Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4

General Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

Level 5 Subpages

People History and geography Arts and everyday life Society STEM

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

For reference, the following times apply for today:

• 15 days ago was: 10:17, 21 November 2025 (UTC) ()
• 30 days ago was: 10:17, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
• 60 days ago was: 10:17, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Add Louis de Broglie  4

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 guy that figured out matter itself behaves like a wave, and therefore follows Wave–particle duality  4. Even with how heavily physics (and quantum mechanics in particular) is represented at Level 4, leaving the man behind such a fundamental insight at Level 5 feels like an oversight. Without de Broglie's proposals, quantum doesn't leap from a critique of classical mechanics into a description of reality. If that's not enough, he also played a major role in turning science into an internationally-collaborative pursuit involving the general public, for which he received UNESCO's first ever Kalinga Prize for the Popularization of Science.

Support

1. As nom. Johnnie Runner 00:12, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Lazman321 (talk) 00:59, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
3. Interstellarity (talk) 14:49, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
4. Idiosincrático (talk) 05:21, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
5. 飞车过大关 (talk) 17:57, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
6. Support. per Johnnie. GuzzyG (talk) 22:26, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose adding biographies without a swap. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:30, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
2. Oppose, but not for quota reasons. De Brogile's work may have theorized particle-wave duality but there is significant overlap between him, Debye and Schrödinger on that front. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 06:55, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I would support if level 4 wasn't over quota. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:41, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

Satyendra Nath Bose  5 and Lev Landau  5 also deserve strong consideration. Johnnie Runner 22:59, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

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

Add Fundamental interaction  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.

---

We include Gravity  3, Electromagnetism  3, Weak interaction  3, Strong interaction  3, it seems odd to have fundamental interaction two levels below them.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:00, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Interstellarity (talk) 14:50, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
3. Lazman321 (talk) 01:19, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
4. Shocksingularity (talk) 00:48, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
5. 飞车过大关 (talk) 17:58, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I think it's redundant to Standard Model  3 (and to a lesser degree, Force  3). The content is pretty similar between Standard Model and Fundamental interaction. Also Level 4 is over quota. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 21:37, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:00, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Add remove museums

Let's look at all of these together.

1. Be advised, that I am aware I am comparing museums based solely upon their highlights according to English Wikipedia's VA list rather than breadth, depth and instructive/educational value of its collection.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:38, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Remove Rijksmuseum

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.

---

Upon returning from 10 days in Europe, including 3 nights in Amsterdam, I am weighing in on the arts with some thoughts. This museum is spectacular. I completed 4 or 5 audio tours and found it fascinating. However, it seems that only 1 VA specific work of art (The Night Watch  4) is housed here (although I did not look at the sculptural specific works lists very closely). -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:57, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Upon further inspection no VA sculptural works, but I overlooked a handful of Self-portraits by Rembrandt  5.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:12, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom, you could go down the block and see a half dozen VA works (The Potato Eaters) and several elements from 2 series (Wheat Fields and Sunflowers (Van Gogh series)) at Van Gogh Museum  5. The museum has depth and breadth across many periods of art but there are several museums with broader sets of VA works not listed at VA4.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:57, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 10:51, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
3. "Biggest museum in the Netherlands" is not enough for VA4. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:27, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
4. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
5. ALittleClass (talk) 18:36, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

1. Getting back to basics, I just realized that this museum punches above its weight in terms of interwikis (65 vs 39, 43 and 49) and pageview compared to the AIC, MFAB and KM below nominated as adds.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:58, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

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

Swap Musée d'Orsay  4 and Musée National d'Art Moderne  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.

---

During a 4 day visit to Paris as part of my 60th BDay celebration last week I stopped in at several museums but not the Musée National d'Art Moderne  5, which does not host enough VA works for me to have prioritized it with visits to Rodin Museum, Louvre  4 and Musée d'Orsay  4. The number of important works at these other institutions is far superior, IMO. I admit, I have not really slogged through the sculptural specific works lists, but I don't think this should rank with the Louvre and above Musee d'Orsay.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:24, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Musée d'Orsay

Paintings as follows Bal du moulin de la Galette  5, The Birth of Venus (Bouguereau)  5, The Card Players  5, Le Déjeuner sur l'herbe  5, The Gleaners  5, Olympia (Manet)  5, L'Origine du monde  5, 3 Water Lilies (Monet series)  4, Whistler's Mother  5

Sculptures as follows as follows The Gates of Hell  5, The Mature Age  5, a version of The Thinker  4

Musée National d'Art Moderne: Fountain (Duchamp)  4-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:17, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Musee d'Orsay compares favorably with the Louvre

Paintings as follows Mona Lisa  4, The Four Seasons (Poussin)  5, several Self-portraits by Rembrandt  5, Virgin of the Rocks  5, The Barque of Dante  5, Grande Odalisque  5, Liberty Leading the People  5, The Massacre at Chios  5, The Raft of the Medusa  5, The Turkish Bath  5

Sculptures as follows as follows Venus de Milo  4, Sleeping Hermaphroditus  5-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:26, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:24, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
   1. Although larger than Musee d' Orsay, it is less visited, even counting visitors to the other elements of the Centre Pompidou.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:28, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
   2. Further on this swap. It is not close in terms of pageviews (10x), watchers (5x), editors (4x), and edits (5x) Also interwikis is 118 vs. 27.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:39, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
2. Lazman321 (talk) 17:59, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
3. Aszx5000 (talk) 23:44, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
4. Good swap. Jusdafax (talk) 22:16, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
5. I've heard of the Musée d'Orsay but not the Musée National d'Art Moderne ChaoticVermillion (talk) 09:57, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Mixed

1. Support removing Musée National d'Art Moderne, weak oppose to adding Musée d'Orsay. I'm not sure we need this many art museums I might change my mind if we end up having room for it, but I think it's more likely that we should add a few works in that case. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:01, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

   At Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/4/Arts#Cultural_venues we have 20 articles including 18 specific art, history and science museums. I can't say whether this is more than is what is best for VA4. I have merely presented 4 current adds and 3 current removes to improve the set. The 4 adds seem more vital to me based on their VA highlights than the 3 removes. I made the nominations before considering pageviews, interwikis, incoming/outgoing links, watchers, etc and without consideration of the broader collection and its educational, amusement, entertainment and informational values. This particular swap seems the most obvious of the 7 changes. I do know Arts is under quota and these are all currently VA5 institutions of import. Let's see what people think. In my experience at VA cultural institutions take a long time to get resolved. Look at this set of nominations from 6.5 months ago. It could be a while before these get peoples' attention.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:47, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

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

Add Art Institute of Chicago  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.

---

Of all the museums in the world that host at least one VA4 specific work of painting or sculpture that is not a part of a series or set and at least one other VA5 or above work that is not a part of a series or a set, this is the only one that is not already VA4. Collection includes A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte  4, American Gothic  5, Nighthawks (Hopper)  5, Paris Street; Rainy Day  5, at least 3x Water Lilies (Monet series)  4. Also, seems to be the largest museum with at least 2 VA works that are not a part of a series or set that is not VA4.

Support

1. As nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:03, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
2. Certainly vital, and I don't find the quota argument convincing. I'd rather support good removals than oppose good additions. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:48, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
3. Lazman321 (talk) 17:59, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
4. Agree on importance, and am also unconvinced by quota discussion. Good Add! Jusdafax (talk) 22:19, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. This is not the right time to add more entries. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 21:10, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

   User:Lophotrochozoa, The arts are under quota 695/700, would you care to explain this further.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:25, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

   There are 10006 entries in the entire level 4 list but it's supposed to be 10000, and if we ever manage to remove enough, I wouls like to prioritize older addition nominations. Also, I don't think we need more museums on level 4. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 16:10, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

   Lophotrochozoa A group proposal that includes 5 add nominations and 3 removal nominations does not have to adversely impact the effort to approach 10k. We could limit the additions to the number of removals. Although one pair is intended to be a straight swap. Also, if we are at 10006/10000 and 695/700, it would not be a bad idea to add one or two net Arts.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:45, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

   Lophotrochozoa is this group of 5 4 adds/3 removals the only nomination on the page that you noted should not be considered right now due to overall quota? Would this objection be better placed at nomination for a subsection that is over quota. E.g., why don't you move this objection to a nomination like a social science straight add nomination that is 913/900 and 10006/10000.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:47, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

   I have proposed a moratorium on new proposals for addition; we're unlikely to formally decide on the moratorium but personally I vote against all new proposals for addition. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 11:09, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

   I see the last VA4 Add nomination (from June 3) that you voted on was against Hello Kitty, which is also in the Arts. The last VA4 Add nomination (from May 5) before that was in support of Presbyterianism, which is also in a subsection under quota. It would seem like your attempt to vote against all VA4 add while we are over quota would have you voting against adds in overquota subsections. I don't really understand what you are trying to do based on how you are voting although I understand what I think you mean to do. You of course are free to vote how you feel. But this is a section that I asked voters to consider together with 5 4 adds and 3 removes, which is different from a straight add. I see that there have been no straight adds in several weeks, so I guess you are exerting influence with your voting. I think looking at the adds and removes together we could improve our list with the proper consensus rather than just shut down all the adds in this group. I'll just wait for the rest of the votes to come in.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:49, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

   User:Lophotrochozoa, Note that out of respect for your efforts to encourage limited add nominations, I have withdrawn the weakest of the 5 add nominations. That makes this a set of 4 adds and 3 removes. People should be able to evaluate them without throwing VA4 off its track towards quota. However, I do believe that all of these add nominations are more vital than the removal nominations, which means I am asking my fellow editors to address a correctible situation.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:43, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

2. Would rather list other stuff. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:14, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Not so well known outside the Americas. --Thi (talk) 17:58, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

   It still gets as many pageviews as many VA4 musuems.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:21, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

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

Add Museum of Fine Arts, Boston  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.

---

Second to AIC (above) in terms of largest museums with at least 2 specific VA works of painting or sculpture that are not a part of a series or set that is not VA4. Collection includes Athenaeum Portrait  5, The Slave Ship  5, Where Do We Come From? What Are We? Where Are We Going?  5, at least 3x Water Lilies (Monet series)  4, 1x Wheat Fields  5

Support

1. As nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:17, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
2. Lazman321 (talk) 17:59, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. This is not the right time to add more entries. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 21:10, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
   1. User:Lophotrochozoa, The arts are under quota 695/700, would you care to explain this further.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:25, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

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

Add Kunsthistorisches Museum  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.

---

Seems to be the most visited museum in the world with at least 2 specific VA works of painting or sculpture that are not a part of a series or set that is not VA4. Collection includes The Hunters in the Snow  5, The Tower of Babel (Bruegel)  5, The Art of Painting  5, 1x Self-portraits by Rembrandt  5

Support

1. As nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:17, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
2. Lazman321 (talk) 17:59, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
3. After reading the article, I’m convinced it is vital at this level. Jusdafax (talk) 04:48, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. This is not the right time to add more entries. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 21:10, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
   1. User:Lophotrochozoa, The arts are under quota 695/700, would you care to explain this further.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:25, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Would rather have other stuff. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:13, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
3. The Account 2 (talk) 11:28, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

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

Remove National Palace Museum  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.

---

This does not seem to host any VA works of painting or sculpture.

Support

1. As nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:33, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
2. Not seeing vitality here. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:17, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
3. Lazman321 (talk) 17:59, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
4. --Thi (talk) 11:16, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
5. Interstellarity (talk) 15:01, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

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

Add Philadelphia Museum of Art

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.

---

Collection includes Nude Descending a Staircase, No. 2  5, co hosts The Gross Clinic  5 with Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts, 1x Sunflowers (Van Gogh series)  5, 2x Bird in Space  5, at least 1x Water Lilies (Monet series)  4 , 1x Wheat Fields  5

Support

1. As nom. Admittedly weaker case than some of the above because most of its important works can be experienced elsewhere by other elements of the set and it only co hosts one of these.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:36, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. This is not the right time to add more entries. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 21:10, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
   1. User:Lophotrochozoa, The arts are under quota 695/700, would you care to explain this further.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:25, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

Not a strong enough candidate for the reasons already mentioned in my support. VA4 is over quota. It is more vital than some current VA4s but less vital than the other 4 nominees I have listed above. Let's just focus on the 4 above that are more deserving.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:55, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

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

Remove Ingemar Stenmark  4

I'm not convinced we need two skiers at Level 4, and people keep saying that we need cuts. Stenmark is a great skier, but we only need one on this list, and the other skier is the most decorated Winter Olympian of all time, so I'd keep her instead of Stenmark.

Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
2. I don't believe this person had a material impact on the course of humanity, they are not vital. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:38, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
3. 飞车过大关 (talk) 18:06, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
4. . GuzzyG (talk) 22:28, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
5. The Account 2 (talk) 11:29, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. No doubt a vital subject. The most accomplished male skier of all time.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:48, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

   @TonyTheTiger: Maybe, and I would definitely keep him at Level 5, but I don't think we need two skiers at Level 4, and "best male skier" is a much weaker argument than "best Winter Olympian". QuicoleJR (talk) 13:14, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

   I really don't like seeing athletes getting removed at VA4 and VA5, so I will defend his case. I consider him a more important subject than a lot of things being added at VA4.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:21, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

2. Stenmark is the "winningest" male skier of all time, but where is Mikaela Shiffrin who is not even L5 and is the "winningest" male or female skier of all time? Aszx5000 (talk) 23:51, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

   @Aszx5000: Did you mean to post this as an Oppose vote? It reads to me like a Support vote, but I might be misinterpreting it. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:42, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

   @QuicoleJR, sorry but yes it is an oppose, I want to keep Stennmark, but I also wanted to note that we whould also have Shiffrin as well. Competitive down-hill skiiing is a broad sport, and Stenmark and Shiffrin are the most successful in history. Aszx5000 (talk) 06:51, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

Require VA?

I have been doing research on the distribution of specific works vital articles. I have noticed that there are several VA4 listed sculptors (1/10) and painters (6/63) among the listed visual artists that have no specific works listed at any level. Should we either 1.) reconsider whether they should be listed by nominating them for removal, 2.) examine the list and try to determine their most notable/vital specific work for inclusion in the list; or 3.) ignore this finding as not relevant. I am requesting blind opinions before revealing the list, but would be happy to reveal the list if it people feel this list should not be considered blindly.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:23, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

I could see an argument where none of their individual works are vital by themselves, but the sum of the whole makes them vital. However, if they are only known for a select few works that are unlisted, they should probably be removed unless we decide that one of those works is vital. I would need to see the list to know how many fall in which of those two categories. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:36, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

User:QuicoleJR, I have made the three nominations.

I have determined my best candidate for 3 others and opted not to nominate. I don't know if I have actually picked the best, but I don't think any of these is really strong enough to nominate:

1. Cathedral Square, Milan (painting) for Gerhard Richter, which was the most expensive artwork by living artist for 6 months in 2013. Only 2 interwikis.
2. Pont Boieldieu in Rouen, Rainy Weather for Camille Pissarro, Part of a series, which somewhat diminishes its individual significance.
3. How to Explain Pictures to a Dead Hare for Joseph Beuys, seems a bit esoteric to hold a VA4 sculptor slot with this.

I am undecided on the best candidate for 1.

1. The Blue Rider (Kandinsky) or Composition VII for Wassily Kandinsky.

My favorite of this bunch is Kandinsky, based on enjoyment of his works in my museum experiences in the past. I also think Pissarro belongs with his French Impressionist peers (Paul Cézanne, Edgar Degas, Édouard Manet, Claude Monet, and Pierre-Auguste Renoir) at VA4, and above Alfred Sisley, but I can't get behind any work for VA.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:55, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger, I think the best representation for Kandinsky (and Marc) would be Der Blaue Reiter which was the most significant expressionist art group ever. The Blue Rider 10:20, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't think there's a single hard and fast rule regarding this, what is mentioned above should probably be one of several criteria taken into consideration, but not the only one. One artist may be famous and have a long career with hundreds of moderately known works, but not one huge stand out work among them. Another may have a short career with few works and an easy main piece to pick out. (different but vaguely similar concept...Bangladesh is level 3 but History of Bangladesh is only level 5, compare with Portugal is level 4, but History of Portugal is level 4. You may think a nation being at a higher level means the history of nation would be a higher level, but not always) There could be times when it makes sense to follow a loose rule, and times when it makes sense not to, we should discus case by case with this argument in mind among others...Also I hope we are sensible enough for it not to become a circular argument do inclusion or exclusion. Eg a user nominates a work but people oppose saying artist not listed at level 4 so their works shouldn't be listed, so user nominates artist at level 4 but is met with, oppose artist has no works at level 5. Also there are times where we list a work higher than artist, like Harry Potter is higher than JK Rowking, Tarzan higher than Edgar Rice Burroughs, Gangnam Style is higher than Psy. Some artists from long ago may be well known but have no surviving works to make a good article about.  Carlwev  09:10, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Swap Papua (province)  4 with Western New Guinea  5 or remove.

New Guinea  4 and Papua New Guinea  4 are listed. I think when this was listed, the province of Papua (province)  4 covered most of Western New Guinea  5, but now it has been reduced in size as more provinces are formed. IMO it could just be removed from level 4 as covered by New Guinea.

Support

1. As nom: prefer removal, also would support swap. 96.65.201.81 (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
2. Lazman321 (talk) 05:14, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

   @Lazman321 Do you support swap with Western New Guinea  5 or removal? 96.65.201.81 (talk) 22:19, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

   Removal. Lazman321 (talk) 02:38, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

3. Support removal. --Thi (talk) 21:14, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
4. Support swap. Idiosincrático (talk) 05:19, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
5. Support swap. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 12:51, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
6. Support swap. ChaoticVermillion (talk) 10:04, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
7. Support swap. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 15:01, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Remove Tocantins River  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.

---

Seems of relatively low importance for a river at VA4, although it's fairly long and has a high discharge. Other rivers of South America are more important. Doesn't flow through a very populated area and doesn't attract a lot of interest, with an average of 34 daily pageviews.

Support

1. As nom. 96.65.201.81 (talk) 20:39, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
2. Lazman321 (talk) 00:59, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 21:14, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
4. Sure. Other geographic pages are likely more vital. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:56, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
5. Shocksingularity (talk) 05:12, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
6. Per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 01:54, 14 November 2025 (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 Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory

Originally created in the early 20th century, it is now the most common axiom set used for the Foundations of mathematics  5. Essentially, the original spirit was that all of math could be converted into this specific language of sets, and then studied perfectly rigorously, a "Theory of Everything" of math (this wasn't the case, as it turned out). Almost all proofs of logical independence have used ZFC as a basis (such as the independence of the Continuum hypothesis  5, but see this list for a more comprehensive catalogue). This article gets ~200000 pageviews yearly which is strong for an abstract maths article.

But really, I think the strongest argument for this articles inclusion is already found within our own list: All 8 specific axioms of ZF set theory are VA5 already: Axiom of extensionality  5, Axiom of regularity  5, Axiom schema of specification  5, Axiom of pairing  5, Axiom of union  5, Axiom schema of replacement  5, Axiom of infinity  5, and Axiom of power set  5 (not including Axiom of choice  4). So, if ZF set theory is not voted to be a VA4 concept, I would actually consider proposing these for removal, for the sake of self-consistency.

Support

#As nom. Striking my own nomination, I now believe this to be too specific, and if an article were to be moved up, it should be Foundations of mathematics  5 instead. ALittleClass (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

1. Per nom. 204.195.97.109 (talk) 04:30, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. 217.159.164.134 (talk) 03:09, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
3. ChaoticVermillion (talk) 10:05, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
4. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 01:06, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I object to this passing by IP.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:07, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

   This seems retaliatory and unjustified (I have done nothing wrong here). 217.159.164.134 (talk) 13:36, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

2. 飞车过大关 (talk) 19:44, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Auguste Escoffier

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.

---

An alternative proposal to the "Julia Child" proposal (because I am not very familiar with the culinary arts). He seems to be one of the most important chefs in history, he codified much of French "haute cuisine", most notably the five mother sauces. Reiterating that this would be the first chef adding to this level. If this fails, I would suggest adding Culinary arts to this level.

Support

1. As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 19:51, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
2. I'd support this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:44, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Chefs are important to global culture, he is the most important one. GuzzyG (talk) 22:47, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Not really a fan of biographies in general. Don't believe they are one of the top 10,000 most important topics of all time. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:45, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
2. I'm not convinced that we need a chef at Level 4. I would support adding Culinary arts  5 to Level 4 though. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:33, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
3. The Account 2 (talk) 11:29, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

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

Add Hero of Alexandria  4

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.

---

Arguably the best-known inventor of the ancient world, after Archimedes  3. Notable for the Aeolipile, Heron's fountain, Heron's formula, Heron's method, Vending machine, Hero's principle, among others.

Support

1. As nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 01:51, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 08:54, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
3. Impressive, a worthy addition. Jusdafax (talk) 22:14, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
4. ChaoticVermillion (talk) 10:06, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
5. 飞车过大关 (talk) 18:09, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
6. Support, we have a quota of 2,000 and are almost 40 under. Until this is changed, Hero is the perfect type of example of ancient figure needed. Would be a good counter to the recent pop culture western only stats cut down approach. GuzzyG (talk) 22:25, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose addition of biography without swap. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:58, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

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

Add Enheduanna  5

Enheduanna was the high priestess of Nanna in Ur  4 and the daughter of Sargon of Akkad  4 (history's first emperor). She is the first credited author in history, having penned a number of texts in Sumerian literature  5 (including early examples of the Hymn  4) and pioneered early theories of Rhetoric  4. After her work was rediscovered by modern archaeologists, she became a prominent figure in the historiography of Second-wave feminism  5 and the namesake of a crater on Mercury. Her article has 59 interlanguage links and receives 228 daily average page views. I think she would be a very good fit on the level-4 list of ancient writers. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:55, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:55, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
2. per nom and the well-written article. Jusdafax (talk) 05:37, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
3. Clearly vital. Cultural contributions of the Sumerian states are barely covered here. This would be a good start. Definitive case on non-western cultural contribution. GuzzyG (talk) 21:54, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose addition of biography without a swap. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:57, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

Swap 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami for 1976 Tangshan earthquake

The Tangshan earthquake was a far more deadly disaster than the Indian Ocean tsunami.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 21:23, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
2. Support add. Oppose removal.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:31, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
3. Support adding 1976 Tangshan earthquake. Strong oppose removing 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 05:17, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
4. Support addition. Strong oppose removal. ChaoticVermillion (talk) 11:01, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
5. Support addition. Oppose removal. The Account 2 (talk) 10:10, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removal. The 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami was a pretty major event at the time not only in raw numbers but also long-term with the creation of Indian Ocean Tsunami Warning System, for example. The Blue Rider 10:12, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
2. It is slightly less international..飞车过大关 (talk) 13:31, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
3. Oppose removal. --Thi (talk) 22:30, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

• It doesn't seem like "far more"; according to their articles both killed an enormous number (200,000-300,000). 96.95.142.29 (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Add Pheromone

I saw a lot of people say that this should be Level 4 when it was nominated.

Support

1. As nom. (original nomination at VA5 was by 96.89.118.93) ALittleClass (talk) 22:36, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
2. It should. Johnnie Runner (talk) 17:14, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 08:01, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
4. Aye. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:52, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
5. Sure. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:47, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
6. 飞车过大关 (talk) 17:59, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Reorganizing the categories of the level 4 and level 5 vital articles

I would like to make a suggestion on reorganizing the categories of the level 4 and level 5 vital articles. The VA are divided up into ten categories. Unfortunately, when it comes to deciding where to put certain articles, it not all black and white. We have had those ten categories for vital articles ever since I've been around on the project. I would like to suggest a different way to categorize these articles. I don't have a specific category structure in mind, but one thought I have in doing so is modelling after the category of Category:Main_topic_classifications which does a pretty good job in categorizing articles. I would like to see something similar happen to the vital articles, especially the last two levels. I am hoping I can get some input on how to best categorize these articles. Unfortunately, picking categories is subjective and I would like to get a consensus on what to do about them. I will leave a note on the level 5 talk page as well as the main vital talk page to gather as much input as possible. Interstellarity (talk) 00:23, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

1. I agree we could probably do better for categorization/organization. I believe we have a lot of redundant sections that could be merged. Geography is, in my professional opinion, a "hot mess." If you have a more specific proposal that is well thought out, I'd likely support it, but would need to see a clear justification.

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:45, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

One thought I have is make the categories similar to what we have in WP:Contents like Culture and the arts. One possible thought I have could be:

• Biographies (People & Figures)
  • Historical figures
  • Politicians and leaders
  • Scientists and inventors
  • Artists, writers, musicians
  • Athletes and sportspeople
  • Business leaders
  • Religious figures
  • Fictional characters
• Geography & Places
  • Countries, territories, regions
  • Cities, towns, villages
  • Natural features (mountains, rivers, lakes, seas)
  • Landmarks and buildings
  • Administrative divisions
• History & Events
  • Wars, battles, revolutions
  • Political events (elections, treaties, coups)
  • Social movements
  • Natural disasters
  • Cultural and scientific milestones
  • Year articles (e.g., "1969")
• Culture & the Arts
  • Literature (novels, poetry, authors)
  • Visual arts (painting, sculpture, architecture)
  • Performing arts (theatre, dance, opera)
  • Film, television, video games
  • Music (songs, albums, musicians, genres)
  • Fashion and design
  • Cuisine and food culture
• Science & Mathematics
  • Disciplines (physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, earth sciences, mathematics)
  • Theories and principles
  • Scientific phenomena
  • Discoveries and inventions
  • Species (plants, animals, microorganisms)
• Technology & Engineering
  • Computing (software, hardware, programming languages)
  • Engineering fields and processes
  • Transportation (vehicles, infrastructure)
  • Inventions and innovations
• Health & Medicine
  • Human anatomy and physiology
  • Diseases and disorders
  • Medical treatments and drugs
  • Healthcare systems and professions
• Philosophy, Religion & Humanities
  • Philosophical concepts, schools, and thinkers
  • World religions (beliefs, rituals, sacred texts)
  • Mythology and folklore
  • Languages and linguistics
  • Ethics and education
• Society & Social Sciences
  • Politics, government, and law
  • Economics and finance
  • Sociology and anthropology
  • Demography
  • Media and journalism
  • Organizations (companies, nonprofits, NGOs)
• Sports & Recreation
  • Sports and games
  • Teams and clubs
  • Competitions and tournaments
  • Athletes and coaches
• Miscellaneous
  • Food and drink (specific dishes, ingredients, beverages)
  • Military (weapons, units, strategies)
  • Symbols, flags, emblems
  • Everyday concepts (tools, household items, cultural customs)

Please keep in mind that this list is not set in stone. We can always make adjustments to it. Anyone is free to edit this list if there is a way it can be improved. Interstellarity (talk) 11:56, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

If we are going to have a dedicated Biographies section, all of the biographies should be under it. I don't support most of these changes. We shouldn't have authors under Literature, we shouldn't have Fictional Characters under Biographies, we definitely shouldn't make Historical Figures different from the other categories, etc. The current system works fine and I see no need to change it, especially when this new version is arguably worse. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:51, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

I've been working on a geography overhaul, slowly, for more then a year. Some of my proposals have gotten rejected and I needed to go back to the drawing board. That said, geography should be organized in a way that reflects outside literature. In my opinion, there are three ways to go about this, branches, themes, and traditions. In this case, using the same material in the proposed list, I'd stick with branches, so that we would have:

• Geography  2 (Level 2)
  • Human geography  4 (Level 3)
    • Countries, territories, regions
    • Cities, towns, villages
    • Landmarks and buildings
    • Administrative divisions
  • Physical geography  4 (Level 3)
    • Natural features (mountains, rivers, lakes, seas)
  • Technical geography  4 (Level 3)
    • Geographic information system  4, Remote sensing  4, and Cartography  4
    • Quantitative geography  5 (level 4)
    • Qualitative geography  5 (level 4)

This is how I've broken down the Geography page, and I can point to literature that uses this or similar organizations. I've said this before, but the current organization of geography (Especially at levels 2 and 3) looks like it was either organized by a 1930s 4th grader from Mississippi, or an ignorant and vaguely racist/supremacist modern American/European. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 15:04, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Like this setup for this specific topic. GauchoDude (talk) 18:55, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

@GeogSage: Consensus can change, and I would likely support pretty much all of this, so open the proposals. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:40, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Sensitive topic for me actually. This proposal was ongoing and outlined in a proposal titled Broad reorganization of geography that targeted level 2, and was something I had already been working on for a while. If it went through in the most perfect form, would have actually freed up 3 article slots for level 2 that could have been donated to another section. It was closed as "in progress" 29 January 2025, and seemed to have some good support, but unfortunately implementation required several articles to be shuffled around, and that meant multiple proposals needed to pass to work at all. The cornerstone of the whole reorganization effort was struck down on 4 April 2025 5 to 4. Human, physical, and technical geography need to be either level 2 or 3 (and 3 isn't really ideal), but are stuck at level 4. The continents also should be removed to level 3 or 4, and replaced with something like Region  4 ("Continents are generally identified by convention rather than any strict criteria." They are a bit of an antiquated term, and the ones we list are the European/Western convention.), but I'm not very confident at this point that people will accept that. Qualitative geography  5 is actually nominated for removal now, and I'd ideally like it at level 4, but getting it and Quantitative geography  5 moved up doesn't seem feasible.

I lost a bit of faith in the project when the proposal failed in April, as it was something I spent over a year working on and discussing, but several other editors I was discussing with didn't vote, and of course this is pure democracy, so arguments don't really matter unless editors are willing to change their vote. I've been trying to repackage, but generally it should wait 6 months, and I believe it has only been 5. This was a lot of energy, and the whole thing made me lose a lot of respect for the process, so I'm not super motivated to go through again unless there is a way to get the changes made with fewer overall proposals. Unfortunately, recently I've seen that editors prefer to have many smaller proposals, making it extremely challenging to implement any broad changes to the list. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:51, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

FWIW, I'd support almost all of the reorganization once it's been long enough to propose them again. You got unlucky with the April proposal, I could easily see it passing the second time. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm sort of ambivalent about specific categories, but I honestly think the existing ones are OK. You don't want so many that it becomes confusing, the current 10 sort of make sense as a modified Dewey Decimal Classification, and while there's no law against breaking continuity between levels, the current categories make it clear the deeper levels build out the top ones.

As for categorizing specific articles, I did think up a rule of thumb at one point. If everyone likes it, maybe it can be added to the FAQ or somewhere. Essentially, if you're on the fence of where to put an article, ask yourself, "What specialist would care most about reading this article?" If an engineer more than a physicist, put it in Tech; if a psychologist more than a philosopher, put it with Psych.

Also, a 2nd potential rule of thumb / guidance for the FAQ: if the article content itself jumps over several different fields, consider if the article itself should be split. I'm a broken record on this, but I think the main value of Lv5 in particular isn't even improving existing content, but rather guiding article splits & mergers, plus occasionally identifying coverage gaps. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 14:30, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Adjusting/Abolishing the quotas

I've noticed that it is very hard to be actually at or below quota especially finding removal candidates isn't always easy. I am hoping to gather some input. Should we get rid of the quotas for this level? We have no quotas for the first three levels so we could follow through with that. Or we could adjust the quotas so that we reach a more reasonable amount of articles. Interstellarity (talk) 00:01, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Level 1 is 10 articles, level 2 is 100, and level 3 is 1,000. I more or less have those three memorized at this point. Level 4 with 10,000 articles needs some set of guides or goals to keep things on track, as 10,000 is a bit hard to wrap our minds around. Ideally, I'd suggest making removals/swaps mandatory in most cases. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:10, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Add Grave

This is an obvious add we are missing.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 22:19, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
2. I'd consider Burial for V3. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:48, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. We already have Burial  4; I don't think the place where dead bodies are buried is of equal importance to the act itself. Diamondarmorstev (talk) 02:05, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
2. Per Diamondarmorstev-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:46, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

Remove History of the People's Republic of China  4 and History of India (1947–present)  4

To maximize coverage, I think it makes sense to remove all 'History of X' articles about a specific, modern state instead of a broader historical region from VA4. Every other 'History of X' article is about the history of a general region instead (i.e., History of the United States  4 also covers the ancient indigenous settlement and European colonization of the area that is now the US). These two articles (plus History of the United Kingdom  4, covered above) I believe are the only outliers. There's no question that the modern history of China and India are extremely important (36% of the world), but I don't think they should get an exception, especially when so many events specific to the PRC and independent India are already listed.

Support

1. Johnnie Runner (talk) 17:41, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
2. Broadly, I think these articles should all be removed per above. Removing these two is just while keeping the others makes as much sense as having the histories of any at this level. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:07, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 22:32, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
4. 飞车过大关 (talk) 18:49, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. It's only sensible to list the histories of the countries with by far the most people in human history, even if those histories are relatively short. J947 ‡ ^edits 02:19, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
2. Oppose for PRC. India is very big but only of regional importance. China is emerging as the new global hegemon. It's history is of major importance. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:55, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
3. The Account 2 (talk) 10:50, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

• Just want to point out that we don't include History of Bangladesh  5 or History of the Democratic Republic of the Congo  5, the 8th and 13th most populous countries on the List of countries and dependencies by population in the list of 44 History by country. The metric for what we do and do not include is arbitrary. Including History of India (1947–present)  4 and History of Pakistan  4, but not History of Bangladesh  5 is a bit of a statement. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:42, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

  Not to mention History of Pakistan (1947–present) and History of Bangladesh (1971–present), which comprises the entire existence of both as independent states, aren't listed at all. Johnnie Runner (talk) 03:00, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Swap Equation solving  4 with Equality (mathematics)  5

Equation  3 is already level 3, so the more common term is already represented, and Equality is much more fundamental than Equation solving. Also, Equality (mathematics) averages over twice the views of Equation solving. – Farkle Griffen (talk) 15:08, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom – Farkle Griffen (talk) 15:11, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
2. 飞车过大关 (talk) 18:05, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removal. ALittleClass (talk) 20:27, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

1. Hesitant to remove Equation solving. Most of what I learned in my middle school and the first part of my high school math curriculum centered around solving equations. It's a pretty big chunk of applied math as I understand it, being what most laypeople associate Algebra  2 with. ALittleClass (talk) 00:20, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

   @ALittleClass Quick question—are you opposing the swap in general, or just the demotion of Equation solving? I'd be okay with just promoting Equality; I did this mostly because it seemed weird that Equation solving was more vital than Equality. – Farkle Griffen (talk) 19:18, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

   1. Just opposal to removing equation solving. Clarified. ALittleClass (talk) 20:27, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Add Internet meme

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

---

These things have swallowed the world in the past 20 years, and there is simply no denying its presence or any reason to suggest they will slow down. It's evident that billions of people alive today are interacting with memes, and at least hundreds of millions spending hours daily scrolling through them; they have become a part of our way of life.

And they have had a significant, quantifiable impact on society. Memetic warfare shows internet memes as a legitimate form of propaganda and information warfare, such as being used to influence the results of elections (which has probably happened in the past 3 US elections, as an example) and change public opinion (such as support for a war) by private companies and governments, and has contributed to political radicalization. By all reasonable definitions including marketing and propaganda, Memes are a multi-billion dollar industry.

Now, why is Meme  4 not sufficient? Because that page is simply for the concept posed by Richard Dawkins that compares culture to genes and viruses. It's probably the most important thing he came up with, but this article is mainly focused on academic discussion surrounding the concept. 99% of people today when they think of memes think of internet memes. I'd say we seem to have jumped the gun by listing Gangnam Style  4, which is in my mind a textbook example of a viral meme.

And it's simply untrue to say that as a society we care more about a lot of the "high art/culture" stuff that we list than the "low culture" of memes. As an example, ask 100 people on the street to give an example of an internet meme. Now compare that to the amount of people that would know about Mirror (1975 film)  4 by Tarkovsky, or The Waste Land  4 by TS Eliot. (Also, the amount of "I've heard of it" responses you get for these will probably fall to zero if you move outside the western world, broad international concepts like this are also less susceptible to systemic bias). To say that memes are less culturally present than these things is to delude ourselves about how the world actually is in the name of some ideal of what we "should" value.

Support

1. As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 17:57, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The term Meme  4 is level 4, I don't think internet meme specifically needs to be included at level 4 as well. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:25, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
2. Per GeogSage above. I find it more problematic of the article that it cannot encompass a subset vs. an inclusionary issue for Level 4. GauchoDude (talk) 01:41, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 08:43, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
4. 飞车过大关 (talk) 18:00, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

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

Remove Cretan War (1645–1669)  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.

---

Not among the most impactful wars of the early modern period. It led to the weakening of Venice and guaranteed Ottoman control of the Eastern Mediterranean. However, at this point, the Ottomans fundamentally controlled the region, and Venice had been in decline due to the increasing domination of Portugal, Spain, and the Ottomans in Asian trade. Their possession of Crete didn't threaten the Ottomans' grip on the region. It was more of a "nail in the coffin" than a genuinely transformative war. Note our coverage of Ottoman military history in Europe is substantial: Ottoman wars in Europe  4, Battle of Vienna  4, Great Turkish War  4, Byzantine–Ottoman wars  4, Fall of Constantinople  4, Crimean War  4, Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878)  4, and Balkan Wars  4.

Support

1. As nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 01:31, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 08:55, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
3. Diamondarmorstev (talk) 01:59, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
4. aye.飞车过大关 (talk) 11:56, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
5. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2025 (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.

Discrepancies

So for the last couple of months, I have been reorganizing the biographies at Level 4 and 5. One of my main goals was to make sure that everyone is listed in the same area at these levels, which I more or less finally completed. However, there are people who are still inconsistently listed. I am going to list them, and explain why I left them alone:

1. Mary Pickford: Since she has US citizenship, I decided not to rename the American actors section like I did with American directors due to the inclusion of James Cameron. Kept her under Canada at Level 5 due to her having a(n extreme brief) stage career in her home country as a child.
2. Cartoonists and illustrators being grouped with painters at this Level: there's only eight of them, so it's fine.
3. Joseph Beuys: Changed my mind and decided to get rid of conceptual artists. With Duchamp moved to sculptors, there was no point to renaming it to contemporary artists, so I moved Beuys as well based on his social sculpture concept.
4. Jane Jacobs: (Way) more of an urban theorist than a planner. However, since urban theorists don't even have a separate section for them at Level 5, I'm fine with her being under urban planners at this level and miscellaneous social scientists one level lower.
   1. Urban planners and landscape architects not being a subsection of architects at this level: With the inclusion of Jacobs, it feels weird to make it one as it is in Level 5. (Every person listed under urban planners and landscape architects at Level 5 had actually designed cities/parks.)
5. Nostradamus: Since there's an astrologers section at Level 5, obviously we need to put him there.
6. Russian, French, German, and British not being subsections in Eastern and Western Europe at Level 5: Technical issue.
7. John Williams: As the only film composer, I didn't think he needed a section for himself, even if I had done so for other people. Placed him under 20th century composers since that the second best place for him. (Composers for film, TV, and video games are under Western art music, which makes sense since most of them, especially film, are rooted in classical music, while the section he was originally placed under is very clearly meant for people who makes musicals.)
8. Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan: Literally the only Level 4 religious musician. Since qawwali is derived from Hindustani classical music, there's no reason to separate him.
9. Stephen Foster: Not interested in creating a music producers, songwriters and businesspeople section for him and the musical theatre composers.
10. Bob Marley: As the only Level 4 Caribbean music, I am simply not interested in creating one person section for him.
11. Paco de Lucía: Simply thought he could easily be merged with non-English language popular musicians.
12. Miriam Makeba and Fela Kuti: Since their section at Level 5 is just "popular music from Africa", I decided to keep them separate and not a create a two person section here.
13. Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, Edward Said, Giorgio Vasari: Since we don't have an art theorists/historians section at this level (and I wouldn't recommend creating one since it just these three), their current placement here is fine.
14. Theodor Mommsen: We have a classicists section at Level 5, why would we not put him there?
15. Heinrich Schliemann: Having archaeologists be lump with either historians or anthropologists makes sense, although I think the latter is the better option. Since we don't have a section for the latter, however…
16. Jurists not having their own section at this level: There's only five of them, and their current placement is fine.
17. Sufis not having their own section at this level: Sufism is not a branch of Islam. We should have a certain amount of Sufi leaders on Level 5, so it's probably best they have a section there, but here? Not really. I'm fine with DemocracyDeprivationDisorder getting rid of the Other section that housed them (and al-Wahhab for some reason).
18. 14th Dalai Lama: He's the only Tibetan Buddhist figure who's Level 4 vital.
19. Politicians and leaders in different time sections: As of now, the Level 5 page for politicians and leaders is largely based on inauguration dates.
    1. Asian and Oceanian politicians being grouped together: There's only one early modern and one modern Level 4 Oceanian leader.
    2. Kofi Annan and Dag Hammarskjöld: Not creating an United Nations section just for these two.
    3. Francisco Morazán: Not common for Central America and the Caribbean to be group together, but it's not like we have any choice.
    4. J. Edgar Hoover: Only law enforcement figure who is a Level 4.
20. Hernán Cortés and Francisco Pizarro: There's obviously a lot more early modern American military personnel at Level 5, but since it's just these two I'm not creating a section just for them.
21. Wrestlers and boxers not being placed under martial artists: Wrestling and boxing are distinct enough to warrant having separate sections, and it would be weird for these two to be the only sub-sub-sections.
22. Steve Redgrave: Rowing can be either a team or an individual sport. Fine with rowing being listed under individual at level 5, but since Redgrave was a team rower he should be listed under team.
23. Pierre de Coubertin and Enzo Ferrari: Only sports figures who aren't athletes. While both of them are Level 4 worthy (and I still think James Naismith is as well), I don't think we need a dedicated section for the non-physical side of sports.

Feel free to make further changes if you disagree with this. Bluevestman (talk) 09:13, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

A side note I have in mind on the 23rd discrepancy. For Level 4, while Enzo Ferrari qualifies as an athlete (he was involved in auto racing prior to what he was best known for, and auto racing as a Level 4 category includes three others), Pierre de Coubertin should be separated from the rest of the sports figures - he was part of the modern Olympics' and the IOC's formation, but he was never an athlete himself. Even the one medal he had at the Olympics was for an arts event, not an athletic one. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 15:24, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Add Reference work  5

Per discussion with @User:J947 on level 3, I think reference work should be a bit higher as it is a broad articles that encompasses many other articles we list.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:21, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
2. J947 ‡ ^edits 04:46, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Level 5. --Thi (talk) 08:53, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
2. Pretty low pageviews for a VIT5, nevermind VIT4. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:35, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02

21, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Remove Emmy Awards  4

At this level we already have good enough representation of prestigious film ceremonies in two entries: one for film festivals (Cannes Film Festival  4), and one for award ceremonies (Academy Awards  4). The Emmy Awards by comparison are more in line with the importance of the other EGOT award ceremonies, the Grammy Awards  5 and the Tony Awards  5.

Support

1. As nom. AllyWithInfo (talk) 21:37, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
2. Don't really support most individual awards at this level, but don't really know which is more or less important. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:20, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
3. Not very interesting on an international level. --Thi (talk) 08:44, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
4. The Account 2 (talk) 10:11, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
5. 飞车过大关 (talk) 17:58, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
6. Ipedecha (talk) 02:35, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. In terms of importance, Emmy is probably the second most prestegious/important of the EGOT awards. When I watch movie trailers, You may see Oscar winner/nominee tag/descriptors for actors and directors. You may also see Golden Globe or Emmy. Tony is a much less rare tag/descriptor on movie trailers. I would also probably list the Golden Globe Awards above the Tonys and the Grammys for importance. Although the Cannes Film Festival is a level 4 film festival, its awards are not as important as the Emmys, IMO.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:53, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

• Point of note: These are awards/events recognizing different things. The Academy Awards (known by their "Oscars" award trophy) are for film whereas the Emmy Awards are for television. Cannes Film Festival is exactly that, a film festival, and one of a handful of "major" ones. Grammy Awards are for music, Tony Awards are for Broadway theatre. Quite frankly, I'm not sure how/why some could be listed at differing levels than others (at least of the major four). I would support them either all being at 4 or all being at 5. Same with the major film festivals, they should likely all be at the same level (Cannes is currently 4, Venice and Toronto are 5, and Berlin and Sundance aren't even listed). GauchoDude (talk) 14:43, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

  Support them all being at level 5. My understanding is these are mostly bought and paid for vanity awards used to promote products. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:34, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

  The Emmys award a different medium but their prestige is incomparable to The Academy Awards, which is easily the most well-known and high profile of the major award ceremonies. A large enough portion of the entertainment industry still revolves around it in ways that other ceremonies don't, to the point where some movies are made for the sake of winning an Oscar.

  As for Cannes, I think it makes sense to list for the same reason. It is easily the biggest of the main film festivals. AllyWithInfo (talk) 19:05, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Remove several individual sports athletes

At 1 January 2020, 100 sports figures were listed, 55 individual sportspersons and 45 team sportspersons. Now (permalink), 81 sports figures are listed, 52 individual sportspersons and 29 team sportspersons. Let's have a crack at removing some of the individual ones. Everyone feel free to add more proposals in this section. J947 ‡ ^edits 02:45, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I am not sure where to make comments on this section as a whole. I am just flabbergasted that all these important athletes are being removed and climbing has not suffered any removals. It is arguably the least important of the sports still represented. I would rather cut all three climbers than most of the changes below.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:29, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Here's fine. I considered nominating some of the climbers, but I struggle to see them in the same light as sportspeople to be honest. Even though they're in this category rather than explorers, their vitality appears to stem from mountaineering firsts rather than who was the greatest (Reinhold Messner  5? Alex Honnold  5? Adam Ondra  5?). J947 ‡ ^edits 07:15, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Remove Eric Heiden

Eric Heiden  4: American male speed skater. Don't think we need any speed skaters; it's a fairly niche sport. A very short career, though he won all five events at the 1980 Winter Olympics. Past speed skating discussions: Remove Johann Olav Koss (7–0); Remove Bonnie Blair (7–0).

Support

1. As nom. J947 ‡ ^edits 02:45, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
2. Aye. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:22, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 09:22, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
4. 飞车过大关 (talk) 18:01, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
5. Winter Olympics just does not have the cultural profile outside of figure skating. No reason Heiden should be highlighted over Lin Dan. GuzzyG (talk) 22:36, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
6. The Account 2 (talk) 11:31, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Those others never dominated the sport like Heiden and both are beneficiaries of the Winter Olympics desynchronization with the Summer Olympics, which gave them an extra Olympic games with only a 2 year interval. Heiden may be the greatest Winter Olympian ever. If we don't need him, then the only Olympians that we should have are alpine skiers and figure skaters. I believe he is considered a greater Winter Olympian than any figure skater or alpine skier even though their sports are higher profile.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:09, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

Remove Suzanne Lenglen

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.

---

Suzanne Lenglen  5: French tennis player. 9 tennis players are listed, over twice as many as any other sport besides soccer and athletics. Some difficult cuts are going to have be made – and in tennis, it is really difficult and arbitrary to decide where those cuts should be made. It's really difficult to determine the "first female athlete to become a global sport celebrity" should be removed – but her contemporary Helen Wills  5 was much more dominant. I'd really like to list one of them for societal impact vis-à-vis women in sport, but I have the feeling that people would in general prefer more modern, well-known tennis players listed. As regards early women in sport, Babe Didrikson Zaharias  4 is listed. Added 5–0, not swapped for a fencer 1/2–2.

Support

1. Weak support as nom. J947 ‡ ^edits 02:45, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
2. Aye. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:22, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
3. If we have to surrender a spot among the female tennis players this would be it. It still leaves someone who has not won a title in over 50 years. I am learning here at VA that vitality for athletes is diminishing. Unlike painters who have paintings that are getting more and more valuable, they have records and accomplishments that are under constant assault and that become surpassed. Because they don't have books being read in schools and being remade in other creative fora like movies, plays, ballets, paintings, television series, etc. like authors, they diminish in significance. I am going to have to learn to surrender athlete spaces. I don't think it is so much a matter of people prefering the modern as it is actually more important for us to place editorial focus on articles of greater interest to our readers.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:20, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
4. --Thi (talk) 09:22, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
5. Weak support per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:29, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

Remove Margaret Court

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.

---

Margaret Court  4: Australian tennis player. 9 tennis players are listed, over twice as many as any other sport besides soccer and athletics. Some difficult cuts are going to have be made – and in tennis, it is really difficult and arbitrary to decide where those cuts should be made. Most major titles, but it appears she's considered a weak link on this list looking through past discussions.

Support

1. As nom. J947 ‡ ^edits 02:45, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
2. Aye. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:22, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 09:22, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:00, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
2. I think we need to keep a woman from further in the past than the others who I remember.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:07, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
3. Agree with TonyTheTiger. Jusdafax (talk) 17:53, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

I'm also open to considering the removals of Navratilova or Williams, but as I've said these are very difficult choices to make but tennis is very much overrepresented as is. We can get 9 down to 5 or 6, and then figure out via swaps which figures the 5 or 6 should be. Much of a muchness between Navratilova and the German Steffi Graf  4, but despite being not American and less in the limelight Graf receives more pageviews (and interwikis) so hey. It appears Graf is generally considered greater, but Navratilova has had a greater societal influence due to her activism. Navratilova not removed 4–4. J947 ‡ ^edits 02:45, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree it's a hard choice in tennis but a lot of it is because of the individual nature of the sport as opposed to team efforts in baseball, football, hockey. Plus many other individual sports we get hit with only at Olympic time. Tennis is in your face 11 months of the year. That said I do heaps of tennis editing and as tough as it may be I'd certainly have a different list of keeps in mind. Of this list I'd keep Court, Laver, and Williams, and add Helen Wills and Djokovic. Not because they are the greatest only, but because of multiple items in their histories. Court has most of the ladies records and is a controversial figure, and the same with Djokovic. Laver may be the greatest as he is the only modern player to win the Grand Slam and he did it twice. He is still talked about as if he were God. You cant keep Serena out because she is still the here and now, is looked up to by many minorities, and is also extremely controversial. Many still feel Helen Wills is the greatest where she compiled incredible records in womens singles when they mostly played only two or three of the four majors and she dominated to a degree never seen since. Her dominance is not even fathomable today. Her downside is her heyday was 95 years ago. If she doesn't get added then I'd keep Federer. While many of his records have been eclipsed by Djokovic, his sportsmanship, quality of play, and overall universal likeability, has made him the top of the heap in the last 50 years bar none. Those are my thoughts for what it's worth. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:00, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

And, if all we are talking about is greatest and that's it... then the history of tennis is usually broken down into two eras.... The Open Era (since 1968) and the pre Open Era. You'd probably have Rod Laver and Helen Wills representing the early period, and Graf and Djokovic/Federer (take your pick) from the Open Era. Margaret Court sort of straddles the line of both eras. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:00, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Remove Rafael Nadal

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.

---

Rafael Nadal  5: Spanish tennis player. 9 tennis players are listed, over twice as many as any other sport besides soccer and athletics. I think he's straightforwardly the weakest male tennis player listed, despite his clay-court dominance, though it is difficult to decide between him and Djokovic. His career overlapping so much with Federer and Djokovic does him no favours. 2024 discussion.

Support

1. As nom. J947 ‡ ^edits 02:45, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
2. Aye. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:22, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
3. I admire someone who can choose among the three greats who have been dominant in the last decade. If we are going to shorten the list, one of them has to go.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:24, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
4. --Thi (talk) 09:22, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
5. He's close, but I don't think he quite makes VA4. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:30, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

Remove Ayrton Senna

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.

---

Ayrton Senna  5: Brazilian racing driver. It's harsh to say, but he feels like the weakest of the 4 racing drivers listed (4 being the same number as basketballers or cricketers). His death did have a great in-sport and wider cultural impact.

Support

1. As nom. J947 ‡ ^edits 02:45, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
2. Aye. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:22, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 09:22, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
4. Shocksingularity (talk) 00:46, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
5. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:11, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

Remove Garry Kasparov

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.

---

Garry Kasparov  4: Russian chess grandmaster. Chess is a very popular game but an objectively niche sport. Two is too many to list IMO. Kasparov is probably the greater player than Fischer, but Fischer's impact and iconic stature sways it for me.

Support

1. As nom. J947 ‡ ^edits 02:45, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
2. Aye. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:22, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 09:22, 5 October 2025 (UTC)¨

Oppose

1. Oppose.  Carlwev  14:05, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
2. I think chess warrants two players, and I think Kasparov is easily vital enough to retain. He was the highest-ranked player in the world for a long time, is famous as the one who lost to Deep Blue in a milestone for AI development, and has had some importance to Russian and international politics. He deserves a slot at Level 4. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:03, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
3. Throughout the 20th century chess was pretty much divided into a western and a Russian half. Keeping two chess grandmasters around is fine, since Kasparov's impact is also significant. Agreed with Quicole's assessment. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 06:58, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
4. Agree per Carlwev in the Discussion. Jusdafax (talk) 21:05, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

I don't think 2 chess players is too many, one from from US one from Russia/Soviet. Chess is much bigger and popular in Europe and Russia than US. To have only one chess player, and for them to be US, doesn't seam right, when majority of sportspeople are US already, compared to the 79 people or so in physical sports. 9 tennis players, 3 gymnasts, 4 baseball Chess was for a long time at level 3, I don't think 2 chess is too many. Kasparov was in the lime light by playing Deep Blue and starting his own chess body and human with computer chess etc too.  Carlwev  14:05, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Remove Igloo  4

While somewhat culturally significant, its only actual usage was among indigenous groups living in Alaska and Canada. Seems a little specific for VA 4.

Support

1. Diamondarmorstev (talk) 04:23, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
2. Both the entire level 4 list and the everyday life list are over quota. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 21:22, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:27, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Would prefer to keep culturally significant topics from marginalized groups. Furthermore, igloo has certainly entered pop culture. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:57, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

Move Hunger  4

Hunger is listed under Nutrition, but the article is about the social issue of hunger. Hunger (physiology) is now in level 5. Hunger (the ptop) should be moved to Society/Issues.

Support

1. 3df (talk) 22:42, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
2. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:36, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Remove Shantou  4

Easily the least important Chinese city on the list, Shantou has neither the economic prowess of places like Ningbo  4 or Zhengzhou  4 nor the long history of places like Luoyang  4 or Lhasa  4 (each of these four cities being what I would consider to be among the less important Chinese cities at this level, but still appropriate for Level 4).

Support

1. feminist🩸 (talk) 10:03, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. --Thi (talk) 19:54, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

1. swap it with Quanzhou might be better, Quanzhou boasts the highest GDP in Fujian Province and was also one of the wealthiest cities and ports of the Middle Ages.飞车过大关 (talk) 13:18, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

   I concur with this opinion. Quanzhou is both geographically and economically significant, and while I am open to removing Shantou from level 4 vitality I do think we need a corresponding city to replace it with. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 07:11, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

   I also support a swap with Quanzhou. The Account 2 (talk) 14:35, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

   I will also support a swap with Quanzhou. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 11:47, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Add Stimulant  5

Caffeine  4 and Amphetamine  4 are both level 4 and they are types of stimulants.

Support

1. As nominator. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:15, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
2. aye.飞车过大关 (talk) 13:13, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
3. Aye. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:31, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
4. Certainly. We already have stimulants in level 4 so might as well include the broader category. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 07:12, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Yang Chen-Ning

Extremely influential contemporary theoretical physicist. Definitely as influential as most other Level 4 Physics articles. We are also 25 under quota for the people category. WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 05:06, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Support

1. As nominator. WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 20:47, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I would like to see the 25 quota used elsewhere. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:34, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

1. swapTsung-Dao LeewithYang Chen-Ningmight be better.飞车过大关 (talk) 13:00, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Remove some leaders

Remove Alfredo Stroessner  4

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.

---

Paraguay has a population of under 7 million, subject did not have much of an impact globally.

Support

1. As nominator. Sahaib (talk) 20:51, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
2. Sure. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:45, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 19:53, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
4. To counteract Western bias that deliberately elevates unimportant non-Western figures, I believe a form of Western bias still exists.飞车过大关 (talk) 13:11, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

   It's pretty incontrovertible in my opinion that Stroessner is more important than Gro Harlem Brundtland  4, Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim  4, Ion Antonescu  4, Ante Pavelić  4, Alexander Dubček  4, or the three Irish leaders listed (with the possible exception of de Valera), a country that's less populous than Paraguay. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:40, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Critical to understanding Paraguayan history. The list of modern politicians already has a strong Western bias, when third-world political figures typically hold more individual sway. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:27, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
2. A strongman who shaped a country for some 35 years is not someone that should be overlooked just because the country is not that well known. Stroessner's legacy still lives on in the Colorado Party so he did leave a regional impact at minimum. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 01:55, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
3. I think he stays. Like J947 said above, there are a lot of better cut options to remove first. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:22, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

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

Remove John Curtin  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.

---

Curtin is probably only listed to fill the Oceania section but he did not have much of an impact globally.

Support

1. As nominator. Sahaib (talk) 20:51, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
2. We're fine without any Australian leaders IMO; none really leap out. J947 ‡ ^edits 02:42, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 08:32, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
4. Aye, but I'd like to see deeper cuts in the other countries leaders if we're going after this one. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:45, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

   Maybe my anti-Australia bias is coming through – not listing a politician of a country its size is unusual – but Australia really lacks the standout leaders most other countries have (this is true for NZ as well). Curtin was PM for less than 4 years and sure that tenure came about in WWII but – it feels strange to include one politician for a country, and have him in there mostly for his global impact on the war rather than his domestic impact. Ben Chifley  5's economic efforts were greater and Robert Menzies  5's term was significantly longer. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:58, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

   I have not heard of John Curtin until this nomination honestly, or Ben Chifley and Robert Menzies for that matter (which demonstrates just how the history classes I've taken have all been heavily focused on modern American history). If a better candidate for representation exists, I'd support a swap. I don't like biographies as proxies for important events in history as I don't really think the person "in charge" does as much as we like to give them credit for (most are just Nepo babies playing golf and signing what they're told) so weighing individual politicians against each other isn't likely to be my strong suite. Until we get the list right side up and cut biographies with a chainsaw, I think some weight can be given to leaders who had little Global impact but tremendous regional impact if that region is lacking more prominent examples. For example, Abraham Lincoln  3 is level 3, and he was in charge of some back water new world post colonial country during the comparatively tame American Civil War  4, which isn't even level 3 in of itself (because it wasn't really that important globally). Most of our editors are Americans, even more still are Westerners, and I think it shows how much we highlight regional events in the West. Example, Hong Xiuquan  4 and the Taiping Rebellion  4 are level 4, while if a leader in the west lead a rebellion resulting in between 20 million and 30 million deaths (American Civil War was 500,000 to 1,000,000 total deaths), inspired Mao Zedong  3, etc., I believe we would weight them a bit higher. I don't think many westerns know who Hong Xiu is, but at least he is included. Other individuals associated with this rebellion, like Zeng Guofan, are not though. New Zealand Māori people likely have some leaders pre-contact that we are missing and could fit a role as significant as the regionally significant Kings and Queens of Europe. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:33, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

5. sure.飞车过大关 (talk) 13:13, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
6. The Account 2 (talk) 12:19, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
7. Regretfully, I do agree. If I am to put any Oceanian leader (almost certainly an Australian one anyway) at level 4 for the impacts on at minimum a regional level, it would be Robert Menzies, not John Curtin. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 01:51, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
8. Sadly, I agree, but I would also support a swap with Robert Menzies. ChaoticVermillion (talk) 10:53, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

Remove Rainilaiarivony  4

Subject did not have much of an impact globally, makes sense as Ranavalona I is at level 5.

Support

1. As nominator. Sahaib (talk) 20:51, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
2. Aye. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:45, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 19:53, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
4. Weakly – Africa is severely underrepresented, but Rainilaiarivony is obscure. Strongly suggest swap with Ranavalona I, whose article has more interwikis, many more pageviews, and whose article's inclusion would help address the gender imbalance. Madagascar's population was roughly 5 million at the start of her reign, comparable with many of the leaders of small European countries who are listed. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:35, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
5. aye.飞车过大关 (talk) 06:27, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
6. Support J947's motion to swap Rainilaiarivony with Ranavalona I. In terms of importance even within Madagascar, Ranavalona is almost certainly more significant than Rainilaiarivony. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 04:41, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
7. Swap with Ranavalona I. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 01:44, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
8. Swap with Ranavalona I. Otherwise this set of 3 noms has just made it less global for no reason. GuzzyG (talk) 22:38, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
9. Swap with Ranavalona I. ALittleClass (talk) 19:54, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Remove Marit Bjørgen

Marit Bjørgen  4 is the greatest cross-country skier, but Cross-country skiing  5 isn't linked on VA 4.

Support

1. As nominator Lophotrochozoa (talk) 21:58, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:15, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 19:53, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
4. 飞车过大关 (talk) 13:09, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

   Not a Level 4 individual. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:00, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

   Moved to neutral per IP. QuicoleJR (talk) 11:28, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

5. Support; at the end of the day, statistical accomplishments are not enough without cultural profile in a pop culture field. We would never list the most award winning actor, highest selling musician etc. So medal count in fields that are not global, do not add up alone. They need cultural permanence. GuzzyG (talk) 00:39, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
6. The Account 2 (talk) 11:32, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Lophotrochozoa (talk) 21:58, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment: Yet Biathlon  4 is listed on VA4? Just because it's an Olympic sport? I don't see the sense in having Biathlon above Cross country skiing. 50.189.2.38 (talk) 22:21, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

  For context, in 2015 Cross-country skiing  5 replaced Nordic skiing on VA4: here. In 2024 cross-country skiing was removed from VA4: here. Biathlon  4 was added to VA4 in 2017: here.

  There are two VA5 articles on Cross-country skiing  5 and Cross-country skiing (sport)  5. The second one has way more interwikis. 50.189.2.38 (talk) 22:45, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

• @QuicoleJR: On the discussion "Remove Ingemar Stenmark" you said "we only need one [skier] on this list, and the other skier [Marit Bjørgen] is the most decorated Winter Olympian of all time, so I'd keep her instead of Stenmark". Have you changed your mind about keeping one skier, who is the most decorated Winter Olympian of all time? If so, I suggest you edit your vote there. 12.50.145.130 (talk) 05:23, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Add Odor

Important topic for this level.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 00:52, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
2. Only support as a swap (I think Olfactory system is the best option)-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:04, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
3. aye.飞车过大关 (talk) 13:08, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
4. Support. smells fishy not to have it. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:57, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

•  Comment: Overlaps with Sense of smell  4 and Olfactory system  4. 50.189.2.38 (talk) 01:00, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Trim United States leaders

We need space on Level 4. Per Vital article criteria 3: No (Western) bias, I believe we should trim Modern U.S. leaders. It is no secret I'm not a fan of biographies in general, but this is a bit extreme. Overall, 27 of the 502 leaders (~5.38%) are Americans. China in particular has entries in Ancient, Post-classical, Early modern, and Modern, but only has 28 leaders listed. This might not seem bad, but when you look at modern leaders, 20 of the 189 modern leaders (~10.58%) come from the United States leaders. Compare this to China with 10, 7 from India, 12 from the USSR and Russia, 9 from the United Kingdom, or 7 from France. Furthermore, all of Western Europe only has 35 leaders, and we only have 11 from South America. China in particular has entries in Ancient, Post-classical, Early modern, and Modern, but only has 28 leaders listed. Despite the U.S. having three branches of government, most of the people listed are presidents, so I focused on trimming them. I don't expect all of these to pass, but if they did, it would be a start towards trimming biographies, balancing the list, and making some room.

Early modern removals

Move John Adams  5 to level 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.

---

2nd U.S. president, but I don't think his biography is among the most 10,000 vital topics of all time.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:03, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 08:31, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
3. Support for reducing the number of U.S. presidents.飞车过大关 (talk) 13:06, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
4. Certainly important, and one of the stronger Level 5s, but he doesn't quite make VA4. Revolutionary America is overrepresented. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:08, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
5. Bluevestman (talk) 21:59, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

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.

Move James Madison  4 to level 5

4th U.S. president, but I don't think his biography is among the most 10,000 vital topics of all time.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:03, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 08:31, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
3. Support for reducing the number of U.S. presidents.飞车过大关 (talk) 13:07, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
4. Interstellarity (talk) 22:33, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
5. United States was not really a global thing at this point of time. It's cherry picking to otherwise highlight this era. Franklin, Washington and Jefferson are the only global names here. GuzzyG (talk) 00:42, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
6. The Account 2 (talk) 11:33, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
7. Ipedecha (talk) 02:52, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Madison being the United States president during the War of 1812, and the youngest and last Founding Father to be president, I have strong reservations on removing this one. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 02:07, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

   War of 1812  4 is level 4, I think that is adequate (honestly, War of 1812 is only on the list because of our America bias, if this was another countries minor war, it would not make the cut. Just go through the List of wars involving the United Kingdom and look at how many conflicts we're missing. ). America is not short on representation, and I don't think the Madison biography makes the cut for top 10,000 topics of all time. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:27, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Move Alexander Hamilton  4 to level 5

First United States Secretary of the Treasury. The role isn't even level 5, I don't think someone holding the roles biography should be level 4.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:03, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 08:31, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
3. We already have enough politicians from the American Revolution. Given he's not even a president, sure. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 07:19, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
4. Interstellarity (talk) 22:33, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
5. United States was not really a global thing at this point of time. It's cherry picking to otherwise highlight this era. Franklin, Washington and Jefferson are the only global names here. GuzzyG (talk) 00:42, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
6. The Account 2 (talk) 11:33, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
7. Ipedecha (talk) 02:52, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Hamilton did a lot more than just being secretary of the treasury, he was a major player in the American revolution Shocksingularity (talk) 03:06, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

   I don't think being a major player in the American revolution warrants making this biography one of the 10,000 most vital articles of all time. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:10, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Modern

Move Eleanor Roosevelt  4 to level 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.

---

I don't think we need to include a first lady. I don't believe there are many examples for other countries where the spouse of a leader is included. (I would possibly suggest a swap for Nancy Pelosi  5 if we want to address bias towards males and the president due to her time as the first woman elected U.S. House speaker.)

Support

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

Oppose

1. She did a lot more than just being a first lady, she also had a major influence on global politics. I feel like her presence is warranted. Shocksingularity (talk) 03:06, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

   I don't think she was one of the top 10,000 most influential people of all time, much less one of the 10,000 most vital overall topics. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:12, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

2. Per Shocksingularity, her influence transcends being a first lady. She's not listed because she's a spouse of a major figure; to think so diminishes her stature. J947 ‡ ^edits 03:13, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

   She only had her position because of her spouse. The U.S. is not a monarchy, the family of it's leaders should be irrelevant, and her stand alone work considered outside her husband would not get a person to level 4. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:20, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

   The U.S. is not a monarchy, the family of it's leaders should be irrelevant: that might have been true before Roosevelt came to office, but as the article shows her activism stopped that perception as she "redefined the role" of First Lady. Leaders aren't vital because of how they come to office; they are vital for what they do in it. Otherwise listing monarchs would be inappropriate. J947 ‡ ^edits 03:36, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

   I think the article needs a bit of work, it doesn't read very Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Removed from her husband, what she did does not make her one of the top 10,000 most vital overall topics. She is on the list because the U.S. propaganda machine during WWII elevated FDR and those associated with him. The Presidential Commission on the Status of Women and United States Mission to the United Nations are not level 5, her being included means another country is unable to include one of their leaders. For example, Oceania  2 only has one modern leader (John Curtin), and two leaders included at all. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:05, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

   The Universal Declaration of Human Rights  4 is at VA4 and Roosevelt was deeply involved in its creation. Roosevelt is yet another example of how the placement of a historical figure who lies between "Politicians and leaders" and "Rebels, revolutionaries, and activists" affects their perception of their place at VA4. It's strange to propose to remove Roosevelt ahead of Jane Addams  4, Rosa Parks  4, Betty Friedan  4, Elizabeth Cady Stanton  4, or Sojourner Truth  4. J947 ‡ ^edits 04:38, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

   Perhaps the first lady should be moved to "Rebels, revolutionaries, and activists." I'm not a fan of biographical information at level 4, so you're not going to convince me with a list of biographies I'd probably support demoting if you proposed it. This proposal is targeting U.S. political leaders, and a first lady of the U.S. is a strange addition when many countries have no representation at all. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:44, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

   There's a lot of value in not just crafting the balance between different areas, but ensuring that if 2,000 people articles are listed, they're the right 2,000. This is particularly true given the former is meant to be largely determined by quota – propose a quota change; if it fails, then disagree and commit. J947 ‡ ^edits 22:07, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

3. Per above. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:09, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
4. Bluevestman (talk) 22:01, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

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.

Move James K. Polk  5 to level 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.

---

I don't think his biography is among the most 10,000 vital topics of all time.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:03, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
2. Shocksingularity (talk) 03:06, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 08:31, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
4. -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:55, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
5. Support for reducing the number of U.S. presidents.飞车过大关 (talk) 13:05, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
6. He might have done some important things in his career, but he is just not remembered by the general public. Bluevestman (talk) 20:26, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Per below. Kevinishere15 (talk) 23:57, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
2. I think it generally makes sense that we have a high number of presidents listed, especially post-WWII, but not just because of America's outstretched influence but because of how comparatively often it changes leaders with different goals. In the time the Soviet Union had 4 heads of government (Lenin through Brezhnev), the U.S. went through 12 (Wilson through Carter), including one that took office for so long they made a rule after limiting your time to two terms. On a side note, I think Tecumseh  4 and Sitting Bull  4 should be moved to rebels, which is a much more bloated category in terms of American presence. Johnnie Runner (talk) 18:46, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

   In general I think countries going through a lot of leaders is a justification to list fewer rather than more: each individual leader has less impact. However, the role of the U.S. president has outsized influence in U.S. politics (and in the world of course) compared to leaders of other Western countries. That's why I'm ambivalent about removing them, particularly the ones post–WWII when the U.S. was the superpower. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:50, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

Not a well-known name, but his expansionist policies were critical to the U.S.'s development (past discussions). J947 ‡ ^edits 03:26, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

The policies themselves might be level 4, but I don't think that translates to his biographical information. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:41, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

People aren't listed because of who they are; they are listed because of what they did. The biography is an effective tool for encyclopaedias to examine microcosms of a wider period in an accessible manner. J947 ‡ ^edits 23:00, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Move Harry S. Truman  4 to level 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.

---

We include Franklin D. Roosevelt  4, I don't think Truman is level 4 vital.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:03, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
2. The Account 2 (talk) 12:17, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Truman really leads the list of immediate post-WWII Western figures whose policies were very impactful. Most of those (VA4's representatives appear to be John Curtin  5 [Australia, 1941–45], Clement Attlee  4 [Britain, 1945–51] and Konrad Adenauer  4 [West Germany, 1949–63]) are listed for their impact on the economy of their own country but Truman's impact from 1945–53 was also international. J947 ‡ ^edits 03:23, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

   I really don't buy associating a biography of a person with the events of the time as making them vital. Aftermath of World War II  5 is level 5, I honestly don't think any one person involved in the post WWII period really is more vital. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:20, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

   Shame about Gandhi then. J947 ‡ ^edits 04:39, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

   I believe Gandhi is more important to modern India, and the world, as a person then Truman. I think Truman had a job during a vital point in history, his individual contributions can be taken in the broader picture. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:07, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

   I never said Truman was more important than Gandhi. J947 ‡ ^edits 22:01, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

   I'm not sure why you brought up Gandhi, I don't see the comparison. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:33, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

   You said I honestly don't think any one person involved in the post WWII period really is more vital and used that as a justification for wanting all the figures I identified removed to VA5 (it's apparently not a justification for promoting Aftermath of World War II  5 instead). I then listed another person involved in the post-WWII period who clearly shouldn't be listed as low as VA5, and now you act confused. J947 ‡ ^edits 23:06, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

2. Johnnie Runner (talk) 18:46, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
3. The Truman Doctrine laid the foundations for the Cold War. To not include one of the instigating figures is a disservice to modern history. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 02:03, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

   Truman Doctrine  5 is level 5. A biography is not a substitution for the actual historic events. Individual figures life stories are not that important, most things in history are group efforts with a few people getting all the credit. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:10, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

4. Vital at Level 4, in my view. Only Head of State to use nuclear weapons in war, for one thing. Jusdafax (talk) 11:59, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
5. --Thi (talk) 14:59, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Move Lyndon B. Johnson  4 to level 5

I don't think his biography is among the most 10,000 vital topics of all time.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:03, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
2. Shocksingularity (talk) 03:06, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
3. Support for reducing the number of U.S. presidents.飞车过大关 (talk) 13:04, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
4. The Account 2 (talk) 12:17, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. His presidency came at a critical time for his country in terms of civil rights and the Vietnam War (and the Space Race). I would, however, support removing JFK. J947 ‡ ^edits 03:30, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

   I would support JFK as well, but well, I figured the American dominate group wouldn't support removing any of the leaders with their faces on currency. In the U.S., the propaganda machine has elevated him to a deity status rivaling Abraham Lincoln  3. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:56, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

   Just a side note, if we are to trim the 1960s to just one president at level 4 vitality, then count me in as a third vote to remove JFK. Like, sorry, but the only reason JFK is so well-known and beloved is because of his assassination. There really is nothing in his presidency that justifies him in Level 4. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 07:16, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

2. Johnnie Runner (talk) 18:46, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
3. LBJ's presidency saw both the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the downturn of the Vietnam War. If one has to axe any post-WW2 US president from Level 4 vitality, this is the worst possible choice to go for. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 02:01, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
4. Bluevestman (talk) 22:04, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
5. Clearly vital at Level 4. Jusdafax (talk) 12:29, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
6. --Thi (talk) 15:00, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
7. Was the president when the US back a coup in Brazil and other stuff like civil rights and Vietnam. Honestly, i dont think other presidents would have done much different, but thats just my opinion. Ipedecha (talk) 02:52, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Move Richard Nixon  4 to level 5

I don't think his biography is among the most 10,000 vital topics of all time, no reason to let this crook steal a spot.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:03, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
2. Support for reducing the number of U.S. presidents.飞车过大关 (talk) 13:03, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
3. I'd say this is a fair removal. Like Adams, he's close, but Johnson is the better president to list for Vietnam, and the rest of his legacy is either VA5 or unlisted. I'd like to trim the number of VA4 biographies down to at least 1900, and that will likely require more cuts like this. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:18, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
4. Interstellarity (talk) 22:33, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
5. The Account 2 (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. We may have too many U.S. presidents, but I don't see Nixon as less vital than Trump, Bush, or Obama. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 04:53, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Name is literally a idiom for globalization with Nixon goes to China. "crook" shows personal bias, rather than well thought out nom. (we have a criminals section). Nixon in China  5; one of the most important modern operas, is also based on this. So the idiom is backed by "high culture" too. I don't see how Nixon does not have global importance, when his name alone symbolizes that. This is irrespective of his actual contributions too, Détente (global), United States Environmental Protection Agency and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (domestic) or being the president during Apollo 11. The "crook" factor actually helps keep his name relevant in history too. Unless there's a argument for Nero or Caligula being listed. GuzzyG (talk) 22:02, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 14:57, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
4. Bluevestman (talk) 21:55, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss proposal

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:03, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Swap Virgin Komi Forests for Congolian rainforests

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.

---

Congolian rainforests  4 – bad article but concerns the second biggest rainforest in the world. No brainer for promotion to VA4. Note the existence of the better-viewed Congo Basin (not even VA5, like Amazon basin).

Virgin Komi Forests  5 – not so big and little-viewed, even though it's been on the list since 2011. One of three forests listed, and I'm not sure it should even be VA5. Scoping the VA4 list for strange inclusions like this one can be surprisingly fruitful.

Support

1. As nom. J947 ‡ ^edits 05:31, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
2. Sure. I should point out that the Amazon rainforest  3 is open to be demoted from level 3 to level 4. I think that it and the Congolian rainforest would do well next to eachother. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:47, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
3. Diamondarmorstev (talk) 18:43, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
4. --Thi (talk) 19:52, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
5. ChaoticVermillion (talk) 11:17, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
6. aye.飞车过大关 (talk) 13:02, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
7. Shocksingularity (talk) 04:57, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

Move Puntland

Puntland is a semi-autonomous part of Somalia, but for some reason listed as if its a major geographic region of the African continent. It should go into the unrecognized country section next to Somaliland. (the Regions and country subdivisions section is a weird mix of country subdivisions and geographic regions in general) — jonas (talk) 11:07, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Support

1. 飞车过大关 (talk) 20:02, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Add John Snow  5

The father of modern Epidemiology  4 and early Germ theory, and particularly famous for his work on the 1854 Broad Street cholera outbreak, you can't read a textbook on Spatial analysis  5 or modern medicine without seeing his name pop up.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:53, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
2. Seems very impactful to medical history, we can make room for him. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:20, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
3. Although, Paul Ehrlich and Tu Youyou are important too here. GuzzyG (talk) 23:22, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

   Paul Ehrlich  5 and Tu Youyou  5 are important, I could probably support a swap for someone in their favor. I added snow without a swap because I had nominated several removals (they are just not grouped together cause I was lazy on October 23rd apparently). GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:29, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

   I don't see why a swap would be needed, i know you want the bios quotas down and i would agree to 1,500 at the lowest, but until that happens, at 2,000 - we are under quota by alot, with many needed removals. Until this quota lessens by a nomination, there is no reason to hold it up with a swap. GuzzyG (talk) 01:56, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

   I'm not sure if the numbers are up to date, but I think level 4 is over quota overall a bit. In general, I'd prefer swaps over straight adds. Biographies more so. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:57, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

4. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 01:37, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:53, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Add Activism

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

---

This is very common throughout history.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 14:22, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
2. Important topic. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:43, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
3. Support  Carlwev  00:27, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
4. Shocksingularity (talk) 04:57, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
5. Eh support. We have an entire category for activists. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:11, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
6. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
7. Support per GeogSage's reasoning Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 12:05, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Add Egg cell

Similar importance to Sperm.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 14:30, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
2. Support, if sperm is on there then egg cell should be too. Shocksingularity (talk) 04:56, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
3. Support, it's not a similar importance, it's an identical importance right there. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 07:24, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
4. --Thi (talk) 18:02, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Remove Mary Shelley  4

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'd like to generally trim Biographies at Levels 4 and 5 by a bit, and that requires some removals that might be controversial. Shelley is primarily known for being the author of Frankenstein  4, which is itself VA4. While she did write other works, they don't seem much more important than the non-Scarlet Letter works of Nathaniel Hawthorne  5, who is also not listed at Level 4 because his main work is. Harper Lee  5 and Louisa May Alcott  5 are also only Level 5 for the same reason. Because of this, I think Shelley should go down to Level 5.

Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:42, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 15:43, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
3. Sure... but per Johnnie, this opens up the door for nuking our level 4 authors. I don't believe biographies are substitutions for the things/events the person did, the person themself should be vital. I generally am in favor of removing most biographies though. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:39, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. There's probably a fair number of authors that could be shed from VA4 in favor of their work, but Mary Shelley isn't one of them. Unlike your example authors, Shelley was the architect of an entire genre, and her personal life attracts significant attention today from feminist perspectives (early female novelist, not to mention daughter of Mary Wollstonecraft  3) and for her place in Romanticism (married to Percy Bysshe Shelley  4, and played a huge role in the recognition of his work). Check out the pageviews for proof that there's strong interest in her distinct from her work. Johnnie Runner (talk) 19:20, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
2. Oppose per @Johnnie Runner Shocksingularity (talk) 04:56, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Johnnie Runner and also because her most famous work is at Level 4 vitality and defined an entire genre. There are biographies worth being cut, but Mary Shelley is not one of them. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 02:04, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
4. Oppose per Johnnie Runner, defining woman in literature. J. R. R. Tolkien and Arthur Conan Doyle are in a similar boat and would never be removed. GuzzyG (talk) 22:05, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

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

Add The Sopranos  5

The closest thing to a consensus greatest TV show ever made, influential to the point of being credited with ushering in the entire concept of of television shows as big-budget, high-concept projects on par with movies. Every major TV drama since, from Breaking Bad  5 to Mad Men  5, has Sopranos DNA in both its content and reason for being green-lit. We only have 5 TV shows at VA4 (none of which are dramas) compared to 33 movies, so the show that's responsible for bridging the gap between TV and movies would make a sensible addition.

Support

1. Johnnie Runner (talk) 23:58, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
2. I was never a particularly big fan of our television show selection. The five we list (egregiously small number, by the way), while composed of household names that are very important, don't exactly represent the full medium of television all that great. Even if they are among the most famous in the medium, television goes far beyond Doctor Who  4, The Simpsons  4, and Sesame Street  4 (I wouldn't fully count Eurovision Song Contest  4 as television show in the traditional sense and I view Star Trek  4's entry here as the entire franchise when the main Star Trek TV show is at V5). With that being said, the impact that the Sopranos left on television cannot go unrecognized and warrants being at V4. λ NegativeMP1 01:05, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
3. I want to list more creative works in general, and this is one of the most impactful television series of all time, which is credited with making TV a legitimate art form. Easy add. QuicoleJR (talk) 11:33, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
4. Lazman321 (talk) 16:19, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
5. A TV drama that defined the genre, this can get added to V4. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 08:14, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
6. This is the breakout point to TV shows getting serious recognition in academia etc. There is no future, where television is not defined by this. No reason not to include it, especially as the video games coverage increases. GuzzyG (talk) 21:00, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
7. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:01, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
8. J947 ‡ ^edits 22:20, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose without a specific swap at level 4. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:30, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

   We're barely over quota at V4 at this point and Arts is actually under quota. λ NegativeMP1 16:05, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

   Barely over quota means we should focus on removals. If this section is under quota, then we should pull from other sections in swaps. TV shows are not where I'd want to add to the list. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:20, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

   I don't like swaps between sections because they pose a false dichotomy (support both or oppose both) and votes quickly get complicated to tally. When the topics proposed are from different sections, those problems are exacerbated. It's better form to propose an addition and removal in separate proposals if they're not related topics. J947 ‡ ^edits 08:41, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

   Given that the Arts section is under quota I don't see the point of rejecting the addition of a show by requiring a complementary swap there. This isn't even biographies where Wikipedia's V4 vitality does have a overrepresentation compared to the average encyclopedia (and even then we are under quota there), but of arts where we still can fill in more spaces. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 17:47, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

2. Important show, but there's other shows I would add before this. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:17, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

There are a few other shows I think could in time be considered for VA4 since our selection is so meager relative to the massive impact of TV on everyday life: Jeopardy!  5 (arguably the most iconic Game show  4 worldwide), The Twilight Zone (1959 TV series)  5 (pushed boundaries on par with Psycho (1960 film)  4, influenced TV as far down the line as Lost (TV series)  5 and Black Mirror  5), and I Love Lucy  5 (codified the Sitcom  4, though Lucille Ball  4 and Desi Arnaz  5 are listed). Johnnie Runner (talk) 22:06, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I'd also add M*A*S*H (TV series)  5 to that list for consideration, due to its long-lasting cultural impact and the fact that its finale remains the most-viewed non-sports broadcast in the United States. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:29, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

@Shocksingularity: Out of curiosity, what shows would you add before this one? λ NegativeMP1 22:10, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

The Twilight Zone (1959 TV series)  5 and Jeopardy!  5 per Johnnie Runner,

• Survivor (franchise)  5 (although I'd prefer to swap this with Survivor (American TV series)). Probably the most well-known and significant Reality television  4 show ever, it was huge in the 2000s.
• Mister Rogers' Neighborhood  5: Helped teach young children for decades about hard topics such as death, divorce, and war that other children's programming often shied away from.

Shocksingularity (talk) 04:00, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Remove New South Wales

New South Wales has no importance other than being the home of the country's largest city. SHould this be kept, I would recommend adding Victoria (state) and maybe Queensland, which will be proposed below.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 23:36, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Add Victoria (state)

Both NSW and Victoria make up over half of all Australians, so I could see this one go through if NSW is kept.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 23:37, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Add Queensland

Mentioning this one as a possible addition since this one has several important cities.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 23:38, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
2. NimbleNumbat (talk) 21:40, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Add American cuisine  5

At V4, we have Chinese, French, Indian, Japanese, Italian, Mexican and Middle Eastern. American cuisine with hamburger, steaks, cola, etc. should be here too. There is some overlap with Fast food  4 but not complete (fast food became a bigger concept). American food is no less vital than French, Chinese or Japanese. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:17, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:17, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. A lot of very significant cuisines have been proposed for removal, which I'm fine with as I'm not a fan of these kind of topics really, but American cuisine is no where near as vital (historically) as others. We are the definition of being influenced by others. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:41, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
2. Oppose per GeogSage. VA5 is enough. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:14, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
3. 飞车过大关 (talk) 19:45, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

Remove Middle Eastern cuisine  4

This is related to Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Arts_and_everyday_life#Add_European_cuisine,_South_American_cuisine_and_Asian_cuisine_-_or_remove_African_cuisine_5_and_Middle_Eastern_cuisine_4. 120 page views don't make it very popular as an article, and it is the only regional cuisine at V4 - why European, Asian, African, etc. are not here? (Their iwiki and dailies are about the same...). Either we list all regional cuisines here - or not at all. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:23, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:17, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
2. Sure. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:39, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 22:36, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
4. 飞车过大关 (talk) 18:11, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

I am pinging User:GeogSage who voted in the linked discussion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:23, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Remove Casserole  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.

---

Doesn't seem as vital as other very popular food types we list at V4. It has just 24 wikis and 470 daily views. Compare to Dumpling (29 iwikis, 720 dailies), Curry (79 iwikis, 1000 pageviews), Biscuit (65 iwikis, 505 pageviews) it seems to have the lowest count of both pageviews and iwkikis (some entries approach its low in one but not in both metrics). It's just not at the same level as V4 entries (others: porridge, soup, pizza, sushi, sandwish, noodle, pastry... etc.). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:27, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:17, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
2. Support  Carlwev  18:05, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 18:01, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
4. 飞车过大关 (talk) 18:13, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
5. Aye. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:31, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

Remove Chutney  4

Pretty much everything else we have at our V4 foodstuff list is global (breat, butter, pizza, sandwitch...). This is still mostly regional (Indian). 66 interwikis, ~550 dailies. Soy sauce with 69 iwkis and ~700 dailies is a tad more globa, and can be left as an example of sauce, although I wouldn't be opposed to seeing it downgraded - but I think chutney is the most obvious foodstuff item to downgrade to V5 (plus the casserole I listed above...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:31, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:17, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 22:37, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
3. Shocksingularity (talk) 01:45, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
4. 飞车过大关 (talk) 18:14, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
5. Sure. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:30, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Defecation  5

This is related to my proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/3#Add_Eating_4,_Drinking_4_and_Breathing_4. Sleeping and reproduction are at V3, eating, drinking and breating, V4, and defaction was forgotten at V5. I think all of these concepts should be V3, but since two-level bumps are not best practice, let's move that one up here for now. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:38, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:17, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
2. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:03, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
3. Important and universal biological process. ALittleClass (talk) 17:58, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
4. 飞车过大关 (talk) 18:15, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
5. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 18:28, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

So exactly who should be listed under the Criminals section?

So on Level 4 we have seven individuals listed under "Criminals", but in my opinion, this classification is an arbitrary listing and should either be massively expanded or shrunken to the bare bones.

For example, Talaat Pasha is listed as a Criminal due to the Armenian Genocide, but he's equally as well known for being the Grand Vizier of the Ottoman Empire from 1913 to 1918 (thus qualifying him for the "Politicians and Leaders: modern" section); while Enver Pasha, the Minister of War/Chief of the General Staff, equally responsible for the Armenian Genocide, is listed under "Military leaders and theorists: modern".

Or another example, Heinrich Himmler is listed as a Criminal due to the Holocaust and every other war crime uder Nazi Germany, but he's also an SS leader qualifying him for "Military leaders and theorists: modern", but by the same token Adolf Hitler, Joseph Goebbels, and especially Hermann Göring (who was convicted at the Nuremberg Trials) should belong under that section when the first two are in "Politicians and Leaders: modern" and the latter under "Military leaders and theorists: modern".

This does not even go into the fact that a lot of politicians and military leaders listed, e.g. Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Hideki Tojo, among others, are themselves mass murderers and/or war criminals by themselves; and from the other direction, Pablo Escobar was himself a member of the Colombian House of Representatives. So here's my question, on what basis do we draw the line on who is considered part of the Criminals section? Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 07:55, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I think just Blackbeard, Jack, Escobar, and Capone truly qualify.

Talaat and Himmler were (at least going to be) put on trial for crimes against humanity, but they committed those crimes through state sponsorship, whereas the former four were public enemies their entire career. Sure Escobar briefly served as an alternate congressman, but he was still a drug lord then and was regularly accused his entire tenure. Even bin Laden I would move back to rebels over the revolutionary tinge of his motives, but I wouldn't give other terrorists like the Unabomber or Timothy McVeigh the same rebel treatment because they didn't organize anything even remotely as concrete as Al-Qaeda. Johnnie Runner (talk) 17:39, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I'd personally agree with your assessment - at Level 4, with so few criminals being listed I don't think state or ideological actors fit in with otherwise "regular" outlaws.

I probably should also ping the others in the Jack the Ripper-induced Criminals section discussion for a more thorough opinion though (@Bluevestman @GeogSage @QuicoleJR). Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 17:56, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

The category for criminals should only hold people who are known primarily because of their criminal background. Failing that, a case could be made to move Donald Trump  4 (and most U.S. presidents) to the criminal section. FDR created Concentration camps for U.S. citizens with Executive Order 9066, Truman ordered the dropping of the atomic bombs on civilian populations, Nixon was totally "not a crook," Bill Clinton lied to congress, etc. etc. etc. but none of these are what the person is most known for. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:04, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

By that measure (criminal background) that would mean Blackbeard (pirate), Jack (serial killer we don't even know the real identity of), Capone (gangster), almost certainly Escobar (drug lord who was in Colombian congress), and maybe Bin Laden (ideological leader who organized the largest terrorist attack in history). Himmler (SS leader) and Talaat (Grand Vizier convicted of war crimes) would not. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 18:22, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I just did a bunch of shuffling to get everyone mostly in the same place as they are at level 5, so obviously I would like to have everyone who is currently listed as a criminal at the lower level be listed as a criminal here. However, I do get the rationale of putting figures like bin Laden and Himmler somewhere else. (Not Escobar though; I don't know why you keep bringing up his brief career as a legislator.) Bluevestman (talk) 20:23, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I gave that impression, I'm only mentioning that because the politician-to-criminal spectrum is that wide, from "politicians convicted of war crimes (in absentia or not)", to "a criminal who also happened to have been a politician". Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 03:23, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Add Autocracy  5

A common type of government throughout history.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 12:38, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
2. Of course. PS. User:Interstellarity. Please use VA link template in the heading of your noms, and don't forget about Oppose and Discuss sections. I've c/e-ed this nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:29, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

   @Piotrus Sorry about that, I thought I did everything perfectly. I will do that next time. Interstellarity (talk) 20:21, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

3. Shocksingularity (talk) 03:57, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
4. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 08:44, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
5. Arguably the main form of government throughout human history. The Account 2 (talk) 12:32, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Remove Pan (genus)

We have a weird situation of primates at this level: We list threee genuses Pan (genus), Gorilla, and Orangutan, but in the former, we have two species listed Chimpanzee and Bonobo. Not sure how to make this right, but I thought proposing this article for removal would be good as a start.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 15:53, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
2. Johnnie Runner (talk) 17:42, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
3. Sure. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:46, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
4. I mean, it's either Pan (genus) or both Chimpanzees and Bonobos getting axed so... A yes from me, this can go. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 17:58, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
5. --Thi (talk) 22:40, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
6. ChaoticVermillion (talk) 08:46, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
7. Redundant.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 08:55, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
8. Aye.飞车过大关 (talk) 14:23, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Add the four hemispheres

Looking at how to approach our geography articles, I think one of the better ways we could attempt to organize them at higher levels is via the Hemispheres of Earth  5. The North and South hemisphere are both objective, they are divided by the Equator  4. The East and West are arbitrary divides, but that isn't a secret, and this has a lot of meaning in our vocabulary for discussing human geography/history (our criteria discussing "Western" bias for example). The articles all need improvement, so bumping them up could be a good thing there. Based on vital article criteria: 1. Coverage These articles all have extremely high geographic coverage, which is meaningful in how we organize geography. 2. Essential to Wikipedia's other articles These articles all are commonly used to describe the location of places on the Earth. This is essential to all the articles involving places on the Earth. 3. Notability Hard to say these are not notable. 4. No (Western) bias While the East/West hemispheres may have some western bias baked into them, they largely accepted as the global convention. 5. Page Statistics Pages do not have insignificant overall values. pageviews are in the top 50% for the project overall for all but "Hemispheres of Earth", and language links range between top 70% and top 90% for the project overall. They all have substantial language and site links, and relatively high numbers of watchers/editors. See the table below based on values captured back in July.

Article	Vital_Level	watchers	pageviews	revisions	editors	links_ext	links_out	links_in	Site_links	Language_Links	IndividualScore	VitalScore
Hemispheres of Earth	5	97	8374	206	147	7	29	308	64	63	13.5	0.7105263157894737
Eastern Hemisphere	5	200	9136	623	426	14	355	1222	74	73	21	1.1052631578947367
Southern Hemisphere	5	283	19529	1629	866	44	489	3504	109	107	29	1.526315789473684
Western Hemisphere	5	326	15920	1294	734	26	420	2545	79	78	25.5	1.342105263157895
Northern Hemisphere	5	368	26195	1306	854	30	515	3651	112	110	29	1.526315789473684

Add Hemispheres of Earth  5

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:45, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
2. Sure. All main circles of latitude are listed (perhaps over-eagerly). Cultural hemispheres also appear to be within the article's remit. J947 ‡ ^edits 05:36, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
3. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:36, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Add Northern Hemisphere  5

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:45, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
2. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:36, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Adds very little information. Don't see a need for prioritisation. J947 ‡ ^edits 05:36, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Add Southern Hemisphere  5

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:45, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
2. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:36, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Adds very little information. Don't see a need for prioritisation. J947 ‡ ^edits 05:36, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Add Eastern Hemisphere  5

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:45, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
2. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:36, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Adds very little information. Don't see a need for prioritisation. J947 ‡ ^edits 05:36, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Add Western Hemisphere  5

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:45, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
2. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:36, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Adds very little information. Don't see a need for prioritisation. J947 ‡ ^edits 05:36, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Discuss proposal

Proposal signature

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:35, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Add Eastern world  5, and Global North and Global South  5 OR remove Western world  4

Above proposal focuses on hemispheres, which are based on latitude and longitude. Eastern world, and Global North and Global South, are geopolitical terms used in human geography. I believe these should be moved up to level 4 as well, and would like to see the hemispheres discussed above a bit higher. I should note, we include Western world  4, so we either need to move these two articles up, or bump Western World down. I do like the second option, as I think these high level articles can help to group our countries together.

Support Add Eastern world  5, and Global North and Global South  5

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:45, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
2. Support. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:38, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Support remove Western World

Oppose both

Discuss

Frankly, not sure Eastern world  5 should be VA5. It's not only a dictionary definition, it's one informed by a Eurocentric worldview. Which is fine if it includes Europe like Western world  4, but this doesn't. It's problematic enough that it was actually AfDed earlier this year. Still considering the other changes, but will oppose that one. J947 ‡ ^edits 05:46, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Remove P. T. Barnum  4

P. T. Barnum was "was an American showman, businessman, and politician remembered for promoting celebrated hoaxes and founding with James Anthony Bailey the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus." Currently he is listed as one our 6 "Hosts and performers." I think we can move him to level 5 to make room for something else.

Support.

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:32, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 22:41, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
3. ChaoticVermillion (talk) 10:50, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
4. The Account 2 (talk) 20:58, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. We have only three 19th-century entertainers, Sarah Bernhardt  4, Barnum, and Marius Petipa  4. Petipa seems the least vital. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 01:52, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
2. It's in the interest of the encyclopedia to cover more than recent pop culture (new direction of the list, as based on pop stats like edits, interwikis and views) and to counterbalance it with older, moroe stable figures. Barnum is the defining name of 19th century American entertainment, that means something. GuzzyG (talk) 21:04, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:32, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Remove Kurt Vonnegut  4

We have 37 modern authors under "US and Canada," compared to 16 for all of Asia. While some of Kurt Vonnegut's work, like Slaughterhouse-Five  5, are listed as vital, I'm not seeing anything on the Kurt Vonnegut bibliography that strikes me as warranting level 4.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:41, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
2. 飞车过大关 (talk) 14:20, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Cat's Cradle has ~700 daily views, for example. He was more than a one-trick pony. The arationale does not strike me as sufficient to warrant a removal of a pretty famous writer. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:33, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
2. Per Piotr. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 01:42, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Not weaker globally than Robert A. Heinlein, who got defended on here. GuzzyG (talk) 22:45, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:41, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Remove Jim Henson  4

Jim Henson "was an American puppeteer, animator, actor, and filmmaker who achieved worldwide notability as the creator of the Muppets." As The Muppets isn't even level 5, I think we can bump him from level 4.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:44, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
2. Support but I think that the Muppets and Henson should be at V5. Considering that Henson is here at this exact moment and we list Kermit the Frog  5 at V5 I'm going to presume that the Muppets not being at least V5 is an oversight and I will suggest its addition soon. Also note that Henson wasn't exclusively known for the Muppets so V5 works for him. λ NegativeMP1 21:50, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 22:43, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
4. Support per NegativeMP1, both a downgrade for Jim Henson and an elevation of The Muppets to Level 5. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 03:44, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
5. Aye.飞车过大关 (talk) 14:18, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
6. The Account 2 (talk) 11:34, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Jim Henson's influence and importance extends far past his most well-known work. His name is as ubiquitous and important to Puppetry  4 as someone like Hayao Miyazaki  4 is to Anime  4, or Harry Houdini  4 is to Magic (illusion)  4. AllyWithInfo (talk) 03:59, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

   Also worth mentioning that Henson was added back in 2016 7-0, which goes into more detail of what he's done that's significant. This also covers his extensive work on Sesame Street  4 which gets its identity from his puppetry. I understand we're running out of space at level-4, but there's nobody with his specific niche and importance currently listed. AllyWithInfo (talk) 01:10, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

2. I feel like bios are just getting ransacked in recent weeks because prominence/interest fades in many fields (almost all fields except visual arts where interest seems to rise as the value of your work rises). P.S. I am not sure why this does not translate to car pioneer bios. It is sometimes hard to point out where the baby is in the bathwater, but this guy was quite influential. Count me in on adding the muppets.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:44, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

   Biographies represent 19.73% of level 4, and each biography only covers one specific person. To make room for broader topics, the easiest place to find narrow coverage articles is the over represented biographies. Nominate some car pioneers, I'm not sure who you have in mind. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:01, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

3. Oppose  Carlwev  01:47, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
4. Per AllyWithInfo. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:41, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
5. Removing every person that's the sole representative of their field does not improve the list, it does not widen coverage. It restricts it. GuzzyG (talk) 21:05, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
6. Bluevestman (talk) 22:10, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:44, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Remove Mark Spitz  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.

---

We list three swimmers, all American, and all male. Of these three, I think Spitz is the least "vital."

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:49, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 22:48, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
3. Aye.飞车过大关 (talk) 03:56, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
4. I'd remove all of them. I doubt most sportsman like that have a lasting impact on culture outside of the time they were popular. Just 400 daily views confirms my opinion that this one, at the very least, is not V5 (just above we consider removing a writer whose second-most famous novel has 2x that many views...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:34, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
5. We have Phelps as the greatest of all time and Weissmuller for the history of the sport. We don't need Spitz. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:25, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
6. Per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 01:53, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
7. Clearly should be removed. Phelps stole his spot. GuzzyG (talk) 21:51, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
8. The Account 2 (talk) 11:34, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

• @Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus: I agree, the vital article criteria are not really compatible with the majority of individual biographies as it is, but cutting sports upsets people. Best to take things slow. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:20, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm the big bad boogeyman responsible for the level 5 sports list, as i think a encylopedia should cover every field responsibly, not affected by personal bias or pop culture fame (stats method) and i've wanted Spitz removed for ever. So i don't know whose upset, it's a case of been there, attempted that ([1]). GuzzyG (talk) 21:51, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Swap Miloš Forman  5 with Christopher Nolan  4

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.

---

Nolan is regarded as one of the most influential filmmakers alive, and The Dark Knight  5 is already level 5. Maybe this is the eurocentrism speaking, but I'm not sure what Forman has really done other than Amadeus.

Support

1. As nominator. Shocksingularity (talk) 03:37, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
2. Based on the logic: swap of a person I've heard of vs a person I've never heard of :P --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:37, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Support addition of Christopher Nolan

1. Neutral on whether to remove Forman, but I support adding Nolan for the popularity and contemporary importance of his work. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 07:54, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
2. One of, if not the most acclaimed and influential filmmaker of the 21st century. He's above most other directors and is definitely among the ranks of those we list at V4. Neutral on the removal of Forman. λ NegativeMP1 00:47, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Definitely the most popular of the 21st century auteurs. GuzzyG (talk) 22:39, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Support removal of Miloš Forman

1. Neutral on Nolan for now, his movies are popular and he's gotten a lot of acclaim but I'm unsure if it'll hold in importance in the same way for the next few decades. Miloš Forman is important for sure, especially in regard to the Czechoslovak New Wave, but I don't think it's enough for level 4. I do want to mention though that he does have representation at level 5 (One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (film)  5). AllyWithInfo (talk) 04:15, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 09:12, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
3. Support removal. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:02, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

Remove Allen Ginsberg  4

Even though he's more important than the other VA5 Beat poets (Lucien Carr  5 and William S. Burroughs  5), I think the Beat Generation is only big enough in the grand scheme of things for one writer at VA4, and it would have to be Jack Kerouac  4.

Support

1. Johnnie Runner (talk) 21:46, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
2. A phenomenon of his time. --Thi (talk) 07:11, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
3. Per nom, although we should probably add Beat Generation  5 to Level 4. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:22, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
4. Aye. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:50, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
5. Beat Generation should be the only topic here. It's the 20th century Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood  4. In literature though, leaving Kerouac would be kinda weak. The Beat mythos was a full work of Ginsberg, he promoted it and made the mythos. Kerouac coined it, but is also known for saying “I’m not a beatnik. I’m a Catholic.”. Kerouac is also only known for On the Road  4, which is covered. It'd be pretty weird to have as a example the guy who detested the movement as it grew famous, while removing the guy who created the whole mythos and who actually defines it. Remove them both and cover the movement article. We would then have the movement and the work. (on the road). GuzzyG (talk) 21:13, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Remove Several US Actors/Actresses

Of our 56 actors, 30 are from the US, 20 are from Europe, and 6 are from Asia. I understand that due to the major softpower influence and film industry of the U.S., this is not really that surprising, but do think it still skews heavily to the West and U.S. in terms of bias. Proposing some removals to attempt balancing this a bit. Approaching this is always difficult, so I have created a table of our level 4 actors using data I collected in July (the full documentation is on my github or the main project talk page). It also includes the prototype "vital score" I was working on. Based on this, I will nominate the 8 with the lowest composite "vital score." Cutting all of them would still result in the United States having more actors/actresses then either Europe or Asia, but it won't have more then both of them combined. I understand some of these might not pass, but think this is a good start before discussing more qualitative aspects for keeping/cutting certain entertainers.

Article	watchers	pageviews	revisions	editors	links_in	Site_links	Language_Links	project_links	Theme1	Theme2	Theme3	Theme4	IndividualScore	VitalScore
Mary Pickford	332	35275	2694	1371	1888	95	87	7	8	8	7.5	8	31.5	2.863636
Lillian Gish	234	26297	1562	825	1329	89	81	7	6	6.5	7.5	8	28	2.545455
Humphrey Bogart	520	106072	4621	2142	2069	112	97	14	9	9	8.5	9	35.5	3.227273
Spencer Tracy	265	62125	2406	1028	1487	84	78	5	7	8	7	8	30	2.727273
Clark Gable	420	97360	4280	1870	1783	100	89	10	8	8.5	7.5	8	32	2.909091
Gary Cooper	296	109468	2711	1180	1829	92	83	8	7	8.5	7.5	8	31	2.818182
Cary Grant	601	150610	7063	2278	2392	93	81	11	9	9	8.5	8	34.5	3.136364
Joan Crawford	432	110869	5130	1938	1919	99	87	11	8	9	8.5	8	33.5	3.045455
Henry Fonda	304	94991	2058	1079	2265	95	89	5	7	8	7.5	8	30.5	2.772727
Katharine Hepburn	560	137528	5162	2104	2734	121	98	22	9	9	8.5	9	35.5	3.227273
John Wayne	749	191399	9794	4418	3715	116	101	14	9	9	9	9	36	3.272727
Barbara Stanwyck	276	59753	2210	943	1546	82	74	7	7	8	7.5	8	30.5	2.772727
Bette Davis	513	84419	4036	1635	2637	105	88	16	8.5	8.5	8.5	8	33.5	3.045455
James Stewart	535	133657	6177	2225	2655	95	87	7	9	9	8	8	34	3.090909
Gregory Peck	339	102620	4076	1518	2091	92	86	5	8	8.5	7.5	8	32	2.909091
Rita Hayworth	448	95524	3864	1573	1191	102	92	9	8	8.5	7	8	31.5	2.863636
Doris Day	468	87006	4959	2258	2431	97	84	12	8.5	9	8.5	8	34	3.090909
Judy Garland	824	271227	9001	3710	4065	145	125	19	9	9.5	9	9	36.5	3.318182
Marlon Brando	775	211043	7871	3651	3028	156	133	22	9	9	8.5	9	35.5	3.227273
Lauren Bacall	436	105108	3601	1612	1878	99	86	12	8	8.5	8	8	32.5	2.954545
Marilyn Monroe	1900	310188	14801	5472	4611	233	194	38	10	10	9	9	38	3.454545
Sidney Poitier	477	67287	3952	2004	2224	98	90	7	8	8.5	8	8	32.5	2.954545
Shirley Temple	587	116558	6308	3252	1803	91	79	11	9	9	8	8	34	3.090909
Grace Kelly	584	189485	5689	2630	1913	115	100	14	9	9	8.5	9	35.5	3.227273
Clint Eastwood	1026	599942	10802	4479	4954	131	107	23	9	9.5	9	9	36.5	3.318182
Elizabeth Taylor	724	202552	5165	2216	3414	136	113	22	9	9	9	9	36	3.272727
Jack Nicholson	655	217627	6839	3637	3006	129	111	17	9	9	8.5	9	35.5	3.227273
Robert De Niro	815	329879	8196	4128	3582	141	122	18	9	9.5	9	9	36.5	3.318182
Meryl Streep	654	213969	8823	3676	3791	128	111	16	9	9	9	9	36	3.272727
Tom Hanks	971	284199	8868	4356	3764	134	121	12	9	9.5	9	9	36.5	3.318182

Move Lillian Gish  4 to level 5

Lowest "Vital score," lowest page watchers, lowest pageviews, lowest unique editors, 4th lowest language links. Obvious nomination from a quantitative perspective.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:45, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 11:44, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
3. 飞车过大关 (talk) 18:17, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak oppose due to being "credited with pioneering fundamental film performance techniques" (expanded upon in the Legacy section).--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 13:12, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
2. We don't list nearly as many stars from the silent era and her contributions and influence in that period is undeniable. Her page viewcounts aren't that much lower compared to someone like Rudolph Valentino  4, who we decided was important enough to keep recently. AllyWithInfo (talk) 18:46, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
3. She is the defining woman of silent film acting. She is academically cited for inventing and standardizing modern film acting technique. To cover no silent women, would be worse for our coverage, not better. GuzzyG (talk) 21:15, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

Sanity check needed. Relying on metrics of popularity is naturally going to lead to outcomes favouring popular culture that's still in vogue. Here, 5 of the 6 earliest U.S. actors listed are proposed for removal. That's obviously not an answer to any problem. Unlike at VA5 where there a lot of unusual, undiscussed inclusions, in well thought over areas of VA4 blind use of statistics is not a serious way to engage in mass cuts. J947 ‡ ^edits 01:55, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Individual discussions of all 10,000 articles would take until the heat death of the universe. Many of these articles were "boldly" added, and now are essentially entrenched against change. These are the bottom of the quantitative metrics, if more modern actors/actresses have higher numbers because of recency bias, they should be cut as well. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:03, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

None of that has any relevance to the fact that this is a clearly flawed set of proposals. I'm half a mind to oppose them all without any individual consideration because it's obvious no thought has gone into them. In the past there have been series of considered proposals over removing U.S. actors, but apparently those aren't worth examining and purely statistics-based proposals are the only way to make any inroads into the list. J947 ‡ ^edits 07:10, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

First, I want to point out that I don't believe this is civil. This is not assuming good faith, and seems to be meet the definition of "Direct rudeness." You might not like "purely statistics-based proposals," but to say no thought went into it is ridiculous. In my opinion, the amount of thought that went into creating this proposal greatly exceeds most of the proposals that boil down to popularity contests. The collective inclusion of the actors/actresses on our list likely had little thought put into it, instead focusing on individual levels articles rather then how they fit into the whole. This proposal takes a top down approach to the list, and now that the list is full, we need to stop looking at articles on a case by case basis and instead focus on how each fits into the overall composition of the list. 5 of the 6 earliest U.S. actors listed are proposed for removal, propose cutting 5 of the 6 most recent actors if you'd like to address recency bias. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:51, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

That last sentence is simply absurd – two wrongs don't make a right. There's already a massive bias towards the mid–20th century and that proposal could result in every U.S. actor listed be born between 1899 and 1930. I assume you've looked at the list and knew that before making that comment?

The idea that now is the time to stop looking at articles on a case-by-case basis is backwards. The list has been full since 2013 (or maybe beforehand), and in 2013 there were proposals aimed at addressing problems with the list in bulk (including U.S. actors). We're 12 years past that phase now. Unless you want to reinvent the wheel and ignore those past consensuses since your ideas are the most important, we're fully in the case-by-case era now.

My point is that whatever thought went into these proposals was misused. Statistics are one small part of the VA criteria mostly used at VA5. At VA4 and above, it's much easier to find critical opinion and "Legacy" sections of articles, but individual thought should go into every proposal at VA5, let alone VA4. I've got no idea why Gable should be removed over Peck – not even on a statistical level, let alone an analysis of his cultural impact, the latter of which infinitely more important than 2020s popularity (and unfortunately for you and it there is no statistic that can estimate cultural impact). While their "vital scores" are equal, 7 of 8 statistics favour Gable. He's the much bigger name and seems to me from a cursory look to be the more important actor. As much as I'd like to assume good faith, it's painfully obvious that no more than 30 seconds was spent deciding which of them to nominate.

Case-by-case analysis is vital for this list. In popular culture areas, statistics are a proxy for popularity, not importance. Even outside of popular culture, statistics are still just a proxy, and not a replacement for determining specific topics' impact as evaluated by academics, and coverage considerations. I'd like you to acknowledge these things rather than skipping around the point (and please stop acting as if this proposal is but an unimportant stepping stone towards removing every actor). J947 ‡ ^edits 23:14, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

There is a massive bias towards the United States, biographies, and entertainers. I would be happy with listing no actors/actresses at all, two or three "greatest" would be fine with me. Fundamentally, an article added at level 4 means another is excluded, and as I believe biographies don't usually meet the first vital article criteria as it is, looking at page statistics is the best way to determine how important a particular article is to the project overall. We don't include many actors from the 1600s, we'd probably be better off adding old films then old actors. Calculating the statistics took several hours of writing code, several days to collect the data, and several hours of analysis. I'm aware that statistics aren't a magic bullet, but when big cuts need to be made they are extremely useful. Gable is the last one I listed, and I should have included Gregory Peck as well but decided to cut it at 8 to keep the proposal more manageable. The 8th one I was pretty confident would get some pushback as the stats were starting to get weaker, so I stopped there.

The proposals for addressing the list in bulk are greatly out numbered by people wanting to add specific articles they are interested in, and we get far more "Adds" then "Swaps" at this level, so it is necessary to make room for the changes. Looking back at 2013, the big proposals got a lot of push back For example in Archive 5 there is a quote from 2013 "My advice: drop the mass deletion proposals, period, and quit the bickering with each other, which drives editors away from this page when we are trying to encourage participation." As far as past proposals, I can read the archives, and don't really think that much thought went into the list back then. Now stuck with something that is extremely resistant to change, and editors who were in high school when this list started have to live with the ghosts of consensus made over a decade ago.

As for "determining specific topics' impact as evaluated by academics," as an "academic", I find most people don't really care about the actual opinions of "academics" on topics unless it validates what they want (This extends to Wikipedia as a whole though). See the push back to any geography related proposal I've made for an example. My opinion of the geography portion of the list is that it was made by people with strong western bias and little geography education. In terms of literature, the best way I can describe the current state of the geography portion of the list is it is in line with Alabama elementary school text books from the 1890s to 1920s. Honestly, it would be easier to throw out the work that was done on it and start over then work with what we have. As we don't have academics involved from EVERY discipline, and we have several thousand articles to sort through, statistics are the best way to do "spring cleaning" on the list. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:03, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Move Spencer Tracy  4 to level 5

Second Lowest "Vital score," 2nd lowest page watchers, 4th lowest pageviews, 3rd lowest unique editors, 2nd lowest language links.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:45, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 11:44, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
3. The Account 2 (talk) 10:07, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
4. 飞车过大关 (talk) 18:18, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
5. Support. Important but lost any form of name recognition amongst new generations. Should also signify Tom Hanks removal as winning two consecutive Academy Awards for Best Actor, what they're listed for, is clearly not a factor in longevity. GuzzyG (talk) 21:36, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Move Henry Fonda  4 to level 5

Third lowest "Vital score," 5th lowest page watchers, 8th lowest page views, 4th lowest unique editors, 15th lowest language links.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:45, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 11:44, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Weak support, famous but with a weak Legacy section.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 13:12, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
4. 飞车过大关 (talk) 18:19, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
5. Support. GuzzyG (talk) 21:36, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Move Barbara Stanwyck  4 to level 5

Fourth lowest "Vital score," 3rd lowest page watchers, 3rd lowest page views, 2nd lowest unique editors, lowest language links.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:45, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 11:44, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Among the weakest vitality claims out of the proposals. Acclaimed and appeared in a lot of films, but not as historically significant as some others proposed for downgrading, based on lead and skimming the article.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 13:12, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
4. The Account 2 (talk) 10:07, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
5. This one can go, no sign of any sort of impact. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:32, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
6. Support. GuzzyG (talk) 21:36, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Move Gary Cooper  4 to level 5

Fifth lowest "Vital score," 4th lowest page watchers, 6th lowest page views, 5th lowest unique editors, 6th lowest language links.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:45, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 11:44, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
3. The Account 2 (talk) 10:07, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
4. 飞车过大关 (talk) 18:22, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
5. Support. Important but lost any form of name recognition amongst new generations GuzzyG (talk) 21:36, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Move Mary Pickford  4 to level 5

Sixth lowest "Vital score," 6th lowest page watchers, 2nd lowest page views, 6th lowest unique editors, 10th lowest language links.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:45, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 11:44, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
3. The Account 2 (talk) 10:07, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. She "became Hollywood's first millionaire", "was one of the most recognizable women in the world" and "was a significant figure in the development of film acting".--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 13:12, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Same reasoning as with Lillian Gish. AllyWithInfo (talk) 18:47, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Most famous of the silent film actresses. Also a rare case of a early woman film business woman, being co-founder of United Artists. So most famous silent actress, academy award winner and film production dominant. Every historical figure, gets weaker by time and stabilises. Would be weird to track 1910s figures by the pop culture stats method, it judges contemporary fame, not historical importance. An opposite of what a encyclopedia should go by. GuzzyG (talk) 21:19, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

Move Rita Hayworth  4 to level 5

Seventh lowest "Vital score," 11th lowest page watchers, 16th lowest page views, 16th lowest unique editors, 17th lowest language links.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:45, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 11:44, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
3. The Account 2 (talk) 10:07, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
4. 飞车过大关 (talk) 18:21, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
5. Support. GuzzyG (talk) 21:36, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Move Clark Gable  4 to level 5

Eighth lowest "Vital score," 8th lowest page watchers, 10th lowest page views, 11th lowest unique editors, 5th lowest language links.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:45, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
2. The Account 2 (talk) 10:07, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
3. 飞车过大关 (talk) 18:20, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. One of the most important actors from one of the most important periods of film. AllyWithInfo (talk) 18:36, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Gable was seen as the most dominant of his era. Hence the "King of Hollywood" moniker. Also the lead star of classical hollywoods biggest number one film by the box office Gone with the Wind (film). Which means there's little chance of being forgotten. Gable, Bogart, Wayne, Grant and Stewart are the big 5 men of Golden Hollywood. Removing Tracy, Fonda, Cooper and Peck is enough. GuzzyG (talk) 21:33, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 11:59, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

If you want a perfect cutdown of the American film actors, here's an example of the list cut in half, balanced by time. (golden hollywood is clearly the peak of the american industry, it makes sense to lean more there, with a lil before in silents and after in new hollywood.

Mary Pickford, Lillian Gish, Humphrey Bogart, Clark Gable, Cary Grant, Katharine Hepburn, John Wayne, Bette Davis, James Stewart, Judy Garland, Marlon Brando, Marilyn Monroe, Sidney Poitier, Robert De Niro, Meryl Streep GuzzyG (talk) 21:33, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:45, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Remove History by country articles for European countries not listed at level 3.

We include 7 European countries at level 3 (France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Russia, Spain, United Kingdom), but 13 history of European countries at level 4. Proposing to use the level 3 included countries as a model for which histories to include at level 4. This doesn't include the recently added "History of the British Isles  4."

Remove History of Austria  4

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:17, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
2. A minor country, all things considered. Arguably never important in world's history outside of dynastic associations with Hapsburgs and a brief time as an empire, together with Hungary... V5 is enough here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:06, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
3. A minor country most notable for being the major component of the HRE and being briefly an empire. This easily goes. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 12:22, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
4. Shocksingularity (talk) 03:50, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
5. The Account 2 (talk) 10:07, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Remove History of Greece  4

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:17, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Here I think we have to consider the importance of Ancient Greece. Modern Greek history is V5 topic, but taken together with its ancient past, V4 is reasonable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:06, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

   The emphasis on Ancient Greece seems like a bit of western bias. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:44, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

2. Ancient Greek history formed a significant precursor for much of Europe, to the point that the alphabet we are writing in is derived from it. I'm more surprised Greece isn't in V3 and I do think we might need to reconsider its placement. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 12:27, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

   Ancient Greece  3 is, which is one thing that is a wrench on this particular proposal. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

3. --Thi (talk) 18:00, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

Remove History of the Netherlands  4

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:17, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Brief period of importance a few centuries back - V5 is enough. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:06, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
3. I wouldn't call a country that had colonies up to the 20th century (Indonesia) and still has dependencies one with a brief importance, but in comparison to other colonial empires - even Portugal, yes - the Netherlands is a weak contender. This can go. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 12:39, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
4. Shocksingularity (talk) 03:51, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
5. The Account 2 (talk) 10:07, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Remove History of Portugal  4

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:17, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Brief period of importance a few centuries back - V5 is enough. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:06, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Here is where I would disagree. It's not important *now* but Portugal was, alongside Spain, the beginning of the modern concept of an empire. And barring French Guiana, the minor Caribbean islands, Oceania, and minor Indian Ocean islands, Portugal was the last of European empires to decolonize (and there still remain vestiges of it). On this timescale, I don't think Portugal's history can be downgraded to V5 just yet. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 12:34, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

   I can make a case for almost any country to be upgraded or downgraded based on historic metrics, quantitative values, or whatever. The issue is that Spain is a level 3 country, and Portugal is not. Now your argument does make some sense with the broader one I've made, having countries at different levels is arbitrary, insulting, and filled with bias, but until we manage to sort that out we have to try and have some consistency in the list. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:22, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

2. Oppose  Carlwev  13:55, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 18:00, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

A thing to remember. The idea that countries at level 3 can/should have a history of article at level 4, and nations not at level 3 cannot/should not. In my mind, should be thought of more of a loose guide, one parameter of many to consider, rather than a hard unflexible rule that must never be broken. Nations with huge population\economy\power in today's world but relatively short recent existence, may be nations that would appear at level 3 but would not have history articles at level. Bangladesh or DRC for example. Whereas nations that were huge players in world history centuries ago, but not so much today, may not appear at level 3, but themselves and their history may appear at level 4 together, eg Greece, Portugal. The "normal" big nation with a big history where they appear at level 3 and the history of appears at level 4, eg Japan, France etc are the common way it works, but should not be the only one and only way we do it. I'm open to discussing any article's placement, but I would need more than this single isolated argument which I do not agree with. And talk of Biases. The whole project is and is not bias and arbitrary. We as a group attempt to decide that some articles are simply more vital than others, some people are simply more vital than others, some countries are simply more vital than others. Some industries/artforms/histories/species etc etc are more vital than others. Most would agree the nation or history of China is more vital than the nation or history of Andorra, but whether France or its history is more or less vital than the nations or history of Germany or Thailand or Ethiopia, is a less clear cut case. And in short is what we've spent the last decade or so discussing.  Carlwev  17:59, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

"Loose guides" mean we end up with a list reflecting the bias of the editors. If we can't explain parts of our list that literally rank the importance of cultures with quantifiable rules, then we are expressing our subjective bias. I've studied the project a bit more then most I believe, it is not mostly bias and arbitrary overall, but in regard to some topics it is completely arbitrary. This mostly occurs when we have a set of things split between levels, like how the elements Hydrogen  3, Iron  3, Silicon  3, Carbon  3 are level 3 but Lithium  4, Helium  4, Aluminium  4 and Plutonium  4 are level 4. Elements are not inherently more or less vital, and listing them at different levels is completely arbitrary. Sovereign states are largely like elements, each one has unique characteristics, and different ways to emphasize some characteristics over others result in nonsensical, bias, and in some cases racist lists. For example, look at the Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences/Culture#Ethnology and anthropology section, and explain why we rank four Native American tribes a level 4, and 11 a level 5, without invoking some colonialist or bias argument. Why are the Yamato people  5, Pashtuns  5, Bengalis  5, Māori people  4, at level 5, but the Basques  4, Kurds  4, Romani people  4, Han Chinese  4 level 4? Why don't we include Koreans, or any of their sub-groups, on the list (as far as I can see)? I can't imagine the arguments for this don't at least rhyme with supremacist rhetoric. For example above you said: "We as a group attempt to decide that some articles are simply more vital than others, some people are simply more vital than others, some countries are simply more vital than others." This looks REALLY, REALLY bad, even in context, in my opinion. However, this is why the list looks the way it does, we, a group of Wikipedia editors, have decided some groups of people, some ethnicities, some individuals, some histories, some countries, "are simply more vital then others". If we are going to insist on elevating some groups over others (and I'm really not in favor of this) we need some hard justification applied evenly. It is not simple. This proposal is a Band-Aid on this, in the long term we will really need to consider this with a more critical lens GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:14, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Remove History of Ukraine  4

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:17, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Sadly, it's realistically too little (modern) and historical is pretty much tied to other countries. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:06, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Agreed. Ukraine's history is too tangled up with that of Poland (medieval and early modern) and Russia (modern) for one to just call it V4 vital. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 12:36, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
4. Shocksingularity (talk) 03:50, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
5. The Account 2 (talk) 18:39, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:17, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Add Monster  5

Pretty basic concept related to culture, mythology, folklore, arts, ethnics, etc. And it's Halloween :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:02, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:02, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Surprised it's not already at level 4. ChaoticVermillion (talk) 10:08, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Sure. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:37, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
4. Lots of specific monsters/types of monsters already listed at VA5. Shocksingularity (talk) 01:43, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
5. Obviously. λ NegativeMP1 23:09, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
6. A basic concept from which you have the many monsters in fiction and folklore. I support this. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 09:47, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
7. A cut-and-dry support. Babysharkb☩ss2 I am Thou, Thou art I 15:22, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Miracle  5

Pretty major concept in religion and culture. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:27, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:27, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
2. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 09:16, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Culinary arts  5

Was proposed above and has 2 unofficial supports already (ping User:ALittleClass, User:QuicoleJR). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:46, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:27, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Important topic. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:21, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
3. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 04:09, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
4. Support. GuzzyG (talk) 23:32, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Decomposition  5 and Microorganism  5

Important biological topics. Decomposition is basically what the entire kingdom of fungi does, and microorganisms encompass the entire two domains of archaea and bacteria, plus a lot of eukarya as well.

Support both

1. As nom. Shocksingularity (talk) 01:42, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
2. V4 concepts. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 11:05, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
4. Easily V4 here. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 18:35, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
5. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 09:15, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Support add decomposition only

1. If adding both fails. Shocksingularity (talk) 01:42, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Support add microorganism only

1. If adding both fails. Shocksingularity (talk) 01:42, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Daft Punk  5

Daft Punk is one of the most important electronic dance acts of the 21st century, being one of the major reasons why electronic dance music has become widely mainstream in recent decades. They influenced artists ranging from LCD Soundsystem to Skrillex and Avicii to Charli XCX.

Furthermore, almost every single major project of theirs, spanning across decades, was important to this genre in some way. Homework inspired a wave of house music imitators replicating their filtered sound. Discovery heavily influenced modern pop music through its polished production, Autotune, and house beats, elements of music that were considered strange back then and yet are universal in mainstream music nowadays. Human After All was accompanied by the Alive 2007 tour, whose live anthemic music and strobe lights led to the rise of 2010s EDM in the United States. Finally, Random Access Memories, while not necessarily influential in its own right, was widely critically acclaimed and commercially successful. These albums taken together highlight the extent to which Daft Punk has shaped electronic dance music in the modern day.

It is true that we already list Kraftwerk  4 and Brian Eno  4 at this level. Both of them were early electronic music pioneers who incalculably impacted the direction this genre would take. However, I think Daft Punk deserves to be put on the same level as those two, especially as a representative of 21st century electronic music and one of the primary factors behind its modern-day sound. Lazman321 (talk) 06:23, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom Lazman321 (talk) 06:23, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Weak support. I generally view V4 as where the most famous and "best of the best in their genre" artists should go. For being one of the most popular and influential in electronic music I suppose Daft Punk can go here. However I don't think they're on the same caliber of other "best in their genre" musicians we list if we tried to rank all of them by importance in a combined set. λ NegativeMP1 23:08, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Not V4. Not every genre needs to be represented at V4.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:41, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

   I never claimed that "every genre needs to be represented at V4", and electronic music is hardly an obscure genre, especially nowadays when most pop music this century has been dominated by bright synthesizers, dance-like drum machines, and autotuned vocals, thanks in large part to Daft Punk. Lazman321 (talk) 04:07, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

   I am unimpressed with their discography for VA4.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:57, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

2. --Thi (talk) 17:59, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
3. 飞车过大关 (talk) 20:09, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

Proposing a few astrophysics topics

I know that physical sciences is slightly over quota, but I really do think that these topics are vital at the V4 level.

Add Gravitational singularity  5

Believed to be in the center of every Black hole  3, and also at the Big Bang  3.

Support

1. As nom. Shocksingularity (talk) 03:49, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Pretty famous, at least in hard sf :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:55, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 17:58, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
4. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 12:35, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
5. User name checks out on this one. Aye. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:34, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Stellar black hole  5

The first widely recognized black hole, Cygnus X-1  4, is a stellar BH. They are also very common in the universe. IMO, they deserve to be at level 4 with Supermassive black hole  4 rather than level 5 with Intermediate-mass black hole  5, Micro black hole  5, and Kugelblitz (astrophysics), considering that IMBHs are relatively rare and micro BHs and kugelblitzes are theoretical.

Support

1. As nom. Shocksingularity (talk) 03:49, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Weakly, but indeed I would support this due to the significance. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 01:56, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 17:58, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
4. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 12:35, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
5. User name checks out on this one. Aye. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:34, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Black dwarf  5

Although they are still technically theoretical, black dwarfs are basically as close as you can get to being universally accepted within the astrophysics community without being directly observed. The main reason they haven't been observed is because the universe is still too young for them to form. However, they are still an important concept in astronomy, being the end stage of most stars in the universe, including the Sun  2.

Support

1. As nom. Shocksingularity (talk) 03:49, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Would want to wait until one is observed. Maybe in a few billion years we can revist. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:49, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Agreed with GeogSage, we are far too early for that. It's an important concept that far more importantly has yet to exist and will not exist for any foreseeable future and thus any vitality it has is theoretical. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 03:56, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Per others.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 08:53, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

Shocksingularity (talk) 03:49, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Add Mein Kampf  5

I feel like this one is kind of the metaphorical elephant in the room, but it's still vital despite the disgusting views inside. The Communist Manifesto  4 is already in VA4.

Support

1. As nom. Shocksingularity (talk) 05:34, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
2. I am quite open to various types of sys biases. But while the book is famous, I wonder if it is really that important? That said, 80+ iwikis and nerly 3k daily views are strong indicators that this is more than just V5 concept, sigh. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:54, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
3. It is significant in that it outlined Hitler's beliefs and became a far-right influence for the generations that followed, to the point that Neo-Nazism still is extant. On a more personal note, I would rather not have to see this section stay on the talk page for that long though, get it passed or failed, and get it archived soon. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 19:31, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
4. A book that established an ideology that was influential in WW2 and still exists to this day. I agree with Frank on wanting this archived soon. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 07:11, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Not relevant at this level. Only few actually reads it. --Thi (talk) 12:34, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

   Only a few people reading something now doesn't mean it wasn't historically important Shocksingularity (talk) 17:06, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

   I would rather place Nazi Germany or the Holocaust at Level 3. Adolf Hitler is already at Level 3, and his book is only a detail in comparison. --Thi (talk) 17:42, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

2. Not particularly influential as a book. For 20th century non-fiction, I would rather have Diary of a Young Girl. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 04:47, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
3. 飞车过大关 (talk) 06:23, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
4. I second The Diary of a Young Girl  5.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:30, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

Shocksingularity (talk) 05:34, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Add Fan (person)  5

Pretty major concept related to popculture of the last century or so. 45 iwikis, just 225 dailies. At Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Everyday life/Sports, games and recreation it is a parent of a mini tree (with Fan convention  5 and several more specific examples there, as well as stuff like fan art, fan fiction, etc. that are V5. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:52, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:52, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Shocksingularity (talk) 05:01, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Very important topic. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:33, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Disneyland  5

Very very famous. Amusement park  4 is just V4 too, but I think that one deserves to be moved from a dozen or so examples of amusement parks at V5 to V4. 68 iwikis, ~1.5k daily views. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:07, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:07, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Makes sense on paper. Probably the most famous and influential theme/amusement park there is besides Walt Disney World  5, which Disneyland inspired the creation of. With how popular theme parks are and Disneyland being the most prominent example of one it seems reasonable for V4. λ NegativeMP1 23:00, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Vacation  5

Tourism is V3. All other concepts related to it are V5. I think this major concept can be in-between. Vacations are major events in lives of many people in the last centur or so. 45 iwikis, just ~100 dailies (suprising - probably the concept is so obvious nobody visits the article...). Another consideration could be Resort  5 (few iwikis, a bit more dailies) I guess. I prefer a concept/activity to a location, however. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:12, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:12, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Shocksingularity (talk) 05:01, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 17:57, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
4. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 22:46, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
5. Johnnie Runner (talk) 17:21, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
6. Very important concept. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:22, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Remove Water polo  4

~400 dailies. Is this really a sport worthy of V4 level? There are plenty of more popular cultural things (for example, at V5 we are discussing adding movies like Inception - that one has comparable iwikis and 10x as many daily views... and yet we are hitting a movie quota). Niche sport that almost never appars on regular TV and most folks don't follow is probably more of a V5 than V4, IMHO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:14, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:57, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 16:41, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Shocksingularity (talk) 05:00, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
4. Aye.飞车过大关 (talk) 06:22, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. It's pretty popular in Central Europe, and I think it's important to keep our only contact water sport. Johnnie Runner (talk) 23:08, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Per Johnnie, Blood in the Water match type things add history value and it's apart of the Summer Olympic Games since 1900, the ultimate global event. GuzzyG (talk) 23:12, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

Swap Leninism  4 with Marxism–Leninism  5.

Surprised about this one frankly; Marxism–Leninism is far more prominent than Leninism alone.

Support

1. As nom. The Account 2 (talk) 22:51, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Shocksingularity (talk) 19:37, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Many more pageviews. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:32, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Performance  5

Performances are some of the most crucial expressions of art, accounting Theatre  3, Art  3, and much more. HwyNerd Mike (t | c) 06:43, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. HwyNerd Mike (t | c) 06:43, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Shocksingularity (talk) 19:37, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. per ~2025-32643-78.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:46, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

• It's Performing arts  2 that encompasses those things. The article Performance  5 would be a bit redundant. Most of the content of the article could be merged. ~2025-32643-78 (talk) 00:45, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Move Robert E. Lee  5 and Ulysses S. Grant  4 to level 5, Add John J. Pershing  5 to level 4

We include 4 leaders from the U.S.: Douglas MacArthur  4 (WWII U.S. General), George C. Marshall  4 (Chief of staff during WWII, worked as aide-de-camp to General Pershing in WWI.) I don't see these two going anywhere. The American Civil War  4 is level 4, and the Confederate States of America  5 is level 5. In the grand scheme of things, the U.S. Civil War is a comparatively short and minor conflict. The inclusion of Generals from both sides seems to be both an American bias, and elementary school U.S. history bias. I believe in terms of actual influence within the military, John J. Pershing is a much more significant American military leader. Per the lede "General of the Armies John Joseph Pershing (September 13, 1860 – July 15, 1948), nicknamed "Black Jack", was an American army general, educator, and founder of the Pershing Rifles. He served as the commander of the American Expeditionary Forces (AEF) during World War I from 1917 to 1920. In addition to leading the AEF to victory in World War I, Pershing served as a mentor to many in the generation of generals who led the United States Army during World War II, including George C. Marshall, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Omar Bradley, Lesley J. McNair, George S. Patton, and Douglas MacArthur." World War I was a much more global event then the U.S. Civil War, and Pershing was massively involved in the U.S. role during the war, and his legacy is clear in the post war period. Two for one swap will help deal with U.S./Western bias, and adding a WWI General over two Civil war generals plugs more into events that are more broadly relevant globally. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:12, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Move Robert E. Lee  5 to level 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.

---

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:12, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 10:12, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Indeed he can go. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 15:02, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
4. -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:46, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
5. 飞车过大关 (talk) 17:58, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
6. The Account 2 (talk) 10:09, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
7. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 11:01, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
8. Yep, decisively regional, unlike Grant. GuzzyG (talk) 03:38, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

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.

Move Ulysses S. Grant  4 to level 5

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:12, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --Thi (talk) 10:12, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
2. I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but Ulysses S. Grant was, in addition to being a major ACW general, also the 18th president of the United States and served two whole terms. Keeping one US general from before the 20th century, especially one who also was elected a civilian leader, is not really that much of a bias. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 15:01, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
3. -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:46, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
4. per Frank. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 11:02, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
5. Irrespective of everything else, like winning the civil war, two term presidency, his World tour of Ulysses S. Grant is literally probably the one symbolic turning point in the United States trying to become a global state. Grant is definitely locked, atleast at 2,000 quota. GuzzyG (talk) 03:41, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

• @User:DemocracyDeprivationDisorder I'm aware of he was a president. I proposed removing several U.S. presidents above. I do not think Grant is a particuarlly important U.S. president, and don't think that is why he was added. His most vital contribution was as a Civil War general. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:53, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

  See past discussions. He's there because of both jobs' combined impact. (Things can be multiple things.) J947 ‡ ^edits 23:15, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Move John J. Pershing  5 to level 4

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:12, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
2. The reasoning for that is sound. Pershing is influential to multiple generals, three of which are Level 4 vitality (MacArthur and Marshall as you mentioned, but also Eisenhower who is listed with politicians). Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 15:06, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
3. World War I is definitely under covered, but Ferdinand Foch would need to be added too, being the supreme allied commander of world war I or Douglas Haig, 1st Earl Haig, the British leader. We list Paul von Hindenburg, Erich Ludendorff and Enver Pasha of the Central Powers, the people who lost, so no reason not to list the Allied main leaders. It's not like World War I will ever lose importance for a while. GuzzyG (talk) 21:45, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --Thi (talk) 10:12, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Add Death of a Salesman

We currently list 54 works at Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/4/Arts#Fiction_of_modern_era. This play has earned Tony Award for Best Broadway Production four times: Tony Award for Best Play (1949), Tony Award for Best Revival (1984), and Tony Award for Best Revival of a Play (1999, 2012). VA4 Arts is at 694/700.

Support

1. As nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:13, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Support swap with The Crucible --Thi (talk) 13:35, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:09, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

1. If this has to be a swap, I support it as more vital than The Crucible for several reasons: 1. Interwikis 38-21, 2. Broadway revivals, 5-2, 3. Broadway Tony Best Revival awards 3-0, 4. Push on pageviews overall (since July 2015) to Crucible, but Since Jan 2020 to DoaS. 5. Those pageview charts show more edits, editors and watchers to DoaS. Crucible is quite vital though.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:36, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
2. The trouble that I have with the proposed swap is that of the 54 current fiction VA4s from the modern era, I only see 4 plays(and no musicals): The Crucible, A Doll's House, The Importance of Being Earnest, Waiting for Godot. I think the argument could be made that this could swap for any of them. DoaS is probably the most vital modern play.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:24, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:13, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Add Grand Theft Auto  5

Besides Super Mario Bros.  5, which is at least partially covered by Mario  4, I think GTA is the only other specific video game that our coverage of pop culture is much weaker without. GTA is best known as the face of violent video games and corruption of the youth, but it's a cultural juggernaut beyond the moral panic, popular as far from its origin as Brazil and Bangladesh. In terms of sales and acclaim, it easily holds its own against our other VA4 entries. In terms of longevity, it's only getting more popular. And from an industry standpoint, it's been a perennial trendsetter (see GTA clone). Besides pushing the envelope on what you're allowed to put in a AAA video game, GTA has vastly expanded the design scope of video games with elements like high-profile voice work, roamable settings modeled on real-life locations and attitudes, and a high degree of freedom over how players interact with their environment. Even today, every decision going into GTA 6's development is being watched closely by other developers. GTA isn't important for sheer representation reasons, but as a cultural phenomenon.

This addition failed about a year ago, but so did Minecraft, which was recently added to VA4 in a landslide.

Support

1. Johnnie Runner (talk) 03:41, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
2. As the one who tried to get it added in the past and failed, I still support this. I seriously struggle to comprehend why this and other big-name video games or franchises shouldn't be added. My best guess is that GTA isn't really popular globally in a way something like Mario or Minecraft is. But neither is American football, and guess what we list at this level. That comparison aside, this is one of multiple franchises or games that I think V4 is actively worse off without. λ NegativeMP1 03:57, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

   I think there's three main reasons why video games don't get the same recognition as say movies. First is that there are still plenty of people around who grew up before video games got big, but there's nobody left from before movies, so it's not (yet) an eternal fixture in the same way. Second is that they're treated more as toys, which limits how seriously a lot of people pay attention to them, and from that, how influential they can be. The third is that they have a mechanical barrier of entry that limits how much uninvested audiences can engage with them directly, compared to a movie which only requires at least one intact sense. While I agree we could still use more video game topics at this level, the bar is definitely higher for them. Johnnie Runner (talk) 05:30, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

3. Support this addition and the others that NegativeMP1 proposed. For better or worse there are a lot of video games that are cultural touchstones and/or defined video game concepts and I am surprised we are at such a dearth of this cultural aspect at V4. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 04:36, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
4. Lazman321 (talk) 18:36, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
5. I disagree with J947 and believe that creative works (like games, films, and shows) are among the most important topics for us to prioritize in the Vital Articles project due to their lasting impact on society, which this one definitely has. I had a couple other works in mind that should also be added alongside GTA (namely The Legend of Zelda  5, Doom (1993 video game)  5, and M*A*S*H (TV series)  5), but GTA also deserves a slot. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:17, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
6. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 22:40, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
7. Granted, Minecraft is already listed at V4, but I would like more western games to be listed as they're also a huge industry in that part of the world. SameOldSameOldSameOld (talk) SameOldSameOldSameOld (talk) 22:17, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Enough video games are listed. Very reticent to add a piece of culture primarily consumed by young Western men given the demographics of this project. J947 ‡ ^edits 06:08, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 11:11, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
3. I don't want the Level 4 list to have a strong late-20th to early-21st century flavor.飞车过大关 (talk) 06:17, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

   How do you suppose adding Grand Theft Auto would entail that? nub :) 00:43, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

1. Alongside GTA, I still think we should add the following: Pong  5 for pretty much being the first video game; Pac-Man  5 for being the first game to really strike a multi-cultural nerve and basically being the first game with a recognizable character and "storytelling"; and Doom (1993 video game)  5 for being by and far the most important entry in the First-person shooter  5 genre, plus if we expand video game coverage at V4 then we need a first-person shooter representative. Other video game franchises I'd support would fully depend on what they are as I would definitely want to prioritize games at V4 being widely recognizable and highly influential. I'd want there to be a very high bar. But if anyone wants to propose adding those three then consider me automatically supportive because I think they clear what criteria I'd personally set for video games at V4 without a second thought. λ NegativeMP1 03:57, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Swap: Add Blade Runner  5, remove Singin' in the Rain  4

While Singin' in the Rain is acclaimed, yes, we've already removed The Rules of the Game  5 which has an even higher ranking on TSPDT, and Blade Runner is far more famous and influential, with even a separate Themes in Blade Runner article. American musical films can still be represented on this level by the likes of The Sound of Music (film)  4 and The Wizard of Oz  4 (which also get significantly more pageviews than Singin' in the Rain).

Support

1. As nom.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 16:28, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
2. While I do support listing more creative works, I don't think critical acclaim is enough for VA4 barring a few major outliers, which SitR is not. I do think VA4 should list works with a large amount of cultural and industry impact, which Blade Runner certainly has in spades. This is a good swap. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:36, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Your nomination directs us to TSPDT, which ranks Singing in the Rain 11th and Blade Runner 39th. This seems like a popularity contest by some youngins.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:01, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Musicals are hugely important in film history, and Singing in the Rain, has arguably aged best of all three. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 01:40, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Musicals were the backbone of the early industry and Singin' in the Rain is the penultimate lasting example. GuzzyG (talk) 20:56, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

   @GuzzyG: Like I asked everyone else below, would you support a straight add of Blade Runner? Your vote does not address that part. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:46, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

   Yes, i would, but not with any swap. Musicals are low. Blade Runner would equal sci-fi/fantasy films with epics though. Would Blade Runner and another Sci-Fi film be equal to covering war with one and Apocalypse Now  5, noir with one and Double Indemnity  5 or adding a non-western animated film in Spirited Away  5?. Film has traditionally been held back on this list by a anti-recency, pure acclaim only factor, but the worst symbols of that have been removed. (L'Atalante  5). A proper re-balancing has to occur here i think for it to be more spread out amongst genres. As films like Pulp Fiction  5 or Titanic (1997 film)  5 are just as vital, just in different avenues. I would support Blade Runner in theory, but there has to be more of a balancing act and i don't know if that is workable under current quotas. GuzzyG (talk) 23:05, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

   I'd support giving Arts another 50 to work on the issue. I definitely think Blade Runner should be added, and sci-fi/fantasy combined are one of the bigger genres. I would also support adding Titanic. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:11, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

   I'd agree in general, but removing 50 from bios would be odd and that's the only place i can see it happening. Odd as in, 1950 as a number (or 1900). Agreeing to cut bios down to 1500, to then add more to quotas throughout would work, but i don't see it being agreed upon. (remove sports figures to cover more of the missing sports, remove actors/some directors for big films and on and on for every other field). GuzzyG (talk) 23:27, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

   I'd support that, but it'd be an uphill battle and we'll likely have to do it incrementally. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:05, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

We might also consider adding Ridley Scott  5 himself since both Blade Runner  5 and Alien (film)  5 have been foundational to the later development of science fiction. Johnnie Runner (talk) 19:08, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger: If you don't mind, I think I covered that in my support rationale. Blade Runner has had an absolutely massive impact on the industry and on popular culture. Is there a reason you think it should not be listed, outside of SitR's slightly higher ranking at TSPDT? To Tony, Tabu Makiadi, and LaukkuTheGreit: would you three be open to a straight add, since most of the opposition seems to center on the remove? QuicoleJR (talk) 15:15, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm open to a straight add also. The reasons I proposed a swap was to a) keep VA4 size in check, b) I'm not convinced SitR is, as a creative work, more important/influential in the grand scheme of things than Kalevala  5, St Matthew Passion  5 or possibly even Fiddler on the Roof  5 (plus probably a few others I'm not remembering right now), and c) I'd like the standards for VA4 films to be similar to VA5 video games where acclaim alone has not been enough for inclusion.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 16:08, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I weakly oppose the addition. I think we have too many films relative to other specific artworks. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 19:54, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Remove some of the events under Track and field  4

There are 10 events listed at VA4 under track and field: 100 metres  4, Decathlon  4, Discus throw  4, High jump  4, Hurdling  4, Javelin throw  4, Long jump  4, Marathon  4, Pole vault  4, and Shot put  4.

While I think sports play an undeniable role in the world's culture and development, how big that role is depends on their popularity more than anything, and most of these events just don't have the requisite popularity for this level. I think most people would agree that the 100-meter dash and marathon (which shouldn't even be under track and field) are the most iconic events here, followed by the decathlon and hurdling. Basically, we should keep the 'track' and move down the 'field'. It's worth noting that I don't have any good metrics except pageviews to confirm this, but if you've followed the Summer Olympics before, you've probably noticed that they put a lot more pomp in some events than others. Hurdling is probably unusually low on views because of the name.

Remove the throwing events (Shot put  4, Discus throw  4, and Javelin throw  4)

Every throwing event except Hammer throw  5 is currently VA4. These events have iconic imagery, but not enough public interest.

Support

1. Johnnie Runner (talk) 19:56, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Aye. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:20, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
3. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:11, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --Thi (talk) 20:21, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
2. -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:24, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
3. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 22:52, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
4. GuzzyG (talk) 22:41, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Discuss discus

Remove the jumping events (High jump  4, Long jump  4, and Pole vault  4)

Every (strictly) jumping event except Triple jump  5 is currently VA4. The only one I'm a little hesitant to axe is pole vaulting because of the unique equipment, but I don't think that's enough to justify keeping it.

Support

1. Johnnie Runner (talk) 19:56, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Partial support for high jump and long jump. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 22:52, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Aye. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:20, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
4. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:11, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --Thi (talk) 20:21, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
2. -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:24, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
3. GuzzyG (talk) 22:41, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

City concept additions

I do not expect all of these concepts to pass, but I think it would be good to have some concepts that relate to entities bigger than a city on this list.

Metropolis  5

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 22:16, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Aye. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:20, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Megalopolis  5

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 22:16, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Aye. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:20, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Megacity  5

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 22:16, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Aye. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:20, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Global city  5

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 22:16, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Aye. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:20, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

I'm no expert on the minute differences between them, but I feel like these subjects are all effectively covered by Metropolitan area  4. Johnnie Runner (talk) 17:29, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Add TikTok  5

While we only list two social media sites at Vital 4 level (YouTube  4 and Facebook  4), I feel like TikTok qualifies for several reasons. It's now by far one of the most popular apps in the world (2 billion users outside China and 800 million users in China), with a large cultural impact. It is the first Chinese app to become so popular in the West, and maybe the only big social media app popular in both the West and China. It has become prominent enough to lead US Congress to take action affect the China–United States relations. Most critically, TikTok has revolutionized social media (similar to Facebook back in the day) by introducing and popularizing short-form video, leading many other social media services including YouTube, Instagram and Twitter to introduce short-form video.

Support

1. As nom The Account 2 (talk) 21:39, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
2. per nom ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 23:33, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
3. No doubt it's recentist but it's left a kind of impact that I simply don't think can be ignored. Let's consider the two social medias we already list here: Facebook  4 and YouTube  4. Facebook is the main social media for everything overall and is used by billions. It was also the first one to really attract everyone, even if Myspace  5 was technically the first. YouTube revolutionized the sharing of media and video online and is probably more important than Facebook by that metric alone. Now let's consider TikTok's main impact: the rise of short-form content. Most definitely a recent phenomenon but it's also one with a major ripple effect: YouTube Shorts, Facebook & Instagram Reels, etc.. Plus it's been widely studied for how it has influenced attention spans and how younger generations consume media. Like it or not I think the impact it has left meets V4 standards. λ NegativeMP1 19:20, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

   Yeah and I would argue that it having the same impact in China (where nearly all major social media apps are banned) makes it a very unique case. The Account 2 (talk) 22:20, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

4. Per cross global effect with China and America. GuzzyG (talk) 22:21, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
5. Short-form video has conquered the world. If it turns out to be a fluke, we can vote it out later. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 19:51, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak oppose. I'm old enough to remember Vine (service), Myspace  5, and MSN Messenger. Most are not level 5, much less level 4. ByteDance isn't included either. Maybe in five years if the kids are still TikToking. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:05, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Wait another five years to see.飞车过大关 (talk) 06:15, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 18:02, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

Replace Great pyramid of Giza with Giza pyramid complex

I don't think the Great pyramid of Giza overshadows the other pyramids of the Giza pyramid complex  5 that much.

Support

1. As nominator Lophotrochozoa (talk) 23:16, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Eh support. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:15, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Support addition, neutral on removal. Johnnie Runner (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
4. 飞车过大关 (talk) 16:51, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

   Support. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 18:33, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

5. Support addition, neutral on removal Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 07:00, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose. If anything, we should replace it with Pyramid  4. More cultures then Egypt made them, and our emphasis on them likely stems from the popularity of Egyptian culture Europe. Furthermore, this isn't a swap, the Great pyramid was already removed. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:13, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

"Furthermore, this isn't a swap, the Great pyramid was already removed" this is the V4 talk page. The great pyramid is at V4 now. λ NegativeMP1 17:23, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

My mistake, I thought I was on level 3. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:14, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

1. Oppose  Carlwev  21:46, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Oppose removal per Carlwev, undecided on addition. J947 ‡ ^edits 22:12, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Per Carlwev.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:37, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
4. NimbleNumbat (talk) 11:26, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
5. Shocksingularity (talk) 04:17, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Mixed

1. Oppose removal per Carlwev, support addition of the complex. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 23:51, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

The Great Pyramid was the tallest structure built by humans for 3800 years. One of the Wonders of the world. Was only a few days ago level 3, should not be dropped from level 3 to level 5 in a matter of days, it was one of only two buildings at level 3 for years, one of the most iconic buildings in the world for millennia. We also list Great Sphinx of Giza, which is part of the complex too. If this passes, we will list the complex, a statue which is part of the complex, but not the Biggest building in the world for over 3800 years which is on the complex, because it is part of the complex. If anything the Sphinx for the complex would be a better swap if it needs to be a swap. Also for comparison we list the Parthenon at level 4, and we also decided to list Acropolis of Athens in addition to Parthenon both at level 4, in full knowledge that was what we were doing. So why can't we list both the Pyramid and the complex, if we are listing both the Parthenon and Acropolis? Are we seriously suggesting the 4600 year old Great Pyramid is less vital than the Tate Modern which opened in a power station 25 years ago.  Carlwev  21:46, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

"Should not be dropped from level 3 to level 5 in a matter of days" I just want to say I disagree with this. Moving between levels is already extremely challenging, to the point the status quo is extremely entrenched. From a bureaucratic perspective, it is easier to get an article deleted then moved from level 3 to level 5. The level 3 and level 4 pit stops really make a mess of things when the proposal is really just "Swap between levels 3 and 5." It makes real structural change really difficult. Most editors will be exhausted before they can manage to check all the boxes to move an article from level 5 to level 2, even if it is a wildly popular proposal. Adding another layer of a cool down is not only instruction creep, but another stone wall to try and hurdle. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:50, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Add Colonization  4

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.

---

An very important topic that should be at VA3 to match Decolonization  3.

Support

1. As nom. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 09:05, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
2. 飞车过大关 (talk) 16:49, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Easy support. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:53, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
4. Lazman321 (talk) 17:27, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
5. Aye. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:55, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
6. Shocksingularity (talk) 20:02, 14 November 2025 (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.

Promote The Diary of a Young Girl  5 to level 4

Brought up above in discussion for adding Mein Kampf  5 by @User:Tabu Makiadi. The vital articles have three stated "purposes," and I think this book falls under number 3, "to serve as a centralized watchlist of English Wikipedia's most important articles." If you look at the last 500 edits, at least 20 are tagged as being related to possible vandalism. Other then that, the page statistics generally are around level 4 publications, and it has clear cultural impact if we want to list books.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:42, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Would also support raising this to level 4, Anne Frank herself is of level 4 vitality. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 12:20, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Shocksingularity (talk) 20:01, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
4. Swap for Anne Frank. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 15:45, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Overlap with Anne Frank  4.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 12:40, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
2. overlap. --Thi (talk) 19:47, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Per overlap. This was hashed at 7 years ago, which i agree with [2]. This is the one undeniable case of where the biography is the importance and we should not filter that through a book. GuzzyG (talk) 20:54, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
4. Per GuzzyG. J947 ‡ ^edits 03:47, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
5. 飞车过大关 (talk) 19:17, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

Proposal signature

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:42, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Remove Lauren Bacall  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.

---

Above, GeogSage proposed trimming Actors using stats, which was heavily biased against historical figures. To counteract that bias, I found a more modern actress to remove instead. While Bacall is quite famous, nothing in her article explains why she reaches Level 4 as one of the thirty most vital American actors of all time, and she doesn't even have a Legacy section. She's decently well-known, but she isn't more vital than Robert Redford  5 or Betty White  5. This slot would be much better used for other, more important topics.

Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:23, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. I'm currently working out how to add more qualitative metrics to the dataset I have, such as birth/death date, or geographic location. With 50,000 articles and multiple categories, it is hard to find out what variables I should capture across the board. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:30, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 19:48, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
4. Looks like her article can go, not world-changing enough of a career.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 19:58, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
5. Shocksingularity (talk) 20:02, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
6. Known for being the penultimate noir actress and permanently tied to culture/history via the Bogart connection, definitely more important than Redford or White, but not enough to be listed here. GuzzyG (talk) 22:16, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
7. J947 ‡ ^edits 03:49, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

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

Remove Klaus Kinski  4

In the same vein, I think it would be fine to remove Kinski. Most of what he's known for is his collaborations with Werner Herzog  4, who we already list at this level and has a wider repertoire outside of their collaborations. The broader filmography of Kinski by comparison doesn't have as much importance.

Support

1. As nom. AllyWithInfo (talk) 21:28, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
2. No name recognition today and the documented abuse allegations tank his future in academic studies. Purely known for Herzog ties. If Hollywood is cut down, so should the others. GuzzyG (talk) 22:07, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Per others.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 00:02, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
4. --Thi (talk) 16:59, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
5. Per above. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:38, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
6. Aye. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:03, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
7. The Account 2 (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Remove Jean Gabin  4

Regional French level film actor, but including Louis de Funès  4 we will still have 5, clearly enough of. Not a global name, so the weakest to list.

Support

1. As nom. GuzzyG (talk) 03:36, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 17:00, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
3. 飞车过大关 (talk) 19:16, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
4. The Account 2 (talk) 11:36, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
5. Aye. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:11, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Remove Henry Clay  4

Non head of state American politician, with the removal of John Adams  5 and the apparent recognition that American revolutionary figures are not global, neither should 19th century non head of state American politicians be. The United States was not a global force during his time. We list George C. Marshall  4, for global impact and at the USA's peak of global influence we do not list non head of states Henry Kissinger  5 and Dick Cheney  5, who had a vast more impact on global nations, than Clay, whose impact never left the United States when it was not global. There should be very rare occasions when we list non head of state leaders and i do not think Clay reaches that metric, other than United States bias.

Support

1. As nom. GuzzyG (talk) 03:36, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 17:01, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
3. 飞车过大关 (talk) 19:15, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
4. The Account 2 (talk) 11:36, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. We emphasize U.S. presidents entirely to much, the other branches are not really well represented at all, despite them supposedly being equal in power. Wouldn't oppose his eventual removal, but would rather see othe leaders taken first. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:01, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

Remove John Marshall  4

Per the Clay nomination above. Heavily affecting US jurisprudence but we don't list names like Edward Coke  5. National law figures without global influence probably should not be on this level, level 5 is enough. Washington, Franklin and Jefferson are the only revolutionary era global American figures.

Support

1. As nom. GuzzyG (talk) 03:36, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 17:01, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
3. 飞车过大关 (talk) 19:14, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
4. The Account 2 (talk) 11:37, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. We emphasize U.S. presidents entirely to much, the other branches are not really well represented at all, despite them supposedly being equal in power. Wouldn't oppose his eventual removal, but would rather see othe leaders taken first. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:01, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

   In terms of global influence, a US president is more significant than a SCOTUS judge, pretty much every time. ~2025-37287-46 (talk) 21:18, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

   While true, Marshall is likely to be the one justice with an impact bigger then almost any president. In Marbury v. Madison  5 (1803), Marshall struck down a law passed by congress and established Judicial review  5. This is an important aspect of the checks and balances system, and Judicial review is a concept that has influenced other countries governments. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 07:41, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

Remove Sergey Bubka  4

A technical statistics based figure in sports/pole vault, known for records, but no cultural popularity. For a figure based in pop culture, they should be globally known. Armand Duplantis  5 has overtaken his records too. Ukraine is important today, for it's war and politics. Yet, we list no figures relating to this. Listing Bubka over Volodymyr Zelenskyy  5, Stepan Bandera  5 or Leonid Kravchuk  5 is weak. We've removed Nestor Makhno  5 and Symon Petliura  5 for Ukrainian history too. Zelenskyy is probably the only legitimate add though, but either way, not Bubka. It'd be like if we listed Jenny Lind  5 over Abraham Lincoln  3

Support

1. As nom. GuzzyG (talk) 03:36, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 17:03, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Article shows no signs of the requisite lasting impact for Level 4. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
4. Aye. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:02, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
5. 飞车过大关 (talk) 19:14, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Utterly dominant and one of only two primarily field athletes listed. As a crude measure, the other field athlete, Jackie Joyner-Kersee  4, has fewer interwikis. Much rather remove some track athletes. J947 ‡ ^edits 03:55, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

Remove Hicham El Guerrouj  4

Another technical based athlete, where in he's listed for a record, but has no wider global cultural prominence. In comparison to other Olympic champs like Lin Dan  5 or Edoardo Mangiarotti  5, there is nothing that stands out as important and running, something we list 9 bios for, is clearly overcrowded. (1 less than our Modern Chinese politicians section). We've just removed Ayrton Senna  5 who is the biggest global myth of the fastest rising sport today and also Rafael Nadal  5, a widely popular athlete in a popular sport today. The 100m/200m sprints and the marathon are the two important running events and we cover those. Ages ago we removed Roger Bannister  5, who ran the first sub-Four-minute mile. El Guerrouj just does not add up and fits perfect in level 5. Level 4 athletes should atleast have both records and cultural profile. But running is over crowded, our most listed sport next to Association football. It's the most overlisted field on the list per cultural profile.

Support

1. As nom. GuzzyG (talk) 03:36, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 17:04, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Win counts and records are not sufficient for Level 4. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:41, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
4. As far as male distance runners, Nurmi is the more sensible inclusion. Records are temporary; vitality is by large permanent. J947 ‡ ^edits 04:00, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
5. 飞车过大关 (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
6. Aye. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:08, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Remove Ronaldo (Brazilian footballer)  4

Maybe controversial, but overshadowed by Messi/the other Ronaldo clearly and in his own era covered By Zidane, who has had a high profile managerial career too, unlike this Ronaldo. No sport should have over 10 listings and just like we cut Nadal, Ronaldo is a good choice. He is just a popular, successful player. No longer the GOAT and overshadowed by Zidane in his own time. We do not list just popular people in other modern other cultural forms and figures like Jeff Bezos  5, Tom Cruise  5, Leonardo DiCaprio  5, Whitney Houston  5, Britney Spears  5 etc. No reason to list him and even in contemporary sports, Katie Ledecky  5, Lewis Hamilton  5 and Floyd Mayweather Jr.  5 have more arguments of era dominance.

Support

1. As nom. GuzzyG (talk) 03:36, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 17:05, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:35, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
4. Recentist and football has become overrepresented. Suggest removing Zidane too. J947 ‡ ^edits 04:06, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
5. Per nom, also football is overrepresented. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 06:41, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
6. Seems fair after we nuked the baseball and basketball entries. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 02:52, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
7. For a sec I was going to oppose because I thought you were referring to Christiano Ronaldo, but yeah the other Ronaldo can go. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 23:33, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
8. Aye. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:09, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Remove Lev Yashin  4

Per above. But also, goalkeepers and any other positions should not be singled out on a level like 4. They should have to have cultural profile too in a pop culture field. We don't list pitchers in baseball, goal tenders in ice hockey. Yashin's sole point is that he's the greatest goal keeper, but without cultural profile, that's meaningless. Soviet Union and Russia are not known for association football prowess, they are for ice hockey prowess though and we've removed Vladislav Tretiak  5 before, ironically a goaltender. So why is Yashin important?

Support

1. As nom. GuzzyG (talk) 03:36, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 17:06, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Aye. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:09, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak oppose. His lack of cultural profile is outweighed by a giant in-sport impact (if the article lede is to be believed). I'm wary of removing Russian sportspeople just because they don't tend to have cultural profile. J947 ‡ ^edits 04:10, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

• Haven't made up my mind yet, but the articles says that Yashin "revolutionized the position" of goalkeeper and therefore had a lasting impact on the sport. I'm not sure if it's enough for Level 4, but it's something. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:49, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Remove Alec Guinness  4

A British actor, known for being technically great and culturally for Star Wars. We list Laurence Olivier  4 and John Gielgud  4 for great British technical acting and Sean Connery  4 has the bigger cultural profile for a single role. If we are cutting down Hollywood actors, Brits can be cut down by one too.

Support

1. As nom. GuzzyG (talk) 03:36, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 17:07, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
3. The Account 2 (talk) 11:38, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
4. Aye. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:11, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
5. 飞车过大关 (talk) 20:10, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. As noted in the lede of his article, Guinness was the single most noted actor within the hundred most important British films in the 20th century. Axing him from V4 would be a disservice towards British representation in entertainment in general. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 06:44, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Weak oppose because I'd remove Peter O'Toole  4 instead. Johnnie Runner (talk) 20:09, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

Remove Grace Kelly  4

Famous actor made historic by Princess title. But she has no acting craft legacy and Diana, Princess of Wales  5 is the Princess title holder with the more globally prominent role. We don't list her and we're cutting down actors and i don't think royal mythology is enough alone. Her husband would be more globally relevant, for making Monaco a playground of the rich, but even he's not listed as probably no microstate leader should at this level.

Support

1. As nom. GuzzyG (talk) 03:36, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Aye. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:05, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
3. 飞车过大关 (talk) 19:10, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
4. The Account 2 (talk) 11:38, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
5. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:16, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
6. Per nom, if someone as culturally mythologised as Princess Diana isn't considered at V4, there's even less of a reason to list Grace Kelly at this level. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 04:28, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Remove Tom Hanks  4

Recentist popular actor, whose cultural myth is the same as James Stewart  4 yet less historic. Time has to pass and dust has to settle before we know if he stands out amongst, Al Pacino  5, Tom Cruise  5, Leonardo DiCaprio  5, Denzel Washington  5 or Daniel Day-Lewis  5. Seems like he was added for the two oscar wins in a row, but that was also done by Spencer Tracy  4, who currently has votes for removal. Also his favorable image, but that is not vitality.

Support

1. As nom. GuzzyG (talk) 03:36, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 17:08, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Sure. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:04, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
4. Aye.飞车过大关 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:07, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
5. Support removal. He’s really just not that big a deal. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:49, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I would say he's already stood the test of time and proven himself as the dominant actor of an otherwise poorly represented period of Hollywood. If anything, we should be adding Pacino and Cruise instead (maybe even Schwarzenegger too for his development of the Blockbuster and successful break into politics), as even if the Golden Age of Hollywood had the most growth, movies have never been more popular than they are today. AllyWithInfo (talk) 19:43, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Per AllyWithInfo. The U.S. actors list still suffers from a lack of chronological diversity. J947 ‡ ^edits 04:02, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Per Ally, we can have at least one recentish actor. Kevinishere15 (talk) 04:12, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
4. Per Ally, we should instead consider adding at least one of Pacino, Cruise, or Schwarzenegger instead of removing Hanks. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 06:37, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
5. -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:27, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

• I'm neutral on whether Hanks should be listed, but I would definitely prefer Schwarzenegger if we can only have one of the two. He is just as iconic as Hanks, if not more, and the governorship of the US's largest state certainly helps. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:31, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Remove André Gide  4

A French writer who is not a widely known name, not of global importance, has no legacy section and is more known today for his Pederast views. I don't think his Nobel alone makes him vital.

Support

1. As nom. GuzzyG (talk) 03:36, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 17:09, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Not seeing any sort of VA4 vitality, seems like more of a VA5 figure. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:08, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
4. Aye. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:02, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
5. Let me be blunt. Throw that legacy-lacking nonce out. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 06:28, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
6. The Account 2 (talk) 11:39, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Remove Carol Burnett  4

An Ameri-centric comedy icon, but her show has been outdone by Saturday Night Live  5, we cover women comedians better with Lucille Ball  4. There is no reason to list this non-global name. Especially since Lenny Bruce  5 was cut.

Support

1. As nom. GuzzyG (talk) 03:36, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 17:09, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Aye. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:04, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
4. 飞车过大关 (talk) 19:05, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
5. The Account 2 (talk) 11:39, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Swap Julio Iglesias  4 for Fairuz  5

Best selling singer, the equivalent of Spanish Garth Brooks  5 but with no lasting historic or cultural ties, which we list in Spanish music already with Paco de Lucía  4 for Fairuz; one of 2 dominant Arabic music singers along with Umm Kulthum  4. Egypt and Lebanon are the two traditional power houses in Arabic music and i think both should be covered. Spanish music (the country, not the language) is already covered by Paco de Lucía and for the actual language Vicente Fernández  5 and Carlos Gardel  5 and Mercedes Sosa  5 are the big 3 and more important than statistics only importance Iglesias.

Support

1. As nom. GuzzyG (talk) 03:36, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I am having trouble dismissing record sales.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:33, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Ferdinand Foch  5

As per my comment in the Pershing nom. " World War I is definitely under covered, but Ferdinand Foch would need to be added too, being the supreme allied commander of World War I or Douglas Haig, 1st Earl Haig, the British leader. We list Paul von Hindenburg, Erich Ludendorff and Enver Pasha of the Central Powers, the people who lost, so no reason not to list the Allied main leaders. It's not like World War I will ever lose importance for a while.". Figured i may aswell make the nom for Foch on my own, if we list 3 central powers leaders, the losing side, i don't see how Foch should not be added.

Support

1. As nom. GuzzyG (talk) 03:36, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:39, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Itō Hirobumi  5

We only list 5 modern Japanese leaders which is less than some sports, which is low as Japan has been one of the big countries for a while now and this is the first Japanese prime minister, whose legacy description says "He is widely recognized as a principal architect of the Meiji state, the "father of the Meiji Constitution", and a driving force behind Japan's rapid modernization in the late 19th century. His achievements include the establishment of key institutions such as the cabinet system, the Imperial University, the Diet, and the Privy Council, all of which laid the groundwork for modern Japanese governance". I think being the predominant Meiji prime minister is enough to be listed. His assassination is also a historic moment in the relationship between Japan-Korea.

Support

1. As nom. GuzzyG (talk) 03:36, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Asian leaders are undercovered. The Account 2 (talk) 11:40, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 09:57, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
4. Per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 04:13, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
5. Perm nom. The Meiji era formed the basis of the Japan we now know of, and should be represented. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 05:15, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Grief  5

A very culturally and socially important emotion, which the VA4 list isn't complete without. It is miles ahead of most of the VA5 emotions in terms of importance, and I'd consider it more important than Agreeableness  4 or Neuroticism  4. 31 interwikis (more than the above two have), rated High-Importance by WikiProject Psychology and WikiProject Death.

Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:55, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
2. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 03:39, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
3. 飞车过大关 (talk) 04:46, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
4. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:15, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
5. Support  Carlwev  22:10, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

I am probably incorrect about this, but I feel like Neuroticism  4 and Agreeableness  4 are at VA4 because of their place in the Big Five personality traits model. Probably wrong though, since Openness to experience  5 is at VA5. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 03:46, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

I think you're onto something. Both of those articles mention the Big Five in their opening paragraphs, as does Conscientiousness  4 and Extraversion and introversion  4, though I hear casual usage of the latter far more often than the rest. Johnnie Runner (talk) 04:41, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Remove Charles Stewart Parnell  4

One of the most impactful figures of 19th-century Ireland, but three Irish leaders might be excessive for a country with 5 million people. I think Collins and de Valera are sufficient coverage. The second smallest country with three or more Modern leaders is South Africa. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 03:36, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 03:36, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
2. 飞车过大关 (talk) 04:46, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 12:26, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
4. The Account 2 (talk) 11:40, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
5. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:15, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
6. Aye. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:34, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Village pump

There is a discussion in the idea lab of the village pump that concerns the future of this project. I am notifying this article since not everybody has the main vital articles talk page watchlisted. -1ctinus📝🗨 15:56, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Swap Selena  4 with Shakira  5

If someone should represent Latin American music from 1990 to the present, it should be Shakira. She has had a much longer, more global career, with a significant crossover audience, and more visibility in pop culture. In contrast, Tejano music is relatively regional. Shakira has reportedly sold over 95 million records, while Selena has reportedly sold 18 million, one of the lowest from popular musicians. Colombia is also a large country with an important musical tradition, and the only VA4 people we list right now are Pablo Escobar  4 and Gabriel García Márquez  4.

Support

1. As nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 22:09, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
2. More well-known globally. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:14, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 13:15, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
4. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:29, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
5. I've been considering nominating Shakira for a while, especially since cultural impact of Shakira is its own article. The swap makes sense. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
6. Support. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:51, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Voting  5

This might be a better candidate for level 3 than Suffrage  3 which is already proposed for removal although I could see this being covered by Democracy  3.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 21:56, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:47, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
3. 飞车过大关 (talk) 20:00, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Header levels

I'm trying to change the top headers of the level 4 from a level 2 header to a level 1 header, but @GeogSage: reverted one of my edits. I knew that they want one top level header on each subpage, but since I changed the header levels on other level 4 subpages long ago and GeogSage didn't complain, I thought that's not a problem. I would like to change all level 4 subpage to use a level 1 header and multiple level 2 headers. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 19:39, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not watching all the pages, I'm not sure when you did this but it would explain why my script isn't working at the moment. I had changed it to level 1 to keep it consistent with level 3 and enable automation. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:14, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

It was discussed here a while ago. Specifically, the API call is PARAMS = {action': "parse",'page': level, 'prop': "links", 'section': section, 'format': "json"}, and to make this streamlined, the section should be consistent between the project, failing that it needs to be consistent within the level. All the links for a level need to be under one section header, which is why I used level 1. This avoids capturing things like the links at the top of the page explaining vital levels and such. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:20, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

You [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/4/Everyday_life&diff=prev&oldid=1323261599 reverted from one level 1 header to one level 2 header]. As I said, I would like to organize every level 4 subpage with one level 1 header; that shouln't cause any problems for your API queries. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 21:32, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

It needs to be consistent for each level, and level 4 had previously had all slots consistent at level 2. Currently, it is inconsistent between the level 4 pages, that wasn't the case before. If everything is captured under the one umbrella header, it shouldn't be a problem you're right. I'll just have to change what I have once it is consistent again. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:49, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Just to be clarify from the last edit summary, the headers were consistent as recently as July, I don't know who changed them. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:19, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

I started using first level header as early as January. Anyway, I've finished changing all level 4 subpages to use one first level header. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 19:28, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Add Sun Wukong  5

A soft guideline we generally follow is that if a character's importance isn't sufficiently separable from their best-known material, only one gets to occupy a VA4 slot (i.e., Looney Tunes  4 and Bugs Bunny  5, but not Faust  4 and Goethe's Faust  4). Sun Wukong is best known for his place in Journey to the West  4, but he's gone far beyond his source material to become unquestionably the most recognizable and popular Chinese mythical figure. He's in countless movies, TV shows, video games, and influences global pop culture far from his source. He's also found in Buddhist temples, and there are holidays and festivals dedicated specifically to him. Additionally, we only have one Eastern folklore figure at VA4 (Hua Mulan  4), compared to 5 from Western folklore (all of whom I think belong there, but that's beside the point).

Support straight addition

1. Johnnie Runner (talk) 01:52, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
2. I'm neutral on Tarzan, certainly he's an influential character, but Sun Wukong is pretty much a cultural touchstone in the entire Sinosphere. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 06:01, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Swap with Tarzan  4

1. I've tried to get Tarzan removed before, so I'll leave it as an option over quota concerns. I still think he's the weakest link under characters, but my goal is the addition more than the removal. Johnnie Runner (talk) 01:52, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
2. As mentioned above, I'm neutral but if quotas are the concern then I'm happy to do a swap. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 06:01, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
3. 飞车过大关 (talk) 14:04, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
4. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 04:42, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
5. --Thi (talk) 08:56, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
6. The Account 2 (talk) 12:29, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
7. Ipedecha (talk) 02:38, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removing Tarzan  Carlwev  20:07, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Oppose removing Tarzan.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 10:45, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Ableism  5

Important type of discrimination that's not really covered by anything else at this level. Racism  3 and Sexism  3 are level 3, Homophobia  4 is level 4.

Support

1. As nom. Shocksingularity (talk) 22:54, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
2. The Account 2 (talk) 12:29, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Shocksingularity (talk) 22:54, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Swap The Doors  4 for The Clash  5

In our VA4 selection of rock musicians, we have an ultra-dense 60s presence, but no representation of Punk rock  4 or New wave music  5. The Clash is the only band with the right profile for that awkward gap between Queen (band)  4 and Metallica  4/Nirvana (band)  4 in our rock music representation. The Clash (album) has probably the strongest legacy of any punk record for its sheer critical acclaim and role in giving punk political legitimacy with its socially-conscious lyricism ("They made it possible for us to take our band seriously", says The Edge of U2  5), but I don't think being a punk representative is really enough justification on its own. What really makes them VA4-worthy is their influence well beyond garage bands. The Clash aren't just foundational to punk rock, but to post-punk and new wave through their fusion of punk sensibilities with Ska  5 and Reggae  4, exemplified by London Calling  5, which is widely considered to be among the greatest and most influential works in rock music. They're even hip hop pioneers. They're literally The Only Band That Matters.

The Doors are certainly important, but I don't see what makes them more notable than The Who  5 or The Velvet Underground  5, especially since Jim Morrison  5, whom interest in the band tends to centralize around, has his own slot.

Support

1. Johnnie Runner (talk) 02:23, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Weak support. If the Who and the Velvets aren't VA4, probably the Doors shouldn't be. But as much as I love the Clash, nearly a third of the popular musicians section is rock. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 22:35, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removal. --Thi (talk) 08:58, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Cilicia

Because that region, during the Armenian rule, was one of the largest centres of world trade, it is definitely vital at this level.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:57, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. 飞车过大关 (talk) 18:47, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

Add COVID-19  5

Yeah it's recent but I honestly think this is worth level 4. It caused a pandemic and is still spreading today, with almost 800,000,000 total cases and over 7,000,000 deaths worldwide, according to the WHO. Diseases with a comparable impact include Influenza  3, Common cold  3, HIV/AIDS  3, Bubonic plague  4, Smallpox  3, Measles  4, Typhus  4, and Chickenpox  4.Shocksingularity (talk) 23:02, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. Shocksingularity (talk) 23:03, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
2. 飞车过大关 (talk) 18:47, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
3. I would also support bumping down SARS  4 since SARS-CoV-1 is likely extinct outside of labs, and SARS-CoV-2  5 is likely endemic now. Johnnie Runner (talk) 21:04, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. We do have COVID-19 pandemic  4 as User:Carlwev pointed out below. His examples are very convincing. The pandemic is more vital than the virus itself, which is more of a bio-trivia (in comparison). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:10, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 09:30, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

Shocksingularity (talk) 23:03, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

For clarity - at level 4 we do list COVID-19 pandemic. The article about the virus/organism/disease is a different article to the one about about the specific pandemic period/event. You may or may not consider both vital separately at this level, but just so we know. There are some other diseases where the disease and well known pandemic of the disease are separate articles. And to make it more confusing, there seams to be no specific one way we list them as vital. In vital articles we list some in different ways to others. For example the Bubonic plague is level 4, but Black Death is a level higher at level 3. (similar to present covid levels where the pandemic is one level higher than the disease, but 4 and 5.) the big pandemic is higher than the disease. However, Influenza is level 3 but Spanish Flu, probably the biggest pandemic of flu is one level lower at level 4, the disease is higher than the big pandemic, the opposite way of bubonic plague and covid. So an argument could be made for either one to be higher than the other, or for them to be the same... In short just be aware the pandemic is listed, and we handle other diseases in other non consistent ways.  Carlwev  23:29, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Remove Theodore Roosevelt  4

seems to me plainly to be the weakest link among the u.s. presidents currently listed at level 4. most of his accomplishments were regional and contextual to early 20th century america (national parks, national regulation etc.). he helped to negotiate the peace settlement for the (again, regional) Russo-Japanese War  4, but his role in the wider war was limited. his biggest international contribution was arguably his role in latin american politics and the creation of the Panama Canal  4, but the canal has greater longevity than the man. Charles Grey, 2nd Earl Grey  5 abolished slavery in the british empire and reformed the english constitution during pax brittanica and he's level 5. i would consider these cases comparable. Plifal (talk) 13:51, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Support

1. as nom.--Plifal (talk) 13:52, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Important in early environmentalism. Shocksingularity (talk) 06:56, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

   Shocksingularity, more important than John Muir  4, Rachel Carson  4, or John James Audubon  4? i doubt it. with those three at level four, i think we've reached our quota of early/contemporary american environmentalists. roosevelt's impact and effect was decidedly regional.--Plifal (talk) 08:23, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

2. 飞车过大关 (talk) 18:18, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

   飞车过大关, just curious if there was any reasoning? i've seen it said above that people support the removal of more u.s. leaders in favour of promoting others from around the world. this would free up a spot from someone who doesn't seem to have done as much for the powers and public perception of the presidency as e.g. Richard Nixon  4, nor had the global impact of someone like Franklin D. Roosevelt  4. i would also argue that his additional roles have been lesser in consequence than Dwight D. Eisenhower  4's. to me the comparison to Charles Grey, 2nd Earl Grey  5 is apt and important to consider in combatting american-centric bias.--Plifal (talk) 01:31, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

1. Also the basis for the Teddy bear  5. Kevinishere15 (talk) 03:44, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

   good point! but i would note that the teddy bear has greater recognition as its own object than its namesake. Charles Grey, 2nd Earl Grey  5 has a similar relationship with Earl Grey tea  5.--Plifal (talk) 08:04, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Add Eurocentrism  5

I shouldn't have to explain why this has to be bumped up. This issue is so prevalent in academia that putting it at VA5 won't do it justice.

Support

1. As nom. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 16:40, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. If you look at the countries we list at level 3 and 4, it is a demonstration of how prevalent this is not only in Wikipedia, but the project as a whole. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:50, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
3. Ipedecha (talk) 02:27, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The term didn't become popular until the 1990s, and it's mostly just a Western academic thing. Ironically, I think listing Eurocentrism at VA4 would itself be Eurocentric. Sure, the issue is prevalent in Western academia, but listing it as one of the 10K most important topics ever, over other social issues like Child abuse  5, Misinformation  5, and Extremism  5, or other discrimination topics like Antisemitism  5 and Xenophobia  5, would be absurd. Level 5 is much more appropriate. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:50, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
2. I'd bump some of the ones User:QuicoleJR mentions first, such as Antisemitism (the most famous specific example of ethnic prejudice, IMHO), and frankly, I can think of good reasons for all of the above I'd likely support at V4 before this mostly academic (in comparison with them) concept. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:14, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
3. V5 made sense but at V4, no. I'm agreeing with Piotrus and Quicole here. λ NegativeMP1 02:31, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
4. Per QuicoleJR and Piotrus. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 02:32, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
5. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 12:01, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
6. The Account 2 (talk) 12:14, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
7. --Thi (talk) 14:32, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
8. Per above. Shocksingularity (talk) 19:43, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

@Piotrus, GeogSage, NegativeMP1, Iostn, and Ipedecha: pinging as you were in the last discussion. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 16:40, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

@LunaEclipse I am not a extended confirmed in the english wikipedia, only the portuguese one, so i cannot vote, but i would have supported it. I disagree it being a academic term, its a pillar of the west and from their media to the way their people act and talk its visible for anyone who doesnt see europe as the center of the world. Ipedecha (talk) 02:02, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

@Ipedecha: Any registered user is allowed to vote in these proposals, you only need to be extended confirmed to directly edit the list. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:11, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I thought i could only participate in the level 5, I found the writing not that clear.Ipedecha (talk) 02:27, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Add Anti-fascism  5

Bumping this up too.

Support

1. As nom. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 22:14, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
2. Shocksingularity (talk) 00:20, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. What makes this particularly important over Anti-communism, Anti-authoritarianism, Anti-racism  5 and so on beyond recentist Western Culture war movements?--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 11:59, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
2. 飞车过大关 (talk) 19:42, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

@Piotrus, GeogSage, QuicoleJR, ChaoticVermillion, and Shocksingularity: pinging as you were in the last discussion. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 22:13, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Remove SARS  4

In the discussion on COVID-19  5, @Johnnie Runner suggested that SARS be demoted. I agree, so I'm proposing it here. No new cases reported since 2004. Even when it was endemic, there were less than 10,000 cases with a ~10% death rate. Possibly extinct outside of labs at this point.

Support

1. As nom.
2. --Thi (talk) 09:28, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
3. I also agree with Johnnie Runner. Johnnie Runner (talk) 17:43, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
4. 飞车过大关 (talk) 19:41, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Shocksingularity (talk) 02:43, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Move Human rights and Rights to the same place

I think Human rights  3 and Rights  4 should be listed together. On level 4, they are on the same page but different sections. On level 5, they are on different pages: Human rights is on Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences/Social studies (under Society: Social status) but Rights is on Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences/Politics and economics (under Law:Rights). Each has other articles listed under it. Is "human rights" meant to designate those things which Wikipedians are saying everyone deserves? How are these categories divided? ~2025-38288-40 (talk) 00:46, 6 December 2025 (UTC)