Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
VT-ALM (talk | contribs)
120 edits
VT-ALM (talk | contribs)
120 edits
Line 695: Line 695:


'''Discuss'''
'''Discuss'''
* {{ping|LJFIN2}} Can you clarify where you are moving these articles to?


== Remove [[Moors murders]] ==
== Remove [[Moors murders]] ==

Revision as of 12:48, 16 June 2023

WikiProject iconVital Articles
WikiProject iconThis page 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
General Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
Level 5 Subpages

People History and geography Society STEM

Introduction

The purpose of this discussion page is to select 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:

  1. Any discussion must run at least two weeks before being closed
  2. Any discussion must have at least four total votes before being closed
  3. Any article with at least 55% support for inclusion will be retained
  4. Any article with at least 55% opposition for inclusion will be removed
  • 14 days ago: 10:36, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Why are these rules different from Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles#Introduction? Here 3:2, 4:3 or 5:4 votes cause change, whereas there 2/3rd votes are required.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:08, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Level 5 should be aligned with Level 3/4 (which seem the same). Many of these discussions are going on too long and the debate is too disjointed. The list is also incredibly long and the auto-archiving should be set at circa 90 days (max). Also, should an entry on this list not require a notice to be left on the talk page of the article in question? It might help participation. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 11:23, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Kwanyama dialect and Ndonga dialect

DONE
Done, per 55% supporting votes 〜 Festucalex • talk 17:49, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not very important compared to the other languages that are listed. This will also fix the over-quota we have for the specific languages section. Mucube (talk) 05:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Support removing Ndonga dialect --Thi Edit. (talk) 11:19, 3 December 2022 (UTC) --Thi (talk) 09:56, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support czar 03:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support there are too many languages listed; this will allow space for other pages. VT-ALM (talk) 17:26, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose for Kwanyama. It is a national language in two countries, Angola and Namibia. Ndonga can go, as it is mutually intelligible with Kwanyama any way, but I'd use caution removing African languages, as they are underrepresented. --Makkool (talk) 11:58, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

International Flags in Level 5 History National flags

I suggest we add International flags to the National flags part of History, renaming it flags (or something else.) Vital Articles Grammar (talk) 04:21, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Support as proposer Vital Articles Grammar (talk) 18:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC) (vote added by Festucalex)[reply]
  2. Support. --Thi (talk) 09:56, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose VT-ALM (talk) 17:28, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 〜 Festucalex • talk 18:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

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

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

Support
  1. --Makkool (talk) 13:07, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 09:59, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Aso especially is much more significant than either Khangai or Yablonoi. 〜 Festucalex • talk 18:12, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

Add Fedora Linux and Arch Linux

DONE
Done, per 55% supporting votes 〜 Festucalex • talk 17:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

They are both rather popular Linux distributions. We have a lot of Windows versions listed, so we need some Linux distributions listed too. Mucube (talk) 05:05, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Support. Arch, at least, is as significant as Debian. Makes no sense to include the latter without the former. 〜 Festucalex • talk 03:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Although yes, this is a niche area in the PC market. This is ONLY niche in the PC market. Ask any devloper that isn't working with PCs and they'll tell you that this is the oppsite of niche. Imo we should also add Gentoo Linux and GNU — Preceding unsigned comment added by LJFIN2 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @LJFIN2: I'm not sure about Gentoo Linux, but I am nothing short of aghast that GNU isn't there. I'm opening a new proposal. 〜 Festucalex • talk 14:07, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support They hold a lot of market share and are used very widely. VT-ALM (talk) 17:29, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose. We're already adding Debian and Ubuntu, the two largest distros by market share, and top importance in their field. czar 03:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. Already a niche area. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add "Don't Cry for Me Argentina"

NOT DONE
Not done, per 55% opposing votes 〜 Festucalex • talk 17:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Support
  1. Support--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:18, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - song and its covers topped the charts in multiple countries in Europe, as well as in the US, got parodied in the Falklands war, and continues to resound across the airwaves on a regular basis to this day. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:34, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose. Not "highest importance" in its field. No assertion of its enduring importance or essentialness in its category. Not vital. czar 02:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 〜 Festucalex • talk 08:59, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 11:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. OpposeVT-ALM (talk) 17:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Half-Life (series), add The Witcher (video game series)

We already have original Half-Life of 1998. The only other game in the series is Half-Life 2 of 2004, which has less views (27,252) in the past 30 days than both Half-Life I (38,520) and the series (29,982).

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

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

Support:

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

Support removal, oppose add:

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

Neutral on removal, support add:

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

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

Add Synthetic media

AI field of growing importance. The article provides a wide overview from deepfakes to GANs to Stable Diffusion, the last of which has caused quite the stir in art communities.[1][2][3] I'd place it under "Artificial intelligence concepts" in Technology; even if not all synthetic media are necessarily by AI they overwhelmingly are so.

Support
  1. As nom.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 10:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 〜 Festucalex • talk 11:31, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support The person who loves reading (talk) 00:56, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Feels like an emerging, and notable, term to cover many emerging, and notable, sub-terms. Not sure that it has been around long enough to be a true Level 5 (i.e. an enduring concept for all time) yet. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 00:52, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per 78.18 czar 02:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss
[4][5] No consensus (or any responses) yet, but I might try again later, or if the technology removals pass (making the section below quota) boldly add it myself.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 17:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.vice.com/en/article/5d37za/voice-actors-sign-away-rights-to-artificial-intelligence --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 14:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/03/05/ai-voice-scam/ --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 15:06, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"AI is already taking video game illustrators’ jobs in China" --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 07:34, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I'm not closing this one yet because of an ongoing merge request. 〜 Festucalex • talk 05:04, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add Goalpost

The Sports equipment section is currently at 27/30 articles. I propose we add Goal (sports), aka Goalpost, as Vital-5. They are one of the most pieces of sports equipment across multiple sports such as football/soccer, basketball, hockey, and American football.

Support
  1. As nom LightProof1995 (talk) 15:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per nom. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 15:16, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Agree. 31.187.2.237 (talk) 20:50, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Too niche in my opinion. 〜 Festucalex • talk 09:04, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

Add Punctuated equilibrium

Punctuated equilibrium belongs under biology>basics because it's a very important theory in evolutionary biology. It provides a more fleshed-out explanation of evolution then other theories and it's taught in nearly every university level course on evolution. --LJFIN2 (talk) 03:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support as proposer: LJFIN2 (talk · contribs) 13:39, 26 May 2023 (UTC) (vote added by Festucalex)[reply]
  2. Strong support, Surprised this isn't in here already. 〜 Festucalex • talk 04:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose. Would want to see a swap, given the size of the evolutionary biology category. This topic, while important within its field, seems less vital than the topics already included. czar 02:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose [6] --Thi (talk) 12:17, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Remove Konrad Kujau

I can't see why a guy who forged a bunch of Nazi memorabilia and documents is vital. If anything is to be marked vital about this guy, it's his "opus magnum", the Hitler Diaries. And for the record, I don't think it should be. 〜 Festucalex • talk 04:01, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Support as proposer 〜 Festucalex • talk 04:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Lorax (talk) 01:24, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Add Jijiga

This city of half a million is as significant as the others already on the list. It's the capital of the Somali region, and played an important part in the Ogaden War (see Battle of Jijiga). 〜 Festucalex • talk 04:23, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Support as proposer 〜 Festucalex • talk 04:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Swap Adama for Jijiga --Thi (talk) 10:01, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Bahir Dar feels like an equally-strong add, but we are over-quota in East African cities. I would Support only, if we could cut enough space for both. --Makkool (talk) 18:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe we could swap Adama for Jijiga? 〜 Festucalex • talk 07:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree, it doesn't seem as notable as others. --Makkool (talk) 16:50, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

Replace Avenue Q with Folia

It's one of the oldest musical themes in European music, used by over 150 composers. I'm not sure what to replace it with, but Avenue Q popped up as a rather recent topic.

Support
  1. as proposal --Makkool (talk) 17:56, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. 〜 Festucalex • talk 10:17, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Remove some American TV shows

The category is 220/90 (244%) overbudget. Some slimming down is needed. Please add more proposals as you see necessary. 〜 Festucalex • talk 07:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we could again try to use the system to drastically trim sections which I proposed when it was thought there were way too many video games? It saw some success, although limited due to very few voters.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:07, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@LaukkuTheGreit: Let's see what Czar thinks. 〜 Festucalex • talk 10:03, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For drastic slimming, I think a consensus slate of batch removals would be the best way to test whether there is interest in drastic slimming. Otherwise the approach below of one at a time is a fine place to start. czar 12:58, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: I don't like batch removals because they easily become WP:TRAINWRECKs. We need to innovate a new smooth mechanism if we're ever going to rescue VIT5 from its current sorry state. 〜 Festucalex • talk 14:58, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Remove children's programs, mainly those from basic cable channels, that have little influence apart from those that are long-running and have a strong impact on society. CrisBalboa1 (talk) 22:43, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CrisBalboa1: Like what? Make specific proposals and we'll vote on them. 〜 Festucalex • talk 03:55, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to name another few but some are long-running, spawned spin-offs, or a supporting character appears in a another show. CrisBalboa1 (talk) 09:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CrisBalboa1: Just added them downstairs. 〜 Festucalex • talk 11:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Star Trek: The Original Series and Star Trek: The Next Generation

DONE
Done, per 55% supporting votes 〜 Festucalex • talk 19:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

We already have Star Trek in VIT4, which is sufficient.

Support
  1. Support as proposer 〜 Festucalex • talk 07:23, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --Makkool (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - overly redundant at this stage. The vit 4 listing is sufficient. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:13, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

I would like to make people aware of a few things. Star Trek article itself is in listed at level 4, it's not completely unreasonable to increase its coverage here, even with a bit of overlap. Star Trek is about the franchise overall these two are about the 2 main series. The argument that there is overlap does make sense though.

My main issue I was going to bring up, seems no longer relevant after doing some digging. I saw Spock and Captain Kirk were listed at level 5, my issue was it would be odd to list 2 character's from a show but have issue with the show itself. Although Spock still has VA listed on the talk page, it looks like they have been removed from the list, they are not listed among fictional characters any more, the VA template should be removed from Spock's talk page.

Although this is probably the wrong thread to bring this up now I've noticed Spock and Kirk may have been deleted, but I've started so I'll finish. I don't hate the 2 Star Trek shows being listed, I would understand arguments both ways. If one has problem with overlap and redundancy, What seems like much worse overlap and redundancy are half the articles in fictional character have much less forgivable overlap. Indiana Jones character in addition to movie/series, Sonic the Hedgehog character in addition to game/series, same with Homer Simpson, Mario, Hannibal Lector, Spongebob, HAL 9000, Lara Croft, Goku, Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader, Pikachu, Charlie Brown and more in literature, Bilbo and Gandalf, Iago, Dr Watson, Captain Ahab, Big Brother and many more all have character articles in addition to series/book/movie/game/show/franchise articles. The main reason these are overlooked or not noticed, is that are not listed next to the parent article, they are listed far away from it, so go unnoticed. Do we really need Sonic game AND character, Lara Croft AND Tomb Raider, Spongebob series AND character, Dr Who series AND character, seems like worse to me at least compared to Star Trek articles, only as they're listed next to each other like I said.

 Carlwev  18:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Carlwev: Don't get me wrong, I don't hate those shows, either. As a matter of fact, the laptop on which I'm writing this has several ST:TOS and ST:TNG stickers on it. Big fan. I just don't think they should be on the VIT list, especially with the extremely bloated state that the TV shows category is in. As for the examples you mentioned, since you've looked into this, I suggest you open up a new nested request (like this one) at the bottom of this talk page. 〜 Festucalex • talk 18:33, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Hell's Kitchen (American TV series)

DONE
Done, per 55% supporting votes 〜 Festucalex • talk 15:26, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Support
  1. Support as proposer 〜 Festucalex • talk 07:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --Makkool (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 13:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove The Fairly OddParents

DONE
Done, per 55% supporting votes 〜 Festucalex • talk 15:28, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Support
  1. Support as proposer 〜 Festucalex • talk 07:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --Makkool (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 13:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Lizzie McGuire

DONE
Done, per 55% supporting votes 〜 Festucalex • talk 10:32, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Support
  1. Support as proposer 〜 Festucalex • talk 07:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --Makkool (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Gizza (talk) 01:30, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Regular Show

DONE
Done, per 55% supporting votes 〜 Festucalex • talk 15:32, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Support
  1. Support as proposer 〜 Festucalex • talk 07:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --Makkool (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 13:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove The Hills (TV series)

DONE
Done, per 55% supporting votes 〜 Festucalex • talk 15:33, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Support
  1. Support as proposer 〜 Festucalex • talk 07:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --Makkool (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 13:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Six Feet Under (TV series)

DONE
Done, per 55% supporting votes 〜 Festucalex • talk 10:31, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Support
  1. Support as proposer 〜 Festucalex • talk 07:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --Makkool (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. --Thi (talk) 10:03, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove NCIS (TV series)

DONE
Done, per 55% supporting votes 〜 Festucalex • talk 15:35, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Support
  1. Support as proposer 〜 Festucalex • talk 07:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --Makkool (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 13:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. oppose. I agree there should be less american tv shows but NCIS is one of the most popular things on Tv LJFIN2 (talk)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Survivor (American TV series)

DONE
Done, per 55% supporting votes 〜 Festucalex • talk 15:36, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Support
  1. Support as proposer 〜 Festucalex • talk 07:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --Makkool (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose, respectfully. One of the most notable entries in the genre of competition television series. Paintspot Infez (talk) 07:00, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]


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

Remove La Reina del Sur (TV series)

DONE
Done, per 55% supporting votes 〜 Festucalex • talk 15:37, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Support
  1. Support as proposer 〜 Festucalex • talk 07:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --Makkool (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 13:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Dexter's Laboratory

DONE
Done, per 55% supporting votes 〜 Festucalex • talk 11:48, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Support
  1. Support as proposer: CrisBalboa1 11:16, 10 May 2023 (UTC) (vote added here by Festucalex)[reply]
  2. 〜 Festucalex • talk 11:18, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --Makkool (talk) 17:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 09:05, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Ed, Edd n Eddy

DONE
Done, per 55% supporting votes 〜 Festucalex • talk 11:49, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Support
  1. Support as proposer: CrisBalboa1 11:16, 10 May 2023 (UTC) (vote added here by Festucalex)[reply]
  2. 〜 Festucalex • talk 11:18, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --Makkool (talk) 17:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 09:06, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Batman: The Animated Series

DONE
Done, per 55% supporting votes 〜 Festucalex • talk 11:49, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Support
  1. Support as proposer: CrisBalboa1 11:16, 10 May 2023 (UTC) (vote added here by Festucalex)[reply]
  2. 〜 Festucalex • talk 11:18, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --Makkool (talk) 17:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 09:07, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Courage the Cowardly Dog

DONE
Done, per 55% supporting votes 〜 Festucalex • talk 11:49, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Support
  1. Support as proposer: CrisBalboa1 11:16, 10 May 2023 (UTC) (vote added here by Festucalex)[reply]
  2. 〜 Festucalex • talk 11:18, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --Makkool (talk) 17:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 09:08, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Drake & Josh

DONE
Done, per 55% supporting votes 〜 Festucalex • talk 11:50, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Support
  1. Support as proposer: I originally wanted to add this before but I thought a minor supporting character appeared in a future Nickelodeon sitcom. Despite this, I changed my mind and I added it regardless of my initial thought. CrisBalboa1 (talk) 22:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 〜 Festucalex • talk 03:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --Makkool (talk) 05:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 09:09, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Chappelle's Show

I, and most people, know the main star, but not his show.

Support
  1. Support as proposer: CrisBalboa1 (talk) 18:33, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 11:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. 〜 Festucalex • talk 17:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support --Makkool (talk) 13:14, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Remove Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands

As suggested above by Czar and Aszx5000.

Support
  1. Support as proposer. 〜 Festucalex • talk 06:35, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:18, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. per Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5#Add Felipe VI czar 12:55, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss
  1. Coment Maybe remove Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, Albert II, Prince of Monaco and Henri, Grand Duke of Luxembourg? And policians, remove Jean-Marie Le Pen and Marine Le Pen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.27.89.221 (talk) 09:47, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Girly girl and Tomboy

Those are marginal articles and definitely do not belong in the Stages of life category. the Sexuality and gender category already contains relevant articles such as gender identity, non-binary gender, and third gender. 〜 Festucalex • talk 13:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Support as proposer 〜 Festucalex • talk 13:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose removal of Tomboy --Thi (talk) 10:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thi: At least you'll agree that it shouldn't be in the "stages of life" category? It looks extremely out of place there. 〜 Festucalex • talk 10:03, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It fits under Role: [7]. --Thi (talk) 12:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

Remove Sudanese transition to democracy

The Sudanese transition to democracy is a failed process that ended in 2019, shortly after it began, and shows absolutely no sign of resuming. There's no reason for it to be marked vital. 〜 Festucalex • talk 09:21, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Support as proposer 〜 Festucalex • talk 09:21, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 10:05, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Remove James Goldsmith

An average unremembered financier from the 70s with a few minor tabloid scandals—nowhere near vital in my opinion. 〜 Festucalex • talk 19:17, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Support as proposer 〜 Festucalex • talk 19:17, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Barney and Betty Hill incident

The Barney and Betty Hill incident in the Pseudoscientists section of Miscellaneous people should not be in this list because the title implies it is about the event and not the couple. I suggest that you may move it to another non-People category or just remove it. Or change the title of the article by removing the 'incident' so that it could imply it is just the couple, though they are not notable because they are only known for one event. CrisBalboa1 (talk) 23:57, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Support as proposer: CrisBalboa1 11:30, 10 May 2023 (UTC) (vote added here by Festucalex)[reply]
  2. Support The person who loves reading (talk) 23:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Support removal
  1. I'd support removing entirely. VIT5 needs serious slimming down, and a UFO hoax just doesn't fit the bill of vital articles, in my view. 〜 Festucalex • talk 06:39, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support removal --Thi (talk) 10:06, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

Add The Bridge (2011 TV series)

It is an important Nordic drama and in the Nordic noir genre and is adapted in some countries. If The Bridge is not good enough, you can nominate a better program like The Killing. CrisBalboa1 (talk) 22:53, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Support as proposer: CrisBalboa1 11:28, 10 May 2023 (UTC) (vote added here by Festucalex)[reply]
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 09:13, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. We are extremely overbudget when it comes to TV shows (450/260, which is almost 175%). I think we shouldn't add any more until we whittle down that category sufficiently. 〜 Festucalex • talk 11:28, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I was going to add it later but I feel that this genre might need attention. We'll just wait and see when we cut down on the number of American shows or just ignore the discussion add suggest it again. CrisBalboa1 (talk) 13:13, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo at the Literature section covers Nordic noir enough. --Makkool (talk) 18:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand and I did not know it is a Nordic noir, but thank you for your opposition I was attempting add it to represent the genre in a visual sense. If you all oppose my nomination, that is all fine, it is what it is. CrisBalboa1 (talk) 22:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

Add Indian castes

The society section has the Caste system in India and Dalit so it should also have the rest of the castes. Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, and Shudra LJFIN2 (talk) 03:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Support as proposer: LJFIN2 04:36, 13 May 2023 (UTC) (vote added here by Festucalex)[reply]
  2. Support—We have enough space in the "Society and social sciences" category to accommodate them all. Seems reasonable enough. 〜 Festucalex • talk 04:35, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support The person who loves reading (talk) 23:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Medicine and health changes

Add some psychiatric drugs

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


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

Add some chronic illnesses

DONE
Done, per 55% supporting votes 〜 Festucalex • talk 12:08, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

There are many diseases that do not cause death but result in disability or low quality of life. These diseases are often overlooked especially when they don't cause symptoms visible to the outside. For the sake of neutrality more chronic illnesses should be included


Support
  1. Support as proposer: LJFIN2 09:01, 13 May 2023 (UTC) (vote added here by Festucalex)[reply]
  2. Strong Support 〜 Festucalex • talk 08:56, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support The person who loves reading (talk) 23:28, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 09:14, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove some personality disorders

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


Support
  1. Support as proposer: LJFIN2 09:01, 13 May 2023 (UTC) (vote added here by Festucalex)[reply]
  2. 〜 Festucalex • talk 09:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support The person who loves reading (talk) 23:28, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Add some mental disorders

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

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

Stength properties of materials

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

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

Support

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

Oppose

Discuss

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

Remove Moors murders

Why they are in history section? Dawid2009 (talk) 07:08, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Support as proposer: Dawid2009 (talk · contribs) 07:46, 25 May 2023 (UTC) (vote added here by Festucalex)[reply]
  2. 〜 Festucalex • talk 13:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support The person who loves reading (talk) 23:30, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Remove Louis de Wohl

Only notable for a brief, failed stint as an MI5 astrologer. While absolutely hilarious, this doesn't make him VIT5 material.

Support
  1. Support as proposer 〜 Festucalex • talk 13:37, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per proposer, not really notable. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:08, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support The person who loves reading (talk) 23:30, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Remove James Rodríguez

i just think he's not so important. Mehdi7njr (talk) 11:47, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Support as proposer: Mehdi7njr (talk · contribs) 14:04, 31 May 2023 (UTC) (vote added by Festucalex)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Add some video games

-- Mehdi7njr (talk) 13:04, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Support as proposer: Mehdi7njr (talk · contribs) 14:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC) (vote added by Festucalex)[reply]
  2. I support the addition of the first three or four, but the last three I would oppose. I recently tried adding the first two myself, before they were removed as the quota was met. To be specific, the first three won several major awards, and have been described by modern sources as having a major influence of how video games are now and how they will be in the future; willing to cite if needed. NSNW (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @NSNW: Yes, please cite. 〜 Festucalex • talk 04:20, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Red Dead Redemption 2: [8][9][10]
    The Last of Us: [11][12][13]
    I couldn't really find much for the other two but these ones should be enough. NSNW (talk) 17:10, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think some individual franchise subentries could be removed to compensate, in particular Super Metroid, Metroid Prime and Monkey Island 1. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 07:24, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that would be appropriate. NSNW (talk) 17:00, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support The Last of Us --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 07:27, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. No reason is given for the addition of these specific games, and we're only 3 games below budget. Those must be chosen carefully. 〜 Festucalex • talk 14:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Skyrim, Batman: Arkham and Mass Effect 2 --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 07:27, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose all. Hard to see why any of these are particularly vital to an encyclopedia. DFlhb (talk) 21:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose - Oppose all. Subjective list by one user, no specific reason for these games. VT-ALM (talk) 12:44, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

Add history of military logistics

I split History of military logistics off from Military logistics. It has all the features of a vital article, covering over 2,000 years. This is a pretty important subject, so I propose adding it. The War and Military category still has space.

Support
  1. As proposer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Move hydroponics, olericulture, and vertical farms to Horticulture category

It seems horticultural topics, i.e. hydroponics, olericulture, vertical farms, etc., are listed in agriculture science rather than horticulture. Why? Satin66Flower (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Support as proposer: Satin66Flower (talk · contribs) 05:54, 7 June 2023 (UTC) (vote added by Festucalex)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss
  1. @Satin66Flower: Why should they be in horticulture rather than agriculture? 〜 Festucalex • talk 05:55, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Because horticulture is their scientific home. I have no problem with a plant science category that includes all the plant crops equally. Satin66Flower (talk) 02:16, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Remove soul patch and handlebar moustache

Under facial hair, there are a few articles listed. Beard and moustache are listed at level 4, which makes sense to me, and I get the idea of expanding on the area here, but soul patch and handlebar moustache articles just seem very very unvital to me. There is a Human Hair template, with many many articles, why these 2 were picked out of all the potential ones available I don't know. For example, I just noticed we do not list anywhere, Eyebrow, Body hair, or Pubic hair. Off topic, but we also don't list Eyelash, but we list the common eyelash cosmetic, mascara? which also seems odd to me. The listed hairstyles also seems a bit odd to me too, may discus this later. Sideburns and goatee, seem slightly more significant, but not by a giant margin though.

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  16:25, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong Support 〜 Festucalex • talk 16:49, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support, should be removed VT-ALM (talk) 12:43, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Add Dwarfism

Surprised this isn't listed anywhere. A decent argument could be made for level 4. The condition is very well known and visible despite being statistically fairly rare, which may or may not be an argument against level 4. For better or for worse, the condition has been of interest to science, mythology, fiction and entertainment for centuries. I would imagine the topic to be a genuine area of scientific interest/research and general reader interest as well.

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  17:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Makes sense. Giagantism should also be added LJFIN2 (talk)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 09:18, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. 〜 Festucalex • talk 20:50, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Add fossil families

I wasn't aware of the decision to remove stuff from the animal list until today. While I agree on principle with the removal of most taxa (safe for Castoroides due to its common representation in popular media in recent years) ; I have however to insist that this list does not reflect the quality on research on a general taxon, but the interest the general public would have toward it. It is still my belief that the general public is first interested on genera, then on families, and not the other way around. Pinging @PrimalMustelid as he may have an interest in it too.

So, with seven removed mammal taxa, I'd propose we should replace them by :

As a corollary, no change should be made without prior consensus for now since we are under the quota to WP:BOLD, specially if it's for adding stuff you're working on. There is still much more cleansing to do in that section though.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Larrayal (talk) 22:38, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. PrimalMustelid (talk) 12:26, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss
  1. @Larrayal: Pinging is done using {{Ping}}, not a simple @. I'll ping him for you: @PrimalMustelid 〜 Festucalex • talk 22:54, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Still remaining on support, but something I want to address is that I think Amphicyon as a genus is also worth featuring as a vital article, as not only is it the most well-known amphicyonid genus in both the public perception and academic circles (it's the type genus, go figure), but it has a long and extensive taxonomic history that goes back as far as 1836 (the fourth fossil carnivoran genus to be erected ever, next to Megantereon, Machairodus, and Agnotherium), during a critical time in paleontology when amongst the first Miocene fauna and deposits were described in France and Germany (Although Agnotherium was the first amphicyonid genus, it was considered a synonym for Amphicyon and became overshadowed, moreso in the modern day because Amphicyon is more important in paleoecological contexts and more subcomplete fossils). PrimalMustelid (talk) 23:28, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Remove almost all Individual animals

I've already discussed that topic, which got under radar during a period of blatant inactivity on this project. Coming back at it for round 2 : I don't think any of the 96 individual animals on the current list are warrant to be on the Biological and health sciences listing, and I don't think most of them should be on the list at all. So I advocate for the complete removal of the section, and the creation of an at most 10 slots section about famous animals in People, Miscellaneous, comprising only of :

and whatever the sports community decides were the most important bucking bulls, racehorses and mascots of all time. Lonesome George is a tricky subject, as it is the only one with any relation to the subject, but I think he should go as well. For the rest, this is not the place for someone's pet, for meme animals, for mid-century movie animal actors - especially when those movies aren't listed themselves, for sport-related articles, for mascots barely known outside of their field, for "Celebrity Cows", for random pandas, for animals about which a non-listed movie was made, for enslaved and tortured orcas, for 7 individual bucking bulls or for a very old clam. All of those have nothing to do on a biology-related list. So, I formally suggest the complete removal from the Vital article list of :

  1. Bubbles
  2. Crystal the Monkey
  3. Ham
  4. Harambe
  5. Jiggs
  6. J. Fred Muggs
  7. Koko
  8. Oliver
  9. Travis
  10. Bruno
  11. Bart the Bear
  12. Bart the Bear 2
  13. Brody the Bear
  14. Hercules
  15. Pedals
  16. Winnipeg
  17. Elsa the lioness
  18. Grumpy Cat
  19. Lil Bub
  20. Killing of Cecil the lion
  21. Maru
  22. Mike the Tiger
  23. Morris the Cat
  24. Bodacious
  25. Bushwacker
  26. Bruiser
  27. Dillinger
  28. Little Yellow Jacket
  29. Oscar
  30. Red Rock
  31. Big Bertha
  32. Brookview Tony Charity
  33. Lily Flagg
  34. Ralphie the Buffalo
  35. Ratón
  36. Hope
  37. Keiko
  38. Lolita
  39. Shamu
  40. Tilikum
  41. Winter
  42. Blondi
  43. Chaser
  44. Hachikō
  45. Pal
  46. Rin Tin Tin
  47. Terry
  48. Togo
  49. Uga
  50. Topsy
  51. Black Caviar
  52. Byerley Turk
  53. Citation
  54. Darley Arabian
  55. Eclipse
  56. Frankel
  57. Godolphin Arabian
  58. Kelso
  59. Kincsem
  60. Man o' War
  61. Native Dancer
  62. Nearco
  63. Northern Dancer
  64. Phar Lap
  65. Pretty Polly
  66. Seabiscuit
  67. Secretariat
  68. Sunday Silence
  69. Zenyatta
  70. Arkle
  71. Dan Patch
  72. Desert Orchid
  73. Figure
  74. Golden Miller
  75. Hambletonian 10
  76. Red Rum
  77. Bamboo Harvester
  78. Incitatus
  79. Marengo
  80. Midnight
  81. Scamper
  82. Trigger
  83. Andre the Seal
  84. Bei Bei
  85. Cher Ami
  86. Dolly
  87. Jimmy (raven)
  88. Lonesome George
  89. Ming (clam)
  90. Number 16
  91. Punxsutawney Phil
  92. Tuan Tuan and Yuan Yuan
Support
  1. Support as nom. Larrayal (talk) 22:38, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support except for Secretariat, who is one of the most famous racehorses of all time. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 01:33, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Didn't realize Man o' War was also on the list of proposed removals—leave him as a Vital article too (considered possibly the greatest racehorse). --SilverTiger12 (talk) 01:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support all except for Phar Lap who is arguably the most iconic racehorse of all time. We should have more animal species. Gizza (talk) 04:28, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support with exceptions, see below 〜 Festucalex • talk 04:33, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support with exceptions, see below NSNW (talk · contribs) 04:17, 10 June 2023 (UTC) (vote added by Festucalex)[reply]
  6. Support with the exceptions (not sure all of those are needed, by it seems like a happy compromise) and Seabiscuit, who is also a very very famous horse and former featured article. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support with exceptions. --Thi (talk) 14:39, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support LJFIN2 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support as stated. VT-ALM (talk) 17:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss
  1. We're gonna have to manage this lest it turn into a WP:TRAINWRECK. Here I will create a list of animals for people who agree but think some must be kept. Feel free to add to this list and vote on each entry individually: 〜 Festucalex • talk 04:33, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Keep Balto (proposer: Larrayal)
      Green checkmarkY (Larrayal) Green checkmarkY (Thi) Red X symbolN (Festucalex)
    2. Keep Bucephalus (proposer: Larrayal)
      Green checkmarkY (Larrayal) Green checkmarkY (Thi) Green checkmarkY (Festucalex)
    3. Keep Dolly (sheep) (proposer: Larrayal)
      Green checkmarkY (Larrayal) Green checkmarkY (Thi) Green checkmarkY (Festucalex)
    4. Keep Grumpy Cat (proposer: Festucalex)
      Green checkmarkY (Festucalex)
    5. Keep Hachikō (proposer: Thi)
      Green checkmarkY (Thi) Green checkmarkY (Festucalex)
    6. Keep Jumbo (proposer: Larrayal)
      Green checkmarkY (Larrayal) Green checkmarkY (Thi) Green checkmarkY (Festucalex)
    7. Add Knut (polar bear) (proposer: Festucalex) (not in list, should be added)
      Green checkmarkY (Festucalex)
    8. Keep Koko (gorilla) (proposer: Festucalex)
      Green checkmarkY (Festucalex) Green checkmarkY (Thi)
    9. Keep Laika (proposer: Larrayal)
      Green checkmarkY (Larrayal) Green checkmarkY (Thi) Green checkmarkY (Festucalex)
    10. Keep Lonesome George (proposer: Thi)
      Green checkmarkY (Thi) Red X symbolN (Festucalex)
    11. Keep Man o' War (proposer: SilverTiger12)
      Green checkmarkY (SilverTiger12) Green checkmarkY (Festucalex)
    12. Keep Phar Lap (proposer: DaGizza)
      Green checkmarkY (DaGizza) Red X symbolN (Festucalex)
    13. Keep Punxsutawney Phil (proposer: Festucalex)
      Green checkmarkY (Festucalex)
    14. Keep Rin Tin Tin (proposer: Thi)
      Green checkmarkY (Thi) Green checkmarkY (Festucalex)
    15. Keep Seabiscuit (proposer: Iskandar323)
      Green checkmarkY (Iskandar323) Green checkmarkY (Festucalex)
    16. Keep Secretariat (horse) (proposer: SilverTiger12)
      Green checkmarkY (SilverTiger12) Green checkmarkY (Festucalex)
    17. Keep Tilikum (orca) (proposer: NSNW)
      Green checkmarkY (NSNW) Red X symbolN (Festucalex)

Add Blender, Coffeemaker, Convection oven, Hair dryer, Hair iron, Hot-water heater, Humidifier, Juicer, Microwave oven, Mixer (appliance), Rice cooker, Slow cooker, Toaster, Water dispenser

I took a quick glance at the household appliances section of Technology, and was surprised to find out that there were little to no minor appliances used daily, besides the more obvious Oven, Refrigerator, Washing machine, etc. There are many things that I could think of that could also be included, such as Microwave oven, Hot-water heater, Toaster, Coffeemaker, Hair dryer and more. If there is too little space for these types of additions (I see we are just at capacity in the Technology portion), debate around the amount of articles added/removed I support. I see this more as a discussion for future reference for others who may want clarification going forward before they are added without permission. NSNW (talk) 21:13, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@NSNW: I agree. Please propose removals so that we could swap those in. 〜 Festucalex • talk 04:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be more appropriate to propose the removal of articles from the household appliances section (28 articles I believe), or remove articles spanning the entire technology section. I'm pretty new to this process and would like some input. In the meantime, I'll make a list of things that should be subbed in. NSNW (talk) 17:13, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@NSNW: Have you made a list yet? 〜 Festucalex • talk 17:58, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the delay. I'm about to go on vacation tomorrow and have spent most of the week packing, I guess I got off track. Here is a starting list:
More items can be added or removed if there is consensus. NSNW (talk) 23:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. Support as proposer NSNW (talk) 23:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC) (vote added by Festucalex)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Fruits and vegetables

I have been going through the hierarchical lists regarding food and eating. Yes there is one good article on vegetables, yet only mention of fruit juices and fruit in pies. But if I wasn't looking, I would have missed them with all the old standards of meat, dairy and grain. As a diabetic and a retired horticultural professional, Wikipedia has only minimal poorly organized articles about the modern plant based diet. I recognize it is my responsibility also, but I can't even see a place to start, the lack of equity for plant based foods is overwhelming. Satin66Flower (talk) 02:10, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Satin66Flower: Can you please provide specific proposals? What exactly should be removed and added? 〜 Festucalex • talk 18:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see now how some things are organized. I was looking at a few stubs in horticulture and could not find their home. Orchards and apples are not in horticulture (yet, they are horticulture), so I looked in food, not there either.
Now I know products from domestic animals and grains are in the food section. Products from domesticated plants remain in the plant biology section. My proposal would be to move all the information, separated as edible fruits and vegetables, from Plant Biology to Food in Everyday Life. This information is separated from the lists of plant families, that contains mostly ornamental plants (trees, shrubs, and flowers) and forest products (I did not look thoroughly). There seems to be much deeper coverage of plant families in articles than seems to be represented in the Plant Biology hierarchical outline. I expect this was decided long ago, but it makes no real sense to me.
I am willing to participate in this reorganization, if it is deemed appropriate. Satin66Flower (talk) 00:36, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I need more time to review the hierarchical outline under vital articles. In my mind and preliminary review, there seem to be many inconsistencies, this may be my problem as a new user. Let me follow all the leads and I may have a proposal in time. Thanks. Satin66Flower (talk) 13:52, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Satin66Flower: Very well. 〜 Festucalex • talk 13:57, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed the fruit and vegetable question more thoroughly. My previous assumptions appear correct. There is a note and a link to the animal section and plant section of Biology and Health Sciences, stating that the details for food are in the Biology and Health Sciences section. The sections on food from animals no longer exists in Biology & Health. I expect someone moved them, I believe logically, to the Food section of Everyday life. I propose that level 4 fruit, level 5 fruit, level 4 vegetables and level 5 vegetable sections be moved to the Food section of Everyday life from the plant section of Biology & Health. Satin66Flower (talk) 00:23, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Homes and gardens

Gardens are somewhat hidden under agriculture categories. Certainly the history is there and the relationships to commercial horticulture are obvious, but it seems more related to the home and the home landscape. That is where the gardeners use the concepts and activities of gardening. Garden design and its relatives fit pretty well in the design categories. Satin66Flower (talk) 02:24, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support
Oppose
Discuss

Remove Thalassocnus, Doedicurus, Tamandua, Add Glyptodon, Two-toed sloth, Megalonyx

I do not believe that it is necessary to have Thalassocnus or Doedicurus at this high of a vital article level, as neither are type species of their respective clades and have little importance overall. I would also remove the Tamandua as we already have an anteater at vital article.

I would reorganize this to:

  1. Anteater
    1. Giant anteater
  2. Armadillo
    1. Giant armadillo
    2. Glyptodon
    3. Doedicurus (possibly, but I believe Glyptodon has more importance)
  3. Sloth
    1. Two-toed sloth
    2. Ground sloth
      1. Megatherium
      2. Megalonyx

AFH (talk) 13:44, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Support as proposer AFH (talk) 18:07, 12 June 2023 (UTC) (vote added by Festucalex)[reply]
  2. Support as proposed VT-ALM (talk) 11:52, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support as proposed - seems well thought out. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:01, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Post-1945 American political removals

There are SIXTY-EIGHT American politicians from the post-1945 era, including FIFTY-FOUR who never served as President. Even though there are one or two notable omissions (Robert Taft?), there seems to be a lot of bloat here. pbp 16:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Edward Brooke

Does he have the prominence or notoriety to be on this list? He was the first black Senator since the 17th Amendment, but not the first overall pbp 16:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. pbp 16:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 〜 Festucalex • talk 17:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 19:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Remove John Dingell

What is his significance other than being a Congressman (one of 435) for a bazillion years? He was never Speaker or party leader. He never ran for the Presidency or even a governorship. He wasn’t even chair of Appropriations or Ways and Means pbp 16:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. pbp 16:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 〜 Festucalex • talk 17:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 19:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Remove Orrin Hatch

What is his significance other than being a Senator for a bazillion years? He was never majority leader and he never sought out executive office. He doesn’t hold the record, even for a Republican, because Chuck Grassley recently beat him out. pbp 16:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. pbp 16:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 〜 Festucalex • talk 17:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 19:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Remove George J. Mitchell

Too obscure to be on this list. pbp 16:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. pbp 16:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 〜 Festucalex • talk 17:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 19:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Remove Edmund Muskie

Too obscure to be on this list. pbp 16:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. pbp 16:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 〜 Festucalex • talk 17:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 19:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support VT-ALM (talk) 11:49, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Remove Sarah Palin

We currently have the three women who have run for Vice-President on a major party ticket (we also have Hillary Clinton). Geraldine Ferraro was the first. Kamala Harris was the one that won. Is Sarah Palin as significant as those two? pbp 16:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. pbp 16:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 〜 Festucalex • talk 17:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. A bit of recentism here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:48, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Remove Ron Paul

Is he prominent enough to be on this list? His political philosophy is rather fringe; he got only a small percentage of the vote in the 2008 and 2012 primaries. pbp 16:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. pbp 16:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 〜 Festucalex • talk 17:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. His current status as a vital article is most likely due to his "fringe" political philosophy. He is practically the father of the modern libertarian or tea party movement in America, and a lot of his ideals have sparked similar events in other nations. While he isn't exactly as well known as some of the other American politicians currently here, he is probably one of the less offensive bloated additions that I think deserve more consideration than someone like Donald Rumsfeld. NSNW (talk) 23:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

Remove Donald Rumsfeld

George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Colin Powell (under military) already represent the War on Terror pbp 16:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. pbp 16:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Rumsfeld had a very significant career and was pivotal to the Iraq War. I think he's significant enough to warrant VIT5. 〜 Festucalex • talk 17:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 19:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:46, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Opposed VT-ALM (talk) 11:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

Remove Richard Russell Jr.

Do we need Russell, Helms, Wallace AND Thurmond? How many racist Southern conservative Democrats or ex-Democrats do we need, anyway? pbp 16:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. pbp 16:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 〜 Festucalex • talk 17:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 19:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Remove Ted Stevens

As with Hatch, what’s his significance other than being 1 of 100 for a bazillion years? pbp 16:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. pbp 16:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 〜 Festucalex • talk 17:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 19:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Remove entire list of individual airports

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

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

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

Remove Gould Belt

Astronomical formation, not particularly notable for anything.

Support
  1. Support as proposer 〜 Festucalex • talk 20:40, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per nom. VT-ALM (talk) 02:58, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5&oldid=1160434599"