukashenko

Lukashenko is Belarus' first and only president having served since 1994. Notable events under his tenure include the Minsk Spring, Freedom March, Jeans Revolution, 2010 Belarusian protests, 2011 Belarusian protests, Teddybear Airdrop Minsk 2012, 2017 Belarusian protests, 2020–2021 Belarusian protests. Also partly the Belarusian economic miracle and Russification of Belarus. He was recently declared as the winner of the 2025 Belarusian presidential election, so will likely continue to be leader till at least 2030.

Support

1. As nom. Sahaib (talk) 17:06, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
2. λ NegativeMP1 17:18, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
3. per nom TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:50, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
4. PrimalMustelid (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Not influential outside his country, which has small history, and his country is not influential outside its own borders. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:50, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

1. @Piotrus: I would dispute that. See for example International reactions to the 2020 Belarusian presidential election and protests, Belarus–European Union border crisis, Ryanair Flight 4978 and Belarusian involvement in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Sahaib (talk) 14:26, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

   @Sahaib Make it borders and neighbors. Arguably, all countries have some impact on their neighbors, and occasionally elicit international commentary. That does not change the fact that Belarus is not very vital, and its leader, outside being the trivial case of a modern European dictator, much eclipsed in that ranking by Putin, is, well, inconsequential for anyone outside his country. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:39, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

Add Life expectancy

Just added to level 5. It is an important societal topic that details how long humans live.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 19:41, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
2. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 17:41, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
3. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:20, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
4. PrimalMustelid (talk) 15:38, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

I have started a thread asking where it should be listed. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:23, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Remove Offal

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

---

I don't like seeing us over quota. So last week I nommed a bunch at VA3. I don't know where to start at V4. The last update has us at 10023/10000 and Society and Social Sciences is at 928/900. So this is as good a nomination as any. I don't see this as necessary at VA4 given we are over quota. -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:13, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry this is Everyday life which is 467/450.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:15, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:13, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 20:04, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Level 4 is over quota. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 16:24, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
4. Agree with the nom reasoning. Jusdafax (talk) 03:33, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
5. Pushing to the finish line. PrimalMustelid (talk) 15:34, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

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 Porridge

As I noted above, I am going to take some cracks at moving us toward quota. The last update has us at 10023/10000 and Everyday life which is 467/450. Porridge does not seem like it is that important to anyone other than Goldilocks and the Three Bears. I have never seen it on a menu at a restaurant, on Instagram or TikTok or even any website. Is it even a real thing?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:23, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:23, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 15:09, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose.
   In Europe in many (if not all, except English) languages, it is a blanket term for any kind of grains boiled in water or milk.
   You have eaten it, you just know it as gruel or any particular type, such as oatmeal, farina (a more watery one).
   As for restaurant menus, maybe gruel/porridge is like ratatouille in that Disney movie. A "lower class" dish? --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:15, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

   I have tasted farina and would not consider it vital. I am very familiar with Oatmeal  5 and if porridge and oatmeal are synonyms, then maybe this deserves its space. The oatmeal article does mention that a cooked form of oatmeal is a porridge. The porridge article mentions oat porridge in the WP:LEAD. Still not a strong supporter of porridge at this level.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:39, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

   Maybe it is just that "gruel" is the more common term for this type of dish in English. The "Gruel" article says: "Historically, gruel has been a staple of the Western diet, especially for peasants," And: "Gruel was on the third-class menu of the Titanic on the eve of her sinking in April 1912."
   The French "Porridge" article (fr:Bouillie) says: "In many cultures, especially the Anglo-Saxon and the Slav ones, this dish is traditionally served at the first daily meal, with salt, sugar or milk. Scottish porridge is the traditional breakfast of Scotland."
   The German "Porridge" article (de:Brei) says that porridge existed at least since the Neolithic, at least since the beginning of agriculture, some 10,000 years ago. And that in Europe a porridge called puls "was part of the food culture in the Roman Empire and was the main food of a large part of the population until the end of the 18th century."
   So maybe you just forgot. :-) --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

   Farina is vital for little kids in Russia. It is as "evil" as broccoli is in the U.S. --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:35, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

2. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:18, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
3. It is on the menu in Korea, where there are entire chains dedicated to it. Ex. ko:본죽_(브랜드). Staple dish in many cultures. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:22, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

Remove the multi sport category, move Jim Thorpe to Athletics and Babe Didrikson Zaharias to Golf

The "multi" sport classification is more a trivia point rather than academic field classification. Thorpe is vital for his contributions to athletics and then as a trivia that he was professional in multiple sports. The Baseball and American football achievements alone are not vital to list him. It's his achievements in athletics and the resulting controversy. Zaharias is also vital for her role as a pioneering woman athlete and role in women's Golf. The multi sport category also results in two women being listed for Golf, probably too much at this level. I think removing the multi sport category would be helpful at this level to show a clearer example of what we list (too many athletics people and too many golf).

Support

1. As nom. GuzzyG (talk) 01:29, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
2. The multiple sports category not so important at this level. --Thi (talk) 15:10, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Per Thi. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 21:34, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Thorpe is a Football Hall of Famer and Didrikson won multiple Olympic medals. Both of their vitality clearly stems from multiple sports. _pbp 01:41, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

1. If it stays, Jim Brown should be there for the GOAT lacrosses rankings he gets and there should be a "Multi genre" music category for all the multiple genre musicians, for consistency. GuzzyG (talk) 02:27, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Remove the individual Funk category, move the 2 musicians into "Blues, R&B, and soul" (and add funk into the title)

These genres are all classified together on the level 5 list and they're generally seen as all apart of the same overview in music criticism. It would also show we have 9 musicians here, more than non-english and on the level of Jazz with Benny Goodman being removed. Probably not good for a genre that's largely US only. Classifying them together like the level 5 list will be more concise and accurate to music categorisation.

Support

1. As nom. GuzzyG (talk) 01:29, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 15:15, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Remove Annika Sörenstam

If Babe Didrikson Zaharias gets accurately moved to Golf per my above nom, this will show we have 2 women for Golf. I don't think golf is significant as a known sport for women historically to have 2. (unlike Tennis, Association football, athletics, swimming, figure skating, volleyball, gymnastics - even Basketball now etc). We need a woman for Swimming more than 2 for Golf. I also don't think Sörenstam is more vital than Arnold Palmer or Bobby Jones (golfer). A successfull career but no widespread global name recognition like Tiger Woods, more fitting for level 5. (and once it's cleaned up there'll be no shame in being there).

Support

1. As nom. GuzzyG (talk) 01:29, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. --Thi (talk) 15:15, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. _pbp 01:42, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

Remove Ty Cobb

Cobb's seen as one of the greatest early baseball stars but his one stand out record and the one major aspect of his vitality that granted him permanent relevance in baseball culture was the fact that he had the highest career batting average, which he now does not. Per his article, "his .366 career batting average was officially listed as the highest-ever until 2024, when MLB decided to include Negro Leagues players in official statistics" . Josh Gibson now holds that record. Cobb's importance represents the racism that kept out the Negro league players, in which without the segregation he wouldn't have had that record. I think the era of segregated baseball just needs one name; Babe Ruth.

Baseball is big in Venezuela, Cuba, the US and Japan. It's not a global sport like basketball or cricket, so listing the same amount of biographies as both is probably too much. Cobb's name doesn't have the same reverence today as Lou Gehrig or Cy Young both in pop culture or baseball culture itself, so why list lesser Cobb?. Without that big record, there's no need to list Cobb anymore. Sports fame and historical importance is based on pop culture relevance and to be listed as apart of the 2,000 most important people ever, that global relevance should be like Babe Ruth, global name recognition that never fades. Lesser bios that are not big no more but hold importance to certain eras of their field/craft should be level 5. Otherwise we will be (and are) bogged down in faded and no longer remembered 20th century bios. Early 20th century baseball when it was just white Americans playing, is not one of those major historical areas that needs multiple bios and if we needed to list more, Josh Gibson is more important than Cobb.

Sports is way over represented, there should be 50 to 60 listed and this is a start.

Support

1. As nom. GuzzyG (talk) 01:29, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. --Thi (talk) 15:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. What? _pbp 01:43, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
2. I am so old (I'll be 60 in June) that I remember when Ty Cobb even had the all-time hits record and was 2nd in stolen bases. I had to calibrate my thoughts on this for a bit, but I don't think I can get behind this. Back in 1936 when people who saw him play voted he was an inaugural HOF selection with more votes than anyone else, including Babe Ruth.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
3. - per TonyTheTiger. Jusdafax (talk) 05:25, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

The MLB (well, the National League) began in 1876 and was integrated in 1947. Basically half of MLB's history is before integration. Saying only one player should represent that era seems draconian _pbp 15:15, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

That's 71 years. Hank Aaron is the latest MLB player to play, it's 49 years since then. You can just as much argue we need a player to represent this time. (and it'll probably be Shohei Ohtani). But we can't cover every era of everything at this level. As Tony implies, Ty used to be big and hold importance via important records but they're all gone now. He has no fame today. We list tonnes of 20th century people from mostly pre 1980. Eventually some will fade and lose heaps of importance. Then the late 20th century/early 21st century generation (1980-2020) will replace them and then the mid and late 21st century them. Segregated baseball is a blip in the grand scheme of the world and as time goes on that'll only become more apparent. If the level 5 list gets improved, a "demotion" probably won't be seen as bad; but some of these 20th century faded bios could use a replacement;

I would include Ty Cobb, James Cagney, Robert A. Heinlein and Little Richard as cultural examples of fading 20th century bios who do not have wide name recognition in this day and age. Babe Ruth, John Wayne, Ray Bradbury, and Chuck Berry do still and that is the permanence required of this list, we're not required to honour the placement of fading stars, that is only natural that some will fade into history. Why do we have to include these old era fading greats when we could list Barry Bonds, Tom Cruise, Cormac McCarthy or a Radiohead? There's many names from the 1980-2020 era we miss to cover these fading early to mid 20th century bios. It's not just Cobb either, it should be a wide examination. Sadaharu Oh can go too, now that we have Yuzuru Hanyu and Junko Tabei Japanese sports culture is covered and Oh isn't a big global sports name and his home run record is controversial.

But 6 Baseball players is way too much. We list 2 Fashion designers for example - a world wide globally known industry. Dior, Balenciaga, Gucci, Versace, Armani, Calvin Klein are all way more known names globally than any baseball player. Fashion has definitively impacted larger global culture. Video games is another global industry. We don't have the founder even. (Ralph H. Baer), just one person. Baseball is big in Japan, but so is anime and we don't have the modern big name (Akira Toriyama). we have one manga/anime name. We have no professional wrestler and that's an American industry like baseball that's big in Japan and Latin America/Mexico. El Santo is often referred to as one of "the greatest legends in Mexican sports". Rikidōzan and Antonio Inoki are just as big in Japan. So professional wrestling captures the main big 2 areas of baseballs popularity and a larger global reach and yet has 0 names representing it. Not even Hulk Hogan or Vince McMahon - not even with the modern Trumpian political influence of it, which got Linda McMahon a cabinet spot. Let's not even mention Hugh Hefner and his major role in the sexual revolution in the US which has been exported as a major part of Japan's culture with AV idol's. Or Japan influencing k-pop which has global impact. We don't list Hefner or any j=pop or k-pop star. Baseballs main global claim is rested on it's popularity in Japan, but does segregated baseball deserve more coverage than all of these missing or light bio examples?

Or better, why 2 segregated baseball players? It may be important in American history, but so is Brigham Young the St Paul of Mormonism, Ray Kroc globally impactful as the founder of McDonalds still impactful with the MAHA stuff and Trumps love and promotion of McDonalds, Buzz Aldrin globally known astronaut, Sam Houston whose incorporation of previously Mexican territory into the US impacts today with the immigration aspect, Cesar Chavez a Latino rights activist who still impacts today via Trumps mistreatment, Marsha P. Johnson a global symbol of the Trans rights movement which is still relevant today, Luther Burbank a agricultural pioneer, Katherine Johnson a mathematician incredibly vital to NASAs spaceflights, Melvil Dewey a librarian whose work forever changed libraries or any other American thats permanently changed anything. All of this doesn't include the non Americans we list of way more variety. So why have 2 segregated baseball players while we can cover any other area of American history?

I just don't think Cobb's now overtaken achievements justifies a place and in the grand scheme of 5000 ish years of human history and potential biographies i don't think segregated baseball needs 2. Baseball should arguably only have Ruth and Robinson, the two globally known big names that transcend culture. But Cobb is the weakest on here and should go first. GuzzyG (talk) 09:22, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Remove Ole Einar Bjørndalen

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 sole claim for vitality for this guy was the fact that he used to hold the most winter olympics medals. Now Marit Bjørgen does. (who we list now too). That means we list two norwegian winter olympics athletes for the same factoid. Bjørndalen is not a globally famous name that is inherent to sports history that would override that. Biathlon is not a sport that needs covering at this level. It's a winter sport since 1960. We don't cover weightlifting (Naim Süleymanoğlu), sailing (Paul Elvstrøm - another Scandanavian), Fencing (Edoardo Mangiarotti) or Equestrianism (Hans Günter Winkler). I'd probably support Biathlon itself being relegated to level 5. These are all sports which have been notable for centuries and one could make a argument that they're all vital to human experience throughout milleniums (sword fighting/fencing, weight lifting/strength competitions). Why does Biathlon need more coverage than them, now that Bjørndalen's main vitality achievement has been overtaken? He's a perfect fit for level 5.

Support

1. As nom. GuzzyG (talk) 01:29, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 15:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
3. per nom, should go down to Level 5. Jusdafax (talk) 03:35, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
4. PrimalMustelid (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
5. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 16:46, 2 April 2025 (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 Frances Marion

This is a pop culture article with no legacy section and no global name recognition. With 354,612 views total out of every language article version. [2]. I'm sympathetic to that she was probably originally listed to cover women in film production, but she's just not a known person. Lois Weber and Alice Guy-Blaché did more for women in early filmmaking history. She's a relic from the stages of this list when it was pre-discussion. I think any article in a pop culture related industry should be globally important and Marion does not fit that bar.

Support

1. As nom. GuzzyG (talk) 01:29, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 15:19, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Not famous at ~65 daily pageviews, the others mentioned by OP get more. If female filmmaker representation becomes a concern someone else than her can be added.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:16, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
4. PrimalMustelid (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. After reading the article carefully, I’m impressed by her career and credits and feel she earned a level 4 rating. A creator who made a huge impact on her craft. Jusdafax (talk) 03:43, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

Add Herod the Great

Jewish king who is responsible for stuff like building the Western Wall and playing a part in the Second Temple. He's also mentioned in the bible for doing the Massacre of the Innocents. Articles in a bad state, but he's a historical figure who still holds prominence today. (with the Israel/Palestine conflict). Being apart of the bible also means his name will be remembered for quite awhile.

Support

1. As nom. GuzzyG (talk) 01:29, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add al-Kindi

"al-Kindi was the first of the Islamic peripatetic philosophers, and is hailed as the "father of Arab philosophy"" is the first line in his biography. I don't know too much about this area, but he seems of supreme importance. Other quotes are "Al-Kindi's book entitled Manuscript on Deciphering Cryptographic Messages gave rise to the birth of cryptanalysis, was the earliest known use of statistical inference", "The Italian Renaissance scholar Geralomo Cardano (1501–1575) considered him one of the twelve greatest minds." and "In the field of mathematics, al-Kindi played an important role in introducing Hindu numerals to the Islamic world, and their further development into Arabic numerals along with al-Khwarizmi which eventually was adopted by the rest of the world.".

All of those alone make him seem to be a massive miss. I think he's vital for this list. We undercover thought people in comparison to pop culture too.

Support

1. As nom. GuzzyG (talk) 01:29, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Hafez al-Assad

30 year long Syrian dictator, with his son carrying on another 20 years. 50 year dynastic rule. One of the two major Ba'athism leaders with Saddam Hussein. One of the 20th century dictators whose influence has impacted todays history. He occupied Lebanon Syrian occupation of Lebanon, ordered the 1982 Hama massacre which led to widespread resentment that culminated in the rebel movement that overthrew his son 40 years later. Bashar al-Assad is the most famous of the two, but i think the dad is historically important enough that any 20th century politics encyclopedia would cover him and his influence. Syria's history has impacted today with the war and refugee crisis and i think he is the biography we should cover to represent this as he is Syria's defining modern figure. (And Syria is important enough to global events to cover one person, or compare it to Speed skating with two. On the same level as Muammar Gaddafi.

Support

1. As nom. GuzzyG (talk) 01:29, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

I'd rather see Assad family. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:23, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Add Ali Abdullah Saleh

Yemen's defining modern figure (and who united Yemen chose as it's first president). Yemen's ongoing civil wall and the fall out from Saleh's assassination still resonates globally today (the Houthis and the shipping/international trade disruption). I think Yemeni history should have one biography considering the impact the country has today and Saleh is clearly that biography. Middle Eastern politics is globally relevant today and yet Western Asia has 10 leaders compared with Track and field having 15. (14 + Jim Thorpe). I think Yemen and Syria and the fallout from the wars is apart of that, so have nominated the two people who are the largest part of that history.

Support

1. As nom. GuzzyG (talk) 01:29, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Swap Enver Hoxha for Skanderbeg

20th century dictator for national idol. In politics we list too many 20th century European dictators. They won't all be remembered and i think Hoxha is not more vital than Todor Zhivkov or János Kádár. Skanderberg is central to Alabanian national consciousness and history. He's one of the best known military figures fighting the Ottoman Empire, during the Albanian National Awakening he was seen as the central Albanian figure and going by Historiography of Skanderbeg he has a high prominence in the cultural life of Albania. Hoxha in comparison is just another dictator and in 500 years i don't think he will stand out compared to Skanderbeg. Hoxhaism isn't big. Kaysone Phomvihane Thought is in a similar boat. Hoxha is on a level of Kaysone Phomvihane. (not listed). We need to start clearing out some of the large amounts of 20th century figures, especially if there's a much better historical alternative like in this case.

Support

1. As nom. GuzzyG (talk) 01:29, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 20:01, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Remove Endogamy and Exogamy

More from Everyday life. These do not seem like topics that need VA4 prioritization in 2025.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:31, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:31, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
2. per nom, superfluous fluff better suited for level 5 and we're overquota. GuzzyG (talk) 03:16, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 15:20, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
4. PrimalMustelid (talk) 15:35, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Important topics in anthropology/sociology, even if they are discussed less in the modern world. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 17:38, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

Remove Villa and Hut

More from Everyday life. Looking at Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/4/Everyday_life#Residential_and_housing_units, it seems that Villa and Hut are less vital than the rest. Upon further inspection, they have the fewest interwikis although each has a few dozen.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:41, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:41, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
2. per nom, superfluous fluff better suited for level 5 and we're overquota. GuzzyG (talk) 03:16, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 15:22, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
4. Per nom and GuzzyG.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:07, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
5. Let's start reducing the number of Lvl 4 articles. PrimalMustelid (talk) 15:35, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I am not convinced they are less vital than niche if memorable igloo I'd remove first. Hut is a simple type of building that most humans lived in for a long period. Villa is the upper-level version of it, for middle class. Upper class gets a palace, so middle class should get a villa and lower class, a hut. If we need to cut something from this section, kill igloo first. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:27, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Oppose removing Hut per Piotrus. Neutral on removing Villa. Also I'm pretty sure that a villa (in the traditional definition) is not for the middle class. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:09, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Opppse removing Hut, one of the most basic types of building, basic but very important things are exactly what should be listed on V4, neutral on Villa for now. Kevinishere15 (talk) 03:43, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

Social Sciences removal candidates (batch 1)

Recapping: The last update has VA4 at 10023/10000 and Society and Social Sciences is at 928/900

Remove Whaling

This does not seem to be that relevant of a profession/industry any more.

Support

1. As nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:11, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 07:49, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Any more - was it, ever? Limited to few countries only. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:28, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose  Carlwev  06:33, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Feels like whaling was a pretty big deal for the advancement of civilization through a slew of products derived therefrom. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:01, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Per Carlwev _pbp 11:50, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
4. Per Carlwev in Discussion section, good reasoning. Jusdafax (talk) 08:28, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

Article appears in 55 languages, There are categories and articles for whaling specific to 20 individual countries/states, on all 6 inhabited continents Category:Whaling_by_country. Article states there is evidence that whaling started as early as 3000,BC over 5000 years ago. That it was a big industry for over a millennium from the ninth century to the late twentieth century when as many as 80,000 whales were killed a year. It has been an industry for over ten times longer than other topics we list. The oil from whaling helped the industrial revolution. The rules and law about whaling are significant international treaties. There were significant ships, stations, weapons built just for whaling, it's quite different and unique compared to other types of hunting. It appears in popular culture in stories like Moby-Dick. If we are to list several articles about whale species, we should probably list the article about the main way humans interacted with whales for over 5000 years.  Carlwev  06:33, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Remove Multinational corporation

We have Company  4 and Corporation  3. This is OK at VA5.

Support

1. As nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:11, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 07:49, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Important concept in economics and such. Not the same as company, obviously. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:41, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

Remove Harvest festival

At 22 interwikis, this is 40 interwikis fewer than all other festivals. The world has concentrated agriculture to a small percentage of the population. Most people have other professions now. There was a time when a majority or major portion of any civilization was involved in harvesting. This is no longer that important of a holiday. Even Music festival  5 with 34 interwikis seems more vital to me.

Support

1. As nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:11, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Removal smacks of recency, as most people were in the ag business until about 200 years ago. Furthermore, harvest festival is the root of other celebrations, such as Thanksgiving. _pbp 22:24, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Agree with the above. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:29, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
3. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:07, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

Remove Banknote

I would much rather see Paper money promoted to VA5 than have banknote up here.

Support

1. As nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:11, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Swap Banknote for paper money

1. _pbp 22:25, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

   I was about to nominate paper money and saw zero interwikis and decided not to.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:48, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

2. I'd support a swap but I am puzzled by the lack of interwikis for paper money, which makes me wonder if this is really a separate concept from banknote? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:30, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

Add Law enforcement  5

I am surprised that this is not listed at the same level as Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/4/Society_and_social_sciences#Services_and_institutions. It belongs.

Support

1. As nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:51, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Either this or something similar obviously belongs here. At the last vote, it was opposed by 3 users without any explanation. Police  3 is level 3 but in a different section. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 06:14, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Police  3 is at LV3. This could be at LV4, as it deals with broader, if less famous aspects. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:31, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Social Sciences removal candidates (batch 2)

Remove NBC

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

---

I don't regard it as more important than the other members of the Big Three (American television). I believe CBS has been the leader in ratings for many years.

Support

1. As nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:20, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Literally added barely even two months ago, where the nominator of this discussion opposed and was the only one to oppose. So reopening this discussion that quickly based on a minority viewpoint strikes me as a bit odd. That aside, the logic behind listing NBC was not ratings, but rather historical importance, and other editors there expressed potential interest in adding the other members of the Big Three/Four to this level. λ NegativeMP1 01:00, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

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 Chinese Communist Party

The only political party listed at Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/4/Society_and_social_sciences#Politics. Is this really that much more important than any other political party in the world and world history.

Support

1. As nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:20, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The CCP's in depth level of control over China, as well as its institutionalized structure, is unlike almost any other party and has very few other historical similar examples. Most political parties have relatively weak structures, while the CCP has numerous branches and organizations from the central level to the smallest grassroots level, meaning it impacts the lives of 1.4 billion people actively on a daily basis. The constitution and most Chinese laws enshrine the CCP's leadership explicitly, most Chinese companies have Party branches within them, every single educational institution including universities are controlled by the Party in some form (every Chinese primary school student has to become a member of the Young Pioneers, which is a youth organization of the CCP), every single state institution as well as the People's Liberation Army  5 is under the sole and complete control of the CCP, Party Committees exist from the national level to the neighborhood level, Chinese internet and social media is under the strict control of a CCP Committee while its media is under control of the CCP Publicity Department, and even the big star in the Chinese flag represents the CCP. The Account 2 (talk) 18:30, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Given China's increasingly important role, I'd say no. Republican Party (United States)  5, Democratic Party (United States)  5 or Communist Party of the Soviet Union  5, however, should be at the same level. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:34, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Idiosincrático (talk) 02:01, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

1. It IS the principal political party in the largest country in the world. In many respects, the CCP and the Chinese government are almost interchangeable. _pbp 00:49, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

   Correction, India is more populated per List of countries and dependencies by population. Sahaib (talk) 18:25, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

Remove Christian democracy and Social democracy

I understand that we have Democracy  3, but these are not even listed under that or Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/4/Society_and_social_sciences#Forms_of_government. They are listed at Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/4/Society_and_social_sciences#Ideology_and_political_theory and seem out of place and less vital than other listings.

Support

1. As nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:20, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Important political ideologies in Europe. --Thi (talk) 07:47, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

Remove Population ageing

Population  4 is important, but is this really a VA4 topic? It seems less important than Population control and Human population planning to me.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:20, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:20, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I disagree. Basic and important concept in demographics, I'd say equal to population control and better known than human population planning. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:34, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

Remove Nature versus nurture

Only 24 interwikis. Not sure it belongs.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:20, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:20, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Add Shah Rukh Khan

He is known as the "King of Bollywood" and is the most successful of the three "Khans of Bollywood". He also stars in the vital film Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge  5.

Support

1. As nom. Sahaib (talk) 19:07, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Amitabh Bachchan and Rajinikanth cover modern Indian male actors pretty good, SRK is definitely essential to modern acting, but we don't cover many of the modern Western actors either like Tom Cruise or Leonardo DiCaprio. There should be more Bollywood but with names like Dilip Kumar (star of Mughal-e-Azam  5) and Dev Anand for male actors, Nargis/Sridevi for another woman to equalise the male 2 and Mohammed Rafi and Kishore Kumar for music (which backs film in India). They are the better additions to cover Bollywood history. Better to have a balance for old/new overall. Eventually all of these should be added, there should be a large reexamination of the 20th century names like Spencer Tracy, Gary Cooper, Claudette Colbert, Henry Fonda, Joan Crawford, Barbara Stanwyck, Alec Guinness, Klaus Kinski, Jeanne Moreau and Peter O'Toole who have not been remembered by global culture and could be used to swap with the modern vital names. Either way, SRK isn't where i'd start. Kumar should be the next Bollywood actor and it's a hard sell for SRK to be on as one of the sole modern actors with Hanks/Chan but not Cruise/DiCaprio, so i'll stay neutral. GuzzyG (talk) 04:09, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Maybe we should get more input from Indians, but as an American who has watched very few Bollywood films, I would have assumed SRK was #1 for recent decades. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

Remove Dyeing  4

We already have Dye  4 at this level, a bit too specialist for this level I think. VA4 Technology is overquota.

Support

1. As nom.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:49, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Any good article on Dye would realistically cover the Dyeing process. Listing both at V4 isn't really necessary. λ NegativeMP1 20:31, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Per above. --Thi (talk) 08:38, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
4. PrimalMustelid (talk) 15:36, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Communist Party of the Soviet Union  5

Chinese Communist Party  4 is V4, and per my comment above (defending it), rightly so. While the Soviet party is gone, its mark on history is V4-level. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:39, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:39, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
2. The Account 2 (talk) 00:47, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Idiosincrático (talk) 07:19, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
4. Interstellarity (talk) 11:17, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Soft oppose. The USSR is included, the party is probably not needed. I would rather see the CCP taken down to level 5 then this go to level 4. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:41, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

Add US Republican and Democratic Parties

Republican Party (United States)  5 and Democratic Party (United States)  5 are widely known internationally and have left and enduring and continuing mark on geopolitics. They are household concepts worldwide, better known than a lot of stuff we have at V4. Also see context above (Chinese Communist Party is V4, Soviet one should be, IMHO). (And I say this as someone who generally complains about SYSTEMICBIAS and Vitals being too US/English-centric). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:39, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:39, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
2. The Account 2 (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Interstellarity (talk) 11:16, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong oppose. The U.S. political parties are not that important. We don't include the major parties of other countries unless the party is the same thing as the government, such as the CCP. Adding Labour Party (UK)  5 would be silly, and we aren't going to open the can of worms that is U.S. third parties, historically significant parties like the Whig Party (United States)  5 or Democratic-Republican Party  5. Fundamentally, most of these parties might feel like they are super important, but in the grand scheme of things they are kind of a blip. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:40, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Leaning oppose to both, as the political parties aren't inherently internationally influential in terms of consistent ideologies to warrant level 4. PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:17, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

Add Gland  5

Important part of biology, with many variations.

Support

1. As nominator. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:06, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
2. PrimalMustelid (talk) 12:09, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Very important, and bio is under quota. Mrfoogles (talk) 02:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Everything

Everything  5 This article should theoretically be at level 1, but it probably won't be. This article covers pretty much, well, everything.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Problem with reality is, it doesn’t cover everything, because everything includes everything unreal. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:21, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Reality covers everything. --Thi (talk) 04:58, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
2. The motivation is silly, and level 4 is over quota. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:36, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
3. In many ways, an article about everything is an article about nothing. Seems more productive to make the article a link to Wiktionary than to make it a VA _pbp 23:34, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

   My vote is somewhat a corrallary to my comments earlier this year asking "of what point Lv 1 and 2?" I think it is impossible to write a single article, or even a handful of articles, that cover everything _pbp 00:11, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Move more television-related articles from media to arts

In a previous discussion we decided to move TV shows from the media section of the society subpage to the arts subpage. I also proposed moving certain other TV-related articles, but that part of the proposal was made after Carlwev and Zar2gar1 voted, and QuicoleJR and NegativeMP1 also didn't comment on that part. Thus I'm relisting my proposal to move the sections "Genres" and "Awards" and the entries Documentary film, Serial, Episode, Television pilot and Television show to the arts subpage (to clarify: that list refers to level 5; I'm not proposing that any article be promoted to level 4).

Support

1. As nom. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 15:56, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Makkool supported this proposal in the previous discussion.
3. Makes sense. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:45, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
4. support see below  Carlwev  16:55, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
5. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 17:00, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Yeah - Genres of music, film, written fiction are under arts, so then should TV genres, a sitcom on TV is so close to a comedy movie they should not be in completely different parts of the list. Same again for awards, movie and music awards are under art, so then should TV awards, if the TV shows have already gone. (A possible counter argument I could imagine would be some types of TV show are reality or factual, but then we list factual/account books under arts like Mein Kampf, Diary of a Young Girl, Dictionaries and Encyclopaedias and more so the same should follow for factual and reality TV shows, they are still filmed and edited and have some artistic input.)  Carlwev  16:54, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Add Punjab, Pakistan

It is the second most populated first-level administrative division in the world and is one of only four in the top 20 most populated divisions not included (the others being #11 Madhya Pradesh  5, #16 Karnataka  5 and #19 Anhui  5. Whilst there is some overlap with Punjab  4, I don't think that should discount it.

Support

1. Sahaib (talk) 20:31, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Add Joe Biden

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.

---

Considering that his term in office as President concluded not that long ago, I think now would be a good time to evaluate whether Joe Biden’s vitality is comparable to other 21st century presidents we list like Bush, Obama and Trump. I will remain neutral on whether he is worth adding or not.

Support

Oppose

1. Recency aside, I don't think that his impacts are anywhere near enough to warrant level 4 vitality, as his presidency isn't remarkable and his legacy hasn't been long-lasting, especially with Trump overshadowing him and even undoing at least some of it. PrimalMustelid (talk) 13:57, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
2. In 50-100 years, I expect Biden will not be very memorable. I don't find much that stands out in history about his presidency: he handled COVID only after the first year, he ended the war in Afghanistan but had similar foreign policy to his predecessors, and he spent his whole term campaigning against Trump but ultimately failed. He's not one of the handful of most important vice presidents or senators in American history, either. EchoVanguardZ (talk)
3. Historically not so consequential even as compared to other recent one-term presidents Bush 41 and Carter. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:39, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Per above. λ NegativeMP1 16:24, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
5. Oppose. I'd rather cut most of our presidents from level 4 then include more. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:52, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
6. Idiosincrático (talk) 01:59, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
7. The only really notable things he did were withdrawing from Afghanistan, and sending aid to Ukraine/Israel, which aren't enough to make him V4. Kevinishere15 (talk) 06:44, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Interstellarity (talk) 10:14, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Had Biden gotten re-elected I'd say he was in. He had a long career before president, but not one distinguished enough for VA4. His single term was overshadowed by whatever Orange Man was blabbing about on Truth Social. In the main, I think Obama, Trump and Bush is the right allocation of post-1989 American politicians _pbp 14:33, 1 April 2025 (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.

Barack Obama vitality question

Question I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on the inclusion of Barack Obama. After reading the discussion on George W. Bush, which will likely not pass especially since he was president during 9/11. I understand why Trump is vital since he has been and still is a key figure of his party and that he has an ideology named after him (Trumpism). My question to you is what Barack Obama did other than being the first black president that made him to be listed. If we get our first woman president, will we likely list her just because she was the first woman? That's an open question I'd be see answered. Interstellarity (talk) 20:32, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

a) Being the first black president and the only African-American politician on VA4 is enough

b) Obama is Obamacare, he won a Peace Prize...

c) Obama is usually ranked in the Top dozen of U.S. presidents, usually ahead of multiple other VA4 presidents

d) The United States has been one of 2-3 dominant world powers since the fall of the Berlin Wall. Only having two people to represent a 36-year-era, neither of them Democrats, seems low

e) If we get a female president, I'm OK with her immediately being listed at VA4 21:19, 1 April 2025 (UTC) _pbp 21:19, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

a) There are many firsts we don't include, across many countries.

b) The Affordable Care Act isn't vital. We don't include most of the people from the List of Nobel Peace Prize laureates.

c) The subjective rankings of how good a president was have nothing to do with how vital they are. That isn't a criteria at all listed on the project.

d) We are missing representatives from several 36-year-era's of human history entirely. America is over represented, and there is a strong bias towards including recent American leaders. American party affiliation is not really something I think needs to be considered in terms of representation. If it is, feel free to remove some until you think it is nice.

e) Making any American president level 4 immediately is extremely American centric. The U.S. president is not that important, and the demographics of someone in the position does not make them one of the top 10,000 most vital topics of all time across all disciplines. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:41, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

@GeogSage @Interstellarity: Let me phrase it another way: there are a lot of Americans, including most of the athletes, actors, and activists, plus 8-10 of the politicians we list, who I would remove before or while removing Obama. As VA4 is currently structured, he stays _pbp 00:20, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Agreed on that at least. I wouldn't start with Obama, he has had a larger impact on world events then most athletes, and likely should be grouped into the to be a site wide "watch page" function of VA based on how people treat any political figure. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:21, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

If V4 was restructured or we made cuts to biographies then I think Barack Obama could be removed. Sure, he left an impact, but not nearly as much of Bush or Trump. He probably belongs at this level still as of our current standards, though. λ NegativeMP1 00:42, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Don't think Obamacare needs to be vital at this level to contribute to Obama being so. Hyperbolick (talk) 01:14, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Most modern American presidents (from Roosevelt/WWII era, +Wilson, and Lincoln/Washington) are world-famous and shaped world politics. I'd say they are V4 easily. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:38, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Add Ilham Aliyev

President of Azerbaijan since 2003. Notable for his authoritarian rule and corruption, increased tension with Armenian states to the point of the 2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh where N-K was dissolved, almost the entirety of the Armenian population expelled. Also has been increasing ties with Israel to the point of it becoming one of its most reliable economic and political allies. PrimalMustelid (talk) 14:34, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. PrimalMustelid (talk) 14:34, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. But Azerbaijan (and by extension, its leader(s)) doesn't matter outside its borders. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:36, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

   I would contest that since the EU has been increasingly relying on Azerbaijani oil since 2022 as a result of the Russo-Ukrainian War, and they still have to walk a fine line since it is threatening Armenia, which they had pledged to support. And it has complicated regional ties with the likes of Iran, Turkey, and Israel. PrimalMustelid (talk) 08:40, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

Add Viktor Orbán

Ruling Hungary since 2010, Viktor Orban has stood as one of the biggest proponents of the illiberalism movement, especially evident by his infamous 2014 speech endorsing it. He's proven to be one of the biggest stonewalls to EU unity and has been aligning his country with similarly authoritarian, expansionist nations like Serbia, Israel, and Russia, making him a very important and controversial figure of his time. Arguably one of the most infamous modern political names in all of Europe.

Support

1. As nom. PrimalMustelid (talk) 10:54, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Very weak support. He is known but his regional is mostly local, outside occasionally messing up with EU-workings. He is better known, in Europe, than many other V5 politicians who are strictly local, so he might be V4. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:35, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Discussion for which articles to discuss removals of

Based on my calculations of numbers borrowed from various level 4 article categories, the total number of articles there is about 10,024. We'll probably need to discuss which articles we need to remove since it is currently over quota. It would be likely be worth looking at both the Society and social sciences and Technology categories since both are over quota. We can probably nominate more than 25 articles to potentially make room for adding other articles. But yeah, we should suggest potential candidates here so that we can nominate them later. PrimalMustelid (talk) 22:24, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Suggested articles for potential removal

1. Removals should come from biographies, it is grossly over represented at this level. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:56, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

   Maybe we can somehow find biography articles to remove then some of the transfer technology and/or society plus social science category quotas into people. PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:06, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Remove Bedouin, add Turkic peoples

Bedouin  4 is a subgroup of Arabs  4, so I think it should be replaced with Turkic peoples  5. Turkic peoples are broad, spreading from Turkey, to Central Asia, to Siberia, while still sharing many aspects in common. We do include several Turkic ethnic groups, such as Uyghurs  4 (at VA4) and Gagauz people  5. Also, per the articles, there are ~25 million Bedouins and ~170 million Turkic people.

Support

1. As nominator. If Bedouin is to be kept, an alternative would be to replace Sámi people  4 with Turkic peoples. I'm not sure Sámi people are significant enough to be at VA4. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 04:37, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Bookkeeping

A recent V5 discussion about removing double-entry bookkeeping noted that bookkeeping is just V5. Well, I think that d-e bookkeeping is V5, and bookkeeping is an important concept related to the development of modern Finance  3, Accounting  4 and Economics  2, and should be at V4. I can see accounting at V4, but still... I'd push that one (bookkeeping) up. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:32, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Support

1. As nominator. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:32, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion