Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/Archive 18

Under

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)

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

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.-

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

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)
2. This makes logical sense and should have already been a rule. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
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)

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

   WP:WAWARD

   ) 22:34, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

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)
5. Support Kammerer55's counter-proposal. The Blue Rider 10:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

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)

   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)

   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)

   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)

   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)

The risk of a

WP:WAWARD

) 15:10, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

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)

Discussion

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

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)

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)

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

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

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

    WP:WAWARD

    ) 22:31, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

    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)

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

    p

    14:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

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

    WP:WAWARD

    ) 15:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

    @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)

• 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)

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

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

  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)

  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)

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)

• -
  WP:WAWARD
  ) 14:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
  • 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)
      • You and
        WP:WAWARD
        ) 15:35, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

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

Support

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

Oppose

Discussion

This town has very little historical significance besides one recent battle, which is not enough to reach VA5 levels of importance.

Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
2. I am more convinced by the nom's rationale then oppose votes. The region is important - then add the region. The war is important - ditto. The city is just a background unless the article says otherwise. And it does not. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:35, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The city is the capital of the infamous
   War in Sudan. It also plays an important role for IDPs with their three refugee camps. Further, the city is an economic hub for the country, especially agriculturally. There is a UN's report that profiles the city, if someone wants to read it more deeply feel free. The Blue Rider
   19:43, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

   How about swapping for

   Nyala, Sudan, capital of South Darfur and the largest city in Sudan outside the Khartoum metro area? Sudan does look a little over quota to me; otherwise I'd be opposing this with you. J947 † ^edits

   05:53, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

   Would support said swap, Nyala seems more important historically and economically. The Blue Rider 21:44, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

2. Oppose Capital and primary city of Darfur, more likely to be vital as it is unlike typical provincial capitals. Curbon7 (talk) 08:42, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Swap for Nyala, South Darfur

1. Swap per my comment above. J947 † ^edits 00:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Per above comments. The Blue Rider 09:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Metro area of over a million, this is a no brainer. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 23:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
4. I think the historical part gives the edge to Nyala. starship.paint (RUN) 04:40, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
5. Swap per the UN report mentioned below and other comments. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 12:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

• @QuicoleJR: hello! This is the 2nd time you withdraw a proposal after me opposing it. My argument for vitality is not particularly strong and the odds are that there will be, at least, some people supporting its removal. Don't get discourage by a single oppose! The Blue Rider 15:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

  Un-withdrew. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

• I note that Nyala also has a UN report, which in 2009 said: Nyala had fewer than 100,000 people prior to the conflict but has swollen to over 600,000 ... Challenging El Fasher for the distinction of being Darfur’s biggest city whereas Fashir's UN report in 2009 said: This town of fewer than 200,000 people prior to the conflict has swollen to over 500,000. starship.paint (RUN) 04:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

  Haha wow. I'll still support the swap, based on the stats here which indicate Nyala was still fairly populated 30 years ago and had 500,000 inhabitants even 15 years ago, but – yeah, that's interesting. J947 ‡ ^edits 04:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

As it stands, South Korea strangely underrepresented in the contemporary history section, with Japan–South Korea trade dispute being the only article representing the post-Korean War era, which seems like a very strange pick as its far from the most impactful event especially given how tumultuous much of the period since the 1950s has been. Therefore I propose the following...

Remove:

• Japan–South Korea trade dispute - already discusses and limited in long-term consequences. There have been many diplomatic disputes between Japan and South Korea over the years.
• 2012 China anti-Japanese demonstrations - also limited in long-term consequences and not even the most significant unrest in China since 1989. Including the main Senkaku Islands dispute
  article would make more sense.
• 709 crackdown - I really do not know why this stub stands out of all the various crackdowns on dissent that have taken place in China

Add:

• Gwangju Uprising - Considered one of the most significant events in the movement against South Korea's various military dictatorships and widely commemorated. The crackdown likely had a comparable death toll to the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre but still remains much less covered in comparison internationally.
• June Democratic Struggle - led directly to the democratization of South Korea and ended the ~40 year period where it would pass between various right-wing dictators. As a disclaimer, I have expanded this article significantly.
• talk
  ) 11:59, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As someone these days at least a bit familiar with Korean history, yes, this makes sense. I am surprised the proposed topics are not Vital, whereas the ones suggested for removal are pretty minor indeed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 11:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Adding this vote as nom despite it having been a while to make sure I'm counted
   talk
   ) 19:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
4. per above. starship.paint (RUN) 03:31, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

At

And as I said there, some articles there look like stuff that might be decent V5 candiates. Perhaps what we need is Category:Wikipedia former vital articles and some system to move stuff once delisted there? Maybe also Category:Wikipedia propised vital articles and Category:Wikipedia failed proposed vital articles? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:48, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

We definitely need to institute something like this. As, I mentioned there, I also think VA nomination results should appear in

WP:WAWARD

) 03:09, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

1. This has been largely resolved at
   WP:WAWARD
   ) 05:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

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)

Support

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

Oppose

Discuss

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

Level 5 is the only level that does not use a 2/3rds hurdle for add/remove discussions to be passed. It currently uses 55%. Above User:QuicoleJR mentioned that we should increase the hurdle from 55%. Additionally, in some broader recent discussions there has been a lot of support for more stability, which means we need to make change harder to achieve. I responded to QuicoleJR that I don't think we should go all the way to 2/3rds, but would support 60%. The following are discussion counts that would fall below the passing hurdle if we moved it to just 60%: 4-3, 5-4, 7-5, 8-6, 9-7. If we moved to 2/3rds the additional counts would become failing counts: 3-2, 5-3, 6-4, 7-4, 8-5, 9-5, 9-6.

Presumably if you vote for one of the higher thresholds you support the lower ones.-

Support at least 60%, but also support 2/3rds hurdle (3-2, 4-3, 5-4, 5-3, 6-4, 7-5, 8-6, 9-7, 7-4, 8-5, 9-6 and 9-5 become failing counts)

1. I would prefer 2/3 but 60% is also a good change to make. 4-3 and 5-4 is definitely not a consensus. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:55, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Support maintaining consistency with the other levels will make things fairer and less complicated. Gizza (talk) 04:57, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Support >60% hurdle (3-2, 4-3, 5-4, 6-4, 7-5, 8-6, 9-7 and 9-6 become failing counts)

1. This is better than >=60%, because it excludes all situations with one vote difference, thus covering situation when the nominator is biased, and other voters are non-biased, but are equally distributed between support/oppose, which does not seem fair for the article. --Kammerer55 (talk) 22:09, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
2. I think this is the position most in line with where I feel (gotta win by two!) and what's realistic for the number of participants in the room at this time.
   p
   05:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

   I agree 4-2 and 5-3 are important counts and both probably have instructive meaning for us as a project.-

   WP:WAWARD

   ) 05:42, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

3. The Blue Rider 11:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Like I said above, 2/3 is my first choice. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:16, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Support 60% hurdle (4-3, 5-4, 7-5, 8-6, 9-7 become failing counts)

1. As nom. -
   WP:WAWARD
   ) 15:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
2. 3–2 should fail; 6–4 (and 9–6) should pass. In general I'm supportive of lax requirements for proposals to pass, but when it comes to something like #Remove Likasi passing... J947 † ^edits 22:35, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

   WP:WAWARD

   ) 22:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

   I think it would make it too complicated to put the fourth option in for your specific list of fails. Then everybody will feel they should author a specific list that they like. I get your point though and think a rider for 3-2 later would probably pass.-

   WP:WAWARD

   ) 22:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

   It definitely would be too complicated. My 4-supports proposal above covers it for now. J947 † ^edits 22:55, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose change

1. Oppose Far too early, especially for entry by entry..... 50 000 is larger number of articles than 1000-10 000, still require fast decisions and sometimes even bold chenging things, even sometimes at the quotas. Dawid2009 (talk) 11:07, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

   This would not make adding things slower. It would just stop very controversial adds and removes from being successful. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

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)

• 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)
• Also note the
  WP:WAWARD
  ) 21:58, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

@

Currently, the rules require a quorum of 4 interested parties for any discussion to count and a 55% support. This means that a nomination that gets three support votes with no opposes fails as no consensus, but a nomination with three support votes and one or two opposes passes. Should we amend the rules so that 3-1 and 3-2 decisions are not favored over 3-0 decisions? Specifically, should we change the rule to 3 supports and 55% rather than 4 votes and 55%?--

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)

Support as proposed

1. As nominator. --
   WP:WAWARD
   ) 20:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
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)

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

   WP:WAWARD

   ) 01:28, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

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

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)

   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)

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

   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)

2. This is also a good idea. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
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)

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)

WP:WAWARD

) 01:47, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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

• 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)
• WP:WAWARD
  ) 01:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

  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)

  WP:WAWARD

  ) 02:55, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

• WP:WAWARD
  ) 13:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
  • WP:WAWARD
    ) 13:31, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • WP:WAWARD
      ) 00:38, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
      • 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)
        • 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)
• 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)

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

Support

1. As nom.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Per nominator. The Blue Rider 18:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
3. This should be VA4. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:33, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
4. J947 † ^edits 07:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
5. Per nom. --Kammerer55 (talk) 07:57, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
6. Common sense. Curbon7 (talk) 20:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Prequel is less significant IMHO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Agree. Kammerer55 (talk) 20:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

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

Support

1. As nom.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Per nominator. The Blue Rider 18:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
3. J947 † ^edits 07:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Per nom. --Kammerer55 (talk) 07:57, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

NO CONSENSUS

The Blue Rider 22:03, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Support

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

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)
2. J947 † ^edits 07:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

NO CONSENSUS

The Blue Rider 22:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Support

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

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)

NO CONSENSUS

The Blue Rider 22:06, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Support

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

Oppose

Discuss

NO CONSENSUS

The Blue Rider 22:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Support

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

Oppose

Discuss