This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Vital Articles This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Vital Articles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of vital articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and work together to increase the quality of Wikipedia's essential articles.Vital ArticlesWikipedia:WikiProject Vital ArticlesTemplate:WikiProject Vital ArticlesVital Articles

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

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

Voting count table (>60%)

P = passes F = fails		opposing votes
		0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
0	supporting votes	–	–	–	–	F	F	F	F	F	F
1		–	–	–	F	F	F	F	F	F	F
2		–	–	F	F	F	F	F	F	F	F
3		–	F	F	F	F	F	F	F	F	F
4		P	P	P	F	F	F	F	F	F	F
5		P	P	P	P	F	F	F	F	F	F
6		P	P	P	P	F	F	F	F	F	F
7		P	P	P	P	P	F	F	F	F	F
8		P	P	P	P	P	P	F	F	F	F
9		P	P	P	P	P	P	F	F	F	F

1. Before being closed, a Level 5 proposal must:
   1. Run for at least 15 days; AND
   2. Allow at least 7 days after the most recent vote; AND
   3. Have at least 4 participants.
2. For a proposal to be implemented on the Level 5 list:
   1. It must have over 60% support (see table); AND
   2. It must have at least 4 support votes !votes.
3. For proposed additions from August 2024 onwards, the nominator should list (and possibly link to) at least one potential section in the level 5 vital articles list for the article to be added to. Supporters can also help in this regard.

For reference, the following times apply for today:

• 15 days ago is: 15:41, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• 7 days ago is: 15:41, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

If you're interested in regularly participating as a closer, the following browser tools may also be helpful:

• Streamlined closing with User:DaxServer/DiscussionCloser.js
• One click archiving with User:Elli/OneClickArchiver
  • Consider User:andrybak/Archiver if you prefer archiving several discussions in one go

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

I came across that the US professional women's softball league has changed organizations recently. I feel we should swap this with the new league, even though it was founded only two years ago. I don't think keeping the old one is necessary, even for history's sake. There could be grounds for removal as well, because we are over-quota in this section, so I'll open that up also for discussion.

Support swap

1. as nom. Makkool (talk) 16:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. Interstellarity (talk) 22:03, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose swap

1. Women's Professional Fastpitch has only a single interwiki and I'm not sure it's ready for primetime. While I understand the impetus of having women's leagues, neither of the fastpitch leagues strike me as vital. _pbp 21:45, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   If you think that neither are vital, could you support remove as well as oppose the swap? Makkool (talk) 16:24, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support remove

1. _pbp 01:08, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per above. Kevinishere15 (talk) 00:37, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss

Largest military by size in the European Union.

Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 18:26, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. Decently large, and tons of historical importance. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:32, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3. Interstellarity (talk) 01:54, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
4. λ NegativeMP1 18:36, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

A very famous branch of the French armed forces.

Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 18:26, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:12, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. per nom. Significant historically. Aurangzebra (talk) 02:11, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Seems somewhat well-known, but we definitely don't need two articles for the French army. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Discussion

Germany's armed forces, the second largest military in the EU after France.

Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 18:26, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Not particularly large, and little to no historical importance, since it was only created in the 1950s. "Second-largest military in the EU" is not a good enough reason to list it IMO. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:37, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agreed. Also recent news suggest it is becoming a shell of an army, ridiculous from the current geopolitical perspective, but it even more strongly implies it is not a significant entity. I don't see a point of auto-vitaling every major army - VAs are not checklists. This army is simply not vital. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:04, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Discussion

Concepts in marketing that are not listed.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 22:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. Obviously. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 18:49, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
4. λ NegativeMP1 18:36, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

It seems that Public good (economics) is about to pass. This seems to be a more precise term than Personal property  5. In fact, I would choose this over personal property if only one could be listed.

Support

1. As nom. -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:58, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. Interstellarity (talk) 01:54, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
4. λ NegativeMP1 18:36, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discuss

Important topic, surprised it isn't listed. 47 interwikis, rated High-Importance by WikiProject Fashion.

Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 03:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. Important basic clothing, and a rider on, a sexual fetish too. Just like Pantyhose. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:09, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
4. λ NegativeMP1 18:36, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. They appear to be in decline. Sahaib (talk) 09:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Discuss

This album was suggested for addition earlier this year by a now blocked user, as part of a proposal to remove Metallica (album)  5 (though compensate for the removal by adding Enter Sandman). But that proposal barely gained any traction, nine months have passed since then, and I think a more detailed rationale for why Master of Puppets should be listed could be given, and I don't think a swap is necessary. Basically, I think both Master of Puppets and the Black Album belong at this level, and I don't think Enter Sandman itself covers the Black Album enough. Yes, this is definitely a stretch since Metallica  5 itself is only V5 (though I would support moving them to V4), so two entire albums from them is absolutely pushing it, but I will explain why I think both should be listed.

I believe Master of Puppets and the Black Album are influential for completely different reasons to where I think putting the two against each other is illogical. The Black Album is important for being a cultural landmark of sorts that made metal more accessible, and there are several popular songs from that album to where I simply do not think the proposed idea of only listing Enter Sandman makes any sense. Meanwhile, Master of Puppets is influential for being the most critically acclaimed album in that genre, or at least second to Paranoid (album)  5. It is widely considered one of the greatest albums of all time as well, and in lists where it and the Black Album are both included, it always ranks above it. And the article for Master of Puppets makes its influence even more clear: "Master of Puppets became thrash metal's first platinum album and by the early 1990s thrash metal successfully challenged and redefined the mainstream of heavy metal.", "Master of Puppets is widely accepted as the genre's most accomplished album, and paved the way for subsequent development", and " In 2015, Master of Puppets became the first metal recording to be selected by the Library of Congress for preservation in the National Recording Registry for being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant."".

As I stated above, I think the areas of importance that these two albums cover (the Black Album's influence in pop culture, and Master of Puppets' genre importance) are different enough to warrant listing both. But I would definitely understand if anyone did not want two albums from this band, so in the event of a worst-case scenario, I think the influence of Master of Puppets is objectively larger than the Black Album, and would reluctantly be fine with a swap.

Support

1. λ NegativeMP1 22:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. In top 3 most vital metal albums for sure Makkool (talk) 17:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3. I'd argue this album is more iconic than The Black Album. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 18:49, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
4. Weak support. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:24, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Deforestation is level 4, so this makes senses.

Support

1. As nom. Sahaib (talk) 21:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2.  Carlwev  02:30, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Seems redundant to the broader Ecological restoration  5.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per above Makkool (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. λ NegativeMP1 18:36, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss

My conjecture is that American English speakers misplace vitality on Cleat (shoe)  5 because we call Football boot  5 Cleats. I did not realize that the article for Cleat (shoe) is not about a type of shoe until I tried to look at the two articles for merging. Track spikes are of similar importance to Football boot in my mind.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. As nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 23:21, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discuss

If we are to have a second pornographic film, this would be it. I think it is the next most vital although from the same decade as Deep Throat (film)  5. I think this is the other classic porno. If you asked people to name 2 well-known pornos, this is probably the other famous one.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. As nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:30, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. I've heard of it before, and I have zero interest in that kind of work. It seems very impactful according to the article. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:36, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. One adult film is enough Makkool (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per Makkool. λ NegativeMP1 18:36, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss

1. I wasn't expecting this to be available on Wikimedia Commons. Kevinishere15 (talk) 21:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This belongs aside Digital currency  5-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. As nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discuss

The following listings are being relisted here with accrued date priority. They were previously listed at on the stem page by me. User:Zar2gar1 has noted that they are more suitable for this page. He had closed them out and signed in opposition based on the page with stated neutrality if listed here. His oppositions are thus removed on this page. Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Technology#Architectural_elements included 16 Level 4 elements despite only having 21 level 5 (including these 16). I feel several of these should be level 5, given the list of level 4 elements: Arch  4, Ceiling  4, Column  4, Door  4, Elevator  4, Façade  4, Floor  4, Foundation (engineering)  4, Ladder  4, Lighting  4, Roof  4, Room  4, Stairs  4, Wall  4, and Window  4. Note that Chimney  5 passed immediately from this nomination and Fence  5, Moat  5, and Rain gutter  5 were later passed. These are more borderline nominations.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:08, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. as nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. Pretty obvious. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Doesn't seem vital enough Makkool (talk) 11:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. I don't really think it's vital. --Moscow Connection (talk) 09:52, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. as nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Doesn't seem vital enough Makkool (talk) 11:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. I don't really think it's vital. --Moscow Connection (talk) 09:52, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. as nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. We see this everywhere for the past few decades. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:19, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. Pretty obvious. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Doesn't seem vital enough Makkool (talk) 11:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. I don't really think it's vital. --Moscow Connection (talk) 09:52, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. as nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support  Carlwev  16:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3. Pretty obvious. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
4. Kevinishere15 (talk) 05:02, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Doesn't seem vital enough Makkool (talk) 11:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. as nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. Important safety element, long history, ubiquitous. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:22, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. Pretty obvious. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
4. These everyday things should be listed. Kevinishere15 (talk) 05:02, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Doesn't seem vital enough Makkool (talk) 11:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. I don't really think it's vital. --Moscow Connection (talk) 09:52, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following listings are being relisted here with accrued date priority. They were previously listed at on the STEM page by me. User:Zar2gar1 and User:JpTheNotSoSuperior have both noted that they are more suitable for this page. Where they opposed with conditional support under architecture, their votes have been moved to support-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:02, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We list Tower  4 and the following are related.

Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. support under Architecture. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. See the above comment. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 19:07, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. support under Architecture. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. See the above comment. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 19:07, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. support under Architecture. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. See the above comment. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 19:07, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. support under Architecture. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. See the above comment. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 19:07, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:23, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. Weak support, the article isn't very meaty right now, but I guess this makes sense under Fortification  3, which we list here. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. See my comments above. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 19:07, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:23, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. weak support for Guardhouse in Architecture, even if people may not associate architecture with security buildings at first. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

1. Maybe the stubby Guard tower should be merged into Watchtower.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   I agree completely, even if they typically have slightly different connotations. I'll add it to my big list of VA5 reorg ideas. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following listings are being relisted here with accrued date priority. They were previously listed at on the stem page by me Because rooms are listed at Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Technology#Rooms_and_spaces . User:Zar2gar1 has noted that they are more suitable for this page. He had closed them out and signed in opposition based on the page with stated neutrality if listed here. His oppositions are thus removed on this page.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:27, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Not different enough from living room Makkool (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   The article tries to explain it but I am not convinced they are separate. Living room  5 is indeed enough here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:27, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2. Only six interwikis. Obviously, no one will even understand what it means when he sees this in the "list of recommended articles". (I'm talking about languages other than English.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 09:59, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A GA, covering the history of Syrian literature as a national subgenre of Arabic literature. It covers the definition and beginnings of this literature up to works of the 21st-century, including a host of works reflecting exile, war and imprisonment of the latest period in Syria's history. - If necessary, we could swap it for Sumerian literature , that is VA-5, but obviously not as relevant for the present.

Support

1. as nom-Munfarid1 (talk) 15:32, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. Seems vital enough. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. I feel we already have enough articles on national literatures. Maybe as a swap I could support this. Makkool (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Discussion

I had At Home: A Short History of Private Life lying around, and there were more omissions in the Rooms and spaces section I noticed. Some clear removals as well to balance the adds. Makkool (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A room for entertaining guests, the historical precursor to the living room. A part of large houses for several centuries. Rated High-Importance in Wikiproject Home living.

Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Oppose here, but neutral if moved to Everyday Life. I had to think about it more, and while there is craft knowledge behind this, the primary justification is its every-day-ness. So it should really be ranked against Everyday Life articles, especially when Tech is so bloated. Actually, Everyday Life may be a better place for all specific rooms (they're defined by use patterns, not necessarily technical design). -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Isn't this the same thing and the "Living room  5"?

Neutral

Discussion

The main room in a royal palace or large manor house. I don't feel as strongly for this, because we already have Hall  5, but on the other hand, the great hall would be a major space to list for historical homes.

Support

1. Weak support as nom. Makkool (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Oppose here, but neutral if moved to Everyday Life. I had to think about it more, and while there is craft knowledge behind this, the primary justification is its every-day-ness. So it should really be ranked against Everyday Life articles, especially when Tech is so bloated. Actually, Everyday Life may be a better place for all specific rooms (they're defined by use patterns, not necessarily technical design). -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Doesn't seem essential. --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:01, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Discussion

An important room also in modern apartments.

Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. Sure. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Oppose here, but neutral if moved to Everyday Life. I had to think about it more, and while there is craft knowledge behind this, the primary justification is its every-day-ness. So it should really be ranked against Everyday Life articles, especially when Tech is so bloated. Actually, Everyday Life may be a better place for all specific rooms (they're defined by use patterns, not necessarily technical design). -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Discussion

I want to take a closer look at this section.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:46, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:46, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:10, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. oppose I'm surprised this is even an article.  Carlwev  23:11, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   It sorta makes sense once you figure out what it is. _pbp 13:50, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Discussion

The list was going to be longer, but I'll stop at these two.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:14, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:14, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. Obviously. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 18:55, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

• I would support this for its seeming importance, but the article is so short, I'm not sure how encyclopedic the topic is. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 22:25, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this belongs at Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Everyday_life#Accessories.

Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:52, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

The following listings are being relisted here with accrued date priority. They were previously listed at on the stem page by me. User:Zar2gar1 has suggested relising as Everyday life nominations and has closed them out and signed in opposition based on the page with stated neutrality if listed here. Those stated oppositions are thus removed on this page.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:28, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. Seems vital enough. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. Maybe a bit less now than in the 20th century, but still V5 level concept. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:32, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Oppose. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Post box should be added before this Makkool (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. Seems vital enough. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Oppose. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Makkool (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Arts#Specific_works_of_visual_art, I was under the impression that there is a limit to two works by any given artist. Is this a general understanding? Michelangelo has at least three just looking under Sistine Chapel.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification, I only mean to include [[1]] not the sculptures, which increases his count and probably others. I do realize that he is one of 6 VA3 artist, but I am trying to get an understanding of allocation priority.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm moving this here from the main Lv5 page for the nominator. I've included the original thread as a subtopic. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 14:03, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Explicit vote for nom. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 14:03, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. I think the concept of a comic can be understood by... just the article for a Comic book  4. I'm just not convinced about the vitality of this one. Article doesn't do it much favors, either. λ NegativeMP1 18:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. Significant comic book to indie publishing and storytelling-wise, but still more of a cult classic than an example of most vital comics of all time Makkool (talk) 19:08, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Discuss

Zar2gar1 (talk) 14:03, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems on par with Ecological restoration  5.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. I had this on my mind as an addition proposal but forgot.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 16:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Although we are trying to trim Universities and University systems, this one is up there among the elites. Maybe we can trim California's entries from 3 (Claremont Colleges, University of California  5 and California State University) to 1 and add this one.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support swapping this with at least one other University. Would suggest Texas A&M University in addition to Claremont Colleges, University of California  5 and California State University
3. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

I would support a swap with this and University of Texas at Austin  5. I would also like to see Texas A&M University taken down as well as the ones you mention, but a clean swap with UT Austin and the UT system seems logical. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why does University of California  5 get University of California, Berkeley  4 and University of California, Los Angeles  5 and University of Texas System gets no children?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can support -A&M-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're asking the wrong person, I think Universities are over represented. You can look up above and see I nominated many for removal. If you want to try to nominate taking the California ones down, I'd support it. I don't consider college sports (or sports in general) vital, and think that the United States should probably be limited to 20 or fewer schools/University systems based exclusively on how internationally recognizable they are for academics/research. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we could get rid of half of the pedestrian colleges and broaden the types of institutions that we list, that would be great.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support. --Moscow Connection (talk) 09:29, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Iostn (talk) 20:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
4. Okay, but the Bolshoi Theatre would be a better addition. (Can be switched later.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:07, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

1. I nominated several colleges/universities to be removed a while back (I think this might still be open for some of them), and definitly support the removal of more. I encourage you to nominate "pedestrian colleges" for removal, I'd likely support that out of hand as I suspect some of these might be included because people associated with the schools pushed a bit. That said, I don't actually know about most of these, which is my ignorance, not to say they AREN'T vital, so would need some brief rational to vote one way or the other. I voted on the ones I've heard of personally. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Makkool (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Discussion

1. Rationale please? From all I'm interpreting right now, it appears to just be a regular culinary award. And I'm not sure how truly important it is given it only has two interwikis. λ NegativeMP1 09:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
   1. Twenty years ago, restaurant goers use to discuss Zagat to compare venues. Now, people refer to Michelin Guide  5 and Beard Awards. I was just going by feel. I understand 2 interwikis is very low.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A form of government without foreign interference.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 02:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Iostn (talk) 20:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. Obviously. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 18:56, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another related concept related to Everything and Nothing.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 01:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. This might be approaching dictionary levels, but honestly I think that something is more vital then a lot of the stuff we include so sure. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. Sure. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 18:57, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A problem that has plagued journalism for decades, much more prevalent in recent years.

Support

1. As nom. SameOldSameOldSameOld (talk) 02:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Very important. Sure, we have some similar concept listed - so what? They have stand-alone notability and they are all vital. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:39, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. Pretty basic concept. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 18:57, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. I'm wondering, if there is too much overlap with Misinformation  5, Disinformation  5, Propaganda  4 and Hoax  5, which we already have on the list. The Culture section where this would go is a lot over-quota. Makkool (talk) 07:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose per above. I'd prefer to see Infodemic added before Fake news as well. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss

Human right recognized by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights  4, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights  4, and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Several other human rights, such as Freedom of assembly  5, are level 5.

Support

1. As nom Mathwriter2718 (talk) 04:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Weak support. Not one of the most important ones, but we have room. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Non-English songs are a bit underrepresented. Con te partirò gets more pageviews than Wannabe and has the same number of language links (25). Con te partirò or "Time to Say Goodbye" is one of the best-selling singles of all time (as well as in France and in Germany), the song has been covered and sampled a lot more (such as this Jason Derulo and David Guetta song) and has featured in more media (such as recently Squid Game). Wannabe does not have as big of a legacy, Like a Virgin (song), another female empowerment song is already listed.

Support

1. As nominator. Sahaib (talk) 08:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support remove, oppose add Makkool (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discuss

Looking at Category:Hairstyles and Template:Human hair. There are over 100 article to pick from. I am not sure bowl cut is among the most vital, standing out from the others, I would think it stands out as one of the least vital. Just picking articles at random missing articles concerning hair things are Braid (hairstyle), bob cut, perm (hairstyle), hair gel. And most notably pubic hair. All of which seem more vital than bowl cut. I may suggest pubic hair under biology as well kind of swap for this one.

Support

1. As nom.  Carlwev  08:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discuss

Not vital, same argument as bowl cut above. start class in 8 other languages. Would consider swapping with hair gel or hair spray. Maybe.

Support

1. As nom.  Carlwev  09:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. I think this style had a moment more than a generation ago. Not vital.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:30, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Maybe place somewhere in Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Philosophy_and_religion#Philosophy, but they are fundamental topics here.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 00:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Strong support for at least one of them. Neutral on whether we need both. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:42, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. Strong support for person, neutral for personhood. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 18:58, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support for person Makkool (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Comments

• I would support adding one but not both, but I'm not sure which is better to include. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 22:33, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per above discussion, the Olympics are getting unwieldy and I proposed removing the articles for the specific Summer or Winter games. Looking into it, I saw we are missing the Special Olympics World Games. We have Paralympic Games  4, which is a distinct thing operated by the International Paralympic Committee, while the Special Olympics are operated by an organization recognized by the IOC. I think if we remove most or all of the individual games, adding this shouldn't be much of an issue.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. λ NegativeMP1 04:38, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support, but ONLY if Special Olympics gets added as well. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 18:58, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Support Special Olympics ahead of this Makkool (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Discuss

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These paintings are one of two major regional traditions of rock art found in the north-west Kimberley region of Western Australia. They have been estimated to be approximately 12,000 years old, although there is debate on the date. I think this can round out our art and archeology a bit.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:34, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 13:37, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:34, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Famous character of Greek mythology, who went to retrieve his wife Eurydice from Hades. Described in the article as "one of the most significant figures in the reception of classical mythology in Western culture". The myth is taught in school as part of Literature classes in many countries.

Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 13:35, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Iostn (talk) 23:57, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

I have not had personal experience with a Civil law notary. I don't know if they have them in the US. The Notary public is the everyday term of import in my experience.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:28, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:28, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Obvious swap. 16 interwikis vs 1 .--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:47, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Fives is a rather obscure variant of handball/tennis/jeu de paume. Jeu de paume is the older sport, is an original rather than a derivative, was once contested in the Olympics, and trounces fives in interwikis, 31-4. _pbp 21:52, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. _pbp 21:52, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:35, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 13:03, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

This is a game that a lot of kids play but it hasn't been entrenched in culture as much as the other inclusions on this list. It is not even a well-defined 'game' as there is typically no concrete objective, it's just a thing some kids do. It is also a fairly recent game as it seems to have originated in the 1930s with the introduction of living rooms populated with furniture. I assume it was added because it was a somewhat popular meme a few years back and there was a Netflix show with the same name but the game's popularity was short-lived after that [2]. Hard to justify having this when we don't have more established games like Simon Says. I would rather have Imaginary friend which is dually notable in child's play and developmental psychology. High-Importance in Wikiproject Psychology and more average pageviews than The floor is lava even factoring in the spikes from the release of the Netflix show.

Support

1. As nom Aurangzebra (talk) 01:48, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support add Imaginary friend, perhaps with another swap. 19:11, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
3. Support remove Makkool (talk) 13:03, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Oppose remove the floor is lava. I have seen kids from three different cultures play this game, at different times, wouldn't be where I'd start cuts. The concrete objective is to be the last one who doesn't touch the lava, at least in my experience as a player/observer of the game. Sometimes, you become a lava monster and the objective is to make everyone else lava monsters. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:11, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose swap with imaginary friend, could perhaps support another swap Makkool (talk) 13:03, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Discuss

Nominated based on feedback at "Add Tupperware or Tupperware Brands" from User:Zar2gar1 and User:Mathwriter2718.

Support

1. as nom. -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:06, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support in Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Everyday_life#Food_storage_&_disposables Makkool (talk) 20:10, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. Seems fine to me. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 19:00, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Oppose straight add without a proposed swap. It seems to me that we list quite many containers and Technology is getting over-quota. Makkool (talk) 19:29, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   User:Makkool, can you revisit this here?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:00, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Discuss

TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:06, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• This has been relocated from STEM page to here with accrued date priority in the queue-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:54, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have two adds I think should be fairly uncontroversial and have found four possible removals. I would like to see all of these removed in addition to these two adds, but would be happy if it at least serves as a swap.

We include Apprenticeship  5 and Guild  4, I think Journeyman should be included.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:08, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Fairly self explanatory, but important when discussing education and employment.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:08, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

We include Bookkeeping  5 I don't think we need this as well.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:08, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Bookkeeping is only level 5, if level 4 then I would keep it Makkool (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

We include Supply chain  5 and Logistics  4, I don't think we need this as well.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:08, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

We list 7 aerospace companies, of which 5 are based in the United States. Pageviews of the five show that over the past year, Blue Origin has averaged less then the others on the list (I included Virgin Galactic in the views to see how it compared). I think we can trim Blue Origin.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:08, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support  Carlwev  19:06, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Proposal signature

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:08, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The former is a broader subject and gets more pageviews, ~50 vs ~15 daily. The latter is just a specific compilation, and a very imperfect one at that according to its article. Rather straightforward swap due to overlap. Can be added to WP:Vital articles/Level/5/Arts#Poetic works of the medieval era I think.

Support

1. As nom.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 11:59, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. It's a significant work of poetry, oppose swap with the broader article

Discuss

I wonder why the award is listed separately from the main event even though it is the major prize of the festival.

Support

1. As nom. CrisBalboa1 (talk) 17:02, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discuss

1. I vote to remove it. We don't list Academy Award for Best Picture or BAFTA Award for Best Film, which are far more important awards. I don't think any specific category at a festival or award show is vital.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:33, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would also vote to remove it. Idiosincrático (talk) 17:12, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support remove Makkool (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, as nominator, I change my position, since all of you decided for it, I will join your support for removal. CrisBalboa1 (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, is there a loose agreement on where to take the Sports & Games category next? Do most here want to keep polishing it at its current size, grow it, or is there a push to trim more articles? It's hanging out beneath its quota despite a lot of popular topics so I thought I should double-check. Note: this is purely a coordination thing, and I don't want to imply anything about the quota itself. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:28, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. I think the category is in a reasonable state. I don't find any clear gaps, it seems to cover the sections quite comprehensively. We have been in agreement that individual video games is just about right, with no need to grow or polish much. But there's still obvious articles to trim, some in general video game articles and individual sports, and more in sports organisations. I would be proposing some, but I'm waiting for this talk page to get smaller in size first. I think we could manage to decrease the quota if there's enough to trim. At least there's not enough omitted topics to ever increase it. Makkool (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   I think we can probably make a few more additions to video games without it being too detrimental and to also try to make it an even number. I was planning on making a larger proposal at some point in the future to add several games/series that have been brought up but never formally proposed (Ace Attorney, Prince of Persia, etc.) and also some sub-entries that might actually be worth discussing. But beyond that, I pretty much agree with the above. It likely doesn't need to grow too much, and I think the video games that we list right now are fine. λ NegativeMP1 16:56, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. Sports has 485 articles and sports organizations has 157, so a bit more then 1% of the projects 50,000. Games is 339 articles, and I don't really know if these sections should be grouped together in discussion, but as a standalone that seems reasonable. I tried proposing a swap of Sport  2 and Game  3, which was met with pushback. Level 5 also has "Entertainment" lumped in with Sports and games, and that seems to be a topic smeared across all of our categories at this point. Not to sound like a broken record, but semantics of how we cut the 50,000 total articles aside, we have 1,796 articles related to sports and sports figures, or about 3.6% of the total project. If we wanted to grow the "Sports and games" section I think the quota should come from the sports figures, and think that discussion of this section can't be done in a vacuum of the total project, despite how we slice the pie.

That said, as this isn't what this discussion is really about. This category is a semantic mess. In terms of organization I struggle to follow the logic that keeps general sports equipment like Ball  4 outside the technology section, while BMX bike was listed there. Video game hardware being listed under entertainment rather then technology seems a weird semantical choice to me as well. For example IPod  5 is a device that was marketed pretty much exclusively for entertainment, as is the Amazon Kindle  5, but both included in technology while video game consoles aren't. The organization of the project would probably benefit by making a section for "Toys and sports equipment" under technology. I think if we sorted out the technology aspect of this, the section would be a lot more logical.

On adds, for some reason there is a cultural perspective that they are still "novel," which I disagree with. The first "Video game  3" was patented in 1947, and the first commercial game in 1971. The first animation process later adapted for Film  3 was developed in 1833, and " first public screenings of films at which admission was charged were made in 1895." The first color television broadcast was in 1954, which means only one U.S. president was born in a world where they could have reasonably seen a color TV broadcast. A 10 year old who saw the first movie screened could have watched the first color TV broadcast at 69, and played the first commercial video game, Computer Space, at 86 years old. Despite this, our coverage of actresses, actors, directors, film, and TV seems to be much greater then video games, despite all three being common forms of entertainment for more then 50 years. Like @NegativeMP1 says, this would be the area I think could see the greatest expansion while we trim other places in the project. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:21, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't want to see too much expansion to video games as I said above, since they are still technically a newer invention and less "popular" among the general public compared to other mediums like film and television, but I'm sure broadening our coverage of video games and adding some sub-entries when necessary would be fine. For example, I still think Call of Duty  5 warrants a sub-entry due to it being the 3rd largest video game franchise ever. I'm going to wait a while before making any big proposals to list those video games though, as I think there are bigger fish to fry for the time being and I would like to wait until most of the existing major proposals (such as "Trimming some of the TV shows" and "Remove several magazines") are closed as to not overwhelm the talk page. λ NegativeMP1 20:30, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess what I'm saying is that video games are not really that much newer then film/television. In 2025, it's projected that Cinema - Worldwide will reach "US$86.10bn", TV and video is projected to reach US$728.21bn in 2025, while the revenue for the worldwide gaming market in 2024 estimated at 2024, " almost 455 billion U.S. dollars." Video games are not that much newer then film, television, and recorded music from a historical perspective. Then there are articles like Gaming as a Cultural Force Just Stepped to the Forefront of Entertainment on Adweek, Video games have replaced music as the most important aspect of youth culture on the Guardian, and Sorry, TV: Video games and user-generated content are now the top forms of entertainment in Fastcompany. Adweek stated gaming revenue bigger than the "NFL, NBA, MLB and the NHL combined" and that "More time is spent watching gaming videos and streams on YouTube or Twitch than HBO, Netflix, ESPN and Hulu combined." Based on this, gaming should have a much bigger footprint then it currently does. There is a lot of trimming that needs to happen and that could make room for this expanded video game footprint. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:28, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd agree that I think we could add 5-10 more video games/series. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:45, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so it sounds like there's some interest in reorganizing a few bits, but otherwise no appetite in significantly shrinking or filling in the section. I'll go ahead & leave this open if anyone else wants to discuss further; once it dies down for a few days, you're also welcome to close it to free up some space. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An essential part of the modern economic system, fits under Debt  4. Currently rated as High-importance by WikiProject Finance & Investment and WikiProject Politics; available in 56 Wikipedias.

Support

1. As nominator. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 21:59, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support  Carlwev  22:31, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discuss

Hopefully a very straightforward proposal since this is a 1-for-1 artist work swap. Could go in either Baroque music or anthems. This coronation piece has been sang at every single British coronation since its composition. It is one of George Frideric Handel  4's best-known works and better known than Solomon as it is an unofficial anthem for the UK at this point. 24 interwikis vs 12 interwikis. It is also the basis for the UEFA Champions League Anthem (30 interwikis), which is probably the most iconic official sports anthem ever (not as popular in the US). As a side note, Handel at VA4 probably deserves more works at VA5 than the 2 he currently has but I don't think I'd place Solomon in even the top 3 of his most important works - that distinction probably goes to Music for the Royal Fireworks (23 interwikis). I might propose that at some point in the future if the arts quota increase discussion passes. Aurangzebra (talk) 22:09, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. As nom. Aurangzebra (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support removal, oppose addition. Niche pieces of classical music; nothing in the article suggest they were or are iconic. Claims made by the nom are not present in the article about the suggested addition. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:32, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   Besides my side note at the end which is my opinion, literally every single claim I made here is in the article. If you haven't heard of this piece, say that but calling it a niche piece of classical music is objectively wrong. It's an unofficial British anthem (yes, this is stated in the article) so almost everyone in the Anglophone world knows it. And it gets more daily pageviews than even VA4 pieces of music such as the Brandenburg Concertos  4. Aurangzebra (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

3. Support both per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:40, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support remove, oppose add Makkool (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support both per nom; George Frideric Handel  4 is big enough that I'm not opposing addition, and Zadok is indeed one of the most-viewed in Category:Compositions by George Frideric Handel.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:00, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discuss

Hey @Makkool:, sorry I should have clarified here but I would only support a swap (or an add). I don't support just a removal so this is technically at best 3-1 (we also don't know what Quicole's preference is). Will leave open for a few more days in case anyone last second wants to jump in; otherwise, I will close this as both fail. Aurangzebra (talk) 18:36, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't seem particularly important as a separate topic.

Support

1. As nominator. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support, many important old media are included themselves, we don't need the article which tells us they are old, in hardly any other languages and a stub, not vital at all.  Carlwev  23:57, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

As far as I can tell, there isn't yet a vital article covering the topic of people who choose to live together and often share their property. Utopian socialism could be an alternative.

Support

1. As nominator. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:28, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Doesn't seem to me like a vital concept Makkool (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• I think this would go under Community  3 in Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences/Social studies#Groups. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 20:02, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Under Bar_(establishment) (which is level 4), we list Pub, Wine bar, Tavern and Cigar bar. Cigar itself is only level 5, why we would list bars dedicated to cigars, Category:Types_of_drinking_establishment lists over 30 types of drinking establishment, I don't know why cigar bars are more important than all the others here?

Support

1. As nom.  Carlwev  17:31, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 18:07, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

Restaurant is level 4, under it level 5 is Types of restaurant, Fast-food restaurant, Food court and Fast casual restaurant. I've never heard this term despite working in a restaurant. US-centric. In 12 other languages. Start class, has two line on history, than half the article is a dictionary definition, then the other half a list of examples. If we want to list eating establishments individual companies would be better (like Burger King aparently 18000 locations in 100 nations. - if Mc D is level 4). ... Types of restaurant and Category:Restaurants by type lists over 40 types of eatery, why this one is more vital than all of those, like Pizzeria.

Support

1. As nom.  Carlwev  17:31, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Carl makes a good case for a lack of vitality _pbp 00:30, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

A new article I wrote recently that was missing but I think is of V5 importance (at least). I wonder if one of both of Fan (person)  5, Fandom  5 shouldn't go to V4... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:38, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:38, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. I actually considered this as an alternative when I saw Jock (stereotype) before it was removed, but then I noticed there wasn't an article on it, definitely a major and long-lasting phenomenon. Iostn (talk) 13:20, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per below. We already list other fandoms. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Oppose. I don't think the fandoms are something we should start adding in general. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:38, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wea already list Anime and manga fandom  5, Furry fandom  5, Science fiction fandom  5 and formerly fantasy fandom which was removed. Iostn (talk) 13:20, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. Per above Makkool (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

The proposal to add African French made me to think this. West African Pidgin English has 75 million speakers over several countries. BBC World Service has broadcasted news on this language since 2017.

Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 18:17, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

The European form of Spanish. We currently list only 2 variants of Spanish (compared to 4 variants of French), when Spanish is the second most spoken native language in the world.

Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 18:17, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

The form of Spanish spoken in Argentina and Uruguay. The same justification as for Peninsular Spanish, we list only 2 variants of Spanish when French gets 4.

Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 18:17, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

In this proposal where I suggest the removal of Uncle Dave Macon and mentioned that we could remove a lot of Country music  4 musicians, an IP showed concerns about any possible gaps in the coverage of early recorded music if we decide to remove older acts for this list, particularly concerned about representation of Old-time music. I personally don't see the concerns that much, as I don't think figures with so few interwikis could possibly be truly influential to music history on a global scale, but it did have me thinking about the genre itself, which serves as a precursor to Country. Personally, for those historical reasons, I would rather list the genre of old-time music rather than a lot of random Country or old-time musicians people that are obscure on a global scale. I definitely wouldn't support adding this on my own accord, since old-time music itself is also only really a thing in the United States, but in the context of this scenario, listing the genre in exchange for clearing out the list of our bloated country musicians list seems like a fair trad; I'd rather have one Ameri-centric genre listing over 10-15 Ameri-centric musician listings. Also, this can be revisited after we actually clear out country music musicians, which it shouldn't be long before I make those proposals.

Support

1. Weak support as nom. λ NegativeMP1 23:07, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Generally, genres and other general concepts I think should listed before the related specific people and creative works since I believe it leads to a more stable list; this does not seem like an exception.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 10:25, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. There is no article called "North American folk music" Makkool (talk) 08:23, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Handkerchief  5 is listed as headgear because a handkerchief resembles a Kerchief  5, but handkerchiefs are not headgear, they are accessories or hygiene products. Thus I would like to move it.

Move to accessories

1. As nom. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:13, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 08:23, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to hygiene products

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:13, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much at all about cricket, but to me this article seems to be about the game of cricket that's codified and governed by International Cricket Council. I think it's enough we list the general listing Cricket  4 and also keep the three forms or formats of international cricket that we have: Test cricket  5, One Day International  5 and Twenty20 International  5. This way we could get away with one level of indented numbering and the last level of indentation wouldn't look so squished on the page.

There's also that we don't list any competing cricket codes to international cricket, like with rugby we have rugby league and rugby union. So that would be another reason I'd rather remove this than keep.

Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 07:53, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Sensible. J947 ‡ ^edits 21:21, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

This article is about games popular in Ireland or originated from there. It's an umbrella term to Gaelic football  5, Hurling  5 and Camogie  5. If we would remove this, we could move gaelic football under football, where it would belong better. Camogie is women's hurling, so it would make more sense to list in under hurling. Gaelic games wouldn't then have anything else under it, so it would be unnecessary to have it anymore. Especially because I don't think we have any other country related team sports articles besides it.

Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 07:53, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Futsal is indoor association football, or soccer. It's a popular enough sport compared to other team sports that we list as vital. It would be fit well alongside all the other types of football that we list.

Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 07:53, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Sure. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. 100%. It's arguably the easiest version of soccer to play as well (all you need is a hard surface and goals) which might make it one of the most-played sports in the world especially in the third world. Aurangzebra (talk) 02:10, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

A safer variant of American football where there is no tackling players to the ground. A reasonably popular sport when comparing to other sports we list. I remember playing both futsal and flag football in PE class at school. Flag football will be a discretionary event for the 2028 Olympics, which will be the first time any gridiron football has been in the Olympics.

Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 08:19, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. On the rise. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Remove as an unnecessary umbrella topic. It's enough that we list Disc golf  5 and Ultimate (sport) as individual sports; they're more vital than the category of sports.

Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 18:39, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Don't forget that Frisbee  4 _pbp 03:59, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Acela is a small part of the already-vital Amtrak  5. The Union Pacific was, along with the Central Pacific, the First Transcontinental Railroad. It later bought the Central and Southern Pacific to become one of the largest railways in the country. BNSF would also IMO be a good candidate. _pbp 16:27, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. _pbp 17:03, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Removal only

Add only

Swap with a different railroad

Discussion

Going through some of the specific musical works that we list at present, I think this one kinda sticks out to me as not really having much of a claim to vitality. It's creator, Louis Prima, is not vital even at this level and saying that a popular song like this is more vital than it's original artist is a very hard sell. Especially when the artist himself probably shouldn't be at this level regardless. There's not really much of a claim to vitality in the article itself either. And if you wanna play the pageviews and interwikis game (which may be a bit flawed for older songs like this, but whatever), it only has about 5,400 pageviews in the past month and 12 interwikis. I believe that these numbers are the lowest out of every song like it on this list. We don't necessarily have a shortage of representation for classical jazz or swing music on this list (in-fact, there were a lot of those additions not that long ago). Not to say that it's over-represented, I think it's perfectly represented. But rather my point is I don't think this song is filling in any gaps in our coverage, and it can probably be cut in favor of a more important song or album.

Unless we're listing it solely to represent Benny Goodman  5 (who is currently at V4), which I suppose would be fair, but I don't think we should be listing songs solely to represent a musician who didn't even originally create or sing that song. A better work to represent Goodman would probably be The Famous 1938 Carnegie Hall Jazz Concert, assuming that Goodman is worthy of V4 and stays there after my recent proposal to remove him from that level.

Support

1. As nom. λ NegativeMP1 04:45, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Hi everyone, just gathering some quick feedback. The following sections are all over quota:

• Religion & Philosophy
• Politics & Economics
• Culture

However, my impression was that despite some possible trimming, we mostly agree these sections shouldn't be shrinking. Personally, I'm more ambivalent about the latter 2, but if any category should be growing eventually, I feel it should be Religion & Philosophy.

Does anyone feel differently about these sections though? Is there any interest in significantly reorganizing or trimming them? Just double-checking if there were some plans we need to restate more clearly. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:51, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Links, please please please. Links to the sections you're talking about _pbp 18:14, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, since this is more about pre-existing plans or people's opinions, I figured it wasn't necessary, but I can link them:

• Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Philosophy and religion
• Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences/Politics and economics
• Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences/Culture

Zar2gar1 (talk) 23:01, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say there's room for growth in Religion & Philosophy: the vitality bar could be raised and more topics could be included. But I also think it's pretty good as it is, at least for the Religion half (I'm not so versed in Philosophy, so I can't say about it). It depends on that, if the rest of the community wants to work on it. In principle I would be interested and have some ideas, but I'll have to limit my time used on this project this spring. At least the books of the Bible and some other articles could be trimmed to bring it down to quota. Makkool (talk) 18:53, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd definitely like to see Religion & Philosophy grow at some point. The articles that are there aren't bad at all, but I definitely feel it's missing a lot (I can think of a few dozen things just from Islam and Buddhism for example). Since growing a section usually implies bumping the quota first thing, I didn't want to linger on that too much though. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 23:04, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anecdotally, Cogito, ergo sum is an example of something I've thought of proposing for addition but hadn't bothered yet because of Religion & Philosophy being overquota.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 08:19, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is on all kinds of balls used in different sports called "football". It's enough we list the article Ball (association football)  5, which is about soccer balls.

Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 19:40, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Not really about a specific topic. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per above. Swap with Ball (gridiron football). JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 00:14, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
4. per nom Aurangzebra (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

A bit obscure piece of gym equipment. We don't list Kettlebell, which we should ahead of this.

Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 19:40, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Weak oppose. Per below, I feel like these were more common back in the day. Hell, the oldest film in the Library of Congress is a guy swinging Indian clubs. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 00:14, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Discuss

@Aurangzebra: Indian clubs WERE contested twice in the Olympics. Obscure NOW, less so in the past _pbp 20:51, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I lean oppose on this (but not strongly enough to decide on a vote just yet). I think the fact that it was an Olympic event at all indicates its high levels of historic popularity and I don't think a thing being obscure now is necessarily a disqualifier for VA5. A really bad comparison is the Electrical telegraph  5 which is obscure now but was of course quite vital back in the day. Aurangzebra (talk) 15:13, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Really popular type of exercise equipment.

Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 19:40, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per nom. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 00:14, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. per nom Aurangzebra (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
4. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:39, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

I tried proposing once, but it didn't get much traction then. Agility is a quite popular animal sport.

Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 19:40, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Pretty obvious. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 00:14, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. per nom Aurangzebra (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Pietism was a highly influential denomation to Protestantism, as part of Lutheranism in Central and Northern Europe. Historically it had great influence to other Christian denominations outside Lutheranism, like Methodism and Anababtism. About as vital as the Moravian Church  5, another historically important denomination we already list.

Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 19:55, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Definitely, IIUC this also had a huge effect on the culture of Germany. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:51, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 05:52, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

We list Islamic studies  5, but not this. Christian theology is a major discipline taught in universities around the world. We currently list only the general article Theology  4.

Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 19:55, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 08:14, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. _pbp 14:36, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
4. per nom Aurangzebra (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
5. Kevinishere15 (talk) 17:58, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
6. Definitely. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:51, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

A visible movement of Judaism in the modern day. It's founding father Baal Shem Tov  4 is Level 4.

Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 19:55, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. per nom Aurangzebra (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. Definitely. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:51, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
4. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 05:52, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

All of these have remarkably low daily view counts. Makkool (talk) 20:16, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not as well known German "Krimi" as Derrick (TV series) or Der Alte (television series)

Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 20:16, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 01:21, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

It was popular in the early 2000's, but I don't think it has gained "most vital british comedy shows" status. I would rather list Peep Show (British TV series) or The League of Gentlemen instead.

Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 20:16, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 01:21, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

It got an American remake, so I guess it was notable enough, but it doesn't seem one of the most vital French TV series ever.

Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 20:16, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 01:21, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

We used to list much more coffee varieties than we list now, but we cut them down a few years ago. We didn't touch the tea varieties then, so now we list tea disproporionally more compared to coffee. We are over-quota in Everyday life, so I would like to propose some tea varieties to be removed. Makkool (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mongolian tea, not very well known.

Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support, seems pretty obscure and somewhat redundant to Milk tea  5. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:45, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Oppose. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:04, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Discuss

Not very well known globally.

Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Oppose. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:04, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Discuss

Not that known tea variety compared to the others.

Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. "Not that known?" 40 interwikis _pbp 20:53, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   Compare to white tea with 48, that is less Makkool (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:04, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Discuss

For transparency, the interwiki amounts are black tea (62), fermented tea (15), green tea (84), oolong (48), white tea (48) and yellow tea (40). For this being in the lower tier, I think it would have justification to be cut. Makkool (talk) 20:44, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat popular herbal infusion, but not that culturally relevant (mostly known for possibly improving sleep quality)

Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Oppose. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:04, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Discuss

Somewhat popular herbal infusion, but feels less vital than yerba mate or rooibos.

Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Oppose. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:04, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Discuss

We don't list Coffee culture.

Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. What about beer culture, milk culture...-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:03, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Oppose. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:04, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Plays a significant role in many cultures and is historic and significant enough to merit a spot. For what it's worth, I would support adding coffee culture, drinking culture, and latte. Aurangzebra (talk) 18:42, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Discuss

1. Broadly, I feel like this is a proposal that has a bit of a western bias to it. Tea and Tea culture predate coffee by around 1,000 years. Tea has had a major impact on world events in very extreme ways, such as the events surrounding the Boston Tea Party  5. I would be failing my inner Iroh if I didn't take a stand and say something about this agregious disrespect for tea. If anything, we should be expanding out coverage of the topic. I don't think Coffee has had quite the same tremenodous cultural impact across so many diverse people. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:04, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
   1. Currently we have 4 articles on the varieties of coffee in the Hot drinks section and 13 for tea (18 if you include herbal tea). Even if we consider the historical significance and Western bias I think 1:3 or 1:4,5 ratio is excessive in favor of tea. And I'm not dissing tea, I enjoy having a cuppa every now and then. Would you rather like to see some of the cut coffee articles brought back to the list? I think latte at least should belong as a VA5 article. Makkool (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Broadly, tea/coffee and other cultural cornerstone food/beverages would not be where I'd start in trying to trim the current list. We have 13 varieties of tea, but how many individual TV shows, movies, musical pieces, or other individual level item. In terms of tea varieties, we are missing most of them. Hōjicha, Matcha, Gunpowder tea, Bancha, Longjing tea, or Kukicha. In terms of coffee, we don't include the Coffee plant, much less varieties like Coffea arabica, Coffea stenophylla and Coffea canephora or specific cultivars like Kona coffee or Bourbon coffee. We're missing terms like Peaberry and Coffee bean. We include Coffee preparation  5, but are missing Coffee roasting, Coffee extraction, as well as common methods of extraction like Coffee percolator and Drip coffee. While I agree latte should be level 5, I don't think that needs to come from our teas when we have 419 specific musical works, and over 15,000 individual people. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 14:06, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Life expectancy  5 and Infant mortality  5 are listed on Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences/Social studies#Issues but since they are specifically public health issues, they could alternatively be listed on Health.

Support

1. As nom, weak support. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A small subset of musical theater with just five interwikis _pbp 18:57, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. _pbp 18:57, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Just not significant enough. λ NegativeMP1 01:26, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per above. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:03, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
4. Low pageviews at ~50 daily, too specific form of Musical theatre  4.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 12:17, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

An American TV show which AFAICT doesn't have a strong claim to vitality. It got decent ratings for a couple of seasons, won a couple of awards, and was adapted into a few films, but it hasn't won enough awards to use that as a vitality argument, it wasn't popular enough to use that as an argument, and it does not appear to have had any sort of impact on television or on society.

Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:37, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support per nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 15:02, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
4. PrimalMustelid (talk) 17:15, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
5. 6 seasons of TV and three movies in 50 years. I guess not that important of a franchise.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:04, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Our least vital film award. Even MTV Music Awards hasn't been very relative in a long time.

Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Not vital. Kevinishere15 (talk) 18:07, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. Not more vital than the MTV Video Music Awards. λ NegativeMP1 19:36, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
4. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:50, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Our least vital soft drink brand. The annual global sales number seems quite large (500 million pounds), but I'm not sure if we need to have the UK represented in this section. I haven't never heard of this drink.

Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Have never heard of this ever. λ NegativeMP1 19:40, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. Maybe swap with Irn-Bru or Lipton (not a soft drink but founded by Thomas Lipton  5) per pageviews. Sahaib (talk) 20:38, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

I think it's more a historical thing. It's a drink you can still easily make yourself at home, but I don't think it's that significant or common dessert to warrant a VA slot.

Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. They're pretty well known and significant, and this in a sense represents a larger category of "float" based drinks/deserts (e.g. "coke floats" or "root beer floats"), but I don't really know if it's something worth having on this level.

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

See List of amusement park rankings#Amusement park corporations, Universal Destinations & Experiences is #4 and Six Flags is #8 so it doesn't make sense to list them when none of the other top ten are listed.

Support

1. As nom. Sahaib (talk) 21:23, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Instead swap out for their most-attended parks _pbp 22:19, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Discuss

Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:50, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Should 100% be here. λ NegativeMP1 23:00, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. Definitely vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:52, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
4.  Carlwev  14:04, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
5. Obvious add. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 02:18, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
6. Kevinishere15 (talk) 17:34, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:50, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Seems vital enough. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:52, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3.  Carlwev  14:04, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
4. Common enough equipment. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 02:18, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:50, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Definitely vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:52, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3.  Carlwev  14:04, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
4. Common enough. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 02:18, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Not as common equipment as a treadmill or stationary bicycle, but still common enough (especially in fitness centers) that I think most people will recognize.

Support

1. As nom. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 02:28, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

I don't think this needs any explanation.

Support

1. As nom. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 02:28, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Another common piece of exercise equipment; like dumbbells but much heavier.

Support

1. As nom. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 02:28, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

One of many things I'm very surprised we don't list already. Also known as a fitness center or weight room, it's where you can do exercises with things like dumbbells and barbells, or you can use a treadmill, stationary bike, or elliptical trainer. Yes, we already list Gym  5, which is similar, but that's more so for sports.

Support

1. As nom. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 02:28, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Both receive similar pageview numbers but Pulgasari currently has 9 more language links. Another thing to point out is that Pulgasari is rated on its talk page as high‑importance to WikiProject Korea (as well as mid-importance to WikiProject Japan and low-importance to WikiProject China, as it was a co-production between 3 countries) whereas A Brighter Summer Day is currently rated as low importance to WikiProject Taiwan.

Support

1. As nom. Sahaib (talk) 17:09, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Weak support add, dunno about swapping. I think most of Pulgasari's international recognition is because it's origin and premise have been viewed by many as absurd, leading it to become a cult classic of sorts. That being said, I would welcome non-Western art listings whenever possible and fit, and I'm almost certain we don't list many works originating from Korea. λ NegativeMP1 17:24, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. Weak support remove per nom. Oppose add per NegativeMP1, I'm hesitant to add any cult classic status works before all-time classics that aren't listed yet. Makkool (talk) 18:02, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. As said above, Pulgasari is only really well-known due to the strange story behind it. Also not convinced basing a remove rationale based on the subjective importance ratings when you can find plenty of really strange ratings there all over the place Iostn (talk) 23:06, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Discuss

There are 19 articles about soup that I can see. This one looks like one of the least vital. A stub in 7 languages. Compare with Category:Soups in general there are many more significant soups missing, like oxtail soup. Even looking at more specific Category:Chinese soups there are still some more important like Beef noodle soup. [5] Page view wise, the other two missing soups I mentioned each have over 4 times the views. Ready meal has over double, and I believe more significant, so I am proposing a swap. I am not sure how much is gained by having 19 soups, they are not all individually vital.

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  18:38, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 22:42, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

(Kind of Swap in for sweet potato soup above.) Frozen meal, also known as ready meal, TV dinner or microwave meal. Even though considered low culture or lazy, we list things like fast food at level 4. Fairly recent, but been around 70 years, so not extremely recent compared with many articles in other parts of the list. Apparently global market is over 150 billion dollars and predicted to double in the next decade. If one goes into a store, the number on sale, number sold and eaten, space taken up and number to choose from is very substantial. Especially considering how many individual types of soup, sauce, cocktails we list, which I imagine to be significantly less significant part of peoples diet, and part of the food market. Imagine how much of the food market and peoples diet consist of lemon tart or misua which are included compared with ready meals. They are, for good or bad, very popular and big part of the market and of people's diet and only getting more so. We have 671 articles under food at level 5 (not including plants or appliances) I think ready meal is easily within the top 500 food articles, and belongs at level 5

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  18:38, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. _pbp 19:11, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. Kevinishere15 (talk) 19:21, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
4. PrimalMustelid (talk) 21:22, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
5. For sure. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 21:52, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   Per below, definitely supporting frozen food as well. Gun to my head, if I had to choose only one to add, I'd choose frozen food, but I think both should be added. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 18:57, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

6. To TonyTheTiger's point, I think we should include Frozen food and the more specific Frozen meal. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:35, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Not as vital as Frozen food, which I would support. If this passes, I will nominate a swap.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:30, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

There has been discussion at frozen meal, that many ready meals are in fact chilled and not frozen, so the article should maybe be renamed. A discussion for there not here. But not completely subsumed and redundant. The main thing is it is a whole meal all ready packed and cooked in one package, the fact they are sometimes frozen, is true, but not the main point about them, and sometimes they are not even frozen. I would support both ready meal and frozen food, not one or the other. Either way nice spotting frozen food.  Carlwev  12:31, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are ThomEmilAlbe's proposals from last October. I re-opened these proposals individually so that they would get more attention this way. Makkool (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Support removal: I like Karl Jenkins, but this doesn't say vital to me. The piece is from 1999, which is quite recent for classical music. We can't say yet how significant this will be considered over the years. Makkool (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

Worth noting that Karl Jenkins himself is not listed.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 10:02, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Support removal: Vitality doesn't show from the article. Makkool (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

Support

1. Support Piano Concerto No. 3: Rachmaninoff gets four slots when many other composer get less. I trust ThomEmilAlbe's judgement that these are the least vital. Symphony No. 2 is described as very well-known, so I'll support the Piano Concerto. Makkool (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Oh no, the Piano Concerto No. 3 is as good as No. 2. And the Symphony No. 2 is vital as well. I think Rachmaninov gets four slots because he deserves it. (He actually gets more than four slots, but I won't tell you where to look. :-))
   Let them both stay. Especially considering what you are proposing to replace them with below. --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:50, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

IMO, not only should all Rachmaninoff's works remain on the list, but his Piano Concerto No. 2 should be elevated to level 4. --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:00, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Support Symphony No. 7: Sibelius also gets four slots, when many other composers get less. Symphonies 7 and 2 have the least daily pageviews, and of them No. 7 is the stronger case for removal. Wouldn't oppose No. 2 though. Makkool (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

Support

1. Support add: Minimalism doesn't get enough representation. Music for 18 Musicians really famous and arguably Steve Reich's most known work. Makkool (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

What do you think? Should we add the work (this proposal), or the album? AFAIK, the recording on the album is what made this so famous. Makkool (talk) 20:03, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Worth noting that Symphony No. 3 (Górecki)  5, another minimalist composition, is already listed.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:48, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Support add: Described as composer Alban Berg's most well-known piece. Makkool (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Wozzeck and Lulu (opera) get more pageviews from his output (and have considerably more interwikis), I'd support adding Lulu instead to represent 12-tone musical works.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:42, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Support

1. Support add: Described as one of composer Pierre Boulez's most well-known pieces. Makkool (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

Support

1. Support add: Another work to represent minimalism, and I also think Philip Glass should get at least one work. Makkool (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Philip Glass  4 should be big enough to have representation of individual works.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 10:00, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

My proposals for tea removals didn't get unanimous support, and people seemed to be open for coffee to be represented more. I dug the page history and these articles used to be listed back in 2023. They were subsequently removed, when the tea articles remained untouched. I propose that we return at least some of them.

Support

1. World-famous Italian milk coffee drink. Very culturally relevant in the western world. Makkool (talk) 19:37, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Very common. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 03:34, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

I won't vote against this one (I've voted against "Caffè americano" and "Caffè mocha"), but I think "Milk coffee" would be a better addition. Cause there many drinks that are essentially the same old milk and coffee, and the article "Milk coffee" talks about the concept.
Also, please note that "Latte" doesn't even have a Spanish interwiki, the Spanish article "es:Café con leche" links to our "Milk coffee". (Not to our "Café con leche", by the way.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 09:42, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good point! We already have Milk tea  5, so Milk coffee should be added as well, when it exists as a separate article. I made a new proposal for it, if you would like to support it instead. Makkool (talk) 11:44, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Another very popular coffee drink. You can order one in most cafés today. Makkool (talk) 19:37, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Seems common enough. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 03:34, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Sorry, but I don't see the need to add essentially the same thing three times. --Moscow Connection (talk) 09:31, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Support

1. A traditional and well-known coffee drink with added chocolate. Makkool (talk) 19:37, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Very common. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 03:34, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Sorry, but I don't see the need to add essentially the same thing three times. --Moscow Connection (talk) 09:32, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Support

1. We haven't had this article before, but there was support to add this along Tea culture. Makkool (talk) 19:37, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

Support

1. Quite famous regional coffee preparation method. We should add some other coffee type from elsewhere than Italy. Makkool (talk) 19:37, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

Support

1. Very common coffee preparation method. We should add at least some other coffee type than espresso-based. Makkool (talk) 19:37, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

Support

1. To be paired with Milk tea. Makkool (talk) 11:44, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support. See my comment at #Add Latte. --Moscow Connection (talk) 12:11, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. Definitely. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:25, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

I'm aware we are over-quota in Everyday life, so I'll balance the coffee additions with a removal. I think we can cut this; Iced coffee  5 is enough.

Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 19:41, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support  Carlwev  13:42, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

There is a proposal to increase the quota for everyday life. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 13:28, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very significant theological movement, first in the Catholic church relating to Latin America and later in a broadening context. Place under Christian theology after it's added.

Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 21:58, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 05:50, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

An opposing Protestant church or movement to the Nazis during the Third Reich. Historically significant in German Protestantism. It’s key founding member Dietrich Bonhoeffer  4 is V4.

Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 21:58, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

We list the consoles themselves, but not the companies behind them.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 13:15, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. I don't see a point to listing the brands. We already list Microsoft  4 and Sony  5, the actual companies behind the consoles. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Discuss

Very common type of puzzle that we don't list yet.

Support

1. As nom. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 02:32, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Should be listed. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:03, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Another common piece of exercise equipment that's not listed yet. Yoga balls are listed under this page as well.

Support

1. As nom. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 03:04, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Since 2023, it has been the largest Chinese retailer by revenue and it is currently the 15th largest Chinese company overall, ahead of Alibaba Group  4.

Support

1. As nom. Sahaib (talk) 09:00, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

A discussion above was relisted here because Zar2gar1 wants to move the entries about architectural elements, but those that are already listed are still on the technology subpage. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to architecture (Arts)

1. I'm leaning architecture for most of these articles. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to everyday life

1. It's hard to decide between architecture and everyday life for some articles such as Floor  4 and Room  4. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on technology

1. Keep Elevator  4 and Escalator  5. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

The only claim to fame of Florence Owens Thompson  5 is being the model of the famous photograph Migrant Mother.

Support

1. As nom. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 23:42, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. She may have been added to increase representation of some group, but the nominator is correct and she's not one of the 50,000 most important subjects. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:23, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per nom. Kevinishere15 (talk) 18:01, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

The most recent song listed is Gangnam Style  5 from 2012, so I asked ChatGPT  5, "wikipedia vital articles, top ten most vital songs released last decade" and it responded with:

• "Hello" – Adele (2015): A powerful ballad marking Adele's return after a hiatus, "Hello" received widespread critical acclaim and won multiple Grammy Awards.​ (32 language links)
• "Lean On" – Major Lazer, DJ Snake & MØ (2015): This dance anthem became a global phenomenon, topping charts worldwide and becoming one of Spotify's most-streamed songs at the time.​ (19 language links)
• "Shape of You" – Ed Sheeran (2017): A catchy tune that dominated charts globally, "Shape of You" became one of the best-selling digital singles worldwide. (35 language links)
• "Despacito" – Luis Fonsi featuring Daddy Yankee (2017): This reggaeton-infused track achieved unprecedented global success, becoming one of the most viewed videos on YouTube.​ (51 language links)
• "Old Town Road" – Lil Nas X (2019): Blending country and rap, this song sparked a cultural debate and set a record for the longest-running number-one song on the Billboard Hot 100.​ (24 language links)
• "Blinding Lights" – The Weeknd (2019): With its '80s-inspired sound, "Blinding Lights" became a chart-topping hit and is recognized as one of the most successful songs of the 2020s. (26 language links)
• "Driver's License" – Olivia Rodrigo (2021): This debut single resonated with audiences worldwide, breaking streaming records and establishing Rodrigo as a major new artist. (23 language links)
• "WAP" – Cardi B featuring Megan Thee Stallion (2020): A controversial yet influential track that sparked widespread discussion and topped charts globally. (17 language links)
• "As It Was" – Harry Styles (2022): This song achieved multiple streaming records and topped global charts, becoming one of the year's most popular tracks. (21 language links)
• "Flowers" – Miley Cyrus (2023): A song that reached number one on global charts and became the most-streamed song of the first quarter of 2023. (19 language links)

Sahaib (talk) 13:17, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• It is hard to say what the legacy of recent songs will be. 2024's A Bar Song (Tipsy) is the Longest Running Billboard #1 song of all time. Two of my favorites since Gangnam Style are over a decade old: "Uptown Funk" and "Blurred Lines". Part of what gives a song a legacy is for its performers to have vitality. Uptown Funk would thus have the stronger case of these two because Bruno Mars  5 is vital. I'd like to see an Adele song on the list because she is arguably the most important of the performers you listed. Would a swap be more appropriate than an add though?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:39, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think that any of these should be vital. They were released very recently and are more or less just general pop songs rather than anything super groundbreaking. Therefore, we don't know their legacy. Even Gangnam Style is sort of a stretch, but at least that was a very major cultural milestone. Also, many of the songs you list here are by artists that are not vital (Luis Fonsi, Olivia Rodrigo, Harry Styles, Cardi B, Lil Nas X, and Major Lazer). It's not impossible for a song to be more important than it's artist, but it makes it a way harder sell and I don't think any of these above songs are worthy of that special treatment.

As for the ones by artists that are vital: Blinding Lights is really new, so no. For Hello, I would rather add 21 (Adele album) to represent Adele since it is the best selling album of the 21st century, though I do think listing a work by her is warranted. With Ed Sheeran, he might be popular but I don't think anything he's made has been particularly groundbreaking or as popular as a song like Gangnam Style. And with Miley Cyrus, I honestly don't even think she should be vital at all, let alone one of her works, since she's just a contemporary a-dime-a-dozen western celebrity that I highly doubt deserves to be one of the 50,000 most important subjects of all time. But that's a story for a different time. If we really wanted to list a song newer than Gangnam Style, I think Uptown Funk is the only logical choice. λ NegativeMP1 16:31, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’d support despacito and that’s it as not only the most viewed video of all time but being cross culturally relevant (at least in the Americas) -1ctinus📝🗨 17:57, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would support adding Despacito. Kevinishere15 (talk) 02:46, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of these belong on this list, except possibly Despacito. I agree that they "are more or less just general pop songs rather than anything super groundbreaking". There may be other more vital songs in the last decade, but I won't try to think of them now. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:20, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would support Despacito from that list, but the other nine look like your average pop song that got really popular for a bit but didn't leave a lasting impact. I'd say that Despacito has left a notable lasting impact, so I would add it, but I doubt I would support the other nine. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:54, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well known prize medals awarded in several fields, most notably athletics.

Support

1. As nom. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 04:28, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. I don't see the reason to take up three spaces of these when they're all covering roughly the same topic. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Discuss

Speaking of prize medals, this is THE most iconic prize medal of them all.

Support

1. As nom. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 04:31, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Relatively important. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:16, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Anyone learning a first, second or subsequent language will have to learn about grammatical gender if the said language has it, and although not every language has it, many do, and some more did in the past. It would be of interest to general readers and expert linguists, as to why some languages have it, and why it works the way it does, why there are two or sometimes more genders. The article appears in 77 languages on wikipedia, more than many level 4 grammar articles like phrase and clause. Page view wise, Grammatical gender has over 2 million since 2015, which is over half the level 3 language article grammar, and almost the same as the level 3 article word, also much higher than the level 4 grammar articles clause, phrase, and sentence (linguistics) [6]. An argument could possibly be made for level 4 for this article, but it should be at least level 5. There are separate articles for grammatical gender in German, Spanish, French, Norwegian, Dutch and English. Plus it also has it's own category Category:Grammatical gender, and is rated top importance in linguistics. Language at level 5 has just under 600 articles, I would be surprised if an encyclopedia had 600 separate articles on language but didn't have language gender.

Support

1. As nom.  Carlwev  08:25, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. This would be listed already if English had it. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:55, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

An important concept in history of literature. Rated Top-importance in Wikiproject Literature.

Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 08:33, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Seems important enough to include. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:16, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

If we add western literature, I'll suggest some non-vital European literatures by country to be removed for balance. All of these have low daily pageviews according to LaukkuTheGreit's listing. We wouldn't have to cut them all, but at least some of them feel obvious cases.

Low daily pageviews

Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 09:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Belgian literature is a small subset of French literature  4 and Dutch-language literature  5, both of which we list. Belgium is a small country, and its works have not made a global impact. Walloon-language literature isn't enough to offset this, because it doesn't even seem particularly influential in Belgium. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:05, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. The literature for a country is usually a well-covered subject, even if the sources may not be in English. Literature may be more important than you assume. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Seems equally non-vital as Belgian lit.

Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 09:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. No real impact outside of Switzerland itself. Like Belgium, Switzerland is made of a variety of languages, with no one dominant language, meaning that much of this literature is only impactful in part of Switzerland. The number of redlinks present in the article is telling. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:39, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. The literature for a country is usually a well-covered subject, even if the sources may not be in English. Literature may be more important than you assume. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Maybe it's enough we list Scandinavian literature  4.

Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 09:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. The literature for a country is usually a well-covered subject, even if the sources may not be in English. Literature may be more important than you assume. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Maybe it's enough we list Scandinavian literature  4.

Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 09:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. The literature for a country is usually a well-covered subject, even if the sources may not be in English. Literature may be more important than you assume. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Hans Christian Andersen  4 and Karen Blixen  4 are Danish. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:17, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. Kevinishere15 (talk) 05:01, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Not as well known than other literature from Eastern Europe.

Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 09:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. The literature for a country is usually a well-covered subject, even if the sources may not be in English. Literature may be more important than you assume. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

About as vital as Swiss lit.

Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 09:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. The literature for a country is usually a well-covered subject, even if the sources may not be in English. Literature may be more important than you assume. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Maybe it's enough we list Scandinavian literature  4.

Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 09:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. The literature for a country is usually a well-covered subject, even if the sources may not be in English. Literature may be more important than you assume. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

A smaller country for literature in Central Europe.

Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 09:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. _pbp 10:05, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. The literature for a country is usually a well-covered subject, even if the sources may not be in English. Literature may be more important than you assume. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

A not so big country for literature, maybe it doesn't make the cut?

Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 09:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. The literature for a language, just like for a country, is usually a well-covered subject, even if the sources may not be in English. Literature may be more important than you assume. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Dutch is spoken in several countries that aren't the Netherlands. The language seems common enough to include IMO, and it is rated High-Importance by WikiProject Literature. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:08, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

A not so big country for literature.

Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 09:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. The literature for a country is usually a well-covered subject, even if the sources may not be in English. Literature may be more important than you assume. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Maybe it's enough we list Scandinavian literature  4.

Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 09:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. The literature for a country is usually a well-covered subject, even if the sources may not be in English. Literature may be more important than you assume. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Maybe it's enough we list Scandinavian literature  4.

Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 09:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Swap with Sagas of Icelanders. 5x the views and 8 more interwikis. _pbp 12:50, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

A smaller country for literature in Central Europe.

Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 09:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Poland is one of the bigger European countries. _pbp 10:05, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. The literature for a country is usually a well-covered subject, even if the sources may not be in English. Literature may be more important than you assume. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. Kevinishere15 (talk) 21:17, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
4. Poland is a sizable country, and it has two VA4 authors, three if you count Joseph Conrad  4. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:23, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

The French detective has been in 75 books, 28 short stories, and something like 200 television episodes _pbp 12:06, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. _pbp 12:06, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. per PBP89. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:17, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

Do we have anything on these topics? The closest I could find is Treaty  5. We need an article covering an agreement to end an armed conflict. I think Peace treaty would be best, although some might say it shouldn't be included on the same level as Treaty  5. Still, it's important enough to include, and Treaty  5 focuses the process of making agreements, what they contain, and how they are enforced, not specific military objectives and their involvement during active warfare. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 16:48, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Corporatism is an political ideology that was common at various times in the past.

Support

1. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 16:55, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Sure. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 03:00, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

An ideology of the Soviet Union and of communism in general.

Support

1. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 17:07, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

I would prefer Hegemony (70 interwikis) but Power (international relations) (23 interwikis) would work as an alternative. We currently have Power (social and political)  3 at VA3 and Superpower  5, Great power  5, Hard power  5, and Soft power  5 at VA5. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 17:12, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Child custody is one of the most important issues in Family law, which we don't include either, but is currently more of a list than an article. When we have very specific concepts such as Golden parachute  5 and Delict  5, we should include this.

Support

1. As nominator. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 16:34, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. Important topic. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:22, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
4. Definitely. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 03:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

Type of Political party  3 found in the European Parliament  5.

Support

1. As nominator. Sahaib (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

I know Philosophy and Religion is overquota, but I could easily see this one making VA4. Kindness is a very important concept in society, and I don't think I need to explain why.

Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:20, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Obviously vital, no strong opinion on exactly where it should be listed. Kevinishere15 (talk) 05:01, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. Yet another basic concept not added yet. Yawn. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 03:02, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

@QuicoleJR: Wouldn't it be listed on Psychology (probably Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society/Social studies#Emotions and traits|]])? Unfounately that page is over quota too. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 19:37, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's probably where it would be listed. I would support it on any page, regardless of quota. Kindness is definitely a vital topic. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:53, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A 108-interwiki article that hasn't been listed yet? Really?

Support

1. As nom. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 04:29, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

1. Could support a swap. We are over-quota in this section and car companies aren't where I'd look first to fill any gaps. We represent luxury car companies already through BMW  5 and Mercedes-Benz  5/Mercedes-Benz Group  5 and these two brands take the top 2 slots in luxury car sales. Audi is 3rd. That being said, Audi's sales are very impressive for a luxury car company and units sold last year even exceeded standard car company sales such as Renault  5. Also, having a large number of interwikis is a supporting factor for inclusion on VA5 but doesn't provide a guarantee. David Woodard has 333 interwikis but have you heard of him? Aurangzebra (talk) 23:15, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss

Songkran redirects to the article South and Southeast Asian solar New Year, and should not be listed. I believe that the article Songkran (Thailand) was meant to be listed as it is a massive Buddhist holiday in Thailand with 44 interwikis and high pageviews.

Support

1. As nom. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss