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

Oppose

Discuss

• @The Blue Rider: I’m sure most are indeed not vital (we have thousands of them), but if the genre is vital surely, it’s most important performers are, no? Hyperbolick (talk) 11:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will also add that there's a

talk) 19:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

By most, I obviously meant the ones currently listed. There are a lot of big industries, such as mining, farming and finances, among many other, but the quota for miners, farmers and bankers are in a much lower proportion comparatively to entertainment. That's because they don't get as much spotlight as actors and other entertainment figures and people tend to wrongly associate (short-term) popularity with vitality. The Blue Rider 18:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The entire

It seems like it was bumped up from 1,300 to 1,500 without changing the section quota within it, which still add to 1,300. J947 † ^edits 23:14, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How should the additional quote be distributed? --

talk) 18:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I've just noticed that, for some reason, Luís Cabral, Patrice Lumumba and Thomas Sankara are listed under the African rebels, revolutionaries and activists section. This is despite all of them having been the heads of state of their respective countries, with both Lumumba and Sankara both being listed in level-4 as political leaders. I'm assuming their inclusion in the "rebels, revolutionaries and activists" section was a mistake, so I'm proposing they be moved to the politicians and leaders list. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:10, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Support as nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:10, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2. Whilst they are revolutionaries they mainly known as politicians. The Blue Rider 16:07, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support Primary notability.-
   WP:WAWARD) 16:25, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
   ]
4. Support per above. starship.paint (RUN) 03:21, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discuss

This is why politicians and rebels should NOT be separate sections, the line between politician and activist is too blurred.

Add Sequel

Add Media franchise

Add Series finale

Key concept in modern media. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. As nom.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Series finales don't define a show; the journey, character development, and impact matter more and consistent quality throughout is more crucial than just the last episode. The Blue Rider 18:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2. J947 † ^edits 07:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss

Add Cliffhanger

Key concept in modern media. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. As nom.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per nominator. The Blue Rider 18:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discuss

We really are missing some concepts in this section (Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Arts), but this one is a massive step below all the others proposed. Marking neutral for now. J947 † ^edits 07:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add Plot device

Key concept in modern media. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. As nom.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2. J947 † ^edits 07:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discuss

Add Book series

Key concept in modern media. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. As nom.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2. J947 † ^edits 07:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discuss

It is the largest library in China. Interstellarity (talk) 13:02, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 13:02, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
3. Weak support; libraries listed for reference. zh.wp calls it the 2nd largest in China after National Library of China (VA4), for the record. J947 † ^edits 07:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

As it stands, the term "Latin" is not being used to refer to any specific genre of music. The article for Latin music says that it is "a term used by the music industry as a catch-all category for various styles of music from Ibero-America". While it could be used to refer to specific genres and styles of Latin American music, that isn't the case here, as for example we have Soda Stereo, an alternative rock band that happens to be Argentine. We also have artists who are Iberian rather than Latin American in this section, such as Enrique Iglesias and Manu Chao. As it stands I don't really see a meaningful distinction between this and popular music in Spanish and Portugese (which incidentally also have small sections of their own in the "non-English popular music" section), other than the separation is based solely on US music industry classifications, which categorizes "Latin" separately due to the large Hispanic population in the US constituting a sub-market of their own.

Support

1. Nom
   talk) 16:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
   ]
2. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 05:06, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discuss

Pretty basic concept from gaming, both off and online. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. As nominator. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2. This is an extremely important concept to both video games and TTRPGs, and probably some other games as well. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:44, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
3. per above. starship.paint (RUN) 06:00, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discuss

The quota count seems to be out of alignment, with the VA5 frontpage often showing vastly different counts than the respective subpages:

• For "Artists, musicians, and composers", the quota is set to 2,000 on the front page and 2,175 on the sub page;
• For "Entertainers, directors, producers, and screenwriters", the quota is set to 2,000 on the front page and 2,175 on the sub page;
• For "Politicians and leaders", the quota is set to 2,500 on the front page and 2,300 on the sub page;
• For "Sports figures, the quota is set to 1,000 on the front page and 1,200 on the sub page;
• For "Miscellaneous", the quota is set to 1,000 on the front page and 1,200 on the sub page;
• For "Cities", the quota is set to 1,900 on the front page and 2,000 on the sub page;
• For "Politics and economics", the quota is set to 1,600 on the front page and 1,850 on the sub page;
• For "Basics and measurement", the quota is set to 400 on the front page and 375 on the sub page;
• For "Technology", the quota is set to 3,200 on the front page and 3,175 on the sub page.

I have to ask. How did these quotas end up misaligned this way and which is the correct number (i.e. pre-established by consensus)? Right now, it's difficult to even establish what the quotas are when we're discussing them. In some cases, the front page shows a category as under-quota while the sub page shows it as over-quota, or vice versa. We desperately need to re-establish consistency between these two pages, because any discussion about quota counts is just going to be moot otherwise. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:50, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Setting quotas with subjective criteria seems especially difficult to me. I've brought it up before (see archives 3 and 8), but this project needs a vitality estimator, i.e. an algorithm that assigns an estimated vitality score to an article based on its statistics (pageviews, amount of links to page, amount of Interwikis, Wikiproject importances, amount of page watchers, with a recentism penalty). The scores could be used to list let's say bottom 500 (or some other number) articles we do list and top 500 we don't. This way we could not only spot various individual junk listings and missed subjects but also observe possible quota imbalances.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 11:32, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think an algorithm based on stats would work for vitality. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:57, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's safe to say there are correlations between the stats I mentioned and vitality, although not necessarily 100%. Used right, the estimator would be of more help than harm. It shouldn't be followed blindly, personal judgements would have the final says, but something along its lines needs to be done so we can be sure we haven't missed anything important (like what happened with Ford Model T) or have chaff taking up slots (I should get around to nominate e.g. Fitzwilliam Sonatas for removal sometime). I've already used tools like Massviews to get ideas for removal candidates, but I believe that individually, metrics such as pageviews are too fickle and subject to anomalies, so a combination (such as the median of an article's rankings by the metrics) would be more robust.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 20:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An algorithm along those lines would be very helpful as a first gauge for entries that should be removed / should be added. J947 ‡ ^edits 03:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Something I want to note: I think we are way too generous to cities... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:38, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the quotas on the front page should be the correct ones, yes? I'll have a go at fixing these up soon. J947 ‡ ^edits 03:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interstellarity changed the front page quotas months ago beginning with this edit, I haven't fully checked but I'm pretty sure the subpage quotas were the original ones. Note however that Starship.paint just changed the Technology subquota to mach the main page one. There is a lot of junk in the Technology section (obscure dams and stuff) so I'd rather reallocate some of its quota to where there is demand.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 21:17, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the last month there has been a lot of back and forth on the autoarchiving deadline (30->75->31->45). There are several past level 5 discussions have been autoarchived before being closed. I propose that they all be closed as the consensus suggested even though they got archived prematurely. Here they are: --

Just adding nominators to get some people's attention.-

WP:WAWARD) 05:01, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I support all as long as there is more than one person participating. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WAWARD) 05:03, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:WAWARD) 05:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

You are welcome to copy my support to all sections below if needed, or just refer the closer to it. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Can we just disable bot archiving as it used to be? Manually archive closed discussions and we're left without this problem. This talk page is massive at the moment (we should split it into half and have a Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/Old to deal with the overflow IMO) but quick archiving should still not be done without formal closure. J947 † ^edits 05:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to try to keep us on track. Whether we want to auto archive going forward is another discussion which you are free to open. This nomination is an attempt to clean up the errant results of past auto archiving.-

WP:WAWARD) 05:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

1. Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_12#Add_Goalpost 3-1 nominated 11 January 2023 by User:LightProof1995
2. Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_12#Add_Synthetic_media 3-2 nominated 2 January 2023 by User:LaukkuTheGreit
3. Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/Archive_12#Remove_Thalassocnus,_Doedicurus,_Tamandua,_Add_Glyptodon,_Two-toed_sloth,_Megalonyx 4-0 and 3-1 nominated 12 June 2023 by User:Augustios Paleo

Support

1. As nominator. --
   WP:WAWARD) 15:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
   ]
2. For formality. J947 † ^edits 05:09, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
3. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
4. — Preceding
   WP:WAWARD) 14:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC) per 09:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC) comment[reply
   ]

1. Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_10#Swap:_reorganisation_of_dogs 6 votes with some variances most supported 6-0 nominated 21 January 2022 by User:Cavalryman

Support

1. As nominator. --
   WP:WAWARD) 15:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
   ]
2. For formality. J947 † ^edits 05:09, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
3. — Preceding
   WP:WAWARD) 14:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC) per 09:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC) comment[reply
   ]

1. Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_10#Remove_3dfx_Interactive,_Creative_Technology,_NortonLifeLock,_and_Unisys 3-2 nominated 18 November 2020 by User:Feminist

Support

1. As nominator. --
   WP:WAWARD) 15:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
   ]
2. — Preceding
   WP:WAWARD) 14:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC) per 09:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC) comment[reply
   ]

Discuss

I seem to recall 4 votes in favour used to be required at this level at some point, and it was still 2/3 required. I don't know if this nomination passed under the rules we had at the time. J947 † ^edits 05:09, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2019 nominations

1. Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_10#Generations 4-1 nominated 21 November 2019 by User:Piotrus
2. Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_9#Board_games please review nominated December 2019 by User:Piotrus
3. Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_9#FAQ please review nominated December 2019 by User:Piotrus

Support

1. As nominator. --
   WP:WAWARD) 15:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
   ]
2. Yes to generations, but I think the board games ones have largely been enacted / are under discussion in the board games section above. J947 † ^edits 05:09, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
3. @J947 I totally forgot about that... looking at this - some have been enacted or are under discussion but not all. Card and video game suggestions I made back then are not under current discussion above. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:54, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. I think 2019 is a bit too old. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:01, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss

Regarding FAQ: As commented in the archive, I have already carried out the changes to video games (with my voting method) a long time ago, and the current list is so different (down to 101 entries rather than 138) as to make the old discussion no longer really applicable. A formal close at most is needed.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 11:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WAWARD) 19:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm a bit on the fence on it, on one hand I'd be fine with it not being added since a) AI boom already has the necessary 4 votes to get in and b) by now Generative artificial intelligence would be the preferable addition since it gets more pageviews.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 11:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2018 nominations

1. Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/Archive_4#Remove_Espoo_and_Vantaa (Espoo still listed despite this 4-2 consensus) nominated 16 December 2018 by User:Purplebackpack89
2. Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/Archive_3#Remove_Simmias_(explorer) 3 or 4-1 (nominator not explicit) nominated 7 September 2018 by User:力
3. Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/Archive_3#Remove_aXXo 3-2 (counting nominator who did not explicitly support) nominated 7 September 2018 by User:力
4. Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_3#Remove_Masami_Hirosaka 3 or 4-1 (nominator not explicit) nominated 7 September 2018 by User:力
5. Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_3#Remove_William_Heffelfinger 3-2 (counting nominator who did not explicitly support) nominated 7 September 2018 by User:力
6. Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_3#Remove_Bear_Bryant 3-2 nominated 4 September 2018 by User:Purplebackpack89

Support

1. As nominator. --
   WP:WAWARD) 15:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
   ]
2. The ones with 4 votes only I think (which includes Simmias and Hirosaka). Although I do think Espoo is vital and might propose its addition soon. J947 † ^edits 05:09, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
3. — Preceding
   WP:WAWARD) 14:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC) per 09:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC) comment[reply
   ]

1. I think 2018 is too old. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:00, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss

Beleated pre-maturely archived nominations

I apologize. I went back throught the archives for research for a forthcoming discussion and found the following uncapped discussions that should have also been listed here.-

1. User:Power~enwiki
   7 September 2018
2. Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_9#Remove_Fort_Lauderdale,_Florida 3-1 by User:TimothyBlue 14 March 2020
3. Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_9#Remove_Creation_science,_Intelligent_design,_Theistic_evolution,_Young_Earth_creationism 3-1 by User:Darker Dreams 19 July 2021 (5-0 for 3 of the 4 2-3 for ID)

Support

1. As nominator. --
   WP:WAWARD) 09:37, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
   ]

Let me provide more context. Above right now there are some 3-0 (a. Move George Washington Gale Ferris Jr. to inventors and engineers, remove everyone else in Amusement park people; b. Replace 'Brocchi's Cluster' with 'Double Cluster', c. Quota changes for criminals, d. Add The Chicks (formerly/better known as The Dixie Chicks), e. Move The White Stripes, f. Add Gwen Stefani, g. Add Terraforming Mars (board game), h. Remove History of Western role-playing video games and History of Eastern role-playing video games, i. Add Ed Bradley, John Chancellor), 3-1 (a. Add Sam Smith, b. Remove more modestly notable rock bands, c. Add Wordle) and 3-2 discussions (a. add Lactase, b. Remove Leon Czolgosz) that have not had commentary in over a week. Plus, we have a. (Re-)Add The Jerry Springer Show which just got closed as a 3-2 pass, b. Add Kunimitsu Takahashi, and c. Add Sophia Perovskaya that both just got closed as 3-1 passes that have yet to be archived. Proposed moves the 3-0s to pass and Alternate proposal moves the 3-1s and 3-2s to fails. Either way puts all the variants of three supports with a majority on equal footing rather than the odd preference.-

WP:WAWARD) 06:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

1. As nominator. --
   WP:WAWARD) 20:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
   ]
2. Per TonyTheTiger. We do not want people opposed to a proposal to be punished for opposing it. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   This voter has expressed a preference for the alternative below.-

   WP:WAWARD) 01:28, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

   ]

3. Makes sense. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative proposal – require 4 support votes (and get rid of the four-votes overall provision to be replaced with something else)

1. See below for context. J947 † ^edits 05:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   This seems odd to me to have an alternate proposal wedged into a proposal. I have never seen this before. Is this normal protocol?-

   WP:WAWARD) 05:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   Yes – it's how swap proposals are frequently formatted, for one. J947 † ^edits 06:10, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Feel free to tweak my newly added contextual examples to help people see what they are choosing between.-

   WP:WAWARD) 06:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

   ]

2. This is also a good idea. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
3. The problem with the first option is that it assumes that 3-2 is passable and it then concludes that 3-0 should also pass. Three people voting is not sufficient in the first instance. The Blue Rider 14:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose both

Discuss

I was planning to bring this up myself (because it's dumb), but with the increased participation we've seen on this page in the past month I'd prefer to make there be 4 supports for an add. I'm also not sure 3–2, 4–3, and 5–4 results should be passing as they currently are, but that's a lesser problem in my view. J947 † ^edits 00:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WAWARD) 01:47, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry – 4 for both. J947 † ^edits 04:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to 4 support votes converts 3-2 and 3-1 to fails on equal footing to 3-0, which is an alternate solution. If you feel strongly that way and would like to seek support for that, you are opposing this solution. If it was just something that you were thinking of as the solution, but with minor preference to this that is different. So if you can get on board with this, you should enter support and if you feel strongly the other way, you should oppose. I am just trying to rectify the 3-2 and 3-1 preference over 3-0. Yours is an alternate solution.--

WP:WAWARD) 05:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Voting about votes: we're 3–0 here as it stands, does that pass? :) I've added another heading for my proposal. We'll see how that goes. If necessary, there's a host of better voting systems than straight first choices (STV, Borda, Condorcet) we can use! J947 † ^edits 05:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the percentage required should be increased a bit. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:55, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This was really just a motion to correct the preference of 3-2 and 3-1 over 3-0. I am sure we could get into the weeds on other issues. But if we are going to go there, it would have to go to above 60% for 3-2 to fail. If we move to 60% exactly 3-2 still passes, 4-3 and 5-4 would fail as a result of the change. I think a change in the approval percentage should be a separate nomination. I would support 60%.-

WP:WAWARD) 05:09, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

By the way. There is no way the percentage should go to over 75% which is what it would take to eliminate the 3-1 preference over 3-0. So the percentage support definitely needs to be a separate discussion.-

WP:WAWARD) 05:49, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• WP:WAWARD) 04:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I would say that 4 support votes is my first choice. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:49, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll be honest that I have so many active noms with 3 supports, that I saw making all 3s pass as the better way. But requiring 4 supports and failing all 3s might be a step toward stabilizing the project.-
  WP:WAWARD) 06:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• WP:WAWARD) 01:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  No, 4–0 should definitely pass. I didn't realise before that the whole 4-vote system applied across the board – you couldn't close other noms as no consensus with limited participation. While we're looking at these rules, making VA5 have the same sort of rules as the other VA levels is another change we should consider. J947 ‡ ^edits 02:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:WAWARD) 02:55, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  The 5th vote for a 4-0 is moot and should not hold up a discussion, but a 3-1 should be held out for a 5th vote.-

  WP:WAWARD) 03:10, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  If 4-2 is going to be a pass, we may even need to hold for 6 votes unless it has stabilized with 3 or more opposes. (This assumes the hurdle is going to make 4-3 a fail). If it has stabilized at 4-0 or 4-1 holding to push for six votes is moot so it would not be necessary in those cases.-

  WP:WAWARD) 07:47, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• WP:WAWARD) 13:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • WP:WAWARD) 13:31, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Well the simple way to do it is to add a no consensus provision for discussions with insufficient quorum as at all other levels. J947 ‡ ^edits 19:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:WAWARD) 00:38, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • I'd like to think the 4-support system is an explicit alternative to the whole of the current voting system. 4 supports would entail the addition of extra provisions for failed votes like at other levels, the specifics of which will indeed be worked out later. I've updated the header for my proposal to emphasise that. J947 ‡ ^edits 01:22, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • In concert with increasing the hurdle, moving from 4 votes to 4 supports may help to stabilize level 5. We will need to make some compensatory changes in order to deal with the prolonged nominations. We will have to come together as a group to do this. It will surely take a few months to really see what the impact of the change will be if it carries. I still think we still need a gradual size growth to have less instability from herky jerky quotas, but I may revisit that in the future.-
          WP:WAWARD) 05:38, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
          ]
• Willing to accept (support) alternative to bring this to a close, but see inquiry below regarding enforcement or grandfathering of active nominations.-
  WP:WAWARD) 22:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Discuss

There is a third alternative in the middle of the two above which would be to say the vote must exceed 60% which would move 3-2, 6-4 and 9-6 to failing along with 4-3, 5-4, 7-5, 8-6, 9-7 but leave 5-3, 7-4, 8-5, 9-5 as passing counts.-

To potential participants: don't be dissuaded by the perceived complexity of these proposals. The options, from bottom to top, are 55%, 60%, 61%, and 67%. J947 † ^edits 22:35, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• With 7 of 8 discussants wanting at least >=60% and 5 of 8 wanting at least >60%, it looks like this will pass. Will it go into effect for all discussions or only discussions nominated after this is closed?-
  WP:WAWARD) 21:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Also note the
  WP:WAWARD) 21:58, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Though I prefer 2/3rds, I also support 60% as an improvement to what we currently have. Gizza (talk) 22:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have closed the discussion. In the interests of fairness, I suggest that the new ruling only comes into effect for discussions started after this close. We can't assume that voting editors would know this would happen before the close happened. starship.paint (RUN) 03:10, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see that

WP:WAWARD) 04:21, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, sorry, intended to note that here. I made a few other minor changes to the rules as well (mostly just wording and reflecting practice). J947 ‡ ^edits 04:33, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Starship.paint and @J947 for updating the introduction. I also took liberty and added the color table showing how to count the votes using the new rule. Please feel free to adjust the alignment if needed. (In the comments there is also a Python code that generated the table. This can be easily adjusted if the rule changes.) Kammerer55 (talk) 05:50, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Following the rules and the chart at top of the page, which kind of makes sense on the one hand... If a proposal has 3 support and no oppose, it will fail. But if a proposal has 3 support and one oppose it will pass. I know it means the topic has attracted 4 people's attention and the other only only three, but how can a 3-1 be better than 3-0? seems absurd. If a person comes across a suggestion they disagree with, which has 3-0 support, and it's been there a while, what can do other than get one of their friends to vote at the same time as them. If they leave it, it would stay as is, nothing would happen until someone else comes along, if they agree with the thread it could be closed as passed, but if they disagree it could also be closed as passed. It doesn't really feel right that any action including disagreeing would pass the thread, perhaps 3-0 should pass? but I don't know. Or make 3-0 and 3-1 fail and the minimum 4-0, maybe that would be better, there's no way a 3-1 should pass "if" a 3-0 does not, both have 3 support. In theory if everyone knows the rules and plays accordingly, if a thread has 3-0 support a fourth person sees it and disagrees, they will ignore it and not oppose, as they don't want it to pass, then if a fifth or sixth person sees it and disagrees, the may all also ignore it, not wanting to create the passing 3-1 score, then later if another person sees it who agrees, they could support it and it would pass when several potential opposers may have deliberately not voted oppose.  Carlwev  07:37, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:WAWARD) 08:50, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I have noticed a bit of an issue with the wording of the close between
  WP:WAWARD) 20:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • @TonyTheTiger: - fixed. starship.paint (RUN) 01:26, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Honestly, I don't know why any parenthetical has to be included in the summary. I am a math guy so for me >60% means greater than 60%. Maybe non math guys need to see some words without math symbols and the parenthetical helps them. 60.01 takes care of any count in the range of participants that WP discussions have. I guess you could run a program to find the smallest whole number denominator of a fraction between 60 and 60.01. It may be in the thousands so we need not worry.-
      WP:WAWARD) 07:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• WP:WAWARD) 07:45, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I'm a big supporter of encouraging bold, batch additions for incomplete sections
  • For perspective, look at the recent proposals we've had for adding women scientists, or Wrist for example.
  • It took a lot of space & churn here on the talk page for changes with 100% support and no need for trade-offs.
• As you've already noted J947, the talk page is getting swamped now.
  • I think this gets into a deeper issue that voting just doesn't scale well as the default process to Level 5.
  • I don't want to get bogged down in details here, but I think we should at least hint / future-proof the landing-page for things like LaukkuTheGreit's analytics suggestion.
• I'd like to tighten up the "uncontroversial" loop-hole for voting with something a bit more precise.

Not proposing anything myself yet, but feel free to add specific ones as subsections. Zar2gar1 (talk) 09:11, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will add that I have recently added a number of entries to the scientist and philosophers/social scientists section, since the quota had been raised on those a while ago and those section were well sub-quota as a result (I even had to manually adjust the quota by propotion on the philosopher/social scientist subsections since those hadn't even been updated).

talk) 13:59, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Yup, the top-of-page quotas are an extra source of confusion because we don't auto-reconcile them with the Lv5 landing page. And since it's a pain to go into each page, plus we still don't have an efficient formal quota-setting process, we often don't bother with them after a quota change. Then you have some pages that give quotas for even subheadings, though I think that's long been (unofficially) deprecated.

I'm too busy IRL for now, and I've never developed for Wikipedia, but I have a software background and to try making a bot for more VA tasks someday. Kanashimi is definitely one of the unsung heroes of this project with everything Cewbot does for us. Maybe we could give the guy/gal a break though from some of the fix & feature requests if the VA bots (and managing them) were spread out across a few people. Zar2gar1 (talk) 07:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the "Handling discussions that were archived without closure even though a quorum had been achieved" discussion above at 05:07, 21 November 2023 User:J947 mentioned that we should consider disabling the current autoarchive process . I did a little digging. First, recall in that set of discussions, slow closers were the reason for improper archiving because quorum had been reached and auto-archiving delays gave time for closing.

The set of discussions I am posting here are situations where autoarchiving is in conflict with our rules (specifically that all discussions should be accorded 4 voting opinions from discussants). An article about some pop culture topics attract 8-10 voting discussants rapidly. Other topics draw fewer discussants. If we allow autoarchiving to occur before each discussion gets fairly considered, it is our collective fault as voters. However, there is no way to force people to vote on unpopular topics. Previously, some topics sat for a year without being archived before they achieved a quorum. In the past there have been a lot of discussions that have been autoarchived with counts of 3-0, 2-0 and 2-1 while even a 3-2 vote count is considered passing. Let's evaluate our policy on auto archiving and past discussions that have been cut short of quorum that may have changed the project.

@

1. As nominator. --
   WP:WAWARD) 16:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
   ]
2. Yes, if we institute a procedure to close as no consensus instead. J947 ‡ ^edits 04:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
3. Yes, to solicit more input. starship.paint (RUN) 13:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose discontinuation of auto-archiving

Discuss

• WP:WAWARD) 04:31, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Sorry, missed this one. J947 ‡ ^edits 04:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Part #2a 2023 3-0 discussions

Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_12#Replace_Avenue_Q_with_Folia 3-0 by User:Makkool 28 April 2023

Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_12#Remove_Willem-Alexander_of_the_Netherlands 3-0 by User:Festucalex 1 May 2023

since we currently pass 3-2 decisions we can just pass 3-0 discussions and move on

1. Support as nom.-
   WP:WAWARD) 16:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
   ]
2. Yes, if 3-2 passes, then 3-0 has at least the same amount of support. starship.paint (RUN) 13:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

reopen voting for past 3-0 decisions until we get to at least 4 votes

leave past discussions alone (of course you can renominate on a case by case basis)

Discuss

Part #2b 2021 3-0 discussions

Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_9#Remove_Pitt_Island 3-0 by User:J947 8 July 2021

Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_6#Re-add_Yoshihiro_Togashi 3-0 by User:RekishiEJ 21 July 2021

since we currently pass 3-2 decisions we can just pass 3-0 discussions and move on

1. Support as nom.-
   WP:WAWARD) 16:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
   ]
2. Yes, if 3-2 passes, then 3-0 has at least the same amount of support. starship.paint (RUN) 13:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

reopen voting for past 3-0 decisions until we get to at least 4 votes

leave past discussions alone (of course you can renominate on a case by case basis)

Discuss

Part #2c 2020 3-0 discussions

Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_9#Add_Inca_architecture 3-0 by User:RekishiEJ 29 May 2020

Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_9#Swap_Synthwave_for_Eurodance 3-0 by User:Makkool 1 March 2020 (swapped but Eurodance reverted)

Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/Archive 8#Add_Crossover_(fiction)_to_Arts/Literature/Literary_genres/Fiction 2-0 by User:EchoBlu 15 June 2020 (nominator not explicit)

Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/Archive 8#Add_Real-time_strategy_to_Strategy_video_game 2-0 by User:EchoBlu 15 June 2020 (nominator not explicit)

Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_7#Add_Anne_Applebaum 3-0 by User:TimothyBlue 29 February 2020

since we currently pass 3-2 decisions we can just pass 3-0 discussions and move on

1. Support as nom.-
   WP:WAWARD) 16:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
   ]
2. Yes, if 3-2 passes, then 3-0 has at least the same amount of support. starship.paint (RUN) 13:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

reopen voting for past 3-0 decisions until we get to at least 4 votes

leave past discussions alone (of course you can renominate on a case by case basis)

Discuss

Part #2d 2018 and 2019 3-0 discussions

Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_4#Remove_Sancho_Panza 3-0 by User:Purplebackpack89 6 April 2019

Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_4#Remove_Abraham_van_Helsing 3-0 by User:Purplebackpack89 6 April 2019

Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_3#Remove_Tom_Landry 3-0 by User:Purplebackpack89 4 September 2018

since we currently pass 3-2 decisions we can just pass 3-0 discussions and move on

1. Support as nom.-
   WP:WAWARD) 16:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
   ]
2. Yes, if 3-2 passes, then 3-0 has at least the same amount of support. starship.paint (RUN) 13:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

reopen voting for past 3-0 decisions until we get to at least 4 votes

leave past discussions alone (of course you can renominate on a case by case basis)

Discuss

Part #3a 2022 and 2023 2-0 discussions

Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_12#Remove_Konrad_Kujau 2-0 by User:Festucalex 28 April 2023

Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_12#Add_fossil_families 2-0 by User:Larrayal 8 June 2023 (5 of 7 implemented already added)

Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_10#Add_Robert_Rauschenberg 2-0 by User:160.72.238.66 26 January 2022

since we currently pass 3-2 decisions and no one opposed before we can just pass 2-0 discussions and move on

reopen voting for past 2-0 decisions until we get to at least 4 votes

1. Support as nom.-
   WP:WAWARD) 16:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
   ]
2. Per nom starship.paint (RUN) 15:08, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

leave past discussions alone (of course you can renominate on a case by case basis)

Discuss

• WP:WAWARD) 15:03, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Part #3b 2021 2-0 discussions

Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_9#Add_Hannah_Glasse 2-0 by User:Rreagan007 21 April 2021

Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_9#Remove_2019_Samoa_measles_outbreak 2-0 by User:Helloimahumanbeing 14 December 2021

Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_6#Add_Pliosauridae 2-0 by User:Starship.paint 22 August 2021 (from a group that seems to have been closely evaluated)

Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_6#Add_Belemnoidea 2-0 by User:Starship.paint 24 August 2021 (from a group that seems to have been closely evaluated)

Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_6#Add_Meganisoptera_or_Meganeura 2-0 by User:Starship.paint 22 August 2021 (from a group that seems to have been closely evaluated)

Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_6#Add_Troy_Baker 2-0 by User:Spy-cicle 9 April 2021

Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_6#Add_Shotaro_Ishinomori 2-0 by User:RekishiEJ 21 July 2021

since we currently pass 3-2 decisions and no one opposed before we can just pass 2-0 discussions and move on

reopen voting for past 2-0 decisions until we get to at least 4 votes

1. Support as nom.-
   WP:WAWARD) 16:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
   ]
2. Per nom starship.paint (RUN) 13:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

leave past discussions alone (of course you can renominate on a case by case basis)

Discuss

Part #3c 2019 and 2020 2-0 discussions

Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_10#Remove_United_Microelectronics_Corporation 2-0 by User:Feminist 18 November 2020

Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_9#Swap_Jimmy_Sham_for_Martin_Lee_or_Anson_Chan 2-0 (for Lee) by User:Feminist 2 May 2020

Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_9#Add_Research_Triangle 2-0 by User:Feminist 14 February 2020

Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_9#Add_Leiden_and_Haarlem 2-0 by User:Ealuscerwen 5 June 2020

Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_9#Add_Arch_of_Titus 2-0 by User:RekishiEJ 29 May 2020

Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_9#Swap_Deadpool_with_Black_Panther_(Marvel_Comics) 2-0 by User:Saturdayopen 30 August 2020 (Black Panther (Marvel Comics) is redirected to Black Panther (character) which has been listed)

Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_7#Add_Bernard_Bailyn 2-0 by User:TimothyBlue 29 February 2020

Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_7#Remove_Józef_Ignacy_Kraszewski 2-0 by User:TimothyBlue 29 February 2020

Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_7#Remove_Matrakçı_Nasuh 2-0 by User:TimothyBlue 29 February 2020

Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_7#Remove_Bernard_Smith_(art_historian) 2-0 by User:TimothyBlue 29 February 2020

Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_9#Remove_webcomics 2-0 by User:Makkool 5 October 2019

since we currently pass 3-2 decisions and no one opposed before we can just pass 2-0 discussions and move on

reopen voting for past 2-0 decisions until we get to at least 4 votes

1. Support as nom.-
   WP:WAWARD) 16:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
   ]
2. Per nom starship.paint (RUN) 13:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

leave past discussions alone (of course you can renominate on a case by case basis)

Discuss

Part #4 2-1 discussions

Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_10#Add_Tanjung_Selor,_Mamuju,_Gorontalo,_Pangkal_Pinang,_Tanjung_Pinang,_Manokwari,_Banjarbaru_and_Sofifi 2-1 by User:Nyanardsan 1 May 2021 (4 of 8 already added)

Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_9#Swap:_remove_Westmorland,_add_Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt 2-1/2-0 by User:Dawid2009 21 September 2019

reopen voting for past 2-1 decisions until we get to at least 4 votes

leave past discussions alone (of course you can renominate on a case by case basis)

1. Support as nom.-
   WP:WAWARD) 16:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
   ]

Comment TonyTheTiger , I thinkIt is not good to dig so old discussions, wht hapenned hat happened, we will nt change everything ayway (where we were over quota, where under et.), there were also way more things whch were did without discussions (like changing uota at physical georaphy section without larger discussion by IP) or especially adding (sub)quotas at all(massive quotas by anoyonee), would you also remove all quotas as were not discussed etc, what that influence discussion which is difficut to interpretate (2-0, 1-0) and was six years ago? I think not so much... and I believe !voting is evil thing aomwtimes. For example we shouldi not decide by !voting process to remove all quotas which were added without discussion (via 1-0), for example many quotas at biographies (subquotas actually) were not discussed etc.. I do not see why we can not start to remove things which were done without consensus (like quotas for subsections in biographies = I mean number for quotas, not biographies). We should also not hold ourselves accountable for trivial things that were not anyone's intention (like archiving the bot), because someone will mistakenly think that we have the enthusiasm to be more and more rigid and less flexible, while level 5 still has many problems and needs to be encouraged for flexible improvement , it's not as stable as 4-1 where we can be more rigid Dawid2009 (talk) 20:45, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:WAWARD) 21:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

since there were complaints about auto archiving - if so then OK, I will agree to review that. If discussions are very old we can eventually start new (in the case of controversial things discussions are required if not controversial like fixing mistakes from the past - perhaps not always - perso0nally if we could do things more flexible). Cheers. Dawid2009 (talk) 21:18, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The complaint is mentioned at the top of this section. Part #1 is one discussion I am asking if you have an opinion on. Since you only have an old 2019 2-1 discussion that seems unresolved, you might have a different opinion than say someone with new 2-0 or 3-0 discussions that auto archived. I have tried to lay this out so that there can be a logical assessment and you keep talking about really old discussions. What about the 2021, 2022 and 2023 discussions that have been auto archived. These are from times after we had a full set of 50,000 articles and things were working differently. I guess you may be trying to make a clear statement on newer issues. We will see if everyone wants to ignore the problems of autoarchiving.-

WP:WAWARD) 21:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:WAWARD) 21:57, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

A system of control that has affected billion+ people for several decades. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per nom, and one of the most significant examples of censorship. starship.paint (RUN) 08:13, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
3. This is obviously vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 14:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support. --Kammerer55 (talk) 20:12, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

1. Where would this be added? As it stands, censorship is in
   talk) 12:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   No opinion on where this should be added but if it is to be added to that section I don't see a problem. The sub-section quotas are intentionally flexible – 2 over would not be a problem even if we'd absolutely completed this list – and the overquotaness of the section is just due to the television section, which either needs to have its quota increased or be met with a flurry of removals. J947 ‡ ^edits 21:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to the above, something that has significantly affected the education and knowledge and behavior of billion+ people for several decades. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 14:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
3. Vital topic. J947 ‡ ^edits 08:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Rodeo Drive is one of the most unique luxury shopping districts in the world. Mall of America has been the largest shopping mall in the United States and Western Hemisphere for over 30 years.

Support

1. As nom. --
   WP:WAWARD) 21:03, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
   ]

1. Those are of some importance to the local economy, and also tourist attractions, but I am having trouble seeing them as vital. They are just minor parts of the cities they are located in. Neither article has any serious commentary on those locations impact for the world or even American culture. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2. per Piotrus. starship.paint (RUN) 04:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Discussion

I think it would be helpful to have a discussion every year or two regarding how we are doing with the vital articles. Some questions we could ponder include: have the lists gotten better or worse with time? What are some ways the lists have improved and ways the list has worsened with time? How is the current process of adding and removing articles? Do you think there should be stricter or more lenient requirements or keep the requirements as is? This list has been around since 2017 and hasn't been around that long compared to the other lists (6 years) and it has gone through many changes since its inception. Levels 1-3 have been pretty stable and haven't seen a lot of proposals for addition or removal recently. I've seen it more frequently in years past, but the discussion nowadays seems to be about the list itself. Levels 4 and 5 have seen more rapid changes throughout the years due to the large number of articles within it. You can always go back to the history section and see how the list evolved. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts. What do you think? Interstellarity (talk) 00:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's easier (not easy) to agree on the big concepts. At V4 and V5 there is a lot of minor stuff that nobody can claim to know about. I think the lists are getting better, obviously, just like Wikipedia. As time goes and more people comment more, we reach the ideal state, edit by edit, comment by comment. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• We need some major process improvements. Working toward a better more stable list is a process that we can all help improve. I would like to see dedicated pages to discussions that can be linked to talk page {{
  WP:WAWARD) 04:33, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Procedural removal of

Digital Revolution

needed?

Following a recent discussion at Talk:Information_Age#Merge_from_Digital_Revolution_and_Information_revolution, DR (V5) has been merged (well, redirected, merge still need to happen IMHO) to IA (V3). Which nobody has likely informed Vital project about, and I assume DR is still a V5 somewhere? Do we need a vote for removal? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Best to leave notice, but at VA5 no need for a vote. Feel free to remove it. J947 ‡ ^edits 08:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Listings should be fixed to reflect page moves/redirects, and be removed if it results in a duplicate, without requiring discussion. Maybe leave a notice about having removed duplicates, but that too perhaps is better done sometime in the future when the list is more stable/finetuned.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 11:32, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add Warranty

I don't understand why we have insurance (VA3) and 7 types of insurance listed, but we don't have Warranty listed.

Support

1. As nom.-
   WP:WAWARD) 13:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
   ]
2. Pretty basic concept. V5 at least. (If only it would actually work... sigh :P). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
3. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 12:38, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
4. Makes sense. Curbon7 (talk) 03:56, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
5. Could probably be VA4. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

Add Owner's manual

Support

1. As nom.-
   WP:WAWARD) 13:42, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
   ]
2. Mhm. Ubiquitous. Probably vital in the context of everyday life. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

Add some driving professions

We list 30 Common trades and professions.

Taxicab driver

(my first redirect nomination)

Support

1. As nom.-
   WP:WAWARD) 13:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
   ]

Oppose

1. Switched support from gig worker to gig economy suggested above, oppose others per my comment above. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

1. I dislike all jobs articles which are almost always mostly redundant to general articles about fields. Gig economy however redrects to gig =worker, so tentative support for that one only. I don't think other are vital at V5; taxi is at V3 and what would thsoe two add here? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Now that you have called my attention to it, I am recreating

   WP:WAWARD) 21:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   @TonyTheTiger Good catch. I recently restored from bold redirects two vital 5 aricles: history of wood carving and History of scholarship (and nominated one for AfD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of rail transport before 1700 :P). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:34, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   It seems all sorts of history articles are on the chopping block.-

   WP:WAWARD) 04:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   Just noting that this was my old support vote which I moved to discusion now. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add Convoy

Important military concept. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. per nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 13:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
3. WP:WAWARD) 17:45, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
   ]
4. Support--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 13:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

Discussion at VA § Number of articles in heading

 You are invited to join the discussion at VA § Number of articles in heading. -- Kammerer55 (talk) 19:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introducing new template "VA link" to display level and locate article in the list

See previous discussion on VA3 talk page.

Please see a new template {{

Digital Revolution

, so it should be safe to use in discussions even after the article gets demoted. It can be also used in headers:

Example: remove Water  2, add Ice  4

The template is supposed to always link to the right page, and it would generally link to the right section as well (subject to regular Cewbot-updates of json-files). Kammerer55 (talk) 00:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, I'll try using it from now on. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Remove History of cannabis or swap for one of the following history of food suggestions

Cannabis is V4. But history of, listed under history of everyday life, it has just two interwikis and is much less important than listed there histories of coffee and alcoholic food, each of which have 10+ interwikis. Cannabis has not been part of everyday life for most humans. Or we could consider swapping this for some of the important history of food articles that should accompany coffee and alchoholic drinks: History of the potato or History of sugar, History of cheese, History of pizza, History of the hamburger, History of seafood, History of chocolate, History of tea, History of salt or History of rice cultivation. In fact, we may want to consider adding all of those, or at least sevewral, to V5, which is why I am not listing this under history additions from few days ago but starting a new section for visibility. Feel free to change this into a lv3 subsection followed by a bunch of addition proposals :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per nom. It can't be more important than sugar, salt, seafood or rice. starship.paint (RUN) 05:42, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

Add Tenement

Key type of traditional building missing from Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Everyday_life#Housing_(9_articles). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

• Comment - this has only 5 interwikis, which would be surprising if this was a common building type. I am struggling to understand how this is significantly different from an
  apartment building (level 4 and 66 interwikis). starship.paint (RUN) 13:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  There's some translation/terminology issue I feel. The discussion of tenement in apartment building doesn't really discuss Europe outside Scotland. Take a look at Tenement#Poland, which is only about Poland but in Polish, this is the term to be used to describe hisstorical buildings found in most European cities that date to 18th-19th centuries. Perhaps there's some overlap with townhouse? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:38, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Implementing the split of the page

Just letting everyone know that I've began splitting the page. Right now the people subpage is mostly done; I don't have the time to finish the rest, but I wanted to start the process since it will probably take a few days. There's no immediate problems that I see, feel free to help and do any improvements you deem as necessary. I will only add that each subpage should have its individual archive to facilitate navigation due to their significant size, instead of using a centralized one. The Blue Rider 19:09, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

p 20:14, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Archives haven't been created to each subpage, that's why I didn't archive anything. The Blue Rider 23:53, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the redirects from the talk pages of each list to their appropriate section. For example, the talk page of the history list: Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History now redirects to the subpage instead of the main page. Hopefully, this will help people with making sure people nominate articles in the correct section rather than the general talk page. Interstellarity (talk) 01:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have been moving discussions to the subpages, and have cut the size of this page from 0.8 MB to 0.3 MB. starship.paint (RUN) 08:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, thank you. The Blue Rider 10:50, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A problem has became evident. The chosen 4 topics are unequal between themselves; Science and Technology barely has any proposals, it's the only talk page that is in accordance with the 75 KB proposed by

WP:TALKCOND. Users seem to take a much greater interest in nominating pop culture topics rather than philosophy, natural, exact and to a lesser extent social sciences related articles. Not everything has been transcluded yet and the Society and People subpages are already at 341,528 and 204,984 KB, respectively. The Blue Rider 10:50, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

The root of the problem are clearly the batch proposals. The Blue Rider 10:55, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is the solution for the batch proposals then? starship.paint (RUN) 11:27, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

p 18:30, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Speaking of batch proposals, the current system of having sections for each subpage is not good for people like me who edit on mobile devices, because it makes it impossible to close the giant batch proposals without closing the entire subpage section, and therefore makes it hard to reach the bottom proposals of those sections. Why are the talk subpages not formatted like normal talk pages? QuicoleJR (talk) 16:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfortunately a fact that healthy levels of discussion at VA necessitate large talk pages. Until we get to a point again when contributors are having serious load problems, we should just ignore that 75KB guideline as we've always done. I really don't think that limiting the amount of discussion we're having is the way to go when there are so many sections in need of improvement. J947 ‡ ^edits 06:35, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What may be worthwhile is moving a section like Everyday life or Philosophy and religion over from the society subpage to the science subpage in order to balance the page sizes out. J947 ‡ ^edits 06:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But there are no open discussions in those sections right now! Most nominations at "Society" subpage are from Arts (films), Sports (games) and Culture (TV shows) sections. Kammerer55 (talk) 07:50, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good point (but there are some in Sports, which is part of Everyday life). J947 ‡ ^edits 10:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's time to give these subpages names. Subpage 1 should be Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/People – that's straightforward. For subpage 2 I don't think there's any better option than Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/History and geography. Subpage 3 it seems like there's support for Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/Society (I wouldn't mind /Arts either). Subpage 4, how about Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/Sciences? J947 ‡ ^edits 03:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. starship.paint (RUN) 04:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE ADD NEW TOPICS TO SUBPAGES (EXCEPT GENERAL DISCUSSIONS)

Subpages: #1

Science & Technology. Please take note, @Piotrus and Marchantiophyta:, as recent topic proposers. starship.paint (RUN) 08:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Adding info to the Introduction might be also helpful, especially for new participants. Kammerer55 (talk) 06:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should have a discussion in order to update the rules/procedures for VT5. The Blue Rider 10:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That’s right, though I was suggesting to add only what was already discussed and decided in the split page discussion. It would not be a “new” rule addition. Kammerer55 (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kammerer55: - I have edited the introduction, feel free to improve it. starship.paint (RUN) 14:04, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to specify target section when nominating articles for addition

I propose to make a general rule that addition proposals should also mention which section the article should be added to, since it is sometimes not obvious. This would make it a bit easier to close the discussions, would help to verify that the article was added properly, and would also help participants to check what's the current quota of the targeted section. (If it's not a new addition, but a swap within the same section, then this should not be necessary.) See also examples of discussions above where this caused some confusion: #Add President of the United States, #Add Miracle on Ice, #add Lactose intolerance (I closed the last one). --Kammerer55 (talk) 06:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• -
  WP:WAWARD) 14:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I am just noticing that you are a discussant there (November 9 and November 24). Is this something different from that? If so, how?-21:45, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
    • TonyTheTiger, Honestly, I forgot about that discussion when making this proposal, since it was some time ago and I arrived to this one from a slightly different direction (from the issues with closing), while in the previous discussion I had slightly different concerns. In any case, it would be great if someone could close that proposal and specify further steps. (Then my proposal might become redundant, so we could also close it quickly.) Until then, I think this proposal could still stand on its own, since it does not require any additional automation (or template creation), but just requires specifying the topic/section name in words (even without the need to add the link). We could just add the corresponding note to the introduction then. What do you think? --Kammerer55 (talk) 00:56, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • You and
        WP:WAWARD) 15:35, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
        ]

Adding a rule to stop rush closes

In my opinion, no proposal voting should be closed until at least 7 days have passed since the last comment. This enables all discussants to react to other discussants and be reacted to by all other discussants. This will ensure that no important comments get swept under the rug. Do I need to bring this to a vote or can we come to a simple agreement on this for immediate inclusion in the level 5 closing guidelines.-

WP:WAWARD) 05:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I guess I'll bring this to a rule change vote. If people want the rule added summarily please express that thought.-

WP:WAWARD) 15:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Support

1. As nom. I think this should go without saying and shouldn't have to be called to a vote. -
   WP:WAWARD) 15:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
   ]
2. This makes logical sense and should have already been a rule. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
3. I'm all for clarifying that closing these discussions is best avoided. But make it a guideline, not a rule. J947 ‡ ^edits 22:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Guideline vs. Rule. DUNNO. What is at the top of this page? Whatever that is.-

   WP:WAWARD) 22:34, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

   ]

4. This makes sense. There is far less pressure for quick closes here than there would be for, e.g., an AfD of a BLP bio. BD2412 T 14:34, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support Kammerer55's counter-proposal. The Blue Rider 10:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. The proposed rule (if strictly enforced) is potentially destructive and irreversible, since any person can block any decision by commenting on it forever (including the decision to revert the rule). If there is not enough time for voting, then just increase the time frame. Or if the voting does not work well, then replace it with consensus-based approach instead. Also, the proposed rule does not make sense in some simple situations like in the #Add Sequel-discussion above where one could close the discussion a few days ago with a 5-0 vote, but since it's now 6-0, we would need to wait a bit longer to close it (if the rule is accepted). So even if this proposal is accepted as a guideline (not a strict rule), some provisions should be added so that the comments/votes which do not affect the outcome should not prevent the closure. --Kammerer55 (talk) 07:22, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   The comment-forever scenario is where we apply the formal Stop-Being-An-Asshole rule and ignore (though it would be schadenfreudiacally interesting if we applied total bureaucracy). But the second point is pertinent – if there's a pile-on support vote which doesn't raise any further questions this rule should simply be ignored. A guideline may be a step too firm for that reason: how about calling this a "rule of thumb"? J947 ‡ ^edits 08:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   I just realised that I was beginning to get scared that this comment chain would be ignored and that this rule would be passed as proposed. Which, incidentally, is a point in favour of this rule. Help! I'm digging myself deeper into this logic hole! J947 ‡ ^edits 08:19, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   The explanation for this logic hole is that both the current situation and the rule are imperfect. So we just need to find a slightly better solution. For example, by making it an informal rule of thumb, or by making the closing rules slightly more complicated similarly to other levels. Another approach to avoid this particular logic hole would be to treat procedural proposals as consensus-based (with regular Wikipedia discussion guidelines) and apply the 7-day rule (in a strict or weak form) only for the article nominations. Kammerer55 (talk) 09:07, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   A "rule of thumb" sounds much better. Then it could probably be formulated less precisely as something like "Avoid closing proposals with active discussions within past week that could affect the outcome." Kammerer55 (talk) 08:33, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The risk of a

WP:WAWARD) 15:10, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Here are two currently active discussions that seemed to be uncontested consensus that turned around:

1. Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Subpage_1#Add_Sam_Smith
   was 3-0 from 13:09, 27 October 2023 to 15:09, 11 November 2023 (over 15 days) and then 3-1 from 15:09, 11 November 2023 to 00:55, 26 November 2023 (another 14.5 days), but now sits at 3-3. Since it is eligible for a 4-3 pass it remains contentious.
2. Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/4#Add_Everyday_life quickly ran up to 5-0, where it stood for over 70 hours (nearly 3 days) before quickly turning to 5-2. Since it would fail at 5-3 it remains contentious.

These are cases where rush closes would not have revealed a contentious nomination. We want to come to the best decision we can, which means to gather as much collective wisdom and evaluate based on that. In some cases the early wisdom could be swayed by later wisdom.-

WP:WAWARD) 15:24, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Discussion

I would support this. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:07, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would pass, the question is whether I actually need to put it to a vote of whether it is an obvious thing we should do.-

WP:WAWARD) 15:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I am not sure, but for the record I already self-impose this rule on myself, so I find it obvious. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:17, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• This seems useful in close discussions but it's bureaucratic if there's a clear consensus.
  p 17:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Proposals with 4 or more supports and no opposes could potentially be exempt. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I really don't think so. At level 4

    WP:WAWARD) 22:31, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    Yes, as @Purplebackpack89 noted, everyone is already given 14 days to comment, though this time can be probably increased if that's not enough. Kammerer55 (talk) 07:37, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    We already have a rule, "Discussions should run for at least 14 days before being closed."

    p 14:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    That is 14 days after it was nominated, this is 7 days after last comment/vote.-

    WP:WAWARD) 15:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    @Purplebackpack89, Yes, that seems to be a very efficient formulation for the provision and it makes sure that the discussions do not run forever. Kammerer55 (talk) 07:33, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't get it. This is already a rule at VT5 and all other levels, you must wait 14 days to close a discussion. The Blue Rider 09:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This would be based on last comment and not start date. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, in that case 7 days seem excessive, 3 days should be fine. The Blue Rider 14:47, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I recall you taking about a full week off (no edits between 21:41, October 30, 2023 and 20:59, November 7, 2023 as well as no edits between 18:07, September 17, 2023 and 19:44, September 28, 2023 ) pretty recently. It is not uncommon to be unable to fully checkup on all WP issues for more than 3 days.-

  WP:WAWARD) 15:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I take wiki-breaks at my discretion, when I do so I'm acknowledging that things are still going to get done with or without my consensus, but sure 7 days it is. The Blue Rider 22:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing nominations one was involved in.

I think it should be a rule that we not close discussions in which we were a voting discussant. This is a current controversy it seems. I know I have sat by and watched at least one nomination go from passing to failing because I did not feel it appropriate to close my own nomination (

WP:WAWARD) 05:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I am calling this to a formal vote.-

WP:WAWARD) 15:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Support

1. As nom. -
   WP:WAWARD) 15:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
   ]

Oppose

Discussion

This makes little sense, people who close proposals at VA are regular users that also take part in voting—if this rules passes then proposals would hardly be closed at all. The Blue Rider 13:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WAWARD) 15:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm not sure about necessitating a rule, seems like it would slow down results. But I think I generally do not close discussions that I participated in. If the outcome is clear (4-0, 4-1), maybe it's OK to close as a participant? If the outcome is marginal (close to 60%), I wouldn't advise closing as a participant. Though, even 3-1 pass (75%) can change to 3-2 (60%) fail in one vote. starship.paint (RUN) 02:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't see why a close can't wait until objective eyes feel it is a stable final consensus. If we institute the 7-day rule above, this becomes less important, but I would like it to be an explicit rule.-

WP:WAWARD) 15:34, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I am rather neutral on this proposal. There is definitely no harm in this rule, but also no much use either, since the current rules are very precise, so in theory there should be no bias in closing. To treat the marginal cases, it might be better to adjust the passing numbers, for example allow 14 days to close more obvious results, but increase to more days for other kinds of results, like on other levels. Though as I mentioned in another discussion, it's better to avoid potentially indefinite 7-day extensions. --Kammerer55 (talk) 07:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Minor quota change

Under

WP:BOLDLY changing it to Assassination (16/16 articles) and Crimes against humanity (20/20 18/18 articles). Feel free to revert if you disagree. starship.paint (RUN) 03:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

You can't change 20/18 to 18/18, since the first number is not the quota, but just the number of articles in that section and is automatically updated by the bot. You can change only the second number. Did you mean to change the quota to 20/20 instead? Kammerer55 (talk) 07:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kammerer55: - yes, you are right, forgive my typo. My apologies. Changed it. starship.paint (RUN) 14:07, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Large quota change

As we struggle with minor quota issues, particularly in culture/arts topics, I feel we have major balance issues. Consider this: Arts: 3.3k. Philosophy and religion: 1.4k. Society and social sciences: 4.1k (incl. culture, 2k). That's 8.8k. Vs. Geography 5.2k and Biological and health sciences 6k - total 11.2k. The latter category is only using 5.2k out of its 6k quota, and IMHO even more than geography consists of stuff that nobody ever hears about unless they are a biologist (botanist, whatever): Convolvulaceae, Ipomoea, Solanaceae, Atropa belladonna... Sure, geographical features and living organisms are important, but IMHO, a movie or book that left a lasting impact on our culture (or a globally recognized cultural custom like

trick or treat recently proposed and being shut down because holidays is over quota...) is more vital than some minor island, administrative division, or a species that nobody heard of. I suggest reducing Geography quota by 200 to 5k and biology by 600 to 5.4k and distributing the 800 freed spaces to arts, philosophy, religion, society&social sciences and Everyday life (which is struggling with 2.4k and a bit over quota). They can each get 200 entries each. Note that this proposal will not necessicate any removals from biology (it will be still under quota). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:46, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• @Piotrus: - I would separate these proposals. Reducing Geography should be its own proposal. starship.paint (RUN) 14:25, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Hmmm, fair, but if people feel geography should stay while biological topics can be decreased, than all we have to do is to re-adjust the numbers given to other sections. For now let's see if there's a general consensus to take some entries from geo and/or bio pools and add them to widely defined culture. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• We are again dealing with the balance between stability and current topic demand for space. This is why I proposed that the project adopt a rule that Level 5 quotas expand in proportion to the number of articles. We need a system where the way to make space for one topic is not to reduce quotas about stuff you have never heard of or that is not important to you. Undulating quotas are unnerving when your interests are on the chopping block. A system with the regular availability of new additional quota space to meet demand for additional quota will improve the project.-
  WP:WAWARD) 15:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • @TonyTheTiger: are you advocating expanding beyond 50,000 articles? starship.paint (RUN) 01:28, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:WAWARD) 03:10, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • @TonyTheTiger: - your idea is certainly worth a standalone section to discuss. Though, I must say, I do find several areas to be American-centric, or even Western-centric. Naturally the English Wikipedia is biased thus, but I'm just hoping for more balance. starship.paint (RUN) 03:14, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • It failed to reach a consensus here. J947 ‡ ^edits 03:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • If it has been so recently rejected, it shouldn't be considered again for a while.
            WP:WAWARD) 06:55, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
            ]
            • The 1% solution was not successful. It was my 4th or 5th successive attempt at making a project size change. I am now making a lot of other changes right now (Hurdle from 55% -- >60%, addressing 3-0 issue, 7 day response period before closure, as well as noms). I am trying to get an understanding of the quota politics for a while too. I'll wait at least a year and hope to have a better feel for things around here and how to approach it.-
              WP:WAWARD) 06:55, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
              ]

• I think if we take away from biology, biography should be the gainer, not everyday life.
  p 17:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  @Purplebackpack89 I don't mind sharing some of the quota with bios, but I think geneally more people have heard about an average vital entry on culture vs bio. But perhaps I am biased thinking again 'trick or treat' vs 'some minor actor or politician'. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:03, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that there are major balance issues - the VAST majority of contributors to this project are interested in the humanities, and so those topics are the most proposed and receive the most votes. The biology categories are a bit of a mess now, but with more attention could definitely include enough vital articles to hit their quotas.

Consider the examples you’ve provided: The Solanaceae are a plant family containing the Potato  3, Tomato  4, Tobacco  4, Bell pepper  4, Chili pepper  4, Eggplant  4, and over 2,000 other species integral to ecosystems the world over. This one plant family that “no one ever hears about” has had a greater impact on human culture/history/everyday life than almost any other entry on these lists. Likewise, Atropa belladonna gave us the drug Atropine  5 and has been used medicinally and cosmetically for thousands of years by many cultures; few books or movies will ever achieve that kind of lasting impact.

Biology is under quota now, but I think that reflects a lack of contributors and not a lack of vitality. If this project continues to grow it will eventually attract people who can address these deficiencies (and “clawing back” any needed space will probably be impossible). There’s also a deeper issue here: popular subjects will always grow to meet (and exceed) their quotas, and can easily go on growing until they’re just “lists of articles”, instead of “lists of vital articles”. --Marchantiophyta (talk) 03:14, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchantiophyta It's complex. What is vital/important? We are very much comparing apples to oranges here all the time, balancing important stuff that only specialists hear about with popculture or folklore or everyday life customs many people know. Note that I am not suggesting removing Solanaceae, my point was that a name, or even concept, it is not known to most people, unlike a lot of other everyday life stuff. But apples to oranges, again. In the end, if you don't use it, you don't get it. If we have nobody intersted in populating the few hundred open spots in biological categories, we should move the quota and discuss it again when it is tight. As for the growth arguments, everything grows, not just popculture but science too. New species are discovered, etc. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Swap proposal 1: -125 plants for +125 of scientists, inventors, and mathematicians

I'm proposing this change because after Interstellarity changed the quotas for people, the actual number of vital articles of scientists, inventors and mathematicians changed the most, from previously 1,121 to now 1,266, because Interstellarity gave a quota of 1,500, but since Interstellarity's changes were rejected, the quota is back to 1,150. No other category changed as much. Plants are currently 756/1,000, the quota change would leave them at 756/875. Scientists are 1,266/1,150 now, this change would leave them at 1,266/1,275. Parent categories: Biological and health sciences would change from 5,258/6,000 to 5,258/5,875; People would change from 15,620/15,000 to 15,620/15,125.

Support

1. As nom. starship.paint (RUN) 04:22, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support addition and much more: it is extremely clear comparing the current people quotas at VA5 to those at VA4 there is major inconsistency in how these are allocated. The underrepresentation of scientists, inventors, and mathematicians is one of such inconsistencies: they take up 12.75% of the list at VA4 but just 7.67% of the list at VA5. Increasing the quota here to 1,500 (10%) was on point. No opinion on plants as of yet. J947 ‡ ^edits 04:31, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   If we add more, we must remove more. Do propose other areas for cutting. starship.paint (RUN) 04:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Well we list 880 popular musicians here but only 60 at VA4... J947 ‡ ^edits 05:06, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   We should cut them to at most 600 (drop of 280), or even 450 (drop of 430). Clearly the criteria is too lax. starship.paint (RUN) 05:49, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

3. Seems reasonable. Scientists move the world forward. Fun side note: if you like science and think it will save the world or such, watch Dr. Stone folks, it's perhaps not vital but fun :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:47, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discuss

One way by which we could go about this instead of proposing swaps, is to propose a bunch of different quota increases and decreases within this "Large quota change" section. Come back in a month, evaluate the consensus for increases and decreases, and find a way to balance the books. J947 ‡ ^edits 06:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• That is an ambitious proposal that may not produce a consensus. Personally, I'd prefer to get the easy swaps out of the way first, then go for your proposal. I have another in mind that I am posting now. But I do not think I will be proposing (any?) more such swaps. starship.paint (RUN) 06:49, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Swap proposal 2: -60 health articles for +60 of philosophers, historians, and social scientists

Philosophers, historians, and social scientists was another category that grew during the time that Interstellarity changed the quota from 1,300 to 1,500, so the category grew from previously 1,325 to now 1,351. I propose a change for 1,300 -> 1,360 for philosophers, historians, and social scientists, and cutting health, medicine, and disease from 952/1,200 to 952/1,140.

Proposed changes in quota

• -10 for general diseases (79/100 to 79/90)
• -10 for injury (69/90 to 69/80)
• -30 for infectious diseases (154/205 to 154/175)
• -10 for general health and fitness (52/80 to 52/70)
• +20 for philosophers (293/275 to 293/295)
• +10 for historians (183/175 to 183/185)
• +20 for social scientists (769/750 to 769/770)
• +10 for psychologists (107/100 to 107/110).

For your consideration. starship.paint (RUN) 06:51, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. As nom. starship.paint (RUN) 06:51, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2. Health is important, but it is still significantly under quota. It can afford to lose 60 and still will have nearly 200 open spots for us to fill in with stuff that is misisng (and it is, as recent suggestions by Tony show). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discuss

Other over-quota subsections

• Writers (1,731/1,600) - over quota by 131
• Actors and actresses (955/900) - over quota by 55
• Directors, producers, showrunners and screenwriters (477/375) - over quota by 102
• Visual artists (802/750) - over quota by 52
• Musicians and composers (1,473/1,425) - over quota by 48
• Cities (2,014/1,900) - over quota by 114
• United States television programs (188/90) - over quota by 98
• Education (350/305) - over quota by 45
• Politics and economics (1,857/1,600) - over quota by 257 - note, this was actually (1,861/1,850) before Interstellarity decreased it, without addressing how subcategory quota would change. This was done to partly make way for Culture (1,940/1,750) to (1,965/2,000).
• Rebels, revolutionaries and activists (497/400) - over quota by 97 - note, we recently had consensus that the bar for activists were too low, and lowered category total from 500 to 400.

The above are the categories that definitely need to be addressed in either changing quota or removing articles. If anyone wants to make significant proposals for quota changes. starship.paint (RUN) 07:16, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd generally support filling them from under quota topics, except cities. And despite being a social scientist with specializaiton in social movements, I'd carefully look at rebels and activists one, particularly through the prisom of possible recentism bias. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:52, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add Invisibility  5

I am sticking this here because it is neither fish nor fowl, i.e. this concept is related to both technology/science and fiction, and the article is split between both dimensions. Where to add it, if it passes, is going to be "fun". I'd probably lean towards the same place that we move

Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Subpage_3#Clean_up_genras:_move_Steampunk_5_and_or_something_else?. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Support

1. As nom. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:35, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discuss