Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/History and geography

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:

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: 20:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
• 7 days ago is: 20:25, 25 November 2024 (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

History

Further information: Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History

Organizing the history list

I want to open up a fresh discussion on organizing the history list. Per previous discussions on this topic, I tried to implement merging some sections together but it turned out to be a mess. Instead of having sections for the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries, I thought it would be better to organize the list with Ancient, Post-classical, Early modern, Late modern (to 1945), and Contemporary (from 1945). I think it would be better since 21st century is only more than 20 years of history. I would like to gather some thoughts on how we can organize the list better and this is the idea I had. I also want to put out there that I am not comfortable restructuring the list alone since I messed up before and would like some help doing it if possible. I look forward to your comments. Interstellarity (talk) 02:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I assume you are talking about Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History. Ancient, Post-classical, Early modern alraedy exists. I support your idea tentatively due to the fact that the current system jumps from descriptive to by-century periodization for now good reason. That said, it will be quite a lot of work. But if you are willing to do so, I have no objections, but please be careful not to drop any entries this time :P _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I am talking about the history list you have mentioned and I am aware that Ancient, Post-classical, Early modern already exist. I'm glad you support the idea of using Late modern and Contemporary. I understand that it will be a lot of work, but I will be careful doing so. I don't know if you would willing to do this, but I would appreciate your help with this monumental task. Thanks, Interstellarity (talk) 13:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@Interstellarity, where should articles be placed if they stretch over multiple time categories, e.g. Abolitionism? Thanks, Of the universe (talk) 02:50, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

@Of the universe: I have had multiple articles that while doing the last stretched multiple time periods. What I have done is to put it in the time period that is most closely associated to the period. You can also put it in the time period where it spanned the longest. In short: use your best judgement. Interstellarity (talk) 12:52, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Addressing time discrimination in history

As I said above, I think we have way too many articles on geographical entities, past and present. And to compund that, we somehow do not list, even at V5, articles on world history periodization by millenium, century, decade or year. Year is too detailed, fine, although one could think twice about some important dates (1918, etc.). Millenium might be too broad and those articles are very poor (2nd millennium). But centuries and decades have often decent articles. We may quibble with decades, but I think at least a ten or so most recent ones are nearly houshold names - at least I often hear folks referncing 1980s or 1990s. And if anyone wants to argue that concepts like the the 20th century are not vital... I'd like to hear it. Of course, even with centuries, if we go back far enough we will hit historical trivia, although where exactly do we draw the line is a good question. I'll propose addition of some recent centuries/decades, which are not just vital for periodization but IMHO are vital for culture and are often referenced in everyday conversation. Feel free to add more, although this may get a tad unwieldy if someone draws the line at let's say 1st millenium BC :P --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

• @Piotrus: - great catch. Where will they be classified in? starship.paint (RUN) 11:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Starship.paint Maybe in a new subsection? I am going to post my review of the entire history page under #Organizing the history list above in a little while. @Interstellarity who may have some ideas on this, as they started on this a while back. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for the ping. You can see the discussion that Piotrus mentioned that you are more than welcome to comment on. One way I have in mind for organizing the history section is this: Prehistory (2.5 million years ago - 5,000 years ago), Ancient (6000 BCE - 476 CE), Post-classical (476 CE - 1500 CE), Early modern (1500 - 1750), Late modern (1750 - 1945), and Contemporary (1945 – present). I don’t think we should be using centuries to divide the top sections. Another idea I have would be in each section, split the top time periods like Late modern and Contemporary into centuries or decades and then split those up into locations. I think when we do this, we can make sure that each section has about the same number of articles and avoid recency bias. 21st century spans only 23 years of history while Contemporary and Late modern span a much longer timeframe. I think this would be a much better system of organization and will help aid with navigating. Interstellarity (talk) 21:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think I'll actively oppose if there's a lot of support for it, but just to play devil's advocate, aren't these articles for specific date-ranges pretty "listy"? While they encompass a wide range of topics, they feel like more of a remix of other articles.

Maybe I'd feel differently someday if they evolved into something more substantial. They don't seem to convey as much though as an article on a specific event or a more organic historical period (cf. Yuan dynasty or Post–World War II economic expansion). Zar2gar1 (talk) 12:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Great suggestion! For centuries, we can probably start from as far as 15th century, because that’s when the world became global and the modern history started. For decades, definitely all decades in contemporary history should be present (starting with 1940s), but WW1 as suggested is also a good cutoff. Kammerer55 (talk) 16:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

• Per User:Kammerer55 definitely need to get all Gregorian calendar centuries. I think decades should go back to the mid 1800s for starters.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:11, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Add 21st century

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

---

The present... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Surely at least level 4, if not higher. starship.paint (RUN) 11:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Obviously vital, but debatable if history. pbp 16:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Support I think the last dozen centuries may be vital.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
5. Support. --Kammerer55 (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
6. Totalibe (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

Add 20th century

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

---

The recent past and arguably most important century in human history. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Surely at least level 4, if not higher. starship.paint (RUN) 11:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
3. pbp 16:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Support I think the last dozen centuries may be vital.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
5. Support. --Kammerer55 (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
6. Totalibe (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

Add 19th century

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.

---

Still often referenced, I'd draw the line here for obvious additions in century when it comes to cultural references and conversation. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 11:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
3. pbp 16:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Support I think the last dozen centuries may be vital.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
5. Support, and would support all starting with 15th century. --Kammerer55 (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
6. J947 ‡ ^edits 01:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
7. Totalibe (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

Add 1910s

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

---

I am not going to write a detailed rationale for every decade, but I believe each decade of the 20th century onward, starting with the one that saw WWI, is vital. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
2. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 11:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
3. pbp 16:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Support. --Kammerer55 (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

Add 1920s

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.

---

See above. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
2. pbp 16:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Weak support. Does not seem like many obviously global events happened then, but support for completeness, if we start with 1910s. --Kammerer55 (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
4. J947 ‡ ^edits 01:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

Add 1930s

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.

---

See above. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
2. pbp 16:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
3. --Kammerer55 (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
4. J947 ‡ ^edits 01:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

Add 1940s

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.

---

See above. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
2. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 11:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
3. pbp 16:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Support. --Kammerer55 (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

   J947 ‡ ^edits 01:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

   On reflection, won't support this yet. I don't want too many of these decade/century articles – though I do agree that in general these are good additions – and the 1940s is not really such a contiguous, tangible time period as the other decades I'm supporting. It's split in half: in fact, Contemporary history starts right down the middle of it. J947 ‡ ^edits 01:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

Add 1950s

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.

---

See above. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
2. pbp 16:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
3. --Kammerer55 (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
4. J947 ‡ ^edits 01:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

Add 1960s

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.

---

See above. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
2. pbp 16:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
3. --Kammerer55 (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
4. J947 ‡ ^edits 01:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

Add 1970s

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.

---

See above. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
2. pbp 16:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
3. --Kammerer55 (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
4. J947 ‡ ^edits 01:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

Add 1980s

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.

---

See above. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
2. pbp 16:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
3. --Kammerer55 (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
4. J947 ‡ ^edits 01:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

Add 1990s

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.

---

See above. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
2. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 11:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
3. pbp 16:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
4. --Kammerer55 (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
5. J947 ‡ ^edits 01:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

Add 2000s

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.

---

See above. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
2. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 11:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
3. pbp 16:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
4. --Kammerer55 (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
5. J947 ‡ ^edits 01:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

Add 2010s

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.

---

See above. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
2. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 11:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
3. pbp 16:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
4. --Kammerer55 (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
5. J947 ‡ ^edits 01:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

Add 2020s

See above. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
2. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 11:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Though, as with 21st century, IDK if "history" is the correct classification. pbp 16:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Support. I think the history classification is appropriate. --Kammerer55 (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Only 4 years through. J947 ‡ ^edits 01:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

   4 years pretty eventful I would say though. The Blue Rider 22:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

   Eh. Overall I think decades tend to pretty much have the same influence as the previous one – I don't think we're just talking about the big events (Covid, Jan 6, Ukraine, Israel) in these decade articles. J947 ‡ ^edits 22:41, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

   4 years that will become 10 years, and if it doesn't become 10 years this addition doesn't matter anyway. starship.paint (RUN) 05:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

   By that same coin we might as well add 2030s, then why not 2040s, etc. The vitality of this article isn't, IMO, in that it will occur, but in the importance of it as a historical topic. Yes, we'll almost certainly add it eventually, but it doesn't warrant addition now as it does not yet cover the important events of 2024* and beyond. To put it another way, it becomes more and more important to have a quality article on it as the decade develops. I'm also concerned that decade and century articles will become bloat on this list. J947 ‡ ^edits 06:20, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Discuss

Removal of histories of small U.S. states

Right now, the history of every single U.S. state is listed, even though several states are quite small in population and most are less than 200 years old. I am nominating the the history of every U.S. state with a population under two million for removal from this list, except for Alaska, Hawaii (who have certain peculiarities due to being discontinuous) and any of the 13 colonies (who are significantly older than the other 37 states) pbp 21:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

This is a great start, though I would actually support removal of most of them. In total for all countries and continents, we have a similar number of articles about regions at level 4 and corresponding "History of" articles at level 5. Namely, on level 4 we have around 150-200 articles: 110 article from the main section plus more articles from other sections, like islands and unrecognized states which are also considered as regions. On level 5, we have around 150-200 articles about the regional histories: 422 from the main section minus ~200 countries and different thematic topics. However, for the US we have only 8 states present on level 4, but 50 histories of states on level 5 and 13+ colonies (with several duplicates for Province/Colony). To balance it better, I would frankly keep only histories of Texas, Hawaii, Alaska, California and Florida, since those were changing between different countries, and would add History of New England instead of Dominion of New England (which existed for only 3 years). Maybe, we can also keep histories of states which were original colonies, but then we should probably keep only one of the "History of ..." and corresponding Colony/Province articles for each state. Kammerer55 (talk) 21:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

What Kammerer55 said. Support removal all listed here, feel free to copy my sig to support removal of any US state section here, or treat my vote as +1 for all entries here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Remove History of Idaho

Support

1. pbp 21:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
2. --Kammerer55 (talk) 21:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
3. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
4. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 07:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
5. Totalibe (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
6. Interstellarity (talk) 01:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
7. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
8. J947 ‡ ^edits 23:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Remove History of Maine

Support

1. pbp 21:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
2. --Kammerer55 (talk) 21:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
3. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
4. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 07:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
5. Totalibe (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
6. Interstellarity (talk) 01:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
7. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
8. J947 ‡ ^edits 23:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Remove History of Montana

Support

1. pbp 21:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
2. --Kammerer55 (talk) 21:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
3. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
4. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 07:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
5. Totalibe (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
6. Interstellarity (talk) 01:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
7. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
8. J947 ‡ ^edits 23:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Remove History of Nebraska

Support

1. pbp 21:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
2. --Kammerer55 (talk) 21:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
3. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
4. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 07:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
5. Totalibe (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
6. Interstellarity (talk) 01:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
7. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
8. J947 ‡ ^edits 23:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Remove History of North Dakota

Support

1. pbp 21:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
2. --Kammerer55 (talk) 21:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
3. J947 ‡ ^edits 22:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
4. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
5. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 07:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
6. Totalibe (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
7. Interstellarity (talk) 01:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
8. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Remove History of South Dakota

Support

1. pbp 21:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
2. --Kammerer55 (talk) 21:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
3. J947 ‡ ^edits 22:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
4. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
5. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 07:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
6. Totalibe (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
7. Interstellarity (talk) 01:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
8. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Remove History of Vermont

Support

1. pbp 21:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
2. --Kammerer55 (talk) 21:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
3. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
4. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 07:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
5. Interstellarity (talk) 01:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
6. Beginning to think we do list too many History of X articles. Not convinced either are vital but I'd rather list Green Mountain Boys or Vermont Republic on their own. J947 ‡ ^edits 23:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak oppose since it was one of the few states that was independent. The Blue Rider 11:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose because it was its own country for fourteen years. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:34, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
3. There is something there (in the 2 opposes above).TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Not necessarily opposed but I feel like the Green Mountain Boys thing complicates this one a bit. J947 ‡ ^edits 22:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

User:J947, are you considering voting? I ask because your comment seems to lack a finality and the vote is close so getting all voices counted is important.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Remove History of West Virginia

Support

1. pbp 21:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
2. --Kammerer55 (talk) 21:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
3. J947 ‡ ^edits 22:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
4. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
5. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 07:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
6. Totalibe (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
7. Interstellarity (talk) 01:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
8. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Remove History of Wyoming

Support

1. pbp 21:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
2. --Kammerer55 (talk) 21:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
3. J947 ‡ ^edits 22:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
4. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
5. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 07:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
6. The least populated U.S. state. Totalibe (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
7. Interstellarity (talk) 01:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Balance of History by city

Currently at Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/History#History_by_city_(42_articles). No idea what the quota here is. From what I see, possible problems:

• the usual overrepresentation of US topics: US leads the list with five entries: New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Philadelphia and San Francisco
• Ireland seems also overrepresented, with Belfast and Dublin. Compare to UK, which just has London.
• India has Delhi, Mumbai and Kolkata
• Italy has Rome and Naples
• China is underrepresnted, with just Beijing and Shanghai
• Russia has two cities: Moscow and Saint Petersburg.
• no other country has two cities

Whether we need to add or remove stuff depends on the quota, but if we are keeping the current 42 article quota, there are some balance issues to consider. Removing at least one city from Ireland and giving it to UK, for example. China should at least equal US, IMHO, which could be easily achieved by cutting US down to three cities. Japan likely needs another city. Germany and France too. Portugal is missing from the list (add history of Lisbon?). Etc, etc. Feel free to propose removals/additions/swaps here - I'll do it in few days and ping anyone who commented here if nobody does. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

42 is definitely too many. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Do we need to keep this as a separate list at all? Maybe, it would be better to distribute its items among #History by country and subdivision (422 articles) sections, and then it would be easier to achieve regional diversity, and also we could cross-compare individual cities and some of the regions. Kammerer55 (talk) 04:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Right. Also, to build on your comment elsewhere, which of those cities are V4? Any that are not probably don't deserve a history of at V5 (or we should consider making them V4, conversly). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Actually, there are >400 cities on level 4: Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Geography#Cities_(450_articles), and it seems the listed 42 are all included there. Kammerer55 (talk) 06:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

If we look at this list on its own however, then the US is indeed overrepresented, especially since all US cities are only a few hundred years long (as already mentioned). (Also, note that History of Washington, D.C. is listed in another section.) Since these articles are about "Histories" of cities, then the most useful comparison criteria would probably be: 1) the age of the city (how many important historical periods it encompasses); 2) the significance of the events that have happened over there for the world history (or at least for the history of the continent). In the US section: Chicago, LA and SF should definitely be removed. In Europe: Athens, Berlin, London, Paris and Rome seem to be more historically significant than Amsterdam and Vienna, and those are more significant than Belfast, Dublin, Naples and Warsaw. However, most of these cities are probably more significant than most of the 50 histories of individual US states (!) all of which are present on the list, so it might be good to clean up that section first. Kammerer55 (talk) 05:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

The fair number is probably about 25 and TBH, IDK if we need any American city except New York. Chicago, LA and San Fran are all about 200 years old, the latter two being minor outposts before the Gold Rush. pbp 04:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Remove History of Dublin and History of Belfast

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 nom. Let's get the ball rolling with the removals of two cities a tier or two below the 30 most important cities by history. J947 ‡ ^edits 05:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Support. Most European capital histories are not listed. Dublin and Belfast are probably among least historically significant, since nothing of worldwide (or at least regional significance) have happened over there. --Kammerer55 (talk) 05:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Support. Per my and other comments above. That's local history and nothing more, I fear. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:02, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 14:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
5. Support Totalibe (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

Remove History of Chicago, History of San Francisco and History of Los Angeles

Support

1. Support as nom, following J947's example. (I am not nominating Histories of New York, Philadelphia and Washington, since I think those are still much more important than the nominated articles.) --Kammerer55 (talk) 05:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Support. Franly, I'd only consider keeping NYC. NYC is one of the most famous if not the most famous city in the world. Washington may squeek through for being a capital of one of the world's most important countries. Philly, however... what makes its history vital to the world? I'd vote to remove it as well and will likely propose it if nobody beats me to it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Support As I said above, we probably don't need any U.S. cities' history but New York. These are comparatively recent cities in the grand scheme of world history. pbp 16:02, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Support San Francisco and Los Angeles. Although LA is today the second largest city in the US, its growth is rather too recent for an article on the history to be listed here. San Francisco is even further down the list population-wise. Totalibe (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
5. Support San Francisco and Los Angeles per above. starship.paint (RUN) 05:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removing History of Chicago. Chicago's growth occured further back in the 19th century, giving it an advantage over the other two, and is today the third largest U.S. city. From the article "By 1870, Chicago had grown to become the nation's second-largest city and one of the largest cities in the world". I'd actually remove History of Washington, D.C. before this, as its a much smaller city. Totalibe (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose Chicago-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:57, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Oppose Chicago in favour of removing Illinois. starship.paint (RUN) 05:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
4. Oppose all, I suppose. If we list the histories of all the states, mostly only VA5 themselves, then we might as well list the histories of VA3.5 cities. J947 ‡ ^edits 06:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

We could remove History of Illinois instead of History of Chicago. J947 ‡ ^edits 23:55, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Worth voting on separately, sure. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:07, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Merge #History by city section with #History by country and subdivision

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.

---

If we merge the sections, then it might be easier to achieve proper regional balance, and we could also compare cities with regions. Also, historically many countries started from cities and some of them were city-states, so it's not clear why we should separate countries and cities in the History-section. --Kammerer55 (talk) 06:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. Note: I am not the nom - nom forgot to support, I expect they'll fix it shortly. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Support as nom. --Kammerer55 (talk) 06:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Once we've gone through and cut this section down a bit, as people seem to desire, yes. Before then the current organisation is helpful for deciding what to remove! J947 ‡ ^edits 08:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

   The point was that if it's in one section with countries and regions, then we might deem some regions less important than cities, and remove those instead of cities, or add histories of some other cities which seem also historically important, but in a more regionally-balanced way. Kammerer55 (talk) 08:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

   Yes and that's why I support. J947 ‡ ^edits 08:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

4. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

Balance of History of Asia

Glancing at Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/History#Asia_(70_articles), which has a 'history of country X', reasonably, with some more controversial subarticles; not sure what the quote here is. PRChina has 7 subartices, Taiwan 2, India 8, Japan 3, Malaysia 3, Mongolia 1, Pakistan 2. Most subarticles seem to be 'histor of major province', which right now I am AGFing as major. Weird articles that may merit swap or removal, however, are, IMHO: Kuomintang in Burma under Taiwan, all three Japanese entries which seem very random: Gokishichidō, Provinces of Japan and History of the Ryukyu Islands (provinces of Japan is perhaps miscategorized, as it seems related to geography of Japan? Or its historical administrative division, covering period 'from the 600s to 1868' according to the article), Straits Settlements under Malaysia which also breaks the common theme of 'history of province' (but that theme is not something that other conintent sections always respect) and History of modern Mongolia, which is the only periodical subhistory article in that section. Below I am suggesting minor fixes, under the assumption that the quota (70) articles is roughly correct.

I have hard time figuring out what to do with Japanese subarticles here. History of the Ryukyu Islands seems like very minor, niche topic that should be removed, likely swapped for something more relevant to Japanese history - suggestions are welcome, keeping in mind that this section tends to list 'history of subregion' with very, very few exceptions. FYI, Japanese archipelago is not vital (should it be?). Japanese islands are V4, but their histories of don't exist. History of Hokkaido is just a redirect (Hokkaido is V4). History of Shikoku does not exist (Shikoku is V4). History of Kyushu again is a red link, Kyushu is V4. History of Honshu is a redirect, Honshu is V4. So a swap to history of the four islands cannot be done currently, since we don't, AFAIK, reserve space for articles that do not exist (yet). Perhaps someone more familiar with Japan can suggest four biggest prefectures or other regions, if they have history subarticles? Alternatively, could give Japan some more 'history by city' slots (see section a bit above, right now only History of Tokyo is at V5). And it's not like we don't have a bunch of other history of Japan articles, just spread through random other sections. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

The classification of history under current states causes some anachronism to emerge. I'm not sure how the current structure came out, but I would hazard that History of the Ryukyu Islands is included not because of its importance to 'Japanese history', but because of its importance separate to that. Ryuku was an independent(ish) kingdom until the modern period. CMD (talk) 06:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Swap Kuomintang in Burma for History of the Kuomintang

Context: listed under History of the Republic of China, together with History of Taiwan. Kuomintang is V5 under society. Burmese Kuomintang is less vital than history of the movement. Feel free to argue for a more relevant history-of-Taiwan article, or outright removal to give the spot to something else. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Support removal, it's really oddly specific given everything else in the list. There are many higher level articles that may cover this topic that are not included. Not sure what the balance is for replacements, but no objection to the Kuomintang or History of Taiwan articles as both are higher level. CMD (talk) 12:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Swap makes sense, as the KMT's history is important to world history. Curbon7 (talk) 21:37, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
4. per above. starship.paint (RUN) 05:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

1. History of Taiwan (1945–present)? Totalibe (talk) 12:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

   My issue here is that we don't genrally list such periodical histories, and this kind of stuff is reasonably well covered by parent History of Taiwan. Perhaps as a rule of thumb, such periodical histiory can be ruled to belong to V6? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Remove History of modern Mongolia

The only periodical subarticle in Asian section and overall, we don't list such historical subarticles for countries here. And overall Mongolia may not warrant a subarticle, I'd rather give this slot to Japan or China or India or such. Sure, Mongolia has a long history, but modern Mongolia is an insignificant country with a pop. of 3m or so, sorry. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Not only that, this only covers 1990-present. I'd suggest swapping for Postwar Japan. Totalibe (talk) 12:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Post-war Mongolia is simply not relevant in broader history. Curbon7 (talk) 21:35, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
4. per above. starship.paint (RUN) 05:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Balance of History by country and subdivision

Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/History#History_by_country_and_subdivision_(422_articles), no comment on quota. For now just some general observations (note minor changes suggested to Asia and cities above).

• this section is almost entirely based on the format of 'history of country/history of its subregions'. Exceptions are the most problematic, IMHO, but also we have some balance issues (TL;DR, heavy US bias).
• Europe (100 articles)
  • History of Poland (1945–1989) is one of the very rare periodical (not geographical) subarticles and likely needs to be moved or removed
  • overall, Polish section is problematic, with not a single history of region article, rather, just a bunch of historical and present regions, seems very chaotic. I'll ping some editors interested in Polish history here for comments: User:Dawid2009, User:Marcelus, User:Volunteer Marek. At 6 spots Poland is also likely overrepresented here (France and Germany have 5 entries, Italy 3, Spain 2)
  • UK with 11 entries seems overrepresented, although it also encompasses three Irish articles, including 'history of Ireland'. Ireland should be split to its own section (and arguably cut down to a single article, IMHO).
  • Swiss neutrality is likely vital but why is it in this section? Very much an odd entry given the section 'history of subregion' structure
• North America (154 articles) - sorry to say, the proportions here seem weird. History of Europe (or Asia) seems much more important than that of Americas (that said, let's remember a lot of history articles are in other sections; some of the bloat here may be solved by moving stuff elsewhere, but bottom line, is history of each US state vital? I have serious doubts here, particulary when we compare those numbers to China or India which get under 10 entries in their correspoding section.
  • Canada (16 articles) - riight, so Canada gets more entries than any European country, or France+Germany+Italy combined. Nobody sees anything wrong here? (Canada gets 13 provinces subarticles, general history of, and Hudson's Bay Company + Halifax Explosion). Frankly, that's likely ~10 too many, most if not all of those 13 subarticles need to go. And Halifax Explosion is cool but hardly vital, IMHO.
  • United States (110 articles) is of course the big elephant in the room here. It is the only country with a detailed periodical subdivision (History by time period (10 articles)), it has 4 general articles including niche stuff like Geological history of North America, 26 colonial history articles, History by states and territories (55 articles), and even History by demographic group (15 articles). Some of this stuff is arguably vital if in the wrong section, like Slavery in the United States, but overall, well, this is ridclous, balance wise. China has <10 entries, so does India, I mean, US gets more articles here than Europe combined.
  • Caribbean (20 articles) - likely cutting room in the 'Territories (7 articles)' part. Is history of those regions vital? (History of Anguilla, History of Bermuda, History of the British Virgin Islands, History of the Cayman Islands, History of Curaçao, History of Saint Martin (island), History of the Turks and Caicos Islands). IMHO it's enough to make sure the islands are vital (and even there I'd be so sure, I meam, if let's say Turks and Caicos Islands diseappeared from world's history - would anyting change?).
  • Central America (8 articles) - ok, possibly could use a subarticle or two
• South America (12 articles)
  • not a single subarticle. Seems quite unfair compared to all the other regions. A dozen or two spots moved from North America here would like be a good ideas.
• Africa (58 articles)
  • only a few subarticles: History of Morocco gets History of Western Sahara, History of Somalia gets History of Somaliland, and History of South Africa gets Cape Colony and Boer republics. Likely another candidate for some entries moved from North America here.
• Oceania (28 articles)
  • again, English-speaking bias is evident, with Australia sporting 8 subarticles, which is likely 6-7 too many (again, more than any European or Asian country outside UK. Suprisingly, New Zealand has no subarticles (maybe it merits one?).
  • 5 Oceanian territories also may merit cutting, same logic as with Caribbean: History of the Cook Islands, History of Easter Island, History of Niue, History of Norfolk Island, History of the Pitcairn Islands.
  • odd entry Phosphate mining in Banaba and Nauru as a subarticle under History of Nauru, with just 4 interwikis, seems like a regular candidate for removal - will propose below
• Asia (70 entries) analyzed in a section a bit above.

In summary, some more minor fixes may be needed (I'll revisit Poland), but also, we need to discuss how to handle the major US+Canada (and a bit of Australia/UK) bloat here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

We could start by removing most of 50 histories of US states. Maybe, we can use a general rule of thumb: if <something> is absent from VA4, then its history probably should not go to VA5. Currently, we have only 8 US states on level 4, so probably a similar number should be considered for staying at VA5. Kammerer55 (talk) 05:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@Kammerer55 A very reasonable rule of thumb. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, cut down U.S. histories accordingly. starship.paint (RUN) 16:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Remove Phosphate mining in Banaba and Nauru

Does not seem vital. Niche economic history. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Totalibe (talk) 12:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
3. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 14:20, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
4. Not vital.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

It's more important to Nauru than Hammer DeRoburt (VA5 politician). J947 ‡ ^edits 02:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Possibly, but it's whataboutism as well :P But the thing is, Nauru is not important (vital) to the world. I'd say that listing Nauru itself is enough, and even that is not clear (are all independent states vital? If so, why just modern? There's plenty of historical ones we don't list...). Recentism is a form of vital. And arguably nothing else related to such minor entities is vital. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh, see #Add Toaripi Lauti, I'm fully in agreement with you on this (which is why I'm not opposing). But I can't see the status quo of listing 4 articles on every country changing; the aim is to at least get our priorities right with those 4. J947 ‡ ^edits 03:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@J947 I never heard of such a rule. Was this voted on? It seems ridcolous. There are modern-day countries (microstates, etc.) which do not deserve that many articles, and such a rule creates just pointless padding and forcing a balancing act where someone or something vital for world history has to make room for something that is not vital for that level (but vital for some micro-entity). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:54, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

PS. Hammer DeRoburt has ~25 interwikis, mining article just 4. Sure, this is an imperfect metric. But I'd support removing him as well - he is important to Nauru, but not vital to the world's history or politics. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Broad-topic articles like this are really rare across Wikipedias. There are hundreds of thousands of notable ones we could turn blue on en.wp alone, many of which would immediately make VA5. But I digress. J947 ‡ ^edits 03:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@J947 Feel free to continue this digression on my talk page, I find it interesting. I know a ton of stuff is still missing from en wiki, including some broad topics, but if you can think of anything systemic, I'd love to know. Occasionally I can even help by assigning my students to write or translate stuff :) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

cleanup ideas for Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History

Copied by Interstellarity from user talk page.
Leaving some comments here:

• from History by continent and region (47 articles) - Ruthenia is an odball. Should likely be moved to the history by period. Ditto for History of China and its subarticles, History of Korea, India, and Maritime history (that should go to hisory by topic, obviously).
• I suggest moving everything from 'History by country and subdivision (422 articles)' that is not a history of country or history of subdivision thee as well. That means everythign from History of Poland, and entries on Idel-Ural State, Hudson's Bay Company, Halifax Explosion, entries from US General and Colonial history, Cape Colony, Boer republics, Phosphate mining in Banaba and Nauru, Kuomintang in Burma, Gokishichidō, Provinces of Japan and Straits Settlements.
• US 'History by demographic group (15 articles)' should be merged with 'History by ethnicity (10 articles)'

Feel free to copy my comment to Vital talk page. Note I nominated some of those for outright removal and will do more removal proposal soon. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC) PS. Some entries on locations might be better moved to Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Geography/Countries. For example Ruthenia might be next to Banat at 'Europe and Russia (400 articles)/General'. Ditto for Galicia (Eastern Europe), Silesia, Pomerania. Kresy and Recovered Territories too, but they may simply not be V5. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

PPS. And we likely need to add to V5 History of Silesia, History of Galicia (Eastern Europe), History of Pomerania... they are not just for Poland, but Germany/Austria/Russia/Czech/Slovakia in various propotions. We do not have any article on history of Polish main regions for now, they probably would be vital (History of Masovia, History of Lesser Poland, History of Greater Poland - just redirects). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:42, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

History cleanup - suggest following removals

Remove Archivist

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.

---

Archive is V4, fine. But in general, jobs often significantly duplicate articles on professions, some don't exist (ex. archeologist is just a redirect). We have historian at V5, fine, we often hear about historians. But how often do we hear about archivists? I'd argue that not often enough to justify them having an entry here. (Quick: can you name a single famous archivist?)--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:11, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:28, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Support removal. Also would support swapping with Time capsule or even Primary source. --Kammerer55 (talk) 08:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 14:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
4. per above. starship.paint (RUN) 14:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

1. Kammerer55 I think primary source is V5 already. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:28, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

   Yes, you are right, my bad. --Kammerer55 (talk) 10:06, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Swap 9 articles on video game console generations with History of video game consoles

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.

---

So we have "History by topic (350 articles)". Out of which we have "History of games and sport (44 articles)". And there, 9 articles on video console generations... sigh: # First generation of video game consoles, # Second generation of video game consoles, # Third generation of video game consoles, # Fourth generation of video game consoles, # Fifth generation of video game consoles, # Sixth generation of video game consoles, # Seventh generation of video game consoles, # Eighth generation of video game consoles and # Ninth generation of video game consoles. That's ridcolous. Particularly since we have parent article on History of video game consoles which is not V5. A swap here seems obvious. Note there's also a separate article on Home video game console generations which IMHO needs to be merged to the preceeding one, and anyone who cares to vote here might perchance care to comment at the merge discussion here? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:11, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:28, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
2. --Kammerer55 (talk) 08:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Support We can't keep listing all console generations forever as new ones will come, a more general article will be more future-proof.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 11:58, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Support I was planning on making this proposal myself. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
5. Support Takes up way too many slots. Totalibe (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
6. Support TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:00, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
7. Makes sense, nice consolidation. Curbon7 (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

Remove Video game crash of 1983

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.

---

Niche history of a single industry. Sure, this is a big industry now, but it wasn't so in 1983. Untill someone gets History of video games to V4, I think this subarticle is V6 territory. It also seems to me, subjectively, less important than other subarticles (Golden age of arcade video games, History of online games, and the video game console one discussed above) - as in, I've heard of the other three concepts but not of this one. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:11, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:28, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
2. --Kammerer55 (talk) 08:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. This had a significant impact on the early development of the industry, such as by allowing for Japanese dominance of the console market, and incidentally, by ending the golden age of arcade video games. Totalibe (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Per Totalibe, although it may make more sense for history of video games to be a level higher than it. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 20:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Per Totalibe, plus I would support history of video games at VA4. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:46, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

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

Remove History of rodeo

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.

---

Rodeo  4 is V4, so there's that. But. No interwikis. Minor presence at Olympics. I don't feel this is in the same league as most other sports, which are also usually much more international. I am not sure rodeo should be V4, frankly. I'd suggest swap with History of circus but that doesn't exist (yet). Circus  4 is V4. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:11, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:28, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
2. --Kammerer55 (talk) 08:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Support I doubt Rodeo is of sufficient importance to have its history listed; the sport gets less pageviews than most if not all of the other sports which have their history included.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 15:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Support Very niche. Totalibe (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
5. Support niche.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:02, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

Remove History of webcomics

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.

---

Webcomics are new enough many folks haven't even heard of the concept. History of comics is just V5. This seems like V6 topic. Just one interwiki. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:11, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:28, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
2. --Kammerer55 (talk) 08:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 14:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
4. Not that well-distinguished enough from comics overall, and fairly niche as a subset of that. Totalibe (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
5. J947 ‡ ^edits 08:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
6. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 01:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

Remove History of the nude in art

Effectively a subarticle and partial duplication of the broader History of erotic depictions, which is just V5. This seems like V6. It is also too specific, we don't list and likely would not have room at V5 for history of concepts in arts. Btw, Portrait is V4 but Portrait painting is not vital. Perhaps a swap? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:11, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:28, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
2. --Kammerer55 (talk) 08:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
3. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 05:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

We don't list Nude (art), it should be listed rather than its history.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 11:58, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@LaukkuTheGreit Do consider nominating it. It seems like something to discuss, together with the portrait painting IMHO. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:37, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to add. starship.paint (RUN) 05:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Remove History of Harvard University

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

---

Sure, one of the most famous universities (V4), but I don't feel its history is V5. It stands quite jarring in 'History of everyday life (11 articles)'. I am not sure if we list any other histories of companies, maybe we should but arguably there are more important ones. History of Ford Motor Company is not vital, neither is History of Microsoft. Is Harvard University the only company with its history at V5? This cannot be right, either we need more companies or none. Mind you, I'd be fine considering instead adding histories of all companies and organizations listed at V4, but it should be all or nothing, IMHO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:20, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:28, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Strong support. --Kammerer55 (talk) 08:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
3. If anything, what should be V5 is History of universities or History of higher education, which for now don't exist or is a redirect. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 14:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
4. per above. starship.paint (RUN) 14:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
5. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:04, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

Remove History of the hippie movement and History of the punk subculture

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.

---

Based on the logic that parent History of modern Western subcultures is just V5 and unless we get it to V4, those subarticles seem like V6. Reinforcing this, articles on hippie and punk subcultures are also just V5. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:20, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:28, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
2. --Kammerer55 (talk) 08:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
3. For the the hippie movement we already have Counterculture of the 1960s. Totalibe (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
4. per above. starship.paint (RUN) 14:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

Remove four articles on four waves of feminism

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.

---

Based on the logic that parent History of feminism is just V5 and unless we get it to V4, those subarticles (First-wave feminism, Second-wave feminism, Third-wave feminism, Fourth-wave feminism) seem like V6. Mind you, they have quite a few interwikis, and maybe we should discuss promoting the main article here to V4 instead? That said, right now it looks somewhat jarring that in the 'History of society and the social sciences (35 articles)', feminism is the entry with most subarticles, second just to History of economy (5 articles). History of education for example has none. The balance is off. And history of economy is V4. Further, history of sociology and psychology, both V4, have no subarticles. Naaah... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:20, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. as nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Strong support. Only first-wave feminism seems somewhat notable, but it is already covered by Women's suffrage of level 4. --Kammerer55 (talk) 08:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I don't agree with parent topics having to be on a higher level. That said, Feminism is VA3 and important enough IMO to have its waves listed. They were different evolutions of feminism, with respective cultural impacts.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 11:58, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose These are important and widely-used concepts to distinguish between different historical forms of feminism, it feels a lot less trivial and space-consuming than nine game console generations just since the 1970s. Totalibe (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Oppose because I'm OK with the history of feminism having multiple articles at this level pbp 18:16, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
4. Strong oppose per Totalibe. The Blue Rider 19:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

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

Remove History of rail transport before 1700

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

---

First, History of rail transport is not at V4 yet, second, this is rather trivial, since as anyone knows, rail did not really took off until 18th-19th centuries. This article is just a dubious list of trivia that may merit AfD, not a vital listing, IMHO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. as nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
2. --Kammerer55 (talk) 08:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
3. J947 ‡ ^edits 09:58, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Totalibe (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Minor note: I've listed that article on WP:AFD. Mildy curious who added it here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of rail transport before 1700 closed and the article is deleted. Does that mean it is automatically delisted?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:05, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
  • @TonyTheTiger: I was told recently that yes, this is common sense too. I suggest this is closed now, we had consensus to remova above anyway. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

  I went ahead and removed it. I hold that redlinks can be removed on sight.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 11:48, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

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

Remove 2008 Universal Studios fire

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.

---

Nobody died. Some cultural artifacts were lost, but it's not even clear which ones, and it is a relativley trivial incident. Only 6 interwikis. Maybe consider swaping with Notre-Dame fire? But I don't think that one is vital at V5 either. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:37, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. as nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:37, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Support--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 11:58, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Support Not a major historical event. Totalibe (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
4. per above. starship.paint (RUN) 14:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
5. Support-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:06, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

Remove Aftermath of the January 6 United States Capitol attack

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

---

Too recent. January 6 United States Capitol attack is just V5 and this is its subarticle, and the main article covers key points of the aftermath already. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:37, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. as nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:37, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
2. --Kammerer55 (talk) 10:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Support Recentism, the main article already has a large section on the aftermath.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 11:58, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Per nom. Totalibe (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
5. per nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:07, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. An outline of democratic failure in the world's democratic superpower is what I'd call vital. J947 ‡ ^edits 09:57, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

   What's so important in the aftermath particularly that is not covered by the main topic? That Trump was impeached (but not removed) second time, a week before he would leave anyway? This is too US-centric. --Kammerer55 (talk) 10:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

   @Kammerer55 What Kammmerer said. The attack itself is likely vital, if very recent. But until it makes V4, subarticle for such a recent development seems not needed. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

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

Remove Flint water crisis

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

---

A dozen fatalities. What makes this sad but relatively trivial local incident vital? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:37, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. as nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:37, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
2. My understanding is that this is well-known but incredibly overblown. It's the sort of thing we should desire not to list IMO. J947 ‡ ^edits 09:56, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Support Recentism, of such small scale it will likely fade to obscurity.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 11:58, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. There are likely to be even more fatalities from this over time due to the long-term effects of lead exposure (especially with several thousand children exposed), not to mention it lasted nearly five years. For comaprison, there were only a few dozen "direct" deaths from the Chernobyl disaster. Totalibe (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

   The difference with Chernobyl is that Chernobyl cordoned off a sizeable proportion of Ukraine and a nuclear power plant meltdown has more wide-ranging impacts than water poisoning. Both Chernobyl and Flint have a reputation that outmatches their influence, but both reputation and influence are much much higher for Chernobyl. (And Chernobyl's inclusion at VA4 seems somewhat out of place at a glance.) J947 ‡ ^edits 08:04, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

2. Effects are ongoing.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:08, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

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

Swap Exploration of Jupiter with Exploration of the Moon or Discovery and exploration of the Solar System

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.

---

Setting aside why this is under history (as it is an ongoing science), this is just a rather random choice related to the space exploration (V3). I suggest replacing it with either Exploration of the Moon or Discovery and exploration of the Solar System (or perhaps, both topics). Side note: should Exploration of Mars be moved to some other section (about current science)? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Support removing Exploration of Jupiter and adding both alternatives. --Kammerer55 (talk) 13:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Support removal and both additions--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 15:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Support removal and both additions Totalibe (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

Remove Year 2000 problem

This was an amusing news headline and minor engineering issue back then. It was rather trivial and I can hardly see it as vital. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Compared to other events listed in its section, Year 2000 problem  5 is much weaker. It probably caused some scare, but did not affect industry much. The article itself is not clear regarding how much the issue was overblown. Maybe, it's still more significant than some of the historical items listed at Level 5 / Technology, but I doubt it. Also, the broader History of computing  5 is just at level 5 as well. --Kammerer55 (talk) 08:25, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. As an alternative to removal, I will suggest moving it to the Technology section, as I'd argue it was more significant as a once-common computer error than as a mass historical event. Totalibe (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
2. per Totalibe-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:10, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
3. per Totalibe, move. starship.paint (RUN) 06:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

For the record, Britannica has an article on it. Also, according to it: "An estimated $300 billion was spent (almost half in the United States) to upgrade computers and application programs to be Y2K-compliant." On the other hand, even if it was costly at the time the long-term effects of the cost may indeed be negligible.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 12:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Remove Treaty of Paris between Italy and the Allied Powers

Nothing in this article suggests this was particularly significant. Just 14 interwikis. It was the legal end of the Italian colonial empire, but that article is V5 too, and we have a bunch of decolonization articles and history of Italy ones that cover related topics in more detail (most at V5 too). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
2. --Kammerer55 (talk) 13:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
3. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 06:39, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Remove Great Train Wreck of 1918

"It is considered the worst rail accident in U.S. history", but it is mostly forgotten today. The article does not suggest this had any impact on culture, or even US itself. Just 5 interwikis. Seems like niche American history event. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Support--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 15:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
3. per above. starship.paint (RUN) 14:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I think we should continue to highlight the worst rail accident in U.S. history.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:15, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

Remove Transfer of sovereignty over Macau

Not as vital as Handover of Hong Kong. Macau is not Hong Kong, it did not and does not generate news or historical interest, I fear. 16 interwikis. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
2. per above. starship.paint (RUN) 14:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
3. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:16, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Misleading rational. Macau is way more historically important than Hong Kong. It was for a very long time the only port city and colony available in China to foreign; the Brits, Portuguese, French, Danish, etc, used it extensively. It's handover is significant because during half a millennium was under Portuguese rule and for the first time the CCP had full control over its territory. If we delist this we should add Portuguese Macau. The Blue Rider 18:30, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

   Also, its handover put the end of the Portuguese Empire, since it the last colony. The handover also had significant impacts on the culture (language, architecture, religion, etc) , economy (gambling in Macau), political (one country, two systems) of not only Portugal and Macau but to China as well. The Blue Rider 18:37, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

2. Per The Blue Rider. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:58, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

Remove Expulsion of the Chagossians

Pretty minor event. Nobody died, few hundred people were affected. Just 3 interwikis. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose The numbers are more in the thousands than hundreds, and that aside, this was ultimately still the forced expulsion of the entire population of a cultural/ethnic group from their native territory. Totalibe (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

   @Totalibe I am uneasy with this being at the same level as Cambodian genocide  5, Circassian genocide  5, Bangladesh genocide  5, East Timor genocide  5 or Romani Holocaust  5. How about a swap then, for non-vital yet Genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia? Or Chetnik war crimes in World War II? Or Guatemalan genocide? Or Isaaq genocide? Or Gukurahundi? Or Ikiza? Semi-random links from {{Genocide sidebar}}, WWII-Cold War period, where almost all have 5-digits death tolls. Here, again, we don't have a single reported fatality. Somethign is wrong with our priorities is we list this but not the other articles, or IMHO if we classify all of them at the same vitality level. For me, Expulsion of the Chagossians seems like V6 event. One more example, this one from Polish history I am quite familiar with: Operation Vistula - not vital. Forced resettlement of over 100k people. Another obvious swap candiate, no? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:42, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

Note this event is pretty much why we list British Indian Ocean Territory at VA4. J947 ‡ ^edits 02:22, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Remove USS Liberty (AGTR-5)

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.

---

Minor trivia related to the 1967 Six-Day War. It's not even an article about an incident but about a particular ship, and arguably many more ships were more vital for the world history - and we don't list them. We could swap this for the USS Liberty incident but still, this was a minor incident. And Titanic is V5 too - and this is not at the same level. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
2. --Kammerer55 (talk) 14:20, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
3. per above. starship.paint (RUN) 14:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
4. Relatively minor incident, except amongst neo-Nazis. Friendly-fire incidents are not terribly rare in naval history. Curbon7 (talk) 21:48, 9 December 2023 (UTC) Curbon7 (talk) 21:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

Remove 1932 New South Wales constitutional crisis

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

---

"the first real constitutional crisis in Australia" is not important for the world history, as evidenced by zero interwikis. Niche incident from Australian legal history that is V6 at best. Nothing in the article suggests it was imporant - even to Australia itself. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
2. --Kammerer55 (talk) 14:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
3. I'd suggest swapping for Stolen Generations. Totalibe (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
4. per above. starship.paint (RUN) 14:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
5. Far from the level of, say, the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis, which is also VA5. Curbon7 (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
6. pbp 18:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

Remove Food safety incidents in China - or swap for Food safety

Pretty specific topic. I have trouble seeing how this collection of minor (not all individually notable events) is vital at V5. How about we make Food safety vital first? It is not. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Support swapping with Food safety. Curbon7 (talk) 03:55, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Per nom, swap. starship.paint (RUN) 05:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
4. Support swap per nom. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 14:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak oppose (or swap with Food safety in China), and food safety should definitely be listed too. J947 ‡ ^edits 22:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

Remove Typhoon Nari (2001)

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

---

Nothing in this short article suggests this was particularly significant. 104 deaths. It does not even make it to the List of the deadliest tropical cyclones where fatalities are usually at four digits. Seems like another weird random addition (by whom, I wonder?). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
2. J947 ‡ ^edits 22:29, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
3. per above. starship.paint (RUN) 14:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
4. --Thi (talk) 20:34, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

Remove 2019–20 Australian bushfire season

Pretty recent - and that's about it. Nothing special, particularly in the current climate change where similar events are sadly more and more common. Just 30+ fatalities, and the same section lists earlier Black Saturday bushfires which had almost 200 deaths. That should be enough for Australian bushfires, I think - its local history that's hardly significant at V5 IMHO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
2. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 14:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
3. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak oppose. J947 ‡ ^edits 22:28, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

   @J947 Because? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

2. Oppose, pretty vital per CO2 released and impact calculations. Respublik (talk) 15:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Remove 2005–2006 Fijian political crisis

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.

---

Setting aside the relevance of Fiji to the world history, the article does not suggest importance, even local. Nobody died, lead talks about "strong words being exchanged" leading to some political developemnts - and then 2006 Fijian coup d'état, which is V5. I am unsure if even that coup should be V5, but its prelude certainly is not important enough to be here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
2. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 14:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Coup is already listed. Curbon7 (talk) 21:51, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
4. --Thi (talk) 20:34, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

Remove 2005 Cronulla riots

Riots in Australia. Nobody died, 200+ people arrested, not particlary enduring in culture or known internationally (7 interwikis). Niche local history. Ferguson unrest or George Floyd protests are V5 too, for example - this was not at the same level. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
2. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 14:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Remove House of Teururai

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.

---

Minor dynastic house of three islands part of the Society Islands, Huahine, Maia'o and Raiatea. The house didn't last a lot of time, from 1852 to 1895 and as so it merely produced 6 rulers. WikiProject Polynesia rates this article as low-importance, plus more relevant for the Society Islands is the Pōmare dynasty but even so Kingdom of Tahiti  5 is enough to cover this topic; I would much rather list House of Bourbon or House of Aisin-Gioro. The Blue Rider 09:41, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nominator. The Blue Rider 09:58, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
2. The article doesn't show its importance. starship.paint (RUN) 09:44, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Totalibe (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
4. Haha we list this but not House of Bourbon? There's a long way to go... J947 ‡ ^edits 08:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
5. I'd strongly prefer to see House of Burbon added, so maybe swap? But I guess we should just vote on addition, I guess. Ping me if anyone starts a relevant discussion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:28, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

History additions

As I am looking into this section, some stuff that I'd like to add. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:46, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Add History of Silesia

We list a lot of history European regions. Many under individual countries. This seems like a major omission. Perhaps because it has a shared history between several countries, or perhaps because Poland's section is a mess compared to others (all entries in it need to be moved to history by period, see comments in the sectionb below). Anyway, this is one of the three Central/Eastern European major regions that is missing, and IMHO should be added, since we list dozens of similar regions around the world. Note: if added, this should not be under Poland, but general for Europe, since this and the other two regions I propose below have history and borders split between various countries. Also, note that the three regions (Silesia, Galicia (Eastern Europe) and Pomerania, currently listed under Poland, should be moved to the geography section. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:46, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:46, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add History of Galicia (Eastern Europe)

See above - identical rationale to Silesia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:46, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:46, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add History of Pomerania

See above - identical rationale to Silesia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:46, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:46, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Soviet invasion of Poland

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.

---

Major incident related to the beginning of WWII. 47 interwikis. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:46, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:46, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
2. --Kammerer55 (talk) 13:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Totalibe (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
4. --Thi (talk) 20:35, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

Add Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact

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.

---

Even more significant incident related to the above. 84 interwikis. We list many historical events much less significant than this, IMHO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:46, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:46, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Wow that it was not there! Maybe, it should even go to VA4. --Kammerer55 (talk) 13:29, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Support--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 15:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Totalibe (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
5. Seems pretty obvious. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:01, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

Add Resistance during World War II

Seems like a major WWII topic that is missing from our list here. Yes, just 29 interwikis, but pretty significant, both historically and curturally. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:46, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:46, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
2. --Kammerer55 (talk) 13:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Totalibe (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
4. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 07:05, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
5. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:50, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add World War II casualties

Major topic, parent to The Holocaust, 36 interwikis. Considering that The Holocaust (6m deaths) gets 13 articles at V5 (including the Romani Holocaust with ~150k deaths), I think we also should consider adding World War II casualties of the Soviet Union (~25m) and World War II casualties of Poland (also at 6m). China should be here too but I don't think we have a dedicated article to that. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:46, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:46, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
2. --Kammerer55 (talk) 13:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
3. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 09:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
4. Yeah. J947 ‡ ^edits 08:21, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
5. Totalibe (talk) 23:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
6. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add World War II casualties of the Soviet Union

See my comment above. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:46, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
2. --Kammerer55 (talk) 13:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Support, viable per impact Respublik (talk) 15:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Broad articles should not be overtly prioritised; even though this topic is clearly more important than many articles we list, it's less coherent and hence an encyclopaedia article on it is less important. J947 ‡ ^edits 08:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
2. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Add World War II casualties of Poland

See my comment above. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:46, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
2. --Kammerer55 (talk) 13:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Broad articles should not be overtly prioritised; even though this topic is clearly more important than many articles we list, it's less coherent and hence an encyclopaedia article on it is less important. J947 ‡ ^edits 08:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
2. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:52, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Add Rescue of Jews during the Holocaust

We list a dozen or so articles related to The Holocaust, all quite depressing. It is human nature to focus on the negatives, I guess. This would be a good counterbalance, and arguably, as important subtopic of this as many of the other articles we list. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:13, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:13, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 09:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
3. I am shocked that this isn't listed already. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
4. --Thi (talk) 20:35, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
5. Totalibe (talk) 23:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
6. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Allies of World War II

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.

---

Axis powers are listed on Level 5, but not the Allied. A major omission. --Makkool (talk) 09:23, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nominator --Makkool (talk) 09:23, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Actually, we do have it, you can use template:VA link to check: Allies of World War II  5--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I did check it, but I didn't find it. It was hidden under the "show" link. Whoops! --Makkool (talk) 16:24, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

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

Bottom 10% VA5/History articles by pageviews

This was the final such VA5 list I had lying around, I was a bit too lazy to post it until now. Least viewed first, using pageviews from 2020-01-01 to 2023-11-02:

Extended content

Mauryan invasion of Kalinga Battle of forts Jackson and St. Philip Foreign concessions in China First Chimurenga History of the United States (1917–1945) History of the United States (1865–1917) History of rail transport before 1700 2014 Vrbětice ammunition warehouse explosions House of Teururai Agriculture of the Inca Empire 2005–2006 Fijian political crisis Oromo Invasions Ba–Shu culture Nagasaki foreign settlement Jihad of Usman dan Fodio Geological history of North America 2010s global surveillance disclosures Mixtec culture Science in the ancient world Mamluk–Portuguese conflicts Cuddie Springs Moynaq Historical metrology History of Central Africa Great Retreat (Russia) Siege of Pavia (773–774) History of geophysics Military dictatorship of Chile Upheaval of the Five Barbarians Timeline of military aviation Subneolithic History of scholarship Typhoon Nari (2001) History of cycling infrastructure Early history of Tonga Timeline of geology History of artificial life History of Åland Jewish ghettos established by Nazi Germany Treaty of Paris between Italy and the Allied Powers List of conflicts in territory of the former Soviet Union 1935 Shinchiku-Taichū earthquake History of Bashkortostan History of mineralogy Ukrainian national revival Hetao 2005–2006 Thai political crisis History of modern Mongolia 1932 New South Wales constitutional crisis An Lushan rebellion 2014 NPCSC Decision on Hong Kong Rural history History of Southern Africa History of monorail History of Kinshasa Principality of Moscow History of webcomics History of Saint Martin (island) History of rowing sports Chiang Hung African American history Wadai War History of geomagnetism History of East Africa History of Nunavut 1889 Apia cyclone Battle of Flores (1592) Las Vegas culture (archaeology) Kobe foreign settlement Bacatá History of Franconia Houthi insurgency History of Wallonia Historiography of science History of Roman-era Tunisia History of knowledge 1919 Egyptian Revolution History of Bogotá History of combinatorics Ya'rubids Gokishichidō Sukhothai (city) History of opera History of Anguilla Goguryeo–Wei War 2021–2023 global supply chain crisis History of Rio de Janeiro History of arithmetic History of Vojvodina Hawaiian rebellions (1887–1895) Proto–Three Kingdoms period History of the Baháʼí Faith History of Niue Kingdom of Rarotonga Timeline of jet power History of Guinea-Bissau Togoland campaign Lakhmid kingdom Postal history 2016 Turkish coup attempt Consolidation of Sweden Siege of Turin Timeline of materials technology History of hurling Mutual Defense Pact of the Southeastern Provinces Amphictyonic league History of hang gliding Nagaoka-kyō Historical society Armenian question History of São Tomé and Príncipe Yaśodharapura History of the Northern Territory History of Yunnan History of Nairobi Wukan protests 1956 Poznań protests History of Oriental Orthodoxy History of emotions Military history of Europe Sultanate of Agadez History of social democracy History of creationism 2011–2015 Myanmar political reforms History of Somaliland History of Provence History of the British Virgin Islands History of Abkhazia Animation in the United States during the silent era History of Tunisia under French rule Kamerun campaign History of Tuscany History of subatomic physics Anti-Bengali sentiment in India Maritime history of Europe Romanian revolution History of South Dakota History of Hesse Decolonisation of Oceania Timeline of zoology History of chemical engineering History of Yukon Mirza (name) Onondaga (village) Talianki (archaeological site) History of pathology History of Queensland History of Kiribati Comparative history History of crime fiction History of the nude in art Protests against responses to the COVID-19 pandemic Military operations in North Africa during World War I Song (state) Science in classical antiquity Diplomatics History of medicine in the United States Hawaiian Renaissance Alternatives to Darwinian evolution History of Manitoba Arab conquest of Egypt History of forensic photography Kingdom of Bora Bora Coptic history History of figure skating History of Poland during the Jagiellonian dynasty Urban history Budj Bim History of the Marshall Islands Franco-Tahitian War History of Galicia Libyan civil war (2011) Liaoshen campaign Five Hegemons History of classical mechanics Predicted impact of Brexit History of Saskatchewan History of water polo History of Ontario Avar–Byzantine wars Franco-Hova Wars History of Benin Siyi 2000s in science and technology Venetian–Genoese wars Tariff of 1816 1952 Egyptian Revolution History of the Federated States of Micronesia 1963 South Vietnamese coup d'état Empire of Great Fulo Partition of Jin History of Tatarstan Christianization of Bulgaria Kediri Kingdom History of rodeo Timeline of meteorology History of Curaçao Saybrook Colony History of Illinois Phosphate mining in Banaba and Nauru Polynesian outlier History of the Australian Capital Territory History of the Republic of the Congo Genetic history of Africa Rebellion of the Seven States European land exploration of Australia Abadan Crisis History of North Dakota Pañcāla Leased Territory of Guangzhouwan Province of Maine History of Phoenicia History of cycling History of the Assyrians Lingnan History of energy History of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines History of military technology Latin translations of the 12th century World history (field) Kingdom of Fiji East Jersey Oddiyana History of Bangkok History of New South Wales Tambralinga Gapsin Coup Tongzhi Restoration History of Martinique Sardinian medieval kingdoms History of Svalbard Timeline of the electric motor 709 crackdown Bibracte Jingkang incident 2012 China anti-Japanese demonstrations Battle of Oudenarde Agriculture in Mesoamerica Epipalaeolithic History of Idaho Republic of Ancona History of Norfolk Island Bolívar's campaign to liberate New Granada Southward expansion of the Han dynasty History of Dominica History of the Northwest Territories Sahelian kingdoms History of Dagestan Mongol invasion of Central Asia History of Guernsey History of Tuvalu Butuan (historical polity) Trowulan Ecuadorian War of Independence History of Nebraska Duchy of Spoleto Samoan crisis West Jersey History of Prince Edward Island Indonesian National Awakening History of Western Sahara Spiegel affair History of the Comoros Route from the Varangians to the Greeks Maravi History of electronic engineering History of the United States Virgin Islands History of French Guiana History of Palau Four Commanderies of Han Austro-Hungarian entry into World War I Sijilmasa History of the Republic of India (1947–present) Eastern question Sultanate of Gowa Kingdom of Simien Gao Empire Public history Electorate of Trier History of Iowa History of New Brunswick Mau movement Gorlice–Tarnów offensive History of American Samoa History of the Latter Day Saint movement History of Wyoming March of Tuscany History of Sarawak History of the Central African Republic History of Alberta History of Warsaw Timeline of aviation Régence Arab–Khazar wars History of graphic design History of Mauritania Fourth Fitna Bolivian War of Independence Diplomatic history Peopling of the Americas Yumen Pass Saudeleur dynasty Chinchorro culture Graeco-Arabic translation movement Medieval renaissances Archaeogenetics Battle of Mars-la-Tour Military history of the Mali Empire History of Solomon Islands History of Victoria Polish population transfers (1944–1946) Somaliland campaign History of Vanuatu History of Antigua and Barbuda History of the Cook Islands South West Africa campaign History of Guinea British Western Pacific Territories Minyue Bulgarian–Ottoman wars History of Nevada Assassination of Uthman History of Nagorno-Karabakh History of Burundi History of the Cayman Islands

A bit out of date, e.g. Cuddie Springs has already been removed.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 21:10, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Remove History of the Northwest Territories, History of Nunavut, and History of Yukon

These territories don't have very much significance in Canada compared to the provinces. Interstellarity (talk) 01:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 01:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Northwest Territories  5.Nunavut  5 and Yukon  5 are just V5. They don't merit 'history of' at the same level, this is V6 stuff. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:28, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Support removal of History of Nunavut. Neutral on other two. Chipmunkdavis has a point below about the NWT and Yukon's history might be vital because of the Klondike Gold Rush and the Alcan. pbp 13:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
4. Support Nunavut, weakly support Yukon and the Northwest Territories. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 15:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
5. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose for History of the Northwest Territories. These articles are a bit of a mess regarding content and scoping, but the Northwest Territories was once most of Canada. The history here encompasses the development of the Canadian interior, and later the development of the Canadian Arctic. CMD (talk) 02:07, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

I think it is also worth considering some removals for the Canadian provinces as well. Articles such as History of Prince Edward Island, History of Newfoundland and Labrador, and History of New Brunswick are articles I would support removing. Articles such as History of Nova Scotia, History of Saskatchewan, and History of Manitoba are articles I would weakly support removal, but am open to changing my mind on why they shouldn't be removed. Interstellarity (talk) 01:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Actually Newfoundland is one I would definitely vote to keep. It has a very distinct historical and cultural identity, with a very high Irish population, and wasn't even part of Canada until 1949. Totalibe (talk) 21:32, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Remove History of Anguilla

Not a significant part of the Caribbean to be covering. Interstellarity (talk) 01:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 01:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
2. I don't think minor entities like Anguilla  5 are vital at this level anyway, and certainly their history should not be, if they are V5 - they don't need 'history of' here. I am pretty sure we could find a V4 article that needs history of swapped in isntead. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:43, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
3. This territory is not important enough to have its history at this level. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
4. Totalibe (talk) 23:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
5. pbp 04:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
6. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:04, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Remove 1982 invasion of the Falkland Islands

This is listed alongside Falklands War and it seems highly redundant as the opening act to a fairly short war fought in an area with a low population. Even though I wouldn't support adding it, ARA General Belgrano would make more sense than this.

Support

1. Nom Totalibe (talk) 17:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Per nominator. The Blue Rider 17:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
3. per nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
4. Falklands War is enough. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
5. Support per nom. J947 ‡ ^edits 03:24, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
6. Pile on per nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add 18th century

Support

1. nom - TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Totalibe (talk) 23:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Sure, since I started the ball rolling. Feel free to copy my support for the other modern centuries listed below (ping User:TonyTheTiger). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Add 17th century

Support

1. nom - TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Totalibe (talk) 23:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Adding User:Piotrus per his 18th century vote at 11:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Add 16th century

• This takes us back to the implementation of the Gregorian calendar.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. nom - TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
2. All centuries of the modern era Totalibe (talk) 23:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Adding User:Piotrus per his 18th century vote at 11:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Remove History of Nunavut

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

---

The territory of Nunavut is less than 30 years old and has fewer than 100,000 people. Probably several other Canadian provinces can lose their history but this one for sure pbp 00:16, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 00:16, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

Add LGBT history

This one is a strange case, since we have LGBT history in the United States but not the general page on worldwide LGBT history. Possibly the US page could go, but either way this definitely needs to be here.

Support

1. Nom Totalibe (talk) 02:04, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Support switch at least temporarily, although perhaps there is something deeper to dig into here. CMD (talk) 03:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Per CMD. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 23:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
4. Support swap per countering systemic bias and other arguments here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
5. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

• LGBT is currently lv5 as part of Sexuality and gender and LGBT movements is lv5 as part of Society. It does seem odd these are all on the same level. I would say the global history is much more important than the US history though. CMD (talk) 03:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

  As it stands, various basic sexual orientations plus transgender are Lv4, although I think its likely that LGBT, as a general term/concept refering to gender and sexual minorities, also needs to be promoted regardless. Totalibe (talk) 00:23, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Add Greek genocide

The systematic killing of 300,000–900,000 Christian Ottoman Greeks during World War I and its aftermath. Perhaps the deadliest mass casualty event of the modern era with an unambiguous label that's currently not listed. I should note that the Population exchange between Greece and Turkey of 1923 is Lv5, but I'd argue this is independently notable regardless.

Support

1. As nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 23:46, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Totalibe (talk) 00:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
3. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:37, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Swap Spiegel affair for Red Army Faction

The Spiegel affair seems like a very strange pick here, its long-term historical significance seems to be limited to demonstrating that the Christian Democrats were not going to be able to restrict press freedom in the post-war BRD to a significant degree, which I suppose is noteworthy to an extent, but it doesn't really seem impactful as it was more of a demonstration that what they attempted to do could not be done under the state's legal framework (for example, it didn't even lead to them losing power). The Red Army Faction was one of the most well-known left-wing militant groups to appear during the post-war period, and continues to loom large in culture and in the German popular imagination (note the extensive "pop culture" section). Their rise is very much tied-up with the counterculture and global upheavals of the late 1960s, and specifically to Germany, to feelings of collective responsibility for the Nazis and anger at the generation who had allowed their crimes to take place.

Support

1. Nom Totalibe (talk) 00:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
2. --Makkool (talk) 19:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
3. Agreed, the latter is more known for German history (also, 3x interwikis). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add 1900s

Only decade in the 20th century not listed. Interstellarity (talk) 01:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 01:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
2. --Makkool (talk) 19:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
3. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:08, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Swap 2014 Vrbětice ammunition warehouse explosions for Carnation Revolution

I had not heard of these explosions before seeing the page listed here, it seems like a relatively minor industrial incident (albeit one that cost two lives) and didn't have a great deal of international significance until the implication of Russia years later, and it still seems like a fairly small part of the deteroiating relations between Russia and Europe after Euromaidan. The Carnation Revolution brough the political regime that controlled Portugal for forty years to an end, led directly to the establishment of the current Portugese state and was the only revolution to occur in Western Europe since the end of WW2.

Support

1. As nom Totalibe (talk) 23:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Support: excellent proposal. J947 ‡ ^edits 02:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Portugal! Carnation Revolution is perhaps the most consequential event in modern Portuguese history. The Blue Rider 04:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
4. One is definitely more important than the other. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
5. Support per nom Aurangzebra (talk) 07:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
6. Sure. The 2014 event is barely notable (just two deaths); 9 interwikis. I'd not support it even at V6. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
7. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Remove Geological history of North America

This simply is not vital. This section does not need to have this many articles, and this one seems like an easy cut. We do not list the similar geological history of Europe.

Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:27, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
2. --Makkool (talk) 19:01, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
3. Per nominator. The Blue Rider 18:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
4. One of many articles from the US section that need to go to deal with sysbias issues. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
5. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Add History of the potato

Potato  3 is listed at VA3, and they have been important to human history for thousands of years. This could arguably make VA4. It is listed as High-Importance by the Agriculture and Food & Drink WikiProjects.

Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
2. I think I suggested it in some comment... count me in. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
3. Weak support. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I think the potato article already covers enough of its history. Contrary to social movements or countries in which their history holds a special place in the heart of many, the history of a crop is not particularly significant to people, the crop itself is. The Blue Rider 01:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Are there other history of foodstuffs at VA? Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/History#History_of_everyday_life has little content to support this type of inclusion. I could see this setting a precedent for a dozen unnecessary foodstuff histories.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:18, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

Swap Rise of nationalism in the Ottoman Empire with Dissolution of the Ottoman Empire  5

Nationalism's rise within the Ottoman Empire was a key factor for its dissolution, but the latter is much more encompassing. It included the formation of Islamic fundamentalism  5, for example. As the empire fragmented post-World War I, vacuums emerged, resulting in the rise of nations in the Balkans and Middle East. The dissolution caused the loss of a unifying Islamic authority and this led to power struggles and tensions that still impact today's world. The Blue Rider 18:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. As nominator. The Blue Rider 18:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
2. The second one is more important, plus the parent topic Rise of nationalism in Europe  5 is only at VA5. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
3. Agreed with what is said above. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:02, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Remove West Jersey and East Jersey

I do not see how these are important. New Jersey got split in half and then merged back a couple decades later. The articles do not show vitality in any way, and we don't need three articles on the colonial history of New Jersey.

Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Per nominator. WikiProject New Jersey classifies it as mid-importance. The Blue Rider 22:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
3. per nom. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
4. per nom. Aurangzebra (talk) 07:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
5. More US-centrism that needs to go. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Add Black Monday (1987)

This was global and seems to be of similar import to Panic of 1819  5, Panic of 1873  5, Panic of 1893  5, Panic of 1907  5, Wall Street Crash of 1929

Support

1. As nom. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Important and well-known economic crisis. The Blue Rider 20:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Add Plague of Justinian

While its death toll has been contested by more recent estimates, it is the first episode of the first plague pandemic. Its disruption on the Eastern Roman Empire led to shifts of power in the Near East that would ultimately shape the following centuries.

Support

1. As nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Physical geography

Further information: Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Geography/Physical

Remove Longyearbyen, Bear Island (Svalbard), and Nordaustlandet

There are currently 5 articles listed on Svalbard: Svalbard  4, Longyearbyen  5, Spitsbergen  5, Bear Island (Svalbard), and Nordaustlandet. I contend that that's three too many. The main island and the archipelago is enough IMO. (I was originally going to propose to remove Spitsbergen rather than Longyearbyen, as the latter has almost all of the archipelago's 3,000 population, but decided this was the better way to go.)

Support all

1. As nom. J947 ‡ ^edits 08:18, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Support. None is vital to world history or anything else. Sparesely populated regions (islands). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:30, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Mixed

1. Remove Bear Island (Svalbard), and Nordaustlandet per nom. Not sure whether to keep LYB or SBG, so not voting on those. starship.paint (RUN) 07:04, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Support removal of Bear Island and Nordaustlandet, oppose Longyearbyen but would support removing Spitsbergen. Spitsbergen is redundant enough to Svalbard that it is an alternative name for the archipelago. CMD (talk) 12:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose all

Discussion

Hawaiian Islands removals

These islands don't have much significance compared to the rest of the islands. I think listing Kauai, Oahu, Maui, and Hawaii (island) is sufficient to cover the islands. Interstellarity (talk) 18:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Kahoʻolawe

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 18:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
2. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:20, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Sure, more niche US locations that need to go to make room for something more relevant to world-history or geography. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Midway Atoll

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 18:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Aurangzebra Strong oppose. Major location during the Pacific theater of WW2 and there was a crucial battle that took place there. In general, it is a pretty important location in American military history. 7:56, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

• But Battle of Midway  5 is vital. Is the location vital? I am not convinced. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  Fair point. My personal philosophy is that we should keep geographic regions that are historically significant. I think this is the philosophy implicit in some of these choices e.g. we have both Bikini Atoll  5 which is solely significant because of the nuclear testing and Nuclear testing at Bikini Atoll  5. Also, there are so many other islands less significant than Midway Atoll in every sense (historical, geographic, demographic etc.) such as Baker Island  5 and Jarvis Island  5 that we should discuss before we discuss this one. Aurangzebra (talk) 05:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Niihau

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 18:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Sure, more niche US locations that need to go to make room for something more relevant to world-history or geography. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
3. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 08:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

1. WIth the population of this Island below 100, I can't really stand behind this one like I can the other more-populous islands being considered.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:28, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

Lanai

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 18:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Sure, more niche US locations that need to go to make room for something more relevant to world-history or geography. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
3. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 08:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I think the 7 big Island which are populated should be kept.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:17, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

Molokai

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 18:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Sure, more niche US locations that need to go to make room for something more relevant to world-history or geography. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
3. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 08:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I think the 7 big Island which are populated should be kept.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

Swap Spectrum Range with Mount Edziza volcanic complex

I notice the Spectrum Range is listed as a level-5 vital article. Would it make sense to replace it with the Mount Edziza volcanic complex since that is a more important subject the Spectrum Range is a part of? I don't think the Spectrum Range has more significance than the other major volcanoes of this complex, although I do think it should have a high-quality article along with Mount Edziza. Volcanoguy 03:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Add Viti Levu

Viti Levu  5, Fiji's main island, is an odd omission – no less because the much less important Vanua Levu  5 is already listed.

Support

1. Support as nom. J947 ‡ ^edits 01:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Countries and subdivisions

Further information: Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Geography/Countries

Add Southeastern United States

We always list Southwestern United States and would make sense to include this. Interstellarity (talk) 17:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 17:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

1. Would support a swap with something like East Central United States or one of the other geographic regions that, while official designations, are not commonly used terms pbp 18:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

Cities

Further information: Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Geography/Cities

Add Springfield, Massachusetts

It’s the largest city in Western Mass and is without a doubt vital at this level. Interstellarity (talk) 17:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Please, don't add stuff to the list without consensus; make a proposal. The Blue Rider 17:52, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

What Blue Rider said. I object to anything being added that way anymore. Also, the consensus right now seems to be to have fewer, not more, American cities. pbp 18:47, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Just edited my comment and turned it into a proposal. Interstellarity (talk) 22:35, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Nom
2. Weak support; 5 out of the 6 Massachusetts cities listed are in Greater Boston and this is the 4th most populous New England city. Though New England does strike me as very overrepresented already at VA5. J947 ‡ ^edits 23:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The largest city in Western Massachusetts. What? Too specific; this city is a far cry from being vital. The Blue Rider 12:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Not seeing compelling reasons for its importance. starship.paint (RUN) 06:00, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
3. What TBR said. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:43, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

Remove small Midwest U.S. cities

I don't consider either of these small cities particularly notable. I question whether they deserve a spot since cities (2,025/2,000), Americas (384/360) and North America (229/210 articles) remain over quota. I think there should be consensus that these are among the bottom 19 North America cities or bottom 24 Americas cities.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

1. Dayton, Ohio (137,644, 75 interwikis)
2. Duluth, Minnesota (86,697, 74 interwikis)

Support Remove Dayton

1. As nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
2. US is over quota. I don't believe I've ever heard of Duluth, and as for Dayton, well, see over quota. No, I don't think 74th-largest city in the USA is vital. One city per state should be good enough, and if some states merit 2, it also means some others merit zero (I haven't even checked but if all states are listed as vital, here's more stuff do remove, because, no they should not be). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

   You don't like geography or politics, do you. J947 ‡ ^edits 03:38, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

   I think the real problem is he doesn't like the US. Nor does he seem to understand it pbp 04:31, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

   @Piotrus: you're aware that two U.S. States have populations of over 25 million, right? And those two states alone have 8 or 9 different cities with populations over three-quarters of a million, right? pbp 04:34, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

3. per nom. Being in the top 50 or top 75 is not persuasive when we are over quota. starship.paint (RUN) 03:42, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. It's worth noting the population number quoted for Dayton is the city proper, not the metro area, which is over 800,000 (74th-largest in USA). I think Dayton squeaks by for retention; it's one of the largest "small" cities up for removal. Dayton was in the Top 50 most populous cities for a century, and it's also historically been a center of the aerospace industry as it's the hometown of the Wright Bros. pbp 01:34, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Judging by population count alone is misleading here. Totalibe (talk) 08:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Oppose per pbp – metro population demonstrates its importance, and the city itself was more important ~50 years ago. I'd add Akron, Ohio too: basically equally as important. Where the U.S. city bloat comes from is not major centres like Dayton, but from the desire – not replicated in any other country – to include 1 or 2 cities from every state no matter how small. J947 ‡ ^edits 07:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
4. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:47, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
5. City proper population is often misleading. More vital than many state capitals. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 01:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

Support Remove Duluth

1. As nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Per nom. We are over quota and this is relatively minor. starship.paint (RUN) 03:42, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Totalibe (talk) 08:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Per my comment above. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
5. Interstellarity (talk) 17:42, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. This is an interesting one so I'm a bit miffed everyone got in here so early to pile on. Here's a few reasons why:

   • It's my impression – perhaps overly Ticket to Ride-driven – that Duluth is very important historically as a well-placed hub, at the far-western edge of the Great Lakes.
   • Duluth is also a notable tourist destination, with several notable architectural feats and natural attractions in Duluth or nearby.
   • In combination with Superior, Wisconsin across the river – also a fairly important city of its own right but with its sphere of influence solidly swallowed up by Duluth – it forms a metro area with population 291,638, and the 19th-busiest port in the U.S.
   • Current-day populations don't accurately reflect importance in this instance, because these are declining cities – Superior peaked in 1910; Duluth in 1960.
   • We probably want to include a Lake Superior port at this level, for which the options are Duluth and two Canadian cities: Thunder Bay and Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario. It would be nice to have someone familiar with the area tell which of these three is the most important.

   Ultimately I come out on weak oppose: it's an important city for numerous reasons in a relatively remote spot, which probably beats out the two Canadian competitors. J947 ‡ ^edits 04:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

2. Per J947. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 01:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

• @Piotrus: - I think you mean to split your vote above at Dayton to a second one at Duluth. starship.paint (RUN) 04:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Indeed, tnx for the ping. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
• I think we should have a city in Minnesota outside of the Twin Cities area, and Duluth or Rochester would make the most sense imo. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 11:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Remove small Western U.S. cities

I don't consider either of these small cities particularly notable. I question whether they deserve a spot since cities (2,025/2,000), Americas (384/360) and North America (229/210 articles) remain over quota. I think there should be consensus that these are among the bottom 19 North America cities or bottom 24 Americas cities.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:24, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

1. Fairbanks, Alaska (95,655, 85 interwikis)
2. Palm Springs, California (44,575, 66 interwikis)

Support Remove Fairbanks

1. As nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:24, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
2. US is over quota, and nothing strikes me here as vital. Just a regular city. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:25, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

   Apart from the fact that it's in the middle of Alaska? J947 ‡ ^edits 03:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

3. per above. starship.paint (RUN) 04:41, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Totalibe (talk) 08:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
5. Anchorage is enough to be listed at this level. Juneau might be a good candidate for removal, but I might support a case of retention due to it being the state’s capital. Interstellarity (talk) 17:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
6. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 11:11, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I've thought about this long and hard and in that time I'm surprised this removal has received such overwhelming support. Its lack of history is a clear and major downside but its size for its location (inland and a long way north) is remarkable. It's only really matched in this regard by Yakutsk and Norilsk in Russia. We're traditionally pretty generous on Arctic cities and the like, and for me Fairbanks is more vital to clearly more vital than Anadyr, or Tromsø, or Iqaluit – all of which we list. J947 ‡ ^edits 03:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

   fyi I think Anadyr should be removed Totalibe (talk) 21:39, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

   That’s exactly what I was thinking! The Russian Far East probably needs five cities at most. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

2. Per pbp. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 08:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Support Remove Palm Springs

1. As nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:24, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
2. US is over quota, and nothing strikes me here as vital. Just a regular city. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:25, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Per above, and we have many other Californian cities already. starship.paint (RUN) 04:36, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Totalibe (talk) 08:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
5. Interstellarity (talk) 17:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

   Happy to be proven otherwise, but surely this city is an out-of-place inclusion? J947 ‡ ^edits 07:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

   Unsure given pbp's comment. J947 ‡ ^edits 07:55, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

6. Not even the largest city in a relatively small region (<1% of California’s population). OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 11:11, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

@J947: The inclusion of Palm Springs is similar to that of Atlantic City: a resort area, and the anchor of a populous region (300,000+ in the Coachella Valley) pbp 17:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Remove small New England cities

I don't consider any of these small cities particularly notable. I question whether they deserve a spot since cities (2,025/2,000), Americas (384/360) and North America (229/210 articles) remain over quota. I think there may be consensus that these are among the bottom 19 North America cities or bottom 24 Americas cities.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

1. Lowell, Massachusetts (115,554, 71 interwikis)
2. Cambridge, Massachusetts (118,403, 87 interwikis)
3. New Haven, Connecticut (135,081, 91 interwikis)

FWIW, if you look at county instead of city proper, things look a little different. Lowell and Cambridge part of Middlesex County, pop. 1,617,105 (21st-largest county in USA, would be 40th-largest metropolitan area if stand-alone). New Haven was part of New Haven County, pop. 864,835 (would be 69th-largest metropolitan area if stand-alone) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purplebackpack89 (talk • contribs) 01:40, November 26, 2023 (UTC)-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Support Remove Lowell

1. As nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Not particularly famous or well known, and US is over quota. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
3. per above. starship.paint (RUN) 04:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Totalibe (talk) 08:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
5. I don’t see it being more vital than Springfield, which isn’t listed. Interstellarity (talk) 17:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
6. Boston only needs one suburb. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 12:21, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Was at one point the 18th-largest city in the country. Also important for historic link to the textile industry. pbp 01:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

Neutral on this one. There are better candidates for removal in New England anyway. J947 ‡ ^edits 07:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

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

---

Support Remove Cambridge

Oppose

1. Site of one of America's preeminent universities. Was at one point the 31st-largest city in the country. Old city by American standards, nearly 400 years old. pbp 01:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Having two elite+historical universities provides an enduring claim to the city's importance. starship.paint (RUN) 04:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Per above Totalibe (talk) 08:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Oppose per above as a vital subtopic of Boston. J947 ‡ ^edits 07:33, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
5. Per comments above. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 12:21, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

1. Neutral as nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Unlike the two other cities, it is a bit more famous IMHO, perhaps because the university is so famous the town became well known. Interestingly I don't think this is true for Yale-New Haven below. Could be just my subjective bias, but I think Oxtord and Cambridge can be vital as archotypical university cities. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

   I don't think Oxford, Massachusetts, is vital. J947 ‡ ^edits 03:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

   @Piotrus: - you seem to have confused Cambridge, England (not vital, perhaps it should be?), and Cambridge, Massachusetts? Oxford, England is level 5 vital. starship.paint (RUN) 04:46, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

   Indeed. Leaning remove now. Or swap. UK's Cambridge is IMHO better know of the two. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Support Remove New Haven

1. Yale is famous and vital, but it does not lend its vitality to the city it is located in. Overall, not very famous and US is over quota. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
2. per above. starship.paint (RUN) 04:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Totalibe (talk) 08:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Per my comment below. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 12:21, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Site of one of America's preeminent universities. Was one of the 50 largest cities in the country for over a century, and the largest city in Connecticut for even longer. Old city by American standards, nearly 400 years old. pbp 01:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Per pbp. QuicoleJR (talk) 11:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Location of Yale and also location of one of the largest race riots during the Long, Hot Summer of 1967. Aurangzebra 7:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

Neutral as nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I think Connecticut probably only warrants two cities, which would necessitate including just one of New Haven, Connecticut  5 / Bridgeport, Connecticut  5 / Stamford, Connecticut, but it's very difficult to decide which. J947 ‡ ^edits 07:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

While I don’t support listing every U.S. state capital, I do support listing every state’s largest city, and Connecticut’s largest city is Bridgeport. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 12:12, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Remove small Mid-Atlantic U.S. cities

I don't consider either of these small cities particularly notable. I question whether they deserve a spot since cities (2,025/2,000), Americas (384/360) and North America (229/210 articles) remain over quota. I think there should be consensus that these are among the bottom 19 North America cities or bottom 24 Americas cities.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:53, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

1. Allentown, Pennsylvania (125,845 2020 census population, 72 interwikis)
2. Erie, Pennsylvania (94,831, 67 interwikis)
3. Atlantic City, New Jersey (38,497 population, 71 interwikis)

Support Remove Allentown

1. As nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:53, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Support this per 'over quota, don't look that special'. I lived in PA for 10 yeears and well, Pittsburgh and Philly are enough from that state IMHO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:10, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
3. per above. starship.paint (RUN) 04:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Totalibe (talk) 08:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak oppose straight removal, but would support swap with Lehigh Valley. Pennsylvania seems quite a tough one – there's lots of valleys where lots of people live but no properly populous city. Looks like we're going to be left with a situation where a 13-million-strong state with great historical importance is left with only 3 cities because of it. Interesting. J947 ‡ ^edits 07:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Per J947. It is also Pennsylvania’s third largest city. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 12:54, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

Support Remove Erie

1. As nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:53, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Not that significant, really. SnowFire (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Support this per 'over quota, don't look that special'. I lived in PA for 10 yeears and well, Pittsburgh and Philly are enough from that state IMHO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:10, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
4. per above. starship.paint (RUN) 04:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
5. Totalibe (talk) 08:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
6. Somewhat weakly. J947 ‡ ^edits 07:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
7. Interstellarity (talk) 01:36, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
8. Somewhat weakly, better candidate than many state capitals, but Reading would be a better choice for Pennsylvania’s fifth city. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 12:54, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Support Remove Atlantic City

1. Support this per 'over quota, don't look that special'. I lived in PA for 10 yeears and well, Pittsburgh and Philly are enough from that state IMHO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:10, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

   Atlantic City is not in PA, it's in New Jersey. QuicoleJR (talk) 11:18, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

2. If it were still Monaco-of-the-East-Coast I would have said keep, but the city seems to have declined since the 1960s. starship.paint (RUN) 04:59, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Tourism isn’t enough, since Honolulu was removed from Level 4 recently, and neither is a board game. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 12:54, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Due to significance as a tourist haven and Monopoly pbp 01:27, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
2. This is another one where its vitality goes beyond the population count (per pbp and SnowFire). Totalibe (talk) 08:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Weak oppose on balance: with the Trump Taj Mahal, it's no doubt vital at this level (but seriously, per SnowFire). J947 ‡ ^edits 08:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Per SnowFire, plus this is the city where Monopoly takes place. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:29, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

1. Neutral as nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:53, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

• Atlantic City punches above its weight for its low population. As a resort town, a huge amount of both its workers and its tourists don't actually live within AC's city boundaries. Its official city boundaries are also very, very tight (more than half of the physical territory of AC is a big unlivable swamp) so the low pop is also a quirk of how the political boundaries are drawn - according to metropolitan statistical area, the full AC-Hammonton area has 371,272 people, and more strictly just including Margate / Longport / Brigantine of ~43,000 people (the other cities on the island). Anyway, its real claim to fame is being a Monaco-of-the-East-Coast for awhile back when gambling was only legalized in a few places, and a resort in 1840-1940 or so back before the advent of cheap air travel for rich East Coasters. Site of the 1964 Democratic National Convention as well. Anyway, if there's a major cutback in quota on minor cities, should be cut anyway, but I think it's quirks make it more relevant than Allentown and Erie. SnowFire (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
  • User:SnowFire, that is a very long discourse for a person who has decided not to weigh in with an explicit vote. You are fre to vote neutral, abstain or remain silent, but your prose sounds like you are trying to influence our thinking, but by not voting you are not influencing our decision. It just seems odd to me because I rarely say much of anything when I am neutral.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:58, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
    • I spent some of my life living near Atlantic City so I wouldn't be a neutral party to vote, but I can offer some commentary and background. SnowFire (talk) 06:02, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Remove Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket

These islands, while popular vacation destinations, are overshadowed in importance to Cape Cod which is listed, hence the name Cape Cod and the Islands. Interstellarity (talk) 16:23, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 16:23, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Just minor islands/localities. What makes them vital? Mind you, I'd liketo cut geography quota significantly, and instead add more stuff with global reach, like popculture concepts or historical events that affected more people then those that live in such tiny localities. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:44, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
3. per Piotrus. starship.paint (RUN) 06:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
4. Per nominator. The Blue Rider 11:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose MV. I barely associate these islands with the cape. They have their own identity.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:43, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Per Tony. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 08:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

The nomination is misleading. It makes it sound like Cape Cod is an article dedicated to Cape Cod and the Islands. There is no Cape Cod and the Islands article. The Islands are not in Cape Cod. The islands are no more a part of Cape Cod than Southeastern Wisconsin or Northwest Indiana is part of Chicago.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:17, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Add Tauranga and Lower Hutt

Depending on whether the proposal above passes or fails, these might be good additions since they are over 100,000 people in population. If the proposal above fails, then I would support these two, but if it passes, I would oppose the proposal. I'm nominating this since I feel it is worth discussing. Interstellarity (talk) 00:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

1. Lower Hutt is covered by Wellington; Tauranga is covered by Bay of Plenty. If addition of an NZ city is warranted (and it isn't IMO) then the additions would be, in order, Tauranga then Nelson then South Auckland then Napier / Palmerston North then Rotorua (I could and probably will change my mind on this, but I'm confident that the Hutt isn't up there).
   I strongly recommend that if people propose changes to the NZ articles listed they consult me first as the only Kiwi regular here atm – even if I don't agree with the changes I will at least give a pointer on what the best removals and additions are. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

   @J947: I'm glad we have a Kiwi here. It's always nice to edit with people that are from other countries. Your opinion is valued as much as mine and I look forward to working with you. Interstellarity (talk) 00:58, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

2. Per my comment in the proposal above. No need for swaps or replacement, reduce quota. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:48, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
3. per above. starship.paint (RUN) 06:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

Swap Saint John, New Brunswick with Moncton

Moncton is currently the largest city in New Brunswick. It also allows us to have more linguistic diversity, but I’m not sure if that makes it any more vital. New Brunswick only really needs one city with its population of only 800k, and I’m not sure if it should be Fredericton or Moncton, but we’ll keep it with two for now. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 14:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 15:45, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. WP:TOOSOON. Saint John seems too historic to be cast aside so quickly.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 09:20, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Saint John is more historically relevant than Moncton, and is quite important in the history of Canada. Curbon7 (talk) 21:29, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
3. per above. starship.paint (RUN) 06:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

Northern Europe cities

Link. This (Nordics + Baltics) is a section that strikes me as being overrepresented: there is a city listed for every 0.96 million people. Compare similar European countries: Austria has one for every 1.49 million; Switzerland has one for every 1.45 million; Belgium has one for every 1.16 million; Greece has one for every 1.52 million; Portugal has one for every 1.72 million. Not massively overrepresented, but it feels like there are a few questionable inclusions here.

No changes to Iceland, Estonia, Norway, Finland, Sweden, or Lithuania are proposed yet – I had envisioned a few more changes than just the two proposed originally. Prepare for an information dump. Akureyri isn't important enough unfortunately, so Iceland will always have Reykjavik as its sole representative. Estonia by rights should only have 2 cities at a maximum, but Tartu's influence as a university city and Narva's extremely interesting history meant I didn't really think we could remove either of them. As for Norway, I'm still considering proposing the removal of Stavanger depending on the support these proposals receive, and instead of removing Longyearbyen I've proposed to remove Spitsbergen above. All the Finnish cities simply seem a league above: Finland's population seems to be concentrated in cities, and all these cities have their own distinct character, but Espoo is likely to be removed soon (I might propose to add it back). Sweden has only 6 cities despite having almost twice the population of Norway, Finland, and Sweden – that's because it has fewer big cities. I can't put my finger on any glaring changes in that department. Lithuania's three major cities are included. J947 ‡ ^edits 03:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Denmark: remove Esbjerg and Randers

Including the Faroes and Greenland, we currently list 8 cities for Denmark, a country of a little over 5.9 million. Excluding them, we include 6, being Copenhagen  4, Aarhus  5, Aalborg  5, Odense  5, Esbjerg, and Randers. It's my impression that the latter two, as well as having the least population of the lot at 60–70,000, are the least important and should be removed.

In Esbjerg's favour, it's the most important western Danish city, so my support for its removal is significantly less than that for Randers'. Randers has greater historical importance, however.

Support

1. Support both as nom. J947 ‡ ^edits 03:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Support per my view that we need to reduce quota on geo entries anyway. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:49, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Support per both above. starship.paint (RUN) 00:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Mixed

1. Support Esbjerg, oppose Randers as this list’s only inland city. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 19:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

Latvia: remove Daugavpils and Jelgava

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.

---

Latvia only merits 2 cities at this level when currently we list 4 (these two, Liepāja  5, and Riga  4). No cities other than the capital reach 100,000 in population, but port city Liepāja does seem just important enough to be listed for me (the historical population chart on its article tells a story). These two, particularly Jelgava, are more run of the mill.

Support

1. Support both as nom. J947 ‡ ^edits 03:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Support per my view that we need to reduce quota on geo entries anyway. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:49, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Mixed

1. Support Jelgava, oppose Daugavpils as the country’s second largest city. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 12:09, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Support Jelgava, oppose Daugavpils per Vileplume. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:49, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

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

Quota decrease from 35 to 30

As the section header says. More of a minor consequence of these proposals, as these sub-section quotae aren't very important, but it might as well go up for discussion.

Support

1. Support as nom. J947 ‡ ^edits 03:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
2. starship.paint (RUN) 04:08, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Totalibe (talk) 21:32, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
4. Support per my view that we need to reduce quota on geo entries anyway. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:49, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oceania seems to have a horrendously high quota of 45, so if anything, we should take 5 from their quota. Oceania barely has 45 million people! Either way, I’d support redistributing those 5 to Africa, Southern Europe, Asia, or North America. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 01:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

   Most of the reason for that is covering national capitals, so if you support reducing Oceania you should also support not automatically listing capitals. Also, Northern Europe isn't exactly very populous either. It's being defined here as Nordic countries + the Baltic states, which based on their respective articles, only seem to have a total population of around 33 million themselves, on a quota of 35. Totalibe (talk) 19:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

   While I believe that Oceania is less historically important than Northern Europe, I now see that Northern Europe has a lower quota per capita, especially when Uzbekistan itself has a higher population than it and Central Asia has an extremely low quota, with one for every 3.8m people. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 20:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

General discussion

Place yer thoughts here. J947 ‡ ^edits 03:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Add Megacity

It’s up there compared to Metropolis. Interstellarity (talk) 10:46, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 10:46, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Megacity is very much a distinct concept (a very large city with 10 million+ in population vs a city, which may be much smaller in population, and the area around it in which it exerts significant influence) Totalibe (talk) 19:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Weak support if there is quota space. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:09, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
4. -- Respublik (talk) 23:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I think Metropolis is sufficient. J947 ‡ ^edits 07:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

I wonder if those topics shouldn't be merged. Can anyone explain to me the difference? Otherwise I'll likely oppose having two conceptually identical entries here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Slightly different things. Megacity is just a big city, while Metropolis is a big city and its immediate surrounds. Meanwhile, Megalopolis is a different thing entirely... J947 ‡ ^edits 07:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Piotrus here, I'm not seeing clear distinctions between the three topics. I could conceive semantic distinctions, but not ones that I believe reflect fuzzy real world use or that would be in any way clear to apply on the ground. CMD (talk) 02:03, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Remove Auki

The Solomon Islands do not need to have two cities on the list, and Auki is a town with only 7K people with no apparent historical, geographical, or political importance besides being the capital of a small province.

Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. The Solomons are big by Pacific Island country standards but still only have one city with a population above 20,000. In compensation, we list 6 island articles for the Solomons (including Malaita  5, which Auki lies on). J947 ‡ ^edits 23:47, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Per J947. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 00:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
4. per above starship.paint (RUN) 02:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
5. Totalibe (talk) 19:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
6. Per my general view that we have too many cities and that such cities as those are just pointless quota fillers. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
7. pbp 01:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

If this gets passed, what should we add? Should we reduce the quota to 40? OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 22:58, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand why there's being a sudden obsession about specific quotas. A section being one under quota rightfully is better than an article being forced on to the list for the sake of a round quota when it doesn't belong. J947 ‡ ^edits 23:47, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

There's no rush to add anything in the same section, @OhnoitsvileplumeXD: the empty spot can go into any topic... but we are also over quota in Level 5 overall, so, just take it as we're progressing from 50,200 to 50,000... starship.paint (RUN) 02:56, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Probably. Support quota reduction. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

North Korean cities

North Korea of course is a very isolationist state so most of its cities outside of Pyongyang are not well-known internationally. That said I don't think it should be discounted and 4 cities in a country of ~26 million is definitely underrepresentation, especially given that the urbanization rate isn't that low. Totalibe (talk) 19:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Add Kaesong

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.

---

If only one city is added, I would say this is the one. While it isn't the largest city proposed here by population, it has a special political and economic significance due to the fact that during the initial partition of Korea, it was south of the border, but by the time the Korean War had finished and after shifting in control several times, it was north of the DMZ. Today, it is home to the Kaesong Industrial Region which is a special joint region for collaborative economic activity with the South formed in the early 2000s, which makes it a very geopolitically important place.

Support

1. Nom Totalibe (talk) 19:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Per nominator. The Blue Rider 21:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
3. East Asia is under quota. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 13:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
4. Per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
5. Fair enough. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

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 Wonsan

An important port and naval base that was important both historically and at present. The port was opened to foreign trade by Japanese forces in 1880, which is early on in the history of Japanese dominance and later direct colonial rule of Korea, and was under blockade for most of the Korean War. The article further details increased development that has been ongoing in recent times.

Support

1. Nom Totalibe (talk) 19:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Weak conditional support if there is quota to fill. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Add Sinuiju

A major settlement directly on the Chinese border, which is a major centre for trade and transit between the two countries. You could argue it plays a similar role to Kaesong in that it is a hub for economic activity with its neighbour, although plans to introduce a special economic area like the one in Kaesong fell through. Totalibe (talk) 19:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Nom Totalibe (talk) 19:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Weak conditional support if there is quota to fill. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

• Would prefer to add Rason over this one. The Blue Rider 21:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Remove Mata Utu

Per rationale for St. Pierre above pbp 00:45, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 00:45, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
2. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 16:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Barely 1000 people, not significant. starship.paint (RUN) 02:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
4. It's enough to list Wallis and Futuna at VA5. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 08:44, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Remove Ngerulmud

Palau only warrants one city at this level with its population of under 20k. In this case, it’s not the current capital without any permanent population in its boundaries, but the former capital and current largest city, Koror. Bern and Naypyidaw aren’t even V4, and we recently demoted Canberra and Wellington to V5. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 20:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 20:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Weak Support. Agree Palau only needs one but unsure which one pbp 20:44, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

   Capital cities of this size are not vital at this level. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 21:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

3. Koror is more important. J947 ‡ ^edits 22:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
4. Population not recorded but estimates at ~300. This has no place anywhere near vital list. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
5. Meh. We don't even have an article for Government of Palau, which is the only reason why Ngerulmud is of any significance. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 08:43, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. As the national capital of an internationally recognized sovereign state. Totalibe (talk) 01:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
2. per Totalibe Aurangzebra (talk) 07:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
3. A capital thus it has inherent vitality. The Blue Rider 11:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

Reduce quota of Oceanian cities by 5 or more

There are only 44 million people on the entire continent. Some of the "cities" are teeny tiny and are facing removal at the moment. We complain that there are too many Usonian cities on the list, but if U.S. was covered that way, there would be over 300 Usonian cities. pbp 20:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom pbp 20:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Per nom. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Per nom, would likely support more, much more. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
4. Could go down even more. starship.paint (RUN) 02:39, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Would anybody be willing to go even lower? @OhnoitsvileplumeXD: 35? 30? If all active removals pass, we'll be under 40. There are several other possible removal targets and I'd be hard pressed to think of an add target. pbp 00:32, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

For a country of around 10m or so, PNG seems underrepresented. While it is not very urbanized, Mount Hagen seems like a potential addition for being one of three cities in the country. I also could see Geelong being added as it is one of few cities to have its own WikiProject. As for the region they will be redistributed to, I’d say Central Asia for being at 150% of its quota and Uzbekistan alone being somewhat comparable in population to the continent. I’m not an expert at Oceania, however, I’m just doing this in my bed in rural southeastern Michigan. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 01:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I would be. I can spot 14 on the current list of 45 I'm pretty confident we can remove from the most cursory check, so 30 or even 25 (or something in between) I'd support. By and large I'd rather list islands for Oceania. J947 ‡ ^edits 10:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Remove Alice Springs

Alice Springs is not vital when we want less cities in Oceania, not more. The Northern Territory only has a quarter million people, so it should only have Darwin. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 14:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 14:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Nah I think Alice passes the bar. Really is slap in the middle of the desert. J947 ‡ ^edits 22:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Alice Springs is the largest settlement in central Australia, and speaking as someone from the UK, its rare for a town with 20,000 people to still have name recognition on the other side of the world. Thinking of this solely in terms of the overall NT population is a misleading way to think when it only has two anyway and its far away from and in a completely different region to Darwin, which is on the coast (the far-inland part of the outback also overlapping with Western and South Australia, for example). Totalibe (talk) 21:39, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Per Totalibe. I'd also put Fairbanks and Juneau in the same category. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 05:52, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

1. Under 2 million Australians per city. An eighth of a million Territorians per city. Sometimes, at this level and in this situation, geographical entries are not vital. To cover the population issue, I have proposed Geelong below to cover the population issue in Victoria, which has 7m people and one city. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 22:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Add Geelong

Victoria seems extremely under quota with its population of nearly 7 million, with only Melbourne at this level. Additionally, Geelong is one of the few cities to have its own WikiProject, and I think topics with their own WikiProject should be at least Level 4-5. This is part of the reason Donald Trump was added to V4. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 15:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 15:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:11, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Mixed opinions on this one. There is probably space for another one or two Australian cities, but Townsville is significantly more important than Geelong. I'm aware its addition would exacerbate the overrepresentation of Queensland and underrepresentation of Victoria – tricky. J947 ‡ ^edits 22:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Townsville is in the same general region as Cairns, so if it gets on the list, it’s probably gonna be a swap. SC may be too large, so it may have to stay. Overall, I’m not sure how to handle QLD’s overrepresentation and VIC’s underrepresentation. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 23:06, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Removing Sunshine Coast may actually be a good option on review. It's really on the same tier as importance as Geelong or Central Coast (New South Wales). Alternatively I've long had the impression that Cairns, like Sunshine Coast, is more of a touristy centre than historically/strategically important. Swapping Townsville in for Cairns is another option – though Sunshine Coast might be a better choice for removal. J947 ‡ ^edits 02:19, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Queensland probably needs only three cities, and I think Brisbane is a good level 4, Gold Coast should be listed for being the most populous non-capital, and Townsville should also be listed for coverage. Sunshine Coast would be on the list if this level could be approximately 1% of the English Wikipedia’s content, which I would support changing for every 500k milestone. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 01:36, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Add Nzérékoré

Second-largest city in a country that ranks around 75th in area and population. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 16:06, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 16:06, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Totalibe (talk) 21:39, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

200,000 feels small when we've been removing 500,000–population African cities recently (wrongly). See here. Listing regions of Guinea is probably preferable (Nzérékoré Region, Guinée forestière). J947 ‡ ^edits 22:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Add Surgut

The Urals seem underrepresented with only three cities, and this is by far the largest city in the autonomous okrugs. Speaking of autonomous okrugs, I’d also support a swap between Anadyr and Magadan, as we already have enough coverage of Chukotka at this level and Magadan has 6-7 times the population of Anadyr. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Population close to 400k Totalibe (talk) 21:39, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Surgut's economy is tied to oil production (the city is known as "The Oil Capital of Russia") and natural gas processing. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 03:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

1. We need neither Anadyr nor Magadan. Totalibe (talk) 21:39, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

   If anything, Chita comes before both, but overall, the region does not need any more cities. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 23:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Add Magnitogorsk

The Urals seem underrepresented with only three cities, and this city has a unique status of being one of few planned socialist realist settlements. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 01:10, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 01:10, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Population of over 400k Totalibe (talk) 21:39, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
3. J947 ‡ ^edits 23:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Swap: Remove Pointe-à-Pitre, add Oranjestad, Aruba

Guadeloupe, a French overseas department of 400k, does not need two cities, no matter how large. The capital isn't insignificant, it has an urban area larger than some U.S. state capitals.

I still think Caribbean territiories are underrepresented. After I got Willemstad on the list, the only 100k+ territories in the region that were unrepresented were Aruba and the USVI. Oranjestad is the larger settlement, so I chose it over Charlotte Amalie. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 14:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Support removal

1. As nom. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 14:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Support removal Totalibe (talk) 21:39, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose removal

Neutral on removal

Support addition

1. As nom. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 14:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose addition

Neutral on addition

1. Totalibe (talk) 21:39, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

General discussion

• @OhnoitsvileplumeXD: The link provided for the addition links to a disambiguation page. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:24, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Remove Lake Placid, New York

Doesn’t compare in vitality to the cities we already list for New York. In fact, I would only support listing a city under 10,000 if there are special circumstances surrounding their vitality. This one doesn’t make the cut. Interstellarity (talk) 21:58, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 21:58, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Absolutely. What significance does this “city” have? No statistical area, no settlements in the COUNTY have a population anywhere near 5k, nothing vital about it. Utica is the far superior city in the region. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 22:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

   Utica and Lake Placid aren't necessarily in the same region and there's more to vitality than population pbp 19:57, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

3. We list the Olympics it has hosted. J947 ‡ ^edits 02:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
4. I am not convicted that hosting Olympics is sufficient, and we list those events. Notability is not inherited, and neither should be vitality. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
5. Not convinced about the Olympics. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 05:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Sloppy nom. Nominator didn't do due diligence on this one pbp 19:57, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Weak oppose A town with a population of 2,000 that manages to host the Winter Olympics along with numerous other major worldwide sporting events seems like "special circumstances" to me. The main caveat I have is that it possibly belongs under "non-city settlements". Totalibe (talk) 21:39, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Hosted the Olympics twice, but that is basically the only thing making this town important. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
2. I would like to oppose based on 2x Winter Olympics host, but the other two 2x hosts are not being given a free ride. Innsbruck is enough of a city to be VA and St. Moritz is like Lake Placid and not VA. If both had been VA, I would have opposed. To oppose would mean I should want to push for St. Moritz. I'll let this go unless another argument arises in opposition.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

   I think St. Moritz probably belongs here too actually. Totalibe (talk) 21:39, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

   I think it's less vital than Lucerne. One with no urban agglomeration vs. one of 226k. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 14:50, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

Remove Newport, Rhode Island

Considering we don’t list summer vacation destinations like Block Island, I don’t think it makes sense to keep this one. Interstellarity (talk) 22:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 22:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Rhode Island only deserves Providence. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 22:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
3. I've read the comments above and I don't see that significant history. Niche local American significance. Feel free to tell me more if you think I am wrong. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

   What exactly is your rationale for what and who is notable? Is having a lot of people right this second the only measure of importance? pbp 00:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Newport has significant history (see 2nd para).-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:06, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Historically important. There was one time where Newport had one of the largest concentrations of power brokers in the entire world. Also was where the U.S. Opens in both golf and tennis began. pbp 19:58, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

Remove Jamestown, Saint Helena

I fail to see why this city is vital at this level compared to Saint Helena.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 22:27, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
2. If we’re doing it for Oceania, we may as well do it elsewhere. Just don’t touch Willemstad. ABC islands are V4, and it is an important city in Jewish history. I don’t wanna go on my whole rant about Willemstad again, just go to Archive 17. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Interesting layout though! J947 ‡ ^edits 02:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
4. pbp 20:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
5. Totalibe (talk) 21:39, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
6. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 05:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Swap: Remove Montgomery, Alabama, Add Huntsville, Alabama

Huntsville is by far an important city. I was going to propose a swap from Tuskegee, but that has already been proposed. Interstellarity (talk) 00:21, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 00:21, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Support addition There were only two new largest cities per the 2020 U.S. Census according to List of largest cities of U.S. states and territories by historical population. Good nomination.---TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Support addition as the new largest city in Alabama. Oppose removal per pbp. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removal because Montgomery is a significant state capital.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose removal Montgomery is a large enough and historically-significant enough (fmr. Confederate capital, center of civil rights battles) to warrant inclusion pbp 20:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Support addition as Huntsville is the largest city in Alabama, and the only state’s largest city that we don’t list. Oppose removal since Montgomery is also large, with a city proper population of 200k and a metro population of 385k. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 00:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

FWIW, when the VA cities were listed, Birmingham was still the largest city in Alabama pbp 20:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Add Springfield, Missouri

Missouri most certainly deserves a third city, and Springfield is its third largest in terms of city proper and metro area, and by urban area when excluding Fayetteville, AR. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 12:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 12:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
2. J947 ‡ ^edits 01:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I'd rather see Independence, Missouri added because of its historical significance along many dimensions, including the westward expansion of the United States.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:40, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

   KCMO is only V5, and we should have a rule of thumb that suburbs/satellite cities should be at least one level lower than the cities they are subordinated to. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

National capitals removals

These don't seem to have much significance compared to other capitals. Interstellarity (talk) 12:37, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Yaren District

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 12:37, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
2. J947 ‡ ^edits 01:26, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Capital cities of independent states are an important lens through which people learn about the world and different countries. I'm not opposed to removing capitals of overseas territories etc but independent states should stay. Totalibe (talk) 21:39, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I only proposed the removal of Ngerulmud due to lack of permanent population, but this isn’t much better, at under 800. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 13:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

Hagåtña, Guam

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 12:37, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Absolutely, with its population of under 1000. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 13:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Too small and not even the capital city of an independent country, just a territory. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:38, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
4. Pop <1k. Not vital by any stretch of imagination. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
5. Guam itself is small enough for the entire island to be its own metro area. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 05:50, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I think we need to keep either Hagåtña or Pago Pago (we've never had Saipan) and Hagåtña is the capital of the bigger territory. As with Annapolis, this is a city vs. metro area conundrum pbp 20:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

   We list Saipan under islands. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 00:09, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

Pago Pago

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 12:37, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
2. If we have a city in a U.S. territory other than PR, it’s Charlotte Amalie. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 13:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Pop 4.5k. Seriously, what is this doing here? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
4. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 05:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Vaduz

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 12:37, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
2. I just don't get the point that this is less more vital than Lucerne, etc. J947 ‡ ^edits 01:27, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

   User:J947, your response seems to support an addition not a removal.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:46, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

   Fixed, thanks. J947 ‡ ^edits 20:26, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. As the capital of a country of 40k. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 13:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Capital cities of independent states are an important lens through which people learn about the world and different countries. I'm not opposed to removing capitals of overseas territories etc but independent states should stay. Totalibe (talk) 21:39, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
3. True national capital.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:47, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
4. A capital thus it have inherent vitality, we should also add City of San Marino. The Blue Rider 11:42, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
5. Between Vaduz (pop. 5,696) and Ngerulmud (pop. 0), I'd keep Vaduz. Liechtenstein is also significantly larger than Palau, both population-wise and (especially) economically. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 12:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

Remove Anadyr

This city seems like one of the weakest on the list and the weakest in the Russian Far East. Only vital for its location as the easternmost Russian settlement with town status. Not very historically important either, as it peaked at 17k. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 12:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 12:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Totalibe (talk) 16:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
3. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
4. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 03:39, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Remove Bolton

Bolton is a town of ~200k that is largely subsumed into Greater Manchester, which makes its distinctiveness a lot more questionable than it would be otherwise. In terms of special historical importance, it was a centre for mills and textiles which boomed during the 19th century, but then again so was Manchester, the city which grew and absorbed it.

Support

1. As nom Totalibe (talk) 16:00, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Per nom. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 16:56, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
3. The population is not bad, but I just do not see how it is vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:53, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
4. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 03:38, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Swap Winterthur for Lucerne

Since Lucerne was mentioned a couple of times, I'd argue it makes sense to swap Winterthur for it. Winterthur is described in the article simply as a satellite city of Zurich, and its population of 110k is well below the 200k or so that seems to be a common threshold for cities here. The population of Lucerne proper is "technically" 82k, but the urban area totals around 220k, whereas Winterthur is simply part of another city's urban area. In terms of other forms of importance, Winterthur does appear to have a certain amount f relevance to the economy and technology, but then, so does Zurich. Lucerne on the other hand is the main hub for central Switzerland.

Support

1. As nom Totalibe (talk) 22:27, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Support per nom (although we do already list Lake Lucerne  5). J947 ‡ ^edits 23:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Per nom. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 00:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
4. Per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
5. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 05:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Archived 2020 consensus to Remove Fort Lauderdale, Florida

At 01:13, 14 March 2020 (UTC), User:TimothyBlue posted this discussion. It achieved consensus with a 3–1 vote, but was archived without being enacted. Original discussants were the nominator as well as User:Purplebackpack89, User:Rreagan007 and User:Feminist.

Support

Oppose

1. As nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Broward County is certainly vital, but we don't list any suburbs of Chicago or Houston. I'm also considering proposing the addition of Cape Coral. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 01:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Discuss

Remove Nadi

I doubt Fiji needs a second city. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 13:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 13:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
2. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 15:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Should probably be removed but I feel like I should go for bat for it here. Fiji is big for a Pacific nation – having almost a million inhabitants – and is better represented by cities than islands. As for Nadi in particular, it has Fiji's main airport and is thus the tourist centre and is apparently also a cultural centre for Fiji Hindi / Indo-Fijians. Decently important. J947 ‡ ^edits 01:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)