Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/Archive 16

---

I have been thinking about this case as I have spent time with the music artist cases for the past several days. Basically, I have been trying to add candidates with at least one major multiplatinum album (4x or more, hopefully with multiple #1 singles) and another multiplatinum album. The bare minimum I would generally support would be a case like say Rick Astley (discography). I would assume such cases have more than a couple #1 singles and Grammy wins. E.g. Astley has 6 #1s (all in less than a 15 month period), but no Grammys. Below this line, I am not likely to be moved to support a new nom. This eliminates people with 3 2xplatinum albums like Halsey or several platinum albums like Florida Georgia Line and people who don't sell platinum albums despite singles sales like say Flo Rida.

Getting back to the case at hand, here are the numbers Olivia Rodrigo, (discography) debut album 4x platinum, September 2023 album currently gold certified, 3 Grammys, 3 #1 singles

Rodrigo got declared vital based solely on her debut album due to recentism. A 4xplatinum album is an artistic/professional success, but just the bare minimum lead album for my vitality consideration. Without a supporting multiplatinum album, I have to contest this vitality declaration as inappropriate. The 2nd album, which is currently certified gold, may limp to platinum status, but unless it can get to double platinum or she has way to contest a declaration of

) 18:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom.-
   WP:WAWARD
   ) 18:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
2. FYI, her addition was never discussed. Agreed with TonyTheTiger that she was prematurely added due to recentism and americentrism. — The Blue Rider 19:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. Definitely a case of recentism. She has her whole career ahead of her still, let's not jump the gun on declaring her vital. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:03, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

---

This town is very important historically and geographically, and Scotland needs more cities on the list.

Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Per nom and earlier comments. --Grnrchst (talk) 19:28, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
3. --
   talk
   ) 14:46, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Population 37,910. I can't see what makes it important? A millenium of history - half the towns in Europe or frankly Asia are like this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
2. The 6th Scottish city (for which Stirling as competition with Perth) is a step far. J947 † ^edits 01:56, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

---

The largest city in Scotland (which is well underrepresented relative to England) by population that is not already on this list, it has a significant history and is one of Scotland's largest urban centres outside of the Central Belt.

Support

1. Support as nom
   talk
   ) 14:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Welcome to VT5, Totalibe! Support per nominator; also, the city has an article just for their history, which is a good indicator of their "significant history". — The Blue Rider 14:28, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:31, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
4. Support per nom and Blue Rider. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
5. Support per nom and Blue Rider.-
   WP:WAWARD
   ) 19:49, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
6. Support, easily. J947 † ^edits 02:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

---

After Dundee and Stirling, nominated above, I think the biggest omission from the list of Scottish cities is Inverness. One of the main strongholds of the Picts, it became a central location for the Kingdom of Alba and was the site of many battles against the Vikings. As the largest city in the Highlands, its control was sought by many trying to claim rulership of Scotland and notably became a centre of the Jacobite movement, before the Highland clearances. Today it's the administrative centre of the Highlands and Islands, and popularly known as the "Happiest place in Scotland" (I can anecdotally attest to this). --Grnrchst (talk) 14:37, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:37, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Per nom. --
   talk
   ) 14:47, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:59, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
4. Per Grnrchst. — The Blue Rider 19:04, 28 October 2023 (UTC) Reinstate the supportive vote. The Blue Rider 14:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
5. Weak support. Seems less influential than I expected; as a growing city its perceived influence may be a little blown out of proportion. Ultimately come out on its inclusion as an effective subtopic of VA4 Scottish Highlands but it only scrapes in. J947 † ^edits 02:02, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I am sorry, but IMHO this is a small town (~50k pop) that almost nobody outside Scotland has heard about. It has no history of subarticle. It has some significance for the history of Scotland and arguably UK, but little modern significance. Further, UK has 42 cities and pop of 67 mil. Germany with a pop of about 80m has just 43 cities. Peraps Gemrany is underrepresented, but cities is already over quota. I could support a swap with another UK town, but not addition of this minor entity. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

   Most European cities can't really be judged by their contemporary relevance, the vitality of these cities is mainly historical, architectural and cultural. If Inverness played a big role on the history of Scotland, an important region, then it has consequential vitality. I do agree that since the category is over quota, a swap would be better. The Blue Rider 12:18, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

2. Piotrus' comment made me realize that this would be the 6th Scotland city listed and that's an over-representation; there a lot of (independent) countries with way less listed cities. Since Grnrschst stated that this is the least important of all of the nominations, I will oppose this one. The Blue Rider 14:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

   Though as an counter-argument, the population disparity between Scotland, England and the rest of the globe wasn't as accentuated as it is today, so perhaps not an over-representation. Population is also not the sole metric to measure this, Portugal was incremental to world history yet it only has 10M of population today. The Blue Rider 14:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

• Regarding proportions, I'd just like to point out that England has 42 cities represented on the vital list, out of 55 cities total. That's 76% representation. Scotland only has 8 cities, 3 of which are currently represented and 3 more of which are proposed, which would bring it up to 75% representation. I'd be fine leaving the number of vital Scottish cities there, as I don't think Perth and especially Dunfermline have such strong claims to vitality. As for the quota argument, yes the category as a whole is over-quota, but the Western Europe subcategory (of which Scotland is a part of) is still under quota. If cuts are to be made, well, North America is still 19 entries over quota. Start there. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:10, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

---

This sublocal region is also a culturally significant

I know. This not only represents the highest form of theater. In sports it has all kinds of meanings. Baseball pitchers typically try to throw balls that nip one corner of the strike zone or another, but if a pitcher challenges a hitter with a fastball right down Broadway, it means he threw his fastest, nastiest pitch right down the middle of the plate and dared the hitter to try to hit his best stuff. Although a less common slang use, a small basketball player might drive right down the middle of the lane against (and possibly over the defenses of) big, imposing defenders by taking it right down broadway.

Alternatively, maybe Broadway theatre and West End theatre deserve some VA love, but I'll give this a shot and see where it lands.

Support

1. Support as nom.-
   WP:WAWARD
   ) 20:08, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose on the basis that Broadway is already a VT4 article (the proposal is to add the street). — The Blue Rider 20:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Per Blue Rider. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
3. No need. Broadway isn't known for much outside of its theatre scene, which is already considered vital. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:40, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
4. Per above. Broadway is vital, but one entry will do. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:31, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

1. I actually missed that
   WP:WAWARD
   ) 20:20, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

---

Per the above, listing the relevant assassination, here the Assassination of Spencer Perceval, is perfectly sufficient. No extra value is added by listing both the key political event and the perpetrator's page, which is just a summary of the event with some biographical meta detail.

Support

1. Support as nom.
   Iskandar323 (talk
   ) 20:09, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Support Jaguarnik (talk) 06:06, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
3. 〜 Festucalex • talk 02:53, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
4. Per Iskandar323. The Blue Rider 18:57, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
5. Support – this seems the sort of assassination more likely to have 0 articles on the list than 2, and the assassin is overshadowed by his act here. J947 † ^edits 02:25, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
6. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 21:25, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose why are we arguing for the removal of the only person to have killed a British Prime Minister? Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 21:31, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

   This is a good argument for notability, not vitality. 〜 Festucalex • talk 02:53, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

2. Oppose This assassin is vital because they did something that has never been done again: killed a Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Oppose I don't know the culture across the pond, but this guy seems as important at
   WP:WAWARD
   ) 00:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

• I find the above oppose reasoning strange. So this is vital just because it's the isolated killer of a UK PM? Would we add the isolated killer of any prime minister, president of head of state, or is this the same old UK/US disproportion cropping up? And would they then suddenly cease to be vital if a second killer presented themselves? It seems to me that vitality should be based on a broader assessment of notability and the long-term significance attributed to the killer in history and culture, not based on whether the killing was a one-off or not. Has anyone read the article? It's dull as ditchwater. There's barely anything to be said about the man beyond the already listed assassination. How can the topic be vital when even the subject matter itself lacks vitality? Yes, some no name bloke killed a UK prime minster, as already lent vitality by the listing of the assassination page. However, why does the no name bloke need to inherit vitality from the UK PM/their assassination?
  Iskandar323 (talk
  ) 05:45, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

  I guess in a slight counter to my own vote, this is the only British assassin on the list, so I suppose this entry could be considered warranted if only based on pure geographical spread.

  Iskandar323 (talk

  ) 07:13, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

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

---

Smart is largely famous for having been kidnapped while she was a teenager, and her subsequent activism seems to stem from that. While she certainly has had a harrowing story, I'm not sure her biography is a particularly vital topic.

Support

1. Support as nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
2. p
   18:00, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Possible move to victims? I never understood why she got listed under activists. She is way more known as a victim. Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 08:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
4. Per Grnrchst. Her kidnapping didn't have any lasting effect on the legal system, police's investigating methods, how the media televises this type of crimes, etc. The Blue Rider 15:34, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
5. Support outright removal, do not move to Victims. Just... not a VA. Making VA as a victim requires something Emmett Till level of cultural and legal impact. SnowFire (talk) 07:37, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Move to victims Rreagan007 (talk) 05:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

• The victims section is already full and judging from a quick glance, there isn't any obvious swap. The Blue Rider 12:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

With the removal of George Floyd, the victims section now has a spare entry. — The Blue Rider 09:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

---

Support

1. WHH's presidency is basically a historical joke. Definitely not vital. --Grnrchst (talk) 18:09, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Support if Liz Truss fails to get added, Oppose if she succeeds. See my rationale under the Liz Truss discussion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyeluvbraixen (talk • contribs) 09:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Support This is no US-centered encyclopedia. Rsk6400 (talk) 09:14, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
4. Support This guy is little more than a footnote in American history, so definitely not vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:10, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
5. Support I disagree with the idea that U.S. Presidents are inherently vital. This individual is most famous as a president for dying, that's hardly vital.Jaguarnik (talk) 17:32, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
6. You can hardly be vital with a 31-day presidency and his early positions also fail to corroborate his entry on this list. The Blue Rider 22:54, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
7. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 22:44, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. He wasn't just president of the U.S. for a month. He was a member of the House of Representatives as well as a Senator, the 1st Governor of the Indiana Territory, as well as being a famous military leader as a general in the U.S. Army. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:44, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

• Noting that Interstellarity already boldly removed WHH before this discussion was opened.[1] --Grnrchst (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
• This going to be the only vote I’ll cast for this section. I’m glad that we’re questioning on whether being a US President or UK Prime Minister is enough to be considered vital, but right now we should solely focus on Truss and Harrison. I will say this, at least Truss did a lot more stuff during her tenure than Harrison. --Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 23:29, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

---

Support

1. This one's a begrudging support. I am a fan of Garfield as a person - what with him being a keen mathematician, a staunch abolitionist and almost completely uninterested in gaining personal power - but it would be hard for me to say his presidency was particularly important. Maybe it would have been if he weren't assassinated. (Also tbh I don't think Guiteau is a vital subject either. One could argue that it was incompetent surgeons that killed Garfield, rather than Guiteau's bullet) --Grnrchst (talk) 18:09, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Support He didn't have time to do anything important before being killed. He is a bit of a borderline case, but this category is at the point where those need to be cut. (Also, Guiteau is definitely not vital.) QuicoleJR (talk) 20:13, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
3. The United States Post Office and whatever senatorial courtesy is, are not sufficient reasons for his inclusion. The Blue Rider 14:42, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

   Senatorial courtesy does seem like something that should be borne in mind in these VA discussions! J947 † ^edits 00:51, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

4. Support – it's easy to kneejerk oppose this but it's my strong opinion that presidents should be judged to the same standard as all other American politicians. I'm no expert, but I think in terms of impact rather than name recognition and assassinability this removal will probably make space for a better option. J947 † ^edits 00:51, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. All U.S. Presidents should be listed. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:44, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose although the oppose above seems a bit of an
   WP:WAWARD
   ) 02:29, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

---

Remove Franklin Pierce

Support

Oppose

1. Oppose. All U.S. Presidents should be listed. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:44, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

• Wasn't Pierce quite an instrumental figure in the lead up to the civil war? Wanted to clarify before I voted. --Grnrchst (talk) 18:09, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Pierce and Buchanan were the two presidents immediately prior to the Civil War. A lot of important events happened in their presidencies, many of them inching the United States closer and closer to war. Pierce and Buchanan let those events happen without providing leadership from the top. Pierce was president during the Kansas-Nebraska Act, but the Act was mostly the work of
    p
    18:45, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

---

Remove Benjamin Harrison

Support

1. I hadn't even heard of this guy before. On a look over, his presidency seems rather inconsequential, with all the important bills passed during the period being driven by others like McKinley. Probably not vital. --Grnrchst (talk) 18:09, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. All U.S. Presidents should be listed. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:44, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose Compared to the other one-termers of the era, I would argue that B. Harrison had more of an impact through his presidency. Curbon7 (talk) 09:05, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

---

Biddle is the more significant and well-known representative of American federal banking.

16:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. p
   16:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Support Biddle, undecided on removing Willing. Curbon7 (talk) 08:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Support addition, oppose removal. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removal. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:30, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

• @Purplebackpack89: Just wanted to note that Nicholas Biddle is already listed in the politicians and leaders category. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
• @
  p
  16:40, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

---

Just another CEO of a bank.

16:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. p
   16:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Support How did he make it onto the list? QuicoleJR (talk) 19:47, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 16:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 22:42, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
5. Support Not particularly stand-out. Curbon7 (talk) 08:27, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

---

Do we really need TWO people from Berkshire Hathaway? Buffett I get, Munger, not so much

16:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. p
   16:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:53, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 16:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 22:42, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

---

I see the writers/poets section is oversubscribed, but I believe

and an early female author.

Support

1. Support as nominator Jaguarnik (talk) 18:18, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 22:55, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:45, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
5. Support per nom. Jusdafax (talk) 01:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

---

For the past weeks, I've been inconsistently writing proposals for the removal of various Spanish and Italian cities on my sandbox, and I've come to the realization that the current total number of cities listed of these countries is similar compared to identical countries both demographically and importance to world history, such as France, Germany and the UK. Yet only the category for Southern Europe is over-quota (96/80), with 81 articles from these two countries, not to mention that Portugal and Greece most certainly deserve more cities being listed. This means either two things, we listed way too many cities, generally, or that we need more slots for the Southern Europe category. Throughout my research for the proposals in my sandbox, I do think that a lot of Italian and Spanish cities currently listed are not particularly vital, but now I'm reluctant to spend more time on it, since Italy is no less important than say, France. The Blue Rider 17:27, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

• I'd support another 5 or 10 there. I do think Southern Europe tends to be a little more region/island-based than city-based, but it could do with an up. J947 † ^edits 00:39, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

---

This city has a lot of historical and modern-day importance. It is a

in an area that needs more coverage, and is the capital of a Tunisian governorate.

Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Per nom. World heritage status clearly demonstrates vitality. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Tunisia needs more representation comparatively to its neighbouring countries and this city seems vital. The Blue Rider 14:17, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

   Not convinced Tunisia does to be honest. J947 † ^edits 06:07, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

   Tunisia is a historically important country, plus 13M people is enough to warrant a 4th city being listed. Libya on the other hand is overrepresented. The Blue Rider 21:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

   Looking at it now yes – Libya certainly is overrepresented. There should be wholesale cuts there. J947 † ^edits 01:29, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

4. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 17:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
5. Support, maybe swap with Sousse. J947 † ^edits 06:07, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
6. Support
   talk
   ) 19:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

---

The second-biggest city in a very large country.

Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 17:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Support per nom.-
   WP:WAWARD
   ) 03:17, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Support
   talk
   ) 19:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Benguela / Lobito seem to be generally considered more likely candidates for Angola's 2nd city. J947 † ^edits 05:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

---

The article fails to describe any sort of VA-level importance.

Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
2. This is not even a city, it's a municipality inside DRC's capital; not vital. The Blue Rider 14:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
3. A suburb of Kinshasa probably isn't vital. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:29, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
4. per Grnrchst. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
5. Support Not vital. Curbon7 (talk) 08:36, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
6. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 17:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
7. Support, satellite city. J947 † ^edits 05:31, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
8. Support as part of Kinshasa that doesn't stand out in its own right.
   talk
   ) 19:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

---

This city has no major importance besides being somewhat close to an important uranium mine. If the mine is important, we should add the mine.

Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Per QuicoleJR. The Blue Rider 14:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Support Minor city. Curbon7 (talk) 08:39, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 17:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:35, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Not sure why this is getting so much support. With a swap for another DRC city that looks superior, maybe, but this seems pretty important. Population-wise, it's about 10th in the country. There's 13 DRC cities on the list. The history seems pretty varied and important to me just from the bare article read-through – industry centre, transport hub, uranium mine, refugee centre, and besieged fairly importantly in the Congo Crisis. J947 † ^edits 05:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Vitality stablished by J947. The Blue Rider 21:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Oppose Another example of Africa being discounted here.
   talk
   ) 19:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

---

Nothing in the article demonstrates why this city should be listed at VA5. It does not seem nearly important enough.

Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 17:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:36, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Home to several universities, also an important traffic hub. From my personal knowledge of Tanzania, one of the most important cities of that wonderful country. The article surely needs improvement. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:33, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

   Rsk6400, it would be interesting to know if you think Morogoro is more or less important than Mbeya and Mwanza? J947 † ^edits 06:46, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

2. Per Rsk6400. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:16, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Rsk6400. Local knowledge is gold at this level, and I'm willing to defer to it almost absolutely. J947 † ^edits 06:46, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Oppose
   talk
   ) 19:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

---

This city does not make any valid claims to VA-level importance.

Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Support Seems to be a relatively minor town. Curbon7 (talk) 08:44, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Per QuicoleJR. Other than being home to the Kome Caves couldn't find anything remarkable about this city. The Blue Rider 14:47, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 17:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:36, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
6. Support --
   talk
   ) 19:25, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
7. Support, Lesotho doesn't warrant a 2nd city. J947 † ^edits 06:41, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

---

The article does not explain why it should be a vital article.

Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Per QuicoleJR. Couldn't find anything online that asserted this city's vitality, though non-western topics normally do have less content available in the internet. The Blue Rider 14:47, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 17:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:37, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Would only support as a swap with another Nigerian city. With 9 at VA4 and currently 30 at VA5, Nigeria clearly isn't over quota. J947 † ^edits 02:58, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Just because a section is not over the quota does not mean that everything in the section is vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:12, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Not voting due to inconclusive info but I'm leaning Keep based on size and assumed regional importance.

) 19:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

---

Both of these should sit under the level-4 Israeli–Palestinian conflict entry, which currently only holds the First Intifada below it - and that is arguably a lesser event than the Second Intifada. The blockade meanwhile is, in the 2014 words of Filippo Grandi of the UNRWA, a siege that stands as the longest in modern history, "longer than that of Sarajevo, Berlin and Leningrad".^[1]

Support

1. Support as nom.
   Iskandar323 (talk
   ) 10:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Support adding the Second Intifada. Neutral on adding the Blockade. --Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 19:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Support QuicoleJR (talk) 13:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
4. Support both. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:20, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
5. Support both. Jusdafax (talk) 05:44, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Seems like the Second Intifada is already listed. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 17:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

---

This overlaps heavily with 1948 Arab–Israeli War, to which the declaration is essentially the preamble. Moreover, there are no other declarations of independence in the history category, presumably because all declarations (without a war to reinforce them) are basically just pieces of paper. Not even the United States Declaration of Independence is listed, and I would hazard that this is by far the most famous instance of such a declaration in history, but again, still just paper. (NB: Last point is incorrect. See discussion.)

Support

1. Support as nom.
   Iskandar323 (talk
   ) 10:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Support. Not really vital to include both. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Support. Much less vital than the 1948 war (which should be kept). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:46, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 17:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

I am neutral on the proposal, but I just step in to indicate to you that declarations of independence and such are not "pieces of paper", but they are akin to constitutions and possibly even more important because of the fundamental ideas they contain. The United States Declaration of Independence is listed and it's considered a level-4 vital article, you didn't find it because the Israeli Declaration of Independence is in the "History" section, while the United States Declaration of Independence is under "Human rights instruments" in the "Politics and economics" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.61.27.72 (talk) 14:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Ah ok, yes, you are right, I did search the history section. It makes sense that the US one is somewhere. But beyond that there are

Iskandar323 (talk

) 18:10, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

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

---

An extremely important principle in legal and military ethics and international humanitarian law.

Support

1. Support as nom.
   Iskandar323 (talk
   ) 16:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 07:12, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
4. Support-
   WP:WAWARD
   ) 03:11, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

---

He was ranked as top importance article by Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team. How about addition of him? Dawid2009 (talk) 20:26, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. nom
2. Support The architect of the US capitol is certainly vital. Very influential on urban planning. --Grnrchst (talk) 18:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Per Grnrchst. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Ping User:Dawid2009 - you forgot to start a vote. I added one. I presume you want to support as a nom. I've no strong opinion here, need to think a bit more (I worry a bit about this being too US-centric, but for V5 it is probably ok-ish). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

---

This is a very spiritual song that is widely referenced for its symbolic representation.

Support

1. As nom.-
   WP:WAWARD
   ) 05:40, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
2. This wasn't on here yet? QuicoleJR (talk) 13:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Support Self-explanatory. Curbon7 (talk) 08:45, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 17:18, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
5. Per TonyTheTiger. — The Blue Rider 20:03, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
6. Support per nom. Jusdafax (talk) 05:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

---

Because he is the only driver ever to win the Triple Crown of Motorsport (defined as winning the Indianapolis 500, the 24 Hours of Le Mans, and the Formula One World Drivers' Championship), he is no doubt vital at this level.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:41, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:39, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
4. Support -
   WP:WAWARD
   ) 15:22, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

---

Being known as the father of drifting guarantees his vitality at this level.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:12, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Support. The Japanese drifting scene is quite widely known, and its populariser is likely vital (more so than the below-mentioned Italian driver, who may have been first but didn't popularise it). I'll say that the Drift King Keiichi Tsuchiya is already considered vital, but I don't think that bars Takahashi. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:49, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Per Grnrchst. The Blue Rider 12:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Being a father of something is not necessarily vital. Subjetive bias: I've never heard of drifting until now. I'd say that people being called fathers (mothers) of something almost everyone know are likely to be vital, but this is not the case here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

• There is another person, Tazio Nuvolari, also being awarded with the "father of drifting" title. The Blue Rider 23:29, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

---

I don't think this is vital enough. The court case started in 2022, nothing much really happened. The "notable legal court" section is also pretty US-centric / Western Centric. There are 13 articles there and 11 are US and the other 2 are the United Kingdom. The politics and economics section is also over 200 articles over budget. (The politics section quota was originally 1850 but went down to 1600).

Also note that Supreme Court of the United States and Law of the United States are only level 5 articles.

115.188.126.180 (talk) 04:20, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. as nom 115.188.126.180 (talk) 04:20, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Americanism, recentism... nothing makes this minor case vital. Just one of many US SC cases. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Per nom and Piotrus. --Grnrchst (talk) 20:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 17:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:42, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
6. Despite its recency has not attained anywhere near the viewership of the other 10 U.S. decisions. J947 † ^edits 06:02, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

---

I have been involved in discussions regarding expanding

) 10:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Quick comparision

Add Paula Abdul 1 Grammy, 2 Emmys, 2 Multi-platinum albums, 6 #1 singles as lead artist

Remove

WP:WAWARD

) 14:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• Just pointing out as I did in the discussion below that the first six singles that she released from albums all went to #1. Thus, for a nearly 3-year period all her releases went to #1. It does not speak to influence, but her popularity for a nearly 3 year period is likely rivalled almost exclusively by VA subjects.-
  WP:WAWARD
  ) 04:14, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. as nom -
   WP:WAWARD
   ) 10:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Support removal. The artists and musicians section was further cut from 2175 to 2000 to make more room for scientists and politicians. We should get the numbers under control before adding too many people. Being an American Idol judge doesn't strike me as pivotal, as the show has only given rise to two artists of lasting popularity. Eilish and Rodrigo are also acclaimed songwriters with more global fan bases. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 18:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
4. Support the removal. Paula Abdul's biography doesn't strike me as vital. — The Blue Rider 21:31, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
5. Support removal Rreagan007 (talk) 19:43, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

• WP:WAWARD
  ) 20:13, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
• Apologies. I just corrected a typo. She had 6 #1 singles not 3.-
  WP:WAWARD
  ) 21:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

---

Going along with the above. I also think

) 10:44, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Quick comparison

Add Dua Lipa - 3 Grammys, 2 Multi-platinum albums, 9 #1 singles as lead artist

Remove

WP:WAWARD

) 14:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. as nom -
   WP:WAWARD
   ) 10:44, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Support removal per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 18:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
4. Support removal Rreagan007 (talk) 19:47, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
5. Support addition, neutral on removal, per my comment about ballanvr in discussion about George Flyod. Dawid2009 (talk) 11:56, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

1. Comment @
   WP:WAWARD
   ) 04:10, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

---

The successor to George Canning, who was recently removed from the list. This PM is not vital either, as their only real action as PM was resigning. The other government positions they held are not enough to make them vital, since they did not do very much in those positions either.

Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Support per nom and my previous comments on the matter. --Grnrchst (talk) 20:55, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Not seeing what makes him vital? Just a run-of-the-mill British PM. Some made their mark on world history, but he is not among them. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
4. Per above supports. The Blue Rider 21:51, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

---

Add Nelly Furtado (discography) 1 Grammy, 3 multiplatinum albums, 5 #1 singles

Remove Robyn (discography) 0 Grammy, 0 multiplatinum albums, 2 #1 singles

Support

1. As nom.-
   WP:WAWARD
   ) 17:27, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Support removal
   p
   00:48, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Support removal Rreagan007 (talk) 22:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
4. Support removal. The Blue Rider 15:15, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Sadly will have to oppose this lusophone-descendent artist; she doesn't seem particularly instrumental in the pop genre. The Blue Rider 15:15, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

---

Assassination of John F. Kennedy is vital 5, fine - important event in US history, to some degree, even world history. His assassin is important however only due this event. We don't need two articles for that. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Sorry Grnrchst, but weak support. The assassination is the one who is subject of the conspiracies theories, most of them are not related to Oswald at all. Having said that, he does still have a good degree of consequential vitality, since he is the one who triggered all of this, but the assassination article already covers him pretty well. The Blue Rider 12:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
3. I don't see assassins as generally vital. The assassination is enough coverage. J947 † ^edits 05:04, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strongest possible oppose. Oswald has been the focus of many a biography, novel, film, and conspiracy theory. His article is absolutely vital for the encyclopedia. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Strong Oppose per Grnrchst. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Oppose Rreagan007 (talk) 22:19, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
4. Oppose - I'd say he belongs at Level 4. Jusdafax (talk) 06:39, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

---

Same logic as above. Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand is a V5, fine - arguably even more important event for world history that assassination of Kennedy - but his assassin is important however only due this event. We don't need two articles for that. Additionally, Princip was only one of several folks involved in the plot, so he is even less vital (to that event) than Oswald for Kennedy - he was just the person chosen to throw the bomb. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Princip is a household name across Europe for assassinating Franz Ferdinand. Of all the assassins to consider for removal, Princip wouldn't even cross my mind. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Per Grnrchst. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Per Grnrchst. This assassination and assassin is much more vital than the other two; its popularly known as the trigger of WWI. The Blue Rider 12:46, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

---

Same logic as above.

02:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Support. "Notable" as an actor, yes, but "vital"? Hyperbolick (talk) 07:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I believe he is notable beyond this one event as an actor. For a notable person to assassinate a president is a different thing.-
   WP:WAWARD
   ) 04:50, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose I do not agree with this logic. This person is a household name because of this event. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Oppose per QuicoleJR. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:14, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
4. Oppose. Absolutely not. He is a paragon assassin. I'd remove the assassination article before I would remove this one. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:00, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
5. He wasn't just the trigger man, he was the one who plotted the conspiracy to assassinate all the high-ranking politicians of the US. The Blue Rider 13:00, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
6. Oppose - Clearly vital. Jusdafax (talk) 06:41, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

1. Piotrus: Leon Czolgosz is a good proposal for removal, I think you would get much more support. The Blue Rider 12:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

   @The Blue Rider Good point, will suggest it shortly if you don't do it first. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

   Funnily enough, I also oppose Czolgosz being removed, although I'm considering proposing John Hinckley Jr. and Mark David Chapman for removal. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

   Yeah, the moment I saw he was an anarchist I knew you would most likely oppose it :) The Blue Rider 21:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

---

I

) 11:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. as nom -
   WP:WAWARD
   ) 11:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Per TonyTheTiger. The Blue Rider 23:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Endorse. Moving articles around to different sections is generally something that can be done boldly. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:49, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

1. If this doesn't pass, do we have to move this back to the wrong section?-
   WP:WAWARD
   ) 23:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

---

I noticed that the assassins category entirely consists of men, so I thought it would be prudent to suggest one of the most consequential female assassins in history. Sophia Perovskaya was one of the leading members of Narodnaya Volya, the nihilist organisation that led the opposition to the Tsarist autocracy during the 1880s. Perovskaya is most famous for orchestrating the assassination of Alexander II of Russia, an action that caused heightened repression in the Russian Empire, arguably setting into motion a series of events that would lead to the Russian Revolution. Perovskaya inspired many a dedication and copycat, including notably an attempt on the life of Emperor Meiji by the Japanese feminist Kanno Sugako. Given how exceedingly rare it is for women to participate in a political assassination, much less plan one, I think Perovskaya is a natural addition to the list of vital assassins. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 18:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The execution of the Romanov family, which encompasses the killing of a VT4 and VT5 person and is much more connect to the revolutions of 1917 is not rightfully listed. With that in mind, I don't think she is vital. The Blue Rider 22:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

---

This was the only perfect season in the history of the NFL. Not even Tom Brady's best team (2007 New England Patriots season) could produce a perfect season.

Support

1. Support as nom.-
   WP:WAWARD
   ) 04:24, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Absolutely not, this is so niche. — The Blue Rider 10:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
2. The Miami Dolphins themselves aren't yet considered vital, why should a specific season be? --Grnrchst (talk) 12:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Just don't believe sports seasons are vital at this level.
   p
   12:50, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
4. What Blue Rider said. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:30, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

---

This is regarded as the greatest team in baseball history.

Support

1. Support as nom.-
   WP:WAWARD
   ) 04:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The team is already VT5, a baseball season will very hardly be vital. — The Blue Rider 10:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Incredibly niche proposal. I can't find any examples of specific seasons being included in the vital list, so I can't see why we should include one for a sport that has barely any popularity outside of the United States. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Just don't believe sports seasons are vital at this level. NYY at LV5 is enough
   p
   12:49, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
4. Can't imagine how this element of sport history is vital (and this is also very US-centric). How many Olympic evens are vital, I wonder? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

1. You are using the word team a bit differently than me. I mean the team that season is regarded as the greatest of all time.-
   WP:WAWARD
   ) 11:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

   I understood that, but with the NYY being a VT5 it will encompass all the previous teams. Besides the title of the 'greatest season of all time', what specific impacts did the season bring to society or even just the sport itself? — The Blue Rider 12:24, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

2. WP:WAWARD
   ) 22:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

   I could see that one being vital, as it was a global event. Unlike the Yankees season, which has zero cultural impact etc. outside USA. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

---

Fletcher Christian led the mutiny, John Adams was its last survivor, and William Bligh was the ship's captain. Christian, the master's mate, instigated the mutiny after disputes with Bligh. William Bligh was set adrift on a

).

As per the discussion with QuicoleJR, it's a good idea to combine the biographies of Fletcher Christian, John Adams, and William Bligh into a single article about the mutiny. This makes sense because the biographies are not independently vital and the mutiny article covers more stuff, like other mutineers, some of them independently notable, and the several adaptation in movies, books and plays. The Blue Rider 23:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nominator. The Blue Rider 23:32, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Agree that it is an elegant way to preserve this while reducing article count. What is vital is indeed the event, which is more famous than the names of individuals involved. (That said, see my assassinations discussions above, where it seems we want to keep both the events and people - frankly, I don't see the difference). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 07:10, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
5. Support addition and all removals except John Adams. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removal of John Adams. He's not only vital for the mutiny but for founding the Pitcairn Islands community, as the mutiny's last survivor. As noted above, the capital bears his name, as do many of the islanders to this day. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

   From reading the articles, I don't think John Adams founded the city per se and the islanders are descendants of all the mutineers that settled in Pitcairn, not just Adams. The Blue Rider 16:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

---

We have 51 North American rivers, but none that drain Central America, and none but the

17:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. p
   17:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. --Grnrchst (talk) 19:59, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
4. Support per nom.-
   WP:WAWARD
   ) 23:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

---

The Potomac is roughly 3x as long and more historically significant, as it is the river that flows through the nation's capital. In addition to being one of the shortest American rivers on the list, the Schuylkill is one of two rivers that flow through the same city

17:58, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. p
   17:58, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. --Grnrchst (talk) 19:59, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
4. Support per nom.-
   WP:WAWARD
   ) 23:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
5. Support per nom. J947 † ^edits 01:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
6. Support per nom. Well done. Jusdafax (talk) 20:08, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

1. Comment
   WP:WAWARD
   ) 18:59, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
   1. @
      p
      19:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

---

I know The Beatles are VA3, but have these guys done enough as solo artists to be VA. Harrison had the only multiplatinum album of the pair (All Things Must Pass) while he was still really a Beatle. Neither has really done anything to exhibit vitality since the band broke up.

Support

1. Support as nominator. --
   WP:WAWARD
   ) 21:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Support. I don't think they are independently notable from the main Beatles article the same way that Lennon and McCartney are. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:48, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I'm actually stunned by this proposal... --Grnrchst (talk) 21:56, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Definitely oppose Harrison, I seem to recall he's notable for his ventures into Eastern music. Neutral to weak oppose on Ringo
   p
   22:18, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Oppose with astonishment and more. Jusdafax (talk) 01:41, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

1. WP:WAWARD
   ) 22:05, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

So you view the Boston Celtics as as vital as the Beatles?

p

22:18, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

The 1960s Celtics may be the greatest dynasty in sports history with championships 8 years in a row, 10 of 11, and 11 of 13 years. Not as important as the Beatles are to the world. But that is because one can not continue playing basketball for 50 years. McCartney is still playing. Harrison is Sam Jones and Starr is K.C. Jones. I really don't think Starr is one of the 10 best drummers of all time and have never heard him mentioned in that way.-

WP:WAWARD

) 23:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Mate this beyond an apples to oranges comparison. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:35, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Do you think Ringo is one of the 10 greatest drummers of all time? I don't view his non-Beatles life as if it is more important than some of the classic rock bands above. Harrison is borderline. This is really a

WP:WAWARD

) 15:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

The issue is that the Beatles are an ongoing subject of import. They released

WP:WAWARD

) 16:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Looking more closely, he seems to have had some influence and does have a #5 rating at Rolling Stone. Do leading drummers now use the matched grip. Is that what youth are taught now?-

WP:WAWARD

) 20:09, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

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

NO CONSENSUS

I'm reticent to close/archive this, but the page size is becoming an issue. No consensus on any specific proposal; plenty of ideas raised but unfortunately this discussion is going nowhere fast (not helped by a thoughts suggestion being converted into a formal proposal). J947 ‡ ^edits 09:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

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

---

On the level 3 talk page, I was challenged by User:TonyTheTiger to suggest improvements to the selection of contemporary paintings on level 5. I'll do that here. My general impression after looking at the list more carefully is that we list too many individual paintings compared to other genres. For example, there are ten paintings listed as "contemporary", while the "contemporary art" section covering miscellaneous genres only has five entries. This ratio should really be the other way around, since painting no longer dominates the art world like it used to. Meanwhile we have far from enough on other aspects of art, so I will also suggest improvements in other directions.

Potential swaps of paintings

The main issues with the ten contemporary paintings we've selected are:

1. A bias towards paintings that have sold for high prices at auctions;
2. Too much of a propensity to include multiple works by the same artist;
3. Lack of representation of painters who aren't white, male, and from the US or UK.

I suggest removing:

• Either Drowning Girl or Whaam! – we list two works each by Lichtenstein and Warhol but they came along later in the history of pop art, and it would be better to have something by a pioneering figure like Jasper Johns or Robert Rauschenberg instead (it's surprising that Rauschenberg's biography is not on level 5)
• Benefits Supervisor Sleeping – mainly famous for its price tag; a Francis Bacon triptych would be more iconic
• No. 6 (Violet, Green and Red) – also here because of its price tag; the quintessential example of Rothko's art must be Rothko Chapel even though that's more than just a painting
• Portrait of an Artist (Pool with Two Figures) – yet another expensive painting; Angel of the North is definitely a more iconic example of contemporary British art but it's a sculpture, not a painting
• The Son of Man – we already list another Magritte, The Treachery of Images, under "modern" paintings

These could be replaced with:

• Three Studies for Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion – it put Francis Bacon on the map
• América Invertida – iconic work of South American modernism; Joaquín Torres-García's biography also really needs to be listed on level 5
• Erased de Kooning Drawing – Rauschenberg's seminal piece of conceptual art
• SAMO – the tag that launched Basquiat's career
• Mountains and Sea – The best example I could find of a post-WW2 painting by a woman. Unfortunately there's not a lot to choose from – we have very few articles on paintings by contemporary female artists. I'm thinking of people like Agnes Martin, Leonora Carrington, Marlene Dumas, Shahzia Sikander, or Julie Mehretu, none of whom we list on level 5. See below for better examples of iconic works by female artists that aren't paintings.

Cobblet (talk) 22:08, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support the removal of everything except Drowning Girl and Whaam!. The Blue Rider 23:19, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose the addition of everything except Three Studies for Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion and America Invertida (which I support). The Blue Rider 23:19, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose removing The Drowning Girl and Whaam! It doesn’t matter if those works came later; these are the two most well-known pop art. Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 01:00, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Oppose removal of The Drowning Girl and Whaam!. I'm frankly quite astonished that these were suggested for removal in the first place. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
4. Oppose formally opposing removal of The Son of Man, The Drowning Girl and Whaam!-
   WP:WAWARD
   ) 06:51, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

• Roy Lichtenstein and Andy Warhol are both pioneers and representatives of the pop art movement. Drowning Girl and Whaam! are Lichtenstein's most influential, famous, and significant works. They explore new themes such as consumerism and advertising, and reopen the old philosophical debate if imitation is considered art.

Furthermore, Drowning Girl is one of the earliest paintings to tackle the role of modern women in society, specially their agency and power (or lack thereof). "Whaam!" is an anti-war painting that opposes the Cold War and had a profound impact during its time. I do support the removal of the other works. I also agree with the inclusion of the Bacon's; there are other more notable works by Rauschenberg; instead of "SAMO," we could potentially list a Banksy's or Haring's. I am unsure about including América Invertida and Mountains and Sea. The Blue Rider 00:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I am going to abstain on the additions, but as the

WP:WAWARD

) 23:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not surprised at the pushback at my suggestions, which is why I purposely framed my comments as responding to an invitation to discussion, and not as a formal proposal. It's unproductive if people start throwing in formal !votes before they've fully familiarized themselves with contents of the list (e.g., we do in fact list a Banksy, Girl with Balloon), so I did not want to encourage !voting. I'm not the one who added the support/oppose/discussion headings.

People are understandably shocked by my position that we don't have room for two works by Lichtenstein or Magritte. Obviously Lichtenstein and Magritte are two of the most famous artists of the 20th century. I commend Tony for having written excellent articles on the Lichtenstein works: certainly that is the sort of contribution to Wikipedia that this list aims to encourage, and so it does make sense that somebody put these works on the list to begin with.

But as I said under "Other missing visual arts topics" below, I feel that whoever came up with the list as it stands now was too focused on listing individual artworks and did not pay enough attention to listing articles on broader themes in art. We're almost certainly going to have to reduce the number of individual works in order to fix this, since arts section is already over quota. I don't believe the current arts list was the result of any significant consensus-building discussion; we can't let a bias towards the status quo affect our judgment.

Again, under "Other missing visual arts topics", I had already come up with a long list of articles that I think would be more appropriate for this list than many of the artworks we've chosen. Here's a few more that are relevant to the points raised above. Why should we list a Rothko painting instead of listing the topic Color field? Of course Originality, Consumerism, Gaze/Male gaze, and Protest art are important artistic themes, but shouldn't we be listing the articles on those themes before listing a second work by Lichtenstein? And if we sincerely want to address the role of women in society, I'd like to see Drowning Girl replaced by Women artists.

I don't mean to pick on Magritte or Lichtenstein – I did so only because I was specifically asked to comment on the contemporary paintings. There are many other questionable inclusions on the list of modern paintings, e.g.,

L'Atelier Rouge

? Likewise I believe Dalí is only represented by The Persistence of Memory, and I'd say he's also more significant than Lichtenstein or Magritte.

I appreciate everybody's input here. But we're going to need multiple well-informed people to invest significant time and effort in understanding the strengths and weaknesses of the current list if we want to make significant improvements to it. I've had a hard enough time convincing people to do it at level 4, and doing it at level 5 is exponentially harder. Cobblet (talk) 19:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:WAWARD

) 05:07, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Even if we treat ink wash painting as a separate category, we do list a watercolour, Klee's Twittering Machine. We also list The Birds of America and Kunstformen der Natur, which I would consider works of mass-produced illustration based on watercolours. In that sense they are related to View of the World from 9th Avenue. If we didn't already list both Knight, Death and the Devil and Melencolia I (we should probably limit ourselves to one work by Dürer, and certainly not more than two), Young Hare would be worth consideration – I'd consider it more vital than anything by Klee. Cobblet (talk) 11:46, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Other modern/contemporary artworks worth including

Canonical works by female artists: Migrant Mother, Identical Twins, Roselle, New Jersey, 1967, The Ballad of Sexual Dependency, Maman, and an article Yayoi Kusama's Infinity Room installations would make a lot of sense as well.

Specific contemporary works in unrepresented/underrepresented genres: I Like America and America Likes Me (performance), Spiral Jetty (land art), Wrapped Reichstag (public art; I'm shocked we don't list Christo and Jeanne-Claude under biographies), "Untitled" (Portrait of Ross in L.A.) (installation) or NAMES Project AIDS Memorial Quilt (community art; but one work related to the AIDS epidemic is enough), Kollwitz's Peasant War series of prints (see e.g., [3]; again Wikipedia lacks articles related to female artists; Käthe Kollwitz is also strangely not on our biographies list) Cobblet (talk) 22:08, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Other missing visual arts topics

The fact that I feel compelled to mention a couple of redlinked artworks that are more vital than what's already listed makes me think that we list too many specific works of art in general, or at least from Western art history. (There are extremely prominent works from other traditions that are missing from the list, like Pillars of Ashoka, Leshan Giant Buddha, Muisca raft, Aztec sun stone, and the Benin Bronzes.) Many other types of articles will be of interest to readers, like:

• Overviews of traditions whose practitioners have generally been anonymous: random examples from a variety of localities and media include Oceanian art (how has this been missed?), European stone circles, New World featherwork, traditional African masks, Classical sculpture, Oriental rug, Illuminated manuscript, Jingdezhen porcelain, Azulejo, scrimshaw, papercutting, batik, totem pole, rangoli, alebrije
• All manner of historical movements listed in Template:Western art movements, as well as significant trends from the past century like primitivism, socialist realism, feminist art movement, protest art, and cultural appropriation
• Themes and motifs: stele, history painting, Madonna (art), Pietà, nativity scene, Islamic geometric patterns, Arabesque, Hamsa, Nataraja, Gongshi... Cobblet (talk) 22:08, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  WP:WAWARD

  ) 06:50, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  P.S., I don't know if you nom in Level 5 often, but nominator usually puts a sig in support area to start things off.-

  WP:WAWARD

  ) 06:58, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  Again, my comments were only intended as starting points for discussion, which is why the title says "thoughts on visual arts topics", and even the first section is only titled "Potential swaps of paintings". Remember, you challenged me to respond to you regarding contemporary art, and I have. If you want to turn each of my individual suggestions into formal proposals, that's up to you, but sticking support/oppose/discussion tags here is not the way to do it. Cobblet (talk) 19:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

  I was the one who added the tags. You should have specified that your suggestions weren't up for supporting or opposing since it was clearly ambiguous for many people. It seems to me that you're bitter with the negative response to your suggestions and now you're downplaying votes of other people because they aren't experts on contemporary art. The Blue Rider 20:31, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

  I've participated in vital article discussions for over ten years, but this is the first time anyone has complained to me of such "ambiguity". At least Tony was courteous enough to ping me for clarification without engaging in armchair psychology. That's what we call civil behaviour. I would've quit this project a long time ago if I got upset every time somebody disagreed with me.

  By the way, Der Blaue Reiter is yet another arts article that isn't listed, and it would definitely be a better choice than, say, Blue Horses. And no, that expression of my personal opinion is also not a formal proposal for a swap... Cobblet (talk) 21:56, 10 November 2023 (UTC)