Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level 4

General Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

Level 5 Subpages

People History and geography History Geography Arts and everyday life Religion, philosophy, mythology and culture Society Science and mathematics Technology

Creative and cultural figures Thinkers and researchers Authorities and leadership figures

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

For reference, the following times apply for today:

• 15 days ago was: 01:21, 4 June 2026 (UTC) ()
• 30 days ago was: 01:21, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
• 60 days ago was: 01:21, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Move Puntland ◎ 4

Puntland ◎ 4 is a semi-autonomous part of Somalia ◎ 4, but for some reason listed as if its a major geographic region of the African continent. It should go into the unrecognized country section next to Somaliland. (the Regions and country subdivisions section is a weird mix of country subdivisions and geographic regions in general) — jonas (talk) 11:07, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Support

1. 飞车过大关 (talk) 20:02, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
2. Support especially that since the Constitutional crisis in Somalia in 2024, Puntland has ceased to accept the legitimacy of Mogadishu and has been functioning as a separate country. They have even before 2024, but even moreso now. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 08:14, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
3. Bluevestman (talk) 02:25, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
4. ChaoticV (converse, contribs) 03:29, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Surely the issue is that, Puntland ◎ 4 should be at L5 and not L4? Aszx5000 (talk) 14:12, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Puntland is probably listed on level 4 because it is de facto independent. @Jonas1015119: The issue is that the Regions and country subdivisions section covers both major geographic regions and subnational regions. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 12:49, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

It has already been moved on level 4, but on level 5, it's listed under countries subdivisions. I don't particularly care if it's in the same place on both levels, but some people might care. Melozone crissalis (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Add Ferdinand Foch ◎ 5

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

Support

1. As nom. GuzzyG (talk) 03:36, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:39, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
3. Per nom; would be fine with swapping out Ludendorff if GeogSage prefers a dedicated swap. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 05:01, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
4. Bluevestman (talk) 22:22, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose per discussion. --Thi (talk) 08:30, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

1. Would support a dedicated swap, want to see biographies shrink, not grow. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:42, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
2. I'm not sure if he is more significant than Philippe Pétain ◎ 5. I'm pretty sure that for people in some countries (like China), Pétain is more famous than Foch because his legacy is so controversial.飞车过大关 (talk) 17:37, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Swap The Doors ◎ 4 for The Clash ◎ 5

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

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

Support

1. Johnnie Runner (talk) 02:23, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Weak support. If the Who and the Velvets aren't VA4, probably the Doors shouldn't be. But as much as I love the Clash, nearly a third of the popular musicians section is rock. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 22:35, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Personally, I think the Sex Pistols ◎ 5 is the better choice, but we need someone to represent punk, so I'll take it. Bluevestman (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
4. Only support remove.飞车过大关 (talk) 17:58, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. --Thi (talk) 08:58, 29 November 2025 (UTC) Edit. --Thi (talk) 08:32, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
2. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

I'm not really familiar with 60s American rock, but can't help to notice the massive 180 iwikis (which is a lot for anything from the 60s). Even with the Meta expanded list in mind, this seems quite absurd. KhaiDo (talk) 18:43, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

• The Doors and their vocalist Jim Morrison ◎ 5 have a cult status (similar to that of Queen) and still get lots of airplay.
  As for The Clash, they are a a British thing. I wonder where the nominator is from. The Clash are important for the history and their albums are always very high on various best-of lists compiled by music critics (it seems to me they are especially liked by Rolling Stone), but I don't think they actually get much airplay outside of the UK. --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:52, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

  As an American, I have heard "Rock the Casbah" and "Train in Vain" once in a while on radio. Bluevestman (talk) 20:19, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Move Human rights and Rights to the same place

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

I agree that they should be on the same place but I don't know where. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 00:24, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Move rights to law. Bluevestman (talk) 22:10, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, human rights should be under law, as they're rules imposed by an organization/government/legal system/moralist, not objective descriptions of how society is structured. Melozone crissalis (talk) 20:51, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Add Model (person) ◎ 5

Prominent profession and concept in fashion.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 14:11, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:16, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
3. Bluevestman (talk) 19:43, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
4. --RekishiEJ (talk) 12:12, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Weak oppose Too similar to Celebrity which we list. Dawid2009 (talk) 15:29, 6 January 2026 (UTC) Changed to neutral. Dawid2009 (talk) 11:30, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

It is as similar to Celebrity as Actor ◎ 4, and on top of that we also list Acting ◎ 4. On the other hand, this article covers both the activity and the person. KhaiDo (talk) 14:14, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

1. Dylan240 (talk) 14:22, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

KhaiDo (talk) 14:11, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Add dinosaur higher taxa

All listed entries about dinosaurs except Dinosaur ◎ 3 itself are about genera, but some higher taxa should also be listed. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:17, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Add Sauropoda ◎ 4

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

---

Most of the largest dinosaurs, including Apatosaurus ◎ 5 and Diplodocus ◎ 4, were sauropods. Sauropods would have been easily recognizable by their long necks. If we need a swap, we could demote Apatosaurus ◎ 5.

Support addition

1. As nominator Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:17, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Support swap

1. As nominator Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:17, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
2. Fair enough, in common parlance Apatosaurus ◎ 5, Brachiosaurus ◎ 5, and Brontosaurus ◎ 5 mean the same thing. They're collectively the 'long-necked dinosaurs' aka sauropods. Johnnie Runner (talk) 22:13, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 14:51, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
4. 飞车过大关 (talk) 17:21, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
5. Yeah I think we can swap them. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 07:18, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

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

Add Theropoda ◎ 5

Theropods included most of the carnivorous dinosaurs, including Allosaurus ◎ 4, Tyrannosaurus ◎ 4 and Velociraptor ◎ 4, and birds evolved from them. If we need a swap, we could demote Allosaurus ◎ 4.

Support addition

1. As nominator Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:17, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
2. The only dinosaurs to have a modern descendant class? Sure, easy add. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 07:22, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Support swap

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Add Ornithischia ◎ 5

Ornithischia included most non-sauropod herbivorous dinosaurs, such as Iguanodon ◎ 4, Stegosaurus ◎ 4 and Triceratops ◎ 4.

Support

1. As nominator Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:17, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:17, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm no paleontologist, but I think listing their evolutionary periods (Triassic ◎ 4, Jurassic ◎ 4, Cretaceous ◎ 4) is sufficient, albeit peripheral, genealogical detail for this level. What makes a kind of dinosaur notable in my mind is their cultural profile. The average person knows a triceratops from a velociraptor, but not which is a theropod and which is a ornithischian. I'd actually support adding more genera (i.e., Brachiosaurus ◎ 5, Ankylosaurus ◎ 5, Spinosaurus ◎ 5) before their clades. Johnnie Runner (talk) 22:41, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that applies to sauropods, as those are easily recognizable. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 02:24, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Add Aerobics

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 19:40, 1 January 2026 (UTC)
2. Bluevestman (talk) 19:43, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Would rather add Aerobic exercise ◎ 5 (aka cardio) Dess Dedalus (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
2. Per Dedalus.飞车过大关 (talk) 17:59, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

Swap Animal welfare ◎ 4 for Animal rights ◎ 5

Animal rights is the broader concept and underlining philosophy.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 13:00, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 14:16, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
3. Bluevestman (talk) 23:24, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
4. Per nom.飞车过大关 (talk) 18:03, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

   Is this a supporting or an opposing vote? KhaiDo (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I think Animal welfare ◎ 4 is the broader and more important term. Aszx5000 (talk) 11:22, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

KhaiDo (talk) 13:00, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Animal rights is not the broader concept, it is one point of view. Another point of view is that of reducing pain and suffering in animals, without acknowledging their rights. I think animal welfare is of concern to slightly more people than animal rights. Melozone crissalis (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Animal rights seem to be more common in online discourse, from what I've seen. Perhaps could be an outright addition? KhaiDo (talk) 13:25, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Bolero add or removal

There are Bolero ◎ 4 and Bolero (Spanish dance) ◎ 5. According to their articles, they are unrelated, however they used to share the same article. Currently the first one, a Cuban genre, is level 4 (and until recently, was not listed on a level 5 page), while the second, a Spanish genre is level 5. However, I'm not sure if the Cuban genre is meant to be listed, as it's under ballroom dance on level 4, and the Cuban genre does not seem to focus on dance. Due to the possible confusion between the two articles, I am making these proposals. Possibly both could be level 4, or both could be level 5. Melozone crissalis (talk) 20:52, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Demote Bolero to level 5

Support

1. --Thi (talk) 21:00, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
2. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 11:00, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
3. We'll let V5 figure both Boleros out. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 11:12, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
4. Only twenty-four interwikis. Bluevestman (talk) 22:28, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Promote Bolero (Spanish dance) to level 4

Support

Oppose

Discuss

I did some detective work to find the cause of the discrepancy. First I looked at the histories of the articles' talk pages to see moves or VA status changes, and noticed that the Spanish dance was marked as VA5 on 11 April 2025. With that date known, I went to VA5 Arts edit history looking for suspicious changes on that day, and found what happened: The listing on level 5 was changed without discussion from Bolero to Bolero (Spanish dance).--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 22:35, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

• @Melozone crissalis: Please make nomination to swap wp:primarytopic or wp:disambiguation first, it will be vary plausible to find feedback after discussion with more engaged users. Dawid2009 (talk) 23:16, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Add Patience ◎ 5 and/or Self-control ◎ 5

There is also nothing to add on this, you known what this is.

Support all

1. As nom. Ipedecha (talk) 00:53, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
2. Support both, especially patience. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 13:54, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
3. Dylan240 (talk) 06:25, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Support Patience

Support Self-control

1. 飞车过大关 (talk) 18:07, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Oppose all

1. Meaningless articles about a term/concept. --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:46, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
2. Bluevestman (talk) 22:01, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Cultural anthropology ◎ 5

The largest branch of Anthropology ◎ 3, and a major field in social science. Notable figures include Franz Boas ◎ 4, Marcel Mauss ◎ 4, Bronisław Malinowski ◎ 4, Margaret Mead ◎ 4, Claude Lévi-Strauss ◎ 4 and Clifford Geertz ◎ 4.

Support

1. As nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 23:13, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
2. Ipedecha (talk) 23:41, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
3. 飞车过大关 (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
4. Bluevestman (talk) 22:09, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Consent ◎ 5

Going to steal the description from the ip who nominated this in v5, cause it was good and this is one that people already know the gizz: There are different kinds of consent, but the summary of all of them is probably vital.

Support

1. As nom Ipedecha (talk) 10:10, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
2. Massive implications to law, medicine, & everyday life. Dess Dedalus (talk) 16:25, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
3. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 11:38, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
4. Vital to society itself. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 18:36, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
5. Axeledits (talk) 13:31, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Bluevestman (talk) 23:43, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
2. The article feels somewhat hollow.飞车过大关 (talk) 18:13, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
3. Weak oppose per 飞车过大关. I was the IP user who proposed it on level 5, but I think it may be too vague for level 4. Melozone crissalis (talk) 19:38, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

Swap Sitar ◎ 5 for Mandolin ◎ 4

The sitar is extremely central to the an entire subcontinent's classical tradition. I chose mandolin since it has a bit of overlap with Lute ◎ 4 and seems the least vital out of the string instruments we already list. I feel that sitar is certainly more vital.

Support

1. As nom. Dess Dedalus (talk) 19:25, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
2. Support addition only. KhaiDo (talk) 03:00, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
3. Support remove only.飞车过大关 (talk) 11:04, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
4. Support addition only. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 16:45, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
5. Support removing mandolin and adding sitar. Ipedecha (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
6. Suppport addittion Dawid2009 (talk) 15:19, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
7. Support addition. Oppose removal. Bluevestman (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
8. We should have instruments in high quantity at Level-4, but I don't see what puts the mandolin over the Banjo ◎ 5 or Ukulele ◎ 5. Definitely not over the Guqin ◎ 5. Johnnie Runner (talk) 18:43, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Signature

Dess Dedalus (talk) 19:25, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Chemical elements, too many or not enough?

Within the periodic table, we currently list the first 98 elements on V4, starting with Hydrogen ◎ 3 and ending with Californium ◎ 4. What's the specific reasoning for that cutoff, and should we add or remove elements from the V4 list? Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 11:28, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

1. Definitely shouldn't add more, the ones beyond that are academic curiosities with very short half-lives. The naturally occurring elements end at Plutonium ◎ 4 (94). Americium ◎ 4 (95) has a wide variety of applications, we should include it. Curium ◎ 4 (96) and Berkelium ◎ 4 (97) seem to have no practical applications outside of their ability to help create heavier elements. Californium ◎ 4 (98) has some practical applications in nuclear reactors and neutron spectroscopy. I think we could remove 97 at least, and maybe 96. Dess Dedalus (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

   For the sake of continuity I think that if there is to be a nomination to remove elements, it should be curium, berkelium, and californium bundled together. For V4 I don't think we should leave holes in the periodic table. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 20:08, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

   I find continuity to almost be a negative here. The nature of atomic stability gives no reason to expect importance to descend smoothly with atomic number, and while explicitly putting a gap in for that point isn't necessarily desirable, californium being more important than berkelium, or something along those lines, shouldn't be seen as a surprise or a problem. Sesquilinear (talk) 22:36, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

2. I have brought this up on other pages, but I strongly think that the elements should all be on the same level, at least the naturally occurring ones. The idea that some elements are more "vital" then others is really beyond me. My proposals were not very successful. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:21, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

   Elements like Carbon ◎ 3 are essential to all life on Earth, while elements like Radon ◎ 4 just exist as byproducts of radioactive decay. I₂Overcome ^talk 02:56, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Swap Tutankhamun ◎ 4 with the Mask of Tutankhamun ◎ 5

Nobody cared who he was until he put on the mask. His most notable achievement was undoing the major religious changes enacted by his predecessors, Akhenaten ◎ 4 and Nefertiti ◎ 4, but we don't list Severus Alexander ◎ 5 for undoing the brief religious upheaval instituted by Elagabalus ◎ 5. Rather, interest in King Tut today centers entirely around the serendipitous discovery of his well-preserved tomb, with his mask as the centerpiece. It remains today a universal icon of Egyptian aesthetics and the unknowable mysteries of the ancients.

Support

1. Johnnie Runner (talk) 20:50, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
2. His tomb might be better than his mask, but i agree with you. Ipedecha (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

   I thought about it, but it's not even Level-5. Johnnie Runner (talk) 22:38, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

   I think I have an active proposal to get his tomb to level 5. How’s that doing? Dess Dedalus (talk) 23:37, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

3. A similar deal as with Titanic ◎ 5 and Sinking of the Titanic ◎ 4, the former may be more popular article but the latter is more important to "get right" (become a Featured Article).--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 07:28, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
4. Spport remove and add Tomb of Tutankhamun ◎ 5(If this article were Level 5).飞车过大关 (talk)
5. A minor subsection article over a biography fits better. GuzzyG (talk) 13:23, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
6. Support adding Mask of Tutankhamun ◎ 5 and Tomb of Tutankhamun ◎ 5. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 08:00, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Bluevestman (talk) 17:27, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
2. Oppose add Mask of Tutankhamun ◎ 5.飞车过大关 (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 21:02, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
4. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 02:06, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
5. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
6. Lean oppose removing Tutankhamun ◎ 4, IMO the biography is roughly on par with (at most marginally less important) the legacy. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 08:00, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
7. Dylan240 (talk) 06:30, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Mount Vesuvius ◎ 4, Add West Bank ◎ 5

It is odd that we list the Gaza Strip ◎ 4 but not the West Bank at this level. Mount Vesuvius is mostly notable for the Eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79 AD ◎ 5 and the subsequent destruction of Pompeii ◎ 4. We already list Pompeii at this level, though, and Mt. Vesuvius seems at a lesser level of importance than the other European mountains (Mont Blanc ◎ 4, Mount Elbrus ◎ 4, Mount Etna ◎ 4, Mount Olympus ◎ 4). It's probably better to list the other major region of Palestine ◎ 4 than two volcanoes of southern Italy.

Support

1. As nom. Dess Dedalus (talk) 06:52, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Partial support

1. Support adding the West Bank, oppose removing Mount Vesuvius. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 05:37, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
2. Support addition, oppose removal. While Vesuvius is probably the least important European mountain on the list, the fact that it's primarily notable for a single eruption doesn't seem strong enough justification, since it also applies to Mount St. Helens and Mount Pelée. Meanwhile, the West Bank is at least as important as the Gaza Strip and is in line with other geographical subdivisions. ARoseThorn (talk) 20:30, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. 飞车过大关 (talk) 19:36, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
2. Bluevestman (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
3. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:23, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

Signature

Dess Dedalus (talk) 06:52, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Move Yu the Great ◎ 4 to mythology

This has been bugging me for a while. Although I overall don't have a problem with placing figures like Homer and Laozi under people despite their existence being highly questionable, Yu is just way too mythologized for us to ignore that there is no mention of him until a millennium after his supposed rule.

Support

1. Bluevestman (talk) 19:47, 17 February 2026 (UTC#
2. --Thi (talk) 21:03, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
3. 飞车过大关 (talk) 11:25, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Remove Ancient philosophy ◎ 4

How did this get here? It's basically just a list article.

Support

1. As nom. Dess Dedalus (talk) 22:06, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
2. 飞车过大关 (talk) 15:06, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
3. Ipedecha (talk) 09:45, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
4. Dylan240 (talk) 06:39, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
5. Bluevestman (talk) 17:40, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. It means classical philosophy. Everything else in Western philosophy is a continuum for it. --Thi (talk) 15:38, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

Signature

Dess Dedalus (talk) 22:06, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Swap Yayoi period ◎ 4 for the Đại Việt ◎ 5

The only global impact it have was a small trade relation with China and there very little to no records about the period, not even being recorded in Japan tradicional history until around the 19th century, and only really being taking seriously after WWII. In constrast the Dai viet was a major player in its region for hundred of years, participanting in various wars against china and other neiborboring countries and being the foundation of vietnam modern borders and much of its culture.

Support

1. As nom. Ipedecha (talk) 15:09, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
2. 飞车过大关 (talk) 19:20, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
3. Time to shift focus into SE Asia. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 07:17, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Support adding Đại Việt

Support removing Yayoi period

Oppose

1. Bluevestman (talk) 03:02, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
2. Neutral on removal, oppose addition. "Đại Việt" is not a political entity but just a name chosen by some monarchs across different dynasties, two of which are already listed: Trần dynasty ◎ 4 and Lê dynasty ◎ 4,. The name does carry weight, but not enough for this level. The corresponding article in Vietnamese is a stub because it just makes a lot more sense to focus on the individual dynasties instead. KhaiDo (talk) 12:02, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

Splitting this page and level 3 into sections

Both level 3 and 4 have extremely long talk pages that it's hard to keep up with everything that's going on on those pages. I recall that the level 4 talk page used to be split up into sections, but we did away with that. I think the subpages idea is a good one and we already have it for level 5. I see no need for subpages for level 1 or level 2 since the lists are fairly stable there with minor changes. What do you think? Interstellarity (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

This page could definitely use them. I’d split it into 3 pages: people, STEM, and arts/humanities/socsci/everyday life. Don’t think we need to split up V3. Dess Dedalus (talk) 10:53, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Considerable option is also to split for: 1removals, 2additions, 3swap and bath proposals, I believe. One page worked here ~~15 years without categorisation. removal, add, swap - always we can gave three pages and eventually do transcludion if needed (in the case if there is similar nomination for addition or removal). Dawid2009 (talk) 11:52, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

I’m not sure how well it did considering there’s over 80 pages of archives. I think that’s more than some parts of the village pump. Dess Dedalus (talk) 18:00, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Swap: add Beyoncé ◎ 5, remove Shakira ◎ 4 and/or Taylor Swift ◎ 4

Per Billboard article: While Taylor Swift emerged as the biggest pop star by the numbers, with her record-breaking tour, album sales, and streaming dominance, Billboard's editorial staff selected Beyoncé based on her 25 years of influence, evolution, and impact. , on December 4, 2024. Out of these three she is also th only which appeared in 2019 on list "Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. "100 Women". Encyclopædia Britannica. Archived from the original on March 2, 2021. Retrieved March 30, 2021." (I used reference quote for archives if link would expire). Dawid2009 (talk) 18:38, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. Instead straight addition I made nomination with more possiblities because of there are very various usances in ur project and more eyes is better (for example some people want less biographies and in the past therewas even proposal o remove all living people).I would like to seee whether three women musicians born in 1977-1989 is OK if we do not have say Whitney Houston ◎ 5 or we d not have more than one Baseball player from 1876-1947 (71 years span era, we have just Babe Ruth) or other important women like say Katherine Johnson ◎ 5. Perhaps Shakira is weaker of these three when we have Celia Cruz ◎ 4 for latin music. Dawid2009 (talk) 18:38, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Partial support/oppose

1. Beyoncé and Tailor swift are just generic pop idols, if they didnt exist another pop star with the same generic songs would replaced them, Shakira at least popularized columbian music and belly dancing, Colombia and South America in general is extremelly underepresented so replacing with a US article is not ideal. Ipedecha (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

   This reads like a vote to remove Swift, oppose Beyonce, and keep Shakira, which would go in partial support or oppose. Am I misinterpreting this? Sorry if I am. λ NegativeMP1 19:30, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

   I thought talor swift was v5, my bad, i didnt see the 4, but you are right. Ipedecha (talk) 19:46, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

   @Ipedecha and NegativeMP1: I changed wording from partial support or oppose to partial support/oppose, maybe that will help (you can fix/reinstall !vote now). Dawid2009 (talk) 20:07, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

   User:Ipedecha, Plain English, what is your vote?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:11, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

   Oppose remove Shakira, support remove Tailor swift, oppose add Beyoncé. Ipedecha (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

2. Oppose removes. Weak support to add.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:11, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
3. Support add, oppose removals. Bluevestman (talk) 20:07, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
4. Oppose removals, support addition. First off, I call bullshit on the ChatGPT chart since it doesn't explain its methodology and many of the choices are visibly incorrect (TF you mean she beats Taylor in commercialization/merchandise?). Shakira is essentially our representative for modern Latin music at Level 4, and she is the best choice for that. Heck, we have an entire Wikipedia article titled cultural impact of Shakira! Taylor Swift is one of the most commercially successful musicians of all time, with her most recent tour having a noticeable documented effect on the U.S. economy, and she has had a surprising amount of political impact. However, I am willing to support adding Beyoncé. She's also among the most successful artists critically and commercially, and is the most successful Black live act of all time. Read cultural impact of Beyoncé for more info on that. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:23, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
5. I weakly support Bey as I think she's more vital than Run-DMC or The Supremes. We already represent hip-hop (through Tupac and Eminem) and Motown (through Michael Jackson, Stevie Wonder, and Marvin Gaye), but basically no Black pop from 1990 onward. Oppose removing Shakira. Neutral on Swift. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 20:51, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
6. Support addition of Beyoncé only. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 02:10, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
7. Support addition, oppose any removal. I think Nom should have made it clear that Beyoncé was selected by Billboard for the title of "greatest pop star of the 21st century" over, of course, Taylor Swift. Her 2013 self-titled album was so successful that it led to the establishment of the Global Release Day. And she's primarily an R&B artist, so there's not much overlap with Swift either. KhaiDo (talk) 18:38, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
8. Support addition, the pop star movement of today is like the rock star movement of earlier, the big 3 should be listed if 2 are. Almost 4000 mentions on JSTOR and courses in prestigious universities is more than can be said for some of the other popular music bios listed. GuzzyG (talk) 13:33, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
9. Support addition, oppose removals Axeledits (talk) 11:05, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I'm not convinced by just the citing of listicles by Billboard and Brittanica and an arbitrary ChatGPT table. Shakira is important for the reasons Ipedecha cited, and Swift's influence is large enough that the Federal Reserve stated her Eras Tour was large enough to meaningfully impact the U.S. economy. No reason to add more popstars than these few. Dess Dedalus (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

   To be clear, i would prefer a history article about colombia over her, but people here dont seen very entusiastic for South American history, so she can stay. Ipedecha (talk) 20:24, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

2. Not convinced of her artistic achievements --Thi (talk) 20:31, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
3. Oppose removals, for now neutral on addition. Shakira is representative of Latino (esp. Colombian) music, while Taylor Swift's influence has the economy warped to a nontrivial extent. Beyoncé is significant enough to be the all-time highest-grossing Black musician so there's that going for her, but I'm not convinced it's sufficient to add her in. Also I don't think an arbitrary chart does anything. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 07:44, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
4. Oppose addition, oppose removal of Shakira. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:33, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
5. Dylan240 (talk) 06:22, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

WP:RSCHATGPT comprasion of three musicians (maybe will help for our discussion or not I will rely on LLMs are trained using text scraped from the internet (including Wikipedia) from WP:RSCHATGPT as small addition to discussion)

Criterion	Shakira (born 1977)	Taylor Swift (born 1989)	Beyonce (born 1981)
Commercialization / merchandising / endorsements	✮✮✮	✮✮✮✮	✮✮✮✮✮
Controversies / public reactions	✮✮	✮✮✮	✮✮✮✮
Cultural impact	✮✮✮✮	✮✮✮✮	✮✮✮✮✮
Influence on public debate / social discussions	✮✮	✮✮✮	✮✮✮✮
Innovation in medium (music, visuals, performance)	✮✮✮✮	✮✮✮✮	✮✮✮✮✮
Inspiration for other creators	✮✮✮✮✮	✮✮✮✮	✮✮✮✮✮
Longevity in public consciousness	✮✮✮✮	✮✮✮✮	✮✮✮✮
Popularity in pop culture	✮✮✮✮	✮✮✮✮✮	✮✮✮✮✮
Symbolic value / cultural icon status	✮✮✮✮	✮✮✮✮	✮✮✮✮✮

Total Star Scores: Shakira: 33 Taylor Swift: 36 Beyoncé: 40 Dawid2009 (talk) 18:38, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Add Red Fort ◎ 5

I was surprise by the love the Florence Cathedral ◎ 4 got, considering there is already 16 specific structures, 3 more than Asia and Africa combined which has more than 70% of the world population, with Italy having 4 and there is already 4.5 european Christian churches. But, since people think it belong in v4, than the red fort surely also belongs. It has better stats 72 iwikis compared to 65 and 38.729 monthly compared to 32.071, its more unique, its more famous and its from a region less represented India that has 1472 million and only one specif structure compared to europe that has 743 million and 16.

Support

1. As nom. Ipedecha (talk) 14:37, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
2. 飞车过大关 (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
3. Bluevestman (talk) 20:00, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Either add Paul McCartney ◎ 5 or remove John Lennon ◎ 4

I think having Paul and John at different levels is a bit silly. I can understand having George Harrison ◎ 5 and Ringo Starr ◎ 5 below others as they were more minor members of The Beatles ◎ 3 and we don't need to list all four, but Lennon-McCartney  wrote the vast majority of the songs, and it wasn't all or even a large majority John's doing. I feel like stating that their influence on pop culture was lopsided towards either one of them is disingenuous. For a comparison of their impact on the VA5 level:

• John may have Imagine (song) ◎ 5, but Paul solo wrote and performed Yesterday (song) ◎ 5, which has been recorded more times than any other song according to the Lennon-McCartney  article. Hey Jude ◎ 5 was also a Paul contribution.
• On Abbey Road ◎ 5, Paul and John have a similar number of lead songs and play similarly important roles in the medley.
• Paul contributed lead vocals on 13 songs to The Beatles (album) ◎ 5; John 14.
• Paul and John provide lead vocals for 5 songs each on Revolver ◎ 5.
• Paul's listed as having lead vocals for 8 tracks on Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band ◎ 4, while John has 5.
• John Lennon's solo career was 45 years shorter and counting than Paul's. In the time since the band broke up, Paul's solo career has certainly seen more success, if only due to an unfateful night at the Dakota.

I feel that I've demonstrated why they're at roughly the same level of importance. We should either move one up or the other one down in order to put them in their proper place relative to each other. My personal preference is to promote Paul: he's one of the most famous living musicians and there's a reason we list The Beatles ◎ 3 at L3.

Add McCartney

1. As nom. Dess Dedalus (talk) 04:42, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
2. Totally agree that John is more vital, but still think that Paul should be on here. Bluevestman (talk) 19:58, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

   Oppose removing John Lennon. Bluevestman (talk) 20:23, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

3. Nothing wrong with having the two most successful and influential songwriters in pop music be VA-4. CopiousAmountofCannons (talk) 03:37, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
4. At this point, career-wise Paul McCartney might outright be more vital than John Lennon, precisely because John was murdered 45 years and 3 months ago. Overall I'd say both are tied for now, so oppose removal. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 15:55, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
5. Let it be so. Johnnie Runner (talk) 22:10, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
6. I was torn between the two options, but ultimately, this is the more consistent one. One of the criteria for vital articles state that, "Determining which articles are vital at lower levels often involves looking at the articles at higher levels." If The Beatles is an undisputed VA3, then one should expect to see at least one of their members a VA4, which together with your demonstration, imply the inclusion of both Lennon and McCartney. It is also consistent with what I believe to be the tight grip the West had on music for centuries. KhaiDo (talk) 18:12, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
7. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:09, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
8. According to his article, McCartney has written or co-written 32 songs that have topped the Billboard 100, which is the highest. Lennon has 26, though that can be compensated for the fact that Lennon's career was much shorter. In addition, many of his songs rank among the most covered in history, his solo sales alone make him one of the best-selling music artists, etc. etc. Lots of accomplishments. I don't think it's logical to have Lennon and McCartney on the same vital level as Starr and Harrison. There's a reasonable argument for removing Starr from Vital 5, since he only sang or wrote a few of the band's songs and his solo career wasn't very impactful. OwenCobalt (talk) 16:24, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Demote Lennon

1. The number besides the beetles might be a 3, deep down is truly a 4. I think lemmon is bordeline 5 and more important enough for a level different, but the fraudulent V3 of the beetles, means that they are overrepresented and there is already a bunch anglophones and british musicians, so the beetles are hurting diversity. I known basically nobody is going to agree with this take. Ipedecha (talk) 09:18, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

   Beatles are absolutely V3 and a recent vote to remove them from that level only had one supporter. If we slashed our representation of musicians by 2/3 and only listed two musicians, the Beatles would honestly probably be one of them. The degree to which they innovated in popular music is unparalleled. Dess Dedalus (talk) 06:15, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

2. I agree with everything said Dess. I choose option for demotion Lenon as better. Does not make sense to overrepresend The Beatles if we do not have Freedy Mercury to addition for band or Anne Frank's Diary as addition to biography. For example. I had on my mind to make that nomination. Dawid2009 (talk) 12:38, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

   FYI, I'm assuming that those voting to demote Lennon oppose adding McCartney (& vice versa), so I removed your below comment in the Oppose section "Oppose addition only" in order to make everything a bit cleaner when it comes time to tally the votes. Dess Dedalus (talk) 19:22, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

   IMO we shouldn't take demoting Lennon as an automatic vote against promoting McCartney, or take promoting McCartney as an automatic vote against demoting Lennon. Both options should be weighed independently to each other, and if they do not explicitly say so on the other matter, we should consider it a neutral vote. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 10:36, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

3. Support and don't think we need all 4 at VA5.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:49, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

   There are many, many, many better candidates for removal among musicians at that level than Harrison or Starr. Dess Dedalus (talk) 06:15, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

4. Aye. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:26, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
5. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 02:12, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
6. Oppose Paul and Support removal of John. No bands should have double ups here. GuzzyG (talk) 07:04, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removal. Lennon became a cultural icon post-Beatles to a degree that no other Beatle really came close. His murder might've shortened his career, but it definitely boosted his legacy as an anti-war activist. Johnnie Runner (talk) 18:41, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

   Do you support the addition of Paul, though, or oppose entirely? Dess Dedalus (talk) 19:22, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

   I had to think about it, but I support his inclusion. Taken altogether, he's probably the single most successful songwriter ever. Johnnie Runner (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

2. Imagine is comparable to many songs which are listed at this level. --Thi (talk) 19:23, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
3. Oppose removal. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:09, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

1. Previous discussions: Removal of both failed 4-4 in 2014, Removal of Lennon failed 6-4, Removal of McCartney passed 8-4 in 2015. Melozone crissalis (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
2. The discussion to add Mark David Chapman  to VA-5 is currently 4-0. I find putting Lennon and his assassin on the same level to be ridiculous. CopiousAmountofCannons (talk) 17:39, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
3. Oppose addition. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:26, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Signature

Dess Dedalus (talk) 04:42, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Add Smartwatch ◎ 5

Regular and smartwatches are among equal in popularity.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 16:19, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Adding Wearable computer  might be better.飞车过大关 (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

   1. I would support that instead. Dylan240 (talk) 14:24, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

2. --Thi (talk) 10:36, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
3. Per above. KhaiDo (talk) 15:30, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Add Taco ◎ 5

I think this is popular enough to be on here.

Support

1. Bluevestman (talk) 21:52, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
2. Razing303 (talk) 04:18, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Lower the fail threshold to 15 days

Currently, frivolous proposals which are bound to fail must wait 30 days to be failed at this level. This should be changed to 15, same as the pass threshold.

Support

1. As nom. Dess Dedalus (talk) 19:25, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. This would mean that any proposal with three oppose votes and fewer than six support votes can be closed as failed after 15 days. A bad idea, as many proposals here take a long time to get attention. Melozone crissalis (talk) 20:23, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
2. Should be increase honestly, if they are bound to fail them they can just failed by vote quicker. Ipedecha (talk) 13:48, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

Signature

Dess Dedalus (talk) 19:25, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Remove Cod ◎ 4

Only 18 interwikis.

Support

1. Bluevestman (talk) 00:54, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Maybe other Wikipedias categorize their pages slightly differently, for example using the names of a genus or other taxon instead, but cod, being one of the most important categories of food fish, should be level 4. Melozone crissalis (talk) 01:13, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
2. One of the most important types of Fish ◎ 3. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 02:03, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
3. Ipedecha (talk) 09:45, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

Add 50 quota to Technology

We just removed 50 quota from People. I propose that this should go to Technology, which is currently 26 overquota, the most of any category. I'm sure we can find two dozen vital tech concepts worth promoting.

Support

1. As nom. Dess Dedalus (talk) 09:31, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
2. Support adding 25, neutral on 50. Only VA5 has a divisible-by-50 quota rule. In the past I did some Technology removal noms and after those it became difficult for me to find any more to remove in the section.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 11:20, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

   Oh, okay. I’d rather increase by 25 and give the other 25 quota somewhere else that’s currently over. Dess Dedalus (talk) 17:56, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

3. Bluevestman (talk) 00:30, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
4. Adding 25 or 50 is fine, but we'll need to look for somewhere else to increase its quota if we only add 25 here. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 06:19, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
5. Add 25. The rest can go to Society and social sciences, which is now overquota by 28. KhaiDo (talk) 18:22, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Signature

Dess Dedalus (talk) 09:31, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Mathematics

Add Complement (set theory) ◎ 5 and Cartesian product ◎ 5

These are the other basic operation on sets, along with Union (set theory) ◎ 4 and Intersection (set theory) ◎ 4. Complementation seems a bit specific but it actually covers set difference of any two sets in general. You can't barely learn any higher mathematics without these two. Set (mathematics) ◎ 3 is VA3 for a reason.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 10:38, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 11:53, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
3. Bluevestman (talk) 21:58, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Light oppose, for a similar reason that Family ◎ 2 is VA2 while Son ◎ 5 and Daughter ◎ 5 are VA5. There are many different sorts of elementary definitions around sets, and if they are simple enough that they can be covered on the main article for "Set" without much loose ends, they are not as vital. In contrast, the page of Cardinality ◎ 4 is essentially at the heart of why set theory is a distinct field (infinite sets), and we can see many important fields that are only lightly mentioned (Cantor's initial discovery, continuum hypothesis, Large cardinals) ALittleClass (talk) 20:28, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
2. Per ALittleClass. Melozone crissalis (talk) 22:11, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
3. Per ALittleClass.飞车过大关 (talk) 18:54, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

Remove Implicit function ◎ 5

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

---

28 iwkis, a pretty minor concept, very little significance outside of the Implicit function theorem , which isn't even VA5 yet.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 10:38, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 11:53, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
3. 飞车过大关 (talk) 11:31, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
4. Bluevestman (talk) 21:58, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
5. ARoseThorn (talk) 20:38, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

Add Algebraic structure ◎ 5

This article is very informative by systemizing the structures (Group (mathematics) ◎ 4, Ring (mathematics) ◎ 4, Field (mathematics) ◎ 4, Module (mathematics) ◎ 4, Vector space ◎ 4, etc.) and their properties (Commutative property ◎ 4, Associative property ◎ 4, Distributive property ◎ 4).

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 10:38, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 11:53, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
3. Bluevestman (talk) 21:58, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Move some operations

Exponentiation ◎ 3, Logarithm ◎ 3, Nth root ◎ 4, Square root ◎ 4 (currently listed under Function (mathematics) ◎ 3 and Addition ◎ 4, Subtraction ◎ 4, Multiplication ◎ 4, Division (mathematics) ◎ 4 (currently listed under Arithmetic ◎ 2) should all be in the same place. Personally, I'll go with Arithmetic, since subtopics of Function are types of functions in general such as Inverse function ◎ 4 rather than specific functions. This is also more consistent with Trigonometric functions ◎ 4 being listed under Trigonometry ◎ 3.

Move to Arithmetic

1. KhaiDo (talk) 10:38, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 11:53, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
3. Bluevestman (talk) 21:58, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
4. 飞车过大关 (talk) 18:55, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Move to Functions

Oppose

Discuss

KhaiDo (talk) 10:38, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Replace some specific films with film genres (and more)

Looking at the Film and television section right now, there seems to be a disparity, where we have an abundance of films (33) and no genres, juxtaposed by the lack of TV shows (6) and the inclusion of Soap opera ◎ 4, Game show ◎ 4, Sitcom ◎ 4, etc. Comparing with other arts, there are 35 specific structures, 33 specific musical works, and 28 specific visual arts works (17 of which are paintings). All of these art forms are way older than film, but get roughly the same or worse representation. We only have one album by either The Beatles ◎ 3 or Michael Jackson ◎ 3, yet comfotable with listing two films of certain directors.

There are also plenty of writing genres and music genres at this level. Genres are just as important to films as they are to literature or music, and one of the foremost things that determine a film's main audience. And I don't think there's significant overlap between literature and film, as the two forms are vastly different in expressing their genres.

Remove Dr. Strangelove ◎ 4, add Comedy film ◎ 5

Kubrick has two films here, and 2001: A Space Odyssey ◎ 4 is clearly the superior one. This one might have been at this level decades ago, but not anymore, with AFI knocking it down by 13 places from #26 to #39 in their 2007 (updated) list of the 100 greatest American films. It currently ranks #65 on the TSPDT list.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 14:31, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 06:11, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
3. Support removal, one of the weaker films on this level.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 13:21, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
4. The Account 2 (talk) 19:29, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
5. Support removal, Strangelove is probably the weakest film listed at this level and I don't see it as especially influential to the comedy genre. AllyWithInfo (talk) 22:19, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
6. Only support remove.飞车过大关 (talk) 12:54, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
7. Support remove, oppose add. No reason to list this above The Shining (film) ◎ 5. Dess Dedalus (talk) 21:34, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
8. Support add comedy film and remove dr strangelove. Dylan240 (talk) 06:32, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose addition due to overlap with Comedy ◎ 4, and the film genre has been in decline for a couple of decades already.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 13:21, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
2. Oppose addition per Laukku. AllyWithInfo (talk) 22:19, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
3. Oppose addition. Weak support removal. Bluevestman (talk) 22:10, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
4. Oppose addition. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:37, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

Remove La Dolce Vita ◎ 4, add Drama (film and television) ◎ 5 and Cinema of Italy ◎ 5

This one is pretty impactful, as it gave us the word Paparazzi , but overall Fellini doesn't warrant two films here and we have two many drama films already. Moreover, this level has three Italian directors and level 5 has Venice Film Festival ◎ 5. Don't think this should be excluded when there is Cinema of China ◎ 4.

Support

KhaiDo (talk) 14:31, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

1. I apologize for not double-checking whether 8½ was removed. I now change my vote to only adding Drama (film and television) ◎ 5 and Cinema of Italy ◎ 5. KhaiDo (talk) 14:00, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 06:11, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
3. 8½ ◎ 5 is enough specific Fellini representation, plus there is Bicycle Thieves ◎ 4 for specific Italic cinema representation. LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 13:21, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

   I'll still support adding Drama (film and television) ◎ 5, it's a pretty important story type that isn't really focused on by Drama ◎ 4 despite the name. The article is pretty terrible right now however, without any real history coverage. Unsure about Cinema of Italy ◎ 5, it might be more efficient to have Cinema of Europe  than cinemas of individual European countries, but that isn't even VA5 and has surprisingly low pageviews.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:52, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

   That Cinema of Europe article is basically a list, which makes sense as there isn't a single "European cinema" but rather a variety of filmmaking styles across countries. KhaiDo (talk) 18:11, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removal, Fellini and Marcello Mastroianni ◎ 4 are important enough to have one example at 4, and 8½ ◎ 5 was recently removed from 4 so it's the only rep he has left. It's gotten tons of acclaim, has a specific style that broke new grounds, and plenty of pop-culture significance even to this day despite its age. It has everything you'd want for a level-4 film representation. AllyWithInfo (talk) 22:19, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
2. Changing to oppose removal, I had forgotten / not realised that 8½ has actually been removed from this level (despite me linking it via VA template, whoops)--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 23:09, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

   @LaukkuTheGreit: Do you still support the additions? KhaiDo (talk) 07:09, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

3. 飞车过大关 (talk) 13:06, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
4. Bluevestman (talk) 22:10, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
5. Oppose removal. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

Remove The Birth of a Nation ◎ 4, add Epic film ◎ 5

This film was noted for its innovations in filmmaking, but has since been overshadowed by Citizen Kane ◎ 4, Star Wars ◎ 4, and a ton of films at level 5. Nowadays it is mostly known for upholding White supremacy ◎ 5 and reviving the Ku Klux Klan ◎ 5, both of course are not VA4. Listing it for that reason would be pretty Americentric. Aside from this one, we have 3 other epic films. #408 on the TSPDT list.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 14:31, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
2. Support removal, oppose addition. Maybe not currently relevant genre. History of film covers these. Griffiths film as a whole is not relevant forv modern audience. --Thi (talk) 06:11, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removal. I don't think there's a single other film that's more "vital" to the history of the medium. This is why those films mentioned in the nomination, and probably 90% of films in general, even exist. I'm sure the lack of acclaim nowadays is because of the messaging of the film, and it's good how people recognize the film's horrible messaging. However, the film is still unquestionably vital at this level. See also, Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/4/Archive_74#Remove_The_Birth_of_a_Nation. λ NegativeMP1 00:00, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
2. While White supremacy ◎ 5 isn't at/above this level, Racism ◎ 3 is.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 13:21, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
3. Oppose for reasons above. AllyWithInfo (talk) 22:19, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
4. Bluevestman (talk) 22:05, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
5. Strong oppose removal, support addition. Hate it or love it (and I'm certain everyone here hates this movie), The Birth of a Nation ◎ 4 defined the modern concept of movies, and the lack of acclaim is predominantly the result of its controversial and white supremacist nature. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 04:59, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

Remove The Jazz Singer ◎ 4, add Musical film ◎ 5

Probably the weakest among the 3 musicals. No person involved in its production is VA4. It came out in 1927 and somehow only entered the National Film Registry in 1996 (7 years after it started). Missed the cut on AFI's updated list entirely, and not even on the TSDPT list. The VA5 Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans ◎ 5 is almost as influential in the history of Sound film  while way more acclaimed (#82 on AFI's list, #8 on TSDPT's).

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 14:31, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
2. Support removal of The Jazz Singer. ALittleClass (talk) 23:39, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
3. Support removal. --Thi (talk) 06:11, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
4. Only support remove.飞车过大关 (talk) 13:04, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
5. Support both addition and removal. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 13:05, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

   Jazz Singer is mostly forgotten except as a historical milestone representing a development that would probably have happened anyway, and musical films probably reach larger a audience than musical theatre. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 21:11, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

6. Support removal, oppose addition. Ipedecha (talk) 09:45, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose addition, Musical theatre ◎ 4 already covers it well. AllyWithInfo (talk) 22:19, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

   Changing to an oppose removal as well, the first sound film is worth keeping even if it is only partly a talkie. AllyWithInfo (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

2. I'm sorry, but these suggestions are awful. The first blockbuster? The first talkie? The most well-known propaganda? I don't care if some of these movies are racist as hell, no discussion of film history can be made without mentioning them. Bluevestman (talk) 22:10, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

   @Bluevestman: Your criteria for inclusion are very arbitrary. Why not add the first piece of chronophotography (The Horse in Motion ◎ 5), the earliest surviving motion picture (Roundhay Garden Scene ◎ 5), the first commercial film (Workers Leaving the Lumière Factory ), the first film with sound (The Dickson Experimental Sound Film ), the first film with a synchronized soundtrack (Don Juan (1926 film) , directed by the same guy that directed The Jazz Singer), or the first all-talking film (Lights of New York (1928 film) )? Yes, TJS technically isn't the first talkie, but the first part-talkie. Most of the film is silent, except a couple of songs and about 2 minutes of actual dialogue. The National Film registry inducts 25 films per year, meaning they decided there were 175 films of higher priority for preservation than TJS, despite it being really old.

   I've seen maybe 2-3 people calling The Birth of a Nation the first blockbuster. If there's a movie that defined what we now call a blockbuster in its modern sense and changed Hollywood forever, it is Jaws (film) ◎ 4. And why do we need to list a film you call "the most well-known propaganda", which I wholeheartedly disagree as we don't have propaganda of any other medium that are way more well known. Uncle Sam ◎ 5, Rosie the Riveter ◎ 5, and the recently added Lord Kitchener Wants You ◎ 5 (which inspired many imitations including the iconic Uncle Sam poster) are all VA5.

   I've also noticed you voted against removing other films/franchises (Dr. Strangelove, Stagecoach, Looney Tunes) for which you have provided no explanation, and conveniently ignored everything I've said at the beginning of the proposal. It's actually funny your main takeaway from all of this is I want to get rid of racist films. KhaiDo (talk) 06:43, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

   Apologies for being scattered with these points.

   First, considering that there's now two additional votes in favor of keeping The Jazz Singer indicates that, while it might not be the first movie with synchronized sound, and it barely qualifies as a talkie, it's still usually held to be the movie that forced Hollywood to adapt to new technology.

   Now, regarding The Birth of the Nation, what I should have said was "the first feature-length film". This film is universally held to have pushed film further as a story-telling medium (even if the message of said story is morally reprehensible).

   For Triumph of the Will, I don't know what to tell you other than there's a big difference between a film and a poster. And the reason why I bring up the racist imagery of these films is because I do think you're being at the very least subconsciously influenced by this when you nominated these three films. I feel gross for saying this because I feel like I'm saying "how dare you be anti-racist", but you picking these specific films (even if you have other nominations) does suggest something. A noble something, granted, but still something that is blinding you on how important these films are.

   Now let's talk the other opposing votes I casted, because God forbid I cast a vote with explaining why. For Dr. Strangelove… OK now that I did a thorough read on your nomination, I will remove my vote. I will, however, not do the same for the other two.

   I hate to do the "how can we remove this when this is on here" argument, but we have three country musicians. Country music historically has had a way less global audience than Western films, which has numerous of subgenres that are made outside of the US, most notably Ostern and Spaghetti Western. So apologies for not wanting to remove the only Western film we have at this level. (Although I do prefer having The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly over Stagecoach.)

   Finally, as someone who's in favor of adding Spirited Away, I don't want to get rid of Looney Tunes for that film. The Looney Tunes are on par with Mickey Mouse ◎ 4 and Donald Duck ◎ 4. Them being "children's media" does not change this. Bluevestman (talk) 21:53, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

   @Bluevestman: I agree with you that posters are way different from film, in that they are way more effective. Posters don't require you to go the theater or sit through hours, they can be plastered everywhere and are instantly recognizable. I've seen the Uncle Sam and Rosie the River posters for as long as I can remember, yet never heard of Triumph of the Will before scrolling through these VA pages. And another, more innovative propaganda film is already covered: Battleship Potemkin ◎ 4.

   And I'm trying to wrap my head around the statement that Looney Tunes is on par with Mickey Mouse, the mascot of the biggest entertainment corporation in history. The silent nature of media like Tom and Jerry and Mr. Bean allow them to reach a much wider global audience, unlike Looney Tunes which has dialogue. And excuse me for narrowing my perspective down a bit, but coming from the 16th most populous country in the world, which is a considerable sample size, Tom and Jerry has entered our everyday vernacular (some of us even seldom call random mice and rats Jerry) while no one talks about Buggs Bunny or hardly recognize the name Looney Tunes. KhaiDo (talk) 09:23, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

   Fyi, I did not know this movie had blackface until after making this proposal. KhaiDo (talk) 09:26, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

   This comment is a little bit unnecessary now that I also support a swap with The Good, the Bad and the Ugly to reduce Anglosphere bias. But I do want to note that your argument for including a Western film was very poor, specifically in comparing Western films (which belong in arts, which has a quota of 700) to country musicians (which belong in biographies, which has a quota of 2000). The more apt comparison would be to country songs/albums, which we have none at this level. On the contrary, we list 4 directors/actors who are known for the Western genre: John Ford ◎ 4, Howard Hawks ◎ 4, John Wayne ◎ 4, Clint Eastwood ◎ 4. This goes back to my orginal rationale, where I said we list too many specific films compared to other artforms. I'm not against including Ford or Wayne, I just have problems with Stagecoach, so your rebuttal just completely missed the point. KhaiDo (talk) 18:06, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

3. I don't think removing the film which took us out of the silent film era makes this list any better. Dess Dedalus (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
4. Per Bluevestman and AllyWithInfo. We're not removing the movie that ushered us into the sound era, and I struggle to see the necessity of musical films when musical theatre already exists. Even with the racism involved in this film I don't think criteria for inclusion in the VA project should be tied to WP:RGW reasons. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 06:57, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
5. nomination seems off.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:02, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
6. Oppose both. --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:34, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

Hmm. While historically important, beyond that I basically only know that it exists and has blackface. There was soon bound to be a full-length musical talkie film regardless. Less iconic that Pong ◎ 5 which was removed and failed to get re-added due to similar reasons.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 13:21, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Remove Triumph of the Will ◎ 5

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

---

One of the many pieces of Propaganda in Nazi Germany , which isn't listed. And this being the only film by a female director here is worse than there being none. #764 on TSDPT.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 14:31, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 06:11, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
3. The Account 2 (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
4. Leni Riefenstahl ◎ 4 is enough.飞车过大关 (talk) 13:03, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
5. Ipedecha (talk) 09:45, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Bluevestman (talk) 22:10, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

Propaganda ◎ 4 on the other hand is at this level, plus Leni Riefenstahl ◎ 4 herself. Her article gets much higher pageviews.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 13:21, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

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

Remove Stagecoach (1939 film) ◎ 4

Western films are set in a specific time in a specific place. This makes the genre inherently biased and shouldn't be represented at this level. It's not even John Ford's best film, which is The Searchers ◎ 5.

Support

KhaiDo (talk) 14:31, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

1. Support a swap with The Good, the Bad and the Ugly for more diversity. KhaiDo (talk) 15:16, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 06:11, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
3. The Account 2 (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
4. Swap with The Good, the Bad and the Ugly ◎ 5. I don't think it's farfetched to include one Western, and it has had a significantly higher impact on pop culture at large while expanding the Western film ◎ 5 into what it's known for today. It's part of the reason as to why Clint Eastwood ◎ 4 is listed. AllyWithInfo (talk) 03:49, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
5. 飞车过大关 (talk) 13:01, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
6. ALittleClass (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Swap with The Good, the Bad and the Ugly ◎ 5. I don't think it's farfetched to include one Western, and it has had a significantly higher impact on pop culture at large while expanding the Western film ◎ 5 into what it's known for today. It's part of the reason as to why Clint Eastwood ◎ 4 is listed. AllyWithInfo (talk) 22:19, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Meant to write this under support instead of oppose, my bad. AllyWithInfo (talk) 03:49, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

1. Bluevestman (talk) 22:10, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
2. Oppose failing a swap, I think it makes plenty of sense to have just one Western seeing as how important the genre is. Entire actors and directors are at this level because of them (John Ford ◎ 4, Clint Eastwood ◎ 4, John Wayne ◎ 4), its identity is very closely tied to film as a whole. It is an intrinsically western (ha) genre but there's other influences it has had in other countries as mentioned by Bluevestman. I would prefer having The Good, the Bad and the Ugly ◎ 5 for the continued influence, spaghetti western representation, and even the soundtrack being important enough to be listed at level-5 over it, but it's an important distinction to have and I think the list would lose a bit of its scope without it. AllyWithInfo (talk) 20:32, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
3. Support swap with TGTBatU. Otherwise Oppose. Westerns are a non-trivial genre.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:27, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

Hmm, Western (genre) ◎ 4 is VA4 but Western film ◎ 5 VA5.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 13:21, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Remove Looney Tunes ◎ 4

In conjunction with my proposal to add Spirited Away above. Looney Tunes is pretty much here for being the childhood of many Western audiences, and should be cut to make room for a non-Western work of animation. This film being in the 21st century seems like recentism but in reality it's only 6 years after Toy Story ◎ 4. If Toy Story revolutionized filmmaking with CGI, Spirited Away kept traditional animation alive for the past few decades. It is the highest ranked animated film on TSPDT, at #131, which says a lot, considering how animation has for a long time been demned a "genre for children" (when it's not even a genre but a medium). That high of a ranking should have never been possible. And the average person in the West probably wouldn't have known about Hayao Miyazaki ◎ 4 or Studio Ghibli ◎ 5 if it weren't for this film.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 14:31, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 06:11, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
3. 飞车过大关 (talk) 12:57, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
4. The Account 2 (talk) 10:25, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Extremely widely known and long-running franchise.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 13:21, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

   @LaukkuTheGreit: Tom and Jerry ◎ 5 started only 10 years after and is definitely more widely known globally. If you look at the interwikis, the majority for Looney Tunes are from Europe, while Tom and Jerry has a more even split between Europe and Asia and even leaning towards Asia. Neither of these warrant VA4 imo, as they don't have enough artistic value or cultural impact. They are, at the end of the day, children's media. KhaiDo (talk) 06:59, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

2. Oppose per Laukku. AllyWithInfo (talk) 22:19, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
3. Bluevestman (talk) 22:10, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
4. NimbleNumbat (talk) 16:52, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

Did you list the wrong article? -1ctinus📝🗨 14:43, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

I certainly did not. KhaiDo (talk) 14:49, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

My bad. I read "this film" as referring to the nomination. Sorry -1ctinus📝🗨 15:18, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

I'll admit, it was poorly worded. KhaiDo (talk) 15:22, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Add Action film ◎ 5, Science fiction film ◎ 5, Horror film ◎ 5, and Thriller (genre) ◎ 5

Some other ones worth adding. Although technically Thriller film ◎ 5 is the more appropriate one for this topic, I reckon the general genre be added first. The Arts subpage is also slightly underquota, so there should be some wiggle room.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 14:31, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 06:11, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
3. Support Action film ◎ 5 and Thriller (genre) ◎ 5, neutral on others for now.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 13:21, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
4. Support for action film, oppose for sci-fi and horror (neutral on thriller). Action as a genre is not only the biggest box-office draw next to Animation ◎ 3, but the only other genre that was practically created by filmmaking. Horror film already has its equivalent in Horror fiction ◎ 4, same goes for Science fiction ◎ 4 and Comedy ◎ 4. Action has no equivalent like that listed, and it's something unique to film. AllyWithInfo (talk) 22:19, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

   @AllyWithInfo: As I've stated above, writing genres and film genres are expressed and experienced very differently. There's an entire section of the Horror film article called Effects on audiences. KhaiDo (talk) 07:06, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

   I agree that they're different, which is why the articles for Science fiction ◎ 4 and Horror fiction ◎ 4 cover both mediums. I don't think science-fiction or horror specifically in film are different enough to add when they've already got outlines in the broader article, unlike the action film which is a different enough distinction from genres like Fantasy ◎ 4 or Adventure fiction ◎ 5. AllyWithInfo (talk) 18:05, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

5. Per AllyWithInfo.飞车过大关 (talk) 12:59, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
6. Per AllyWithInfo, though my vote is the same as Laukku's - support Action film ◎ 5 and Thriller (genre) ◎ 5, neutral on the others. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 06:43, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
7. Add action film only. Bluevestman (talk) 20:07, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
8. Dylan240 (talk) 06:37, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Science Fiction Film and Horror Film. In general I think most genre per medium combinations are too narrow for this level. ALittleClass (talk) 16:38, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

KhaiDo (talk) 14:31, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

As of now this makes a 7-0 vote for Action film ◎ 5, 4-0 (2 neutral, 1 unknown) for Thriller (genre) ◎ 5, and 2-2 (2 neutral, 1 unknown) for Science fiction film ◎ 5 and Horror film ◎ 5 respectively. The latter two aren't going to pass, but what about Thriller? @AllyWithInfo @飞车过大关 @Bluevestman would you vote for or against? Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 14:10, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Sure, add thriller. Bluevestman (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

In favor. AllyWithInfo (talk) 18:42, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Add Genre ◎ 5

There has been notable focus on genres on VA (many times it has been argued a work is less vital than its genre, among other things), but not on the concept of genre itself. The concept is cross-medium: there is not only Literary genre ◎ 5, but also Music genre ◎ 4 and Video game genre ◎ 5 for example. A possible counterargument is that the general concept of a genre is too vague, but on the other hand I think it makes hierarchical sense for it to be on this level.

Support

1. As nom.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 15:32, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
2. Ipedecha (talk) 20:44, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
3. Aye. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:24, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
4. Of course. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 03:44, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
5. 飞车过大关 (talk) 13:00, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
6. Bluevestman (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
7. Dylan240 (talk) 13:50, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I agree with the counterargument that it's too vague/uninformative to be useful. Music genres constantly change and gain new nuance, while the concept of a genre itself is better suited to a dictionary than an encyclopedia. Johnnie Runner (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Location ◎ 5

Important aspect of geography.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
2. Very important aspect of geography. If it is to much of a dictionary term, that is all the more reason to add it to level 4 to prioritize improvment. I suggest people voting oppose consider they might not have a good understanding of what is vital to the discipline of geography. Five themes of geography lists location, for example. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:28, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

   Have you considered we might simply not see this as Level 4 vital? Bluevestman (talk) 21:14, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. 飞车过大关 (talk) 04:07, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
2. Too much of a dictionary term, the article (at least in its current state) does not convince me of the VA4 utility of having it at Featured status.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 08:11, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
3. Bluevestman (talk) 19:15, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
4. --Thi (talk) 08:37, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

US geography removals and one addition

Remove New England ◎ 4

Listing our only New England city of Boston ◎ 4 and maybe Northeastern United States (if that's added) should be enough to cover this area. I could see a case where New York (state) ◎ 4 might be sufficient due to proximity.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 15:43, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. New England has a stronger cultural identity than most states. In addition to Boston, the sub-region contains Harvard University ◎ 4, Yale University ◎ 4, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology ◎ 4. Johnnie Runner (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
2. Per Johnnie Runner. New England is academically significant, being home to four of eight schools in the Ivy League ◎ 5, two of which in turn are V4 vitality, as well as MIT. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 19:37, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
3. Oppose. I would support regions over U.S. states at this level. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:00, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
4. Bluevestman (talk) 22:40, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Add Northeastern United States ◎ 5

See my reasoning above. It is the only region that is not represented if the others are not removed.

Support

1. Only if the others are not removed. Interstellarity (talk) 15:43, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
2. Support. It's technically already listed but without its corresponding link. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 03:10, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
3. Bluevestman (talk) 22:40, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
4. Change vote to support. I had skimmed this and thought it was a remove like the proposal above. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:36, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Ipedecha (talk) 21:23, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
2. Don't believe any of the regions have a particularly strong claim to representation. ALittleClass (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
3. The Account 2 (talk) 10:44, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
4. Oppose. I would support regions over U.S. states at this level. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:00, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

   @GeogSage Northeastern US is a region though. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 07:48, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

5. New England and the Northeastern United States should not both appear on the Level 4 list.飞车过大关 (talk) 19:01, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Remove Midwestern United States ◎ 4

I think if we trim down the US geography section to just the five most populous states, that would be enough representation for this level. The US cities we already list should be enough for this level.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 15:43, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
2. Ipedecha (talk) 21:23, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
3. The Account 2 (talk) 10:33, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
4. Bluevestman (talk) 22:40, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. I would support regions over U.S. states at this level. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:00, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Remove Southern United States ◎ 4

See my reasoning above.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 15:43, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
2. Ipedecha (talk) 21:23, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
3. The Account 2 (talk) 10:35, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Of the four census regions of the United States, I would say only the South has a particularly well-known cultural identity. The Midwest has a coherent collective identity, but I don't know that it's an internationally-recognized one. Meanwhile, the "Western United States" is a meaningless term outside of the census. If we can pick and choose states according to their significance, not just in the U.S. but around the world (i.e., Bavaria ◎ 4 but not Saxony ◎ 5), we should be able to do the same for generically-named regions because what matters is the cultural through-line, not the name. Though we essentially did this at Level-3, and nobody seemed happy with the end result. Johnnie Runner (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

   I disagree that Western United States is a meaningless term. It's known for its varied topography, national parks, and open space. It's the origin of the Western (genre) ◎ 4. Melozone crissalis (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

   I'm being hyperbolic when I say it's meaningless, but it's definitely more tenuous to call Washington and Arizona part of the same cultural sphere compared to say Louisiana and Virginia or even Nebraska and Ohio. I'm not totally against listing all 4 regions, but my inclination is that the "rocky mountain", "west coast", and "aridoamerican" parts of the Western U.S. are too culturally dissimilar overall to be worth listing collectively at Level-4. Johnnie Runner (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

2. Oppose. I would support regions over U.S. states at this level. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:00, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
3. Bluevestman (talk) 22:40, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
4. Per Johnnie Runner. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 08:22, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
5. Per Johnnie Runner. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:32, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Remove Western United States ◎ 4

See my reasoning above.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 15:43, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
2. Per Johnnie Runner's comment on Southern United States. The Western US identity isn't nearly as cohesive as the others. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 19:27, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
3. American frontier ◎ 4 covers the old west, which is more culturally important. ALittleClass (talk) 08:23, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

   Does that mean Midwestern United States ◎ 4 is more important? Melozone crissalis (talk) 18:33, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

4. The Account 2 (talk) 10:44, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
5. Ipedecha (talk) 21:23, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
6. Bluevestman (talk) 22:40, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. I would support regions over U.S. states at this level. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:00, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Remove Alaska ◎ 4

Alaska has under a million people. There are a lot of subnational divisions with a similar population to Alaska that we don't list and a lot of exclaves of other countries we don't list.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 15:43, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
2. Lacks the strong cultural profile of Hawaii. Johnnie Runner (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
3. The Account 2 (talk) 10:44, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
4. Aye. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:21, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
5. Ipedecha (talk) 21:23, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
6. Bluevestman (talk) 22:40, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
7. 飞车过大关 (talk) 19:02, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. What Alaska lacks in population or a strong cultural profile, it makes up for in its sheer size. It's the single largest mainland territory in the world that isn't territorially contiguous with the country it is part of. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 19:27, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
2. Per frank above. If my small home country island Trinidad And Tobago is listed at level 4, as well as Palau, a tiny islandic nation with less than 100,000 people and has little cultural reach outside of southeast asia, so should alaska, as alaska is much, much bigger and has extremely diverse geography, and home to many animal species endemic to alaska only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylan240 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 08:39, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Remove Hawaii ◎ 4

Similar reasoning to Alaska. It doesn't have a lot going for it.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 15:43, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
2. Aye. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:21, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Has a strong cultural profile, unlike Alaska. Johnnie Runner (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
2. Many other islands and archipelagoes are listed at this level. Hawaii has perhaps a shorter recorded history than most, but it has its own language, was an independent kingdom, has geological significance, and is a widely known tourist destination. Out of all the level 4 regions and subdivisions, it has the third highest pageviews, nearly as much as the top two (England and California). Melozone crissalis (talk) 19:16, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
3. Per Melosone crissalis. Dylan240 (talk) 14:20, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
4. Ipedecha (talk) 21:23, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
5. Bluevestman (talk) 22:40, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
6. --Thi (talk) 08:41, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
7. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:50, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Remove Silicon Valley ◎ 4

We already list San Francisco ◎ 4 which is the core of the Northern California area. We could consider an addition of San Francisco Bay Area ◎ 5 or Northern California ◎ 5 if a region should be represented in California.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 15:43, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
2. More a metonym for an industry than a geographical concept. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 12:12, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Important not just as a physical geographical reason, but as the epicenter of modern technology which is world-changing. GauchoDude (talk) 18:53, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
2. Per above, this isn't really listed for geography reasons. Kevinishere15 (talk) 10:03, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
3. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 10:12, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
4. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:04, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
5. Bluevestman (talk) 22:40, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Discussion

@DemocracyDeprivationDisorder and ALittleClass: What are your thoughts on removing Southern United States? Interstellarity (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Asian musicians/musical works

Level 4 currently lists 9 Asian musicians out of 152 total. These include 7 from the Indian subcontinent, Mohammad-Reza Shajarian from West Asia, and Teresa Teng from East Asia; but not including Umm Kulthum from Egypt, representing the Arab world, and Charles Aznavour, of Armenian descent but born in France. Level 4 lists one Asian musical work, Gangnam Style out of 33 total. Should more be listed? If so what are some options? I see Fairuz ◎ 4 is nominated for addition above, is that a good choice? Melozone crissalis (talk) 20:15, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I've considered nominating Cui Jian ◎ 5 in the past, but I don't have a strong enough grasp of his regional impact or potential competitors to make it with confidence. Johnnie Runner (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Cui Jian ◎ 5 is significant, yet lacks popular reach—many young people in China remain unaware of his contributions and music. Moreover, Lo Ta-yu , who made equally monumental impacts on Chinese-language music, is absent from the Level 5 list, which makes me hesitate about whether Cui Jian meets the Level 4 criteria. If we go by popularity, Jay Chou ◎ 5 may be the most beloved singer in China, yet among Chinese pop music enthusiasts, he is often considered inferior to Lo Ta-yu. 飞车过大关 (talk) 13:02, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Incidentally, Leslie Cheung ◎ 5 was also an exceptionally significant singer—he was in fact the first male cpop singer to be included in the Cihai, an honor that carries considerable weight in China. 飞车过大关 (talk) 13:07, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Promote Italian Peninsula ◎ 5

Next to the Iberian Peninsula ◎ 4 the Italian Peninsula is probably the most notable peninsula in Europe. The peninsula may be essential to Wikipedia's other articles and may offer good coverage in that it contains 3 countries (Italy ◎ 3 and two level 4 vital countries), and several other vital articles (the Alps, Rome, Mount Vesuvius, etc). Thanks, feedmepaperr (talk) 17:09, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Support

1. (Nom)
2. Per nom. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 22:42, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Bluevestman (talk) 19:04, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

1. Neutral, the reason this was not listed is that it's redundant to Italy at this level. Melozone crissalis (talk) 18:34, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

   Could the same not be said for the Iberian peninsula and Spain? feedmepaperr (talk) 16:34, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

   Well, it does include Portugal as well. Melozone crissalis (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

   Some comments about this here: Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level 4/Archive 47#Add Baltic states. Melozone crissalis (talk) 23:06, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Add Hawaiian Islands (stats · edit · talk · history)◎ 5

Above Hawaii ◎ 4 is being proposed for removal. I think that we could address concerns and add the geographic islands, rather then the U.S. political state.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:24, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:24, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Add CSS ◎ 5

A cornerstone standard for the internet, alongside HTML ◎ 4 and JavaScript ◎ 4, CSS ◎ 5 is used virtually everywhere on the web for the styling and presentation of webpages, and is sometimes comparable to artistry, as CSS is about making websites exactly how the author intended, with plenty of design styles and aesthetics, such as flat design and skeuomorphism. This makes CSS very important as the internet has billions of webpages, and many of them are extremely popular, such as YouTube and Google Search.

CSS also has an extensive history, dating back to the 1990’s when it was very simple and only contained a small amount of properties, such as color, position: absolute, and background-color, in comparison to today’s CSS3, now with a diverse range of properties and values. Before CSS was created, web developers had to use very basic HTML to style webpages, such as changing text color and background color.

From 2001, Internet Explorer 6, the overwhelmingly dominant web browser at the time (90+% market share), had poor web support and was stagnant, never receiving feature and standard updates until IE7 came out in late 2006 and improved basically everything. Because of this, developing CSS back then was much harder and new properties, some of them becoming important later, not supported by IE6 couldn’t be used, many CSS hacks had to be used, and as IE6 also had bugs, many properties would be glitchy. This would also lead to many web developers and companies using Adobe Flash for their webpages instead, and was also caused by JavaScript not being as developed as Flash during the time.

Later, this would soon change, with Firefox gaining market share since it’s release before it’s peak around 2011, the launch of Internet Explorer 9 in 2011, supporting CSS3 and JS ES5, and the release of the then critically acclaimed Google Chrome, whose foundation is open-source, CSS and JavaScript became much more feasible for web development, and CSS3 added many properties that made it easier and much more powerful, such as flex-basis, grid-template-columns, linear-gradient, calc(), translate, border-image, animation, and many more.

Today, CSS is not only used on virtually every webpage, but also on desktop programs with Electron, and i feel like CSS deserves to be nominated to level 4 vital article status alongside HTML and JavaScript due to it’s importance to the web and web design, the amount of features it has, and it’s extensive history. Dylan240 (talk) 13:47, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Support

1. (nom) Dylan240 (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
2. Per nom. I₂Overcome ^talk 05:57, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
3. KhaiDo (talk) 17:36, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Remove Mackerel ◎ 4

Only twenty-three interwikis.

Support

1. Bluevestman (talk) 23:00, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Interwikis aren't the end all be all. Besides Blue mackerel  has 24 interwikis and Indian mackerel  has 35 interwikis. The fish seems notable enough. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 23:07, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Physical activity ◎ 5

A form of exercise that is healthy for every individual.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 01:08, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

History and geography nominees

Add History of VA3 countries

I think this is a pretty straightforward proposal, since we have History of Afghanistan ◎ 4, History of Iraq ◎ 4, History of Sudan ◎ 4, History of Portugal ◎ 4 (VA4 countries) and even History of the People's Republic of China ◎ 4 and History of India (1947–present) ◎ 4. The list includes:

• History of Algeria ◎ 5
• History of Bangladesh ◎ 5
• History of the Democratic Republic of the Congo ◎ 5
• History of Kenya ◎ 5
• History of Malaysia ◎ 5
• History of Myanmar ◎ 5
• History of Tanzania ◎ 5

I've excluded History of South Korea ◎ 5, which is covered by History of Korea ◎ 4, and History of Singapore ◎ 5, which is mostly about the city instead of the state.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
2. Only support History of Myanmar and History of Bangladesh.飞车过大关 (talk) 19:32, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
3. Support Algeria, the DRC, and Bangladesh. Neutral on others. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 07:50, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
4. The Account 2 (talk) 20:11, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. This is a typical case of Demographic determinism. Just because a country has a massive population in the 21st century doesn't mean its history is of extreme importance.飞车过大关 (talk) 19:32, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Palestine (region) ◎ 5

The region itself should be more vital than the Israeli–Palestinian conflict ◎ 4, History of Palestine ◎ 5 is the history of the region.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. We had Palestine ◎ 4.飞车过大关 (talk) 19:33, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

   The country and the region are very different geopolitically. Distinguishing between the two ís at the heart of the conflict. KhaiDo (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

   I just believe that having Israel ◎ 3 and Palestine is sufficient. I personally know that the region of Palestine and Palestine are not the same concept.飞车过大关 (talk) 07:08, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

Add October Revolution ◎ 5

The most crucial and studied event of the Russian Revolution ◎ 4, which may seem redundant but Russian Civil War ◎ 4 is also here. And considering how tremendously impactful the Russian Revolution was, I think this is an appropiate add.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
2. There were two revolutions, the February Revolution ◎ 5 and the October Revolution ◎ 5. The so-called "Russian Revolution ◎ 4" is not an event, it is a collective name. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:19, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

   Since both revolutions occurred in the same era, a vast number of scholars treat them under the broader umbrella of the 'Russian Revolution,' which I find perfectly reasonable. Aside from socialist or post-Soviet states, the Western world predominantly uses the term 'Russian Revolution' when studying the October Revolution. Furthermore, I believe that for a Level 4 list, emphasizing the overarching concept of the Russian Revolution, rather than the highly overlapping October Revolution, would actually help promote ideological neutrality across the list. 飞车过大关 (talk) 16:28, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Russian Revolution ◎ 4 is enough.飞车过大关 (talk) 19:36, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

   You've simply regurgitated a point I've already and preemptively addressed. KhaiDo (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

   Your argument is that the Level 4 list shouldn't consist solely of the Russian Revolution. My argument is that the Level 4 list needs only the Russian Revolution. 飞车过大关 (talk) 19:51, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

   Except mine is an actual argument and yours is just an assertion. KhaiDo (talk) 20:07, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

2. --Thi (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Vostok 1 ◎ 5 and Vostok programme ◎ 5

If we have both Apollo 11 ◎ 4 and Apollo program ◎ 4 then these gotta be obvious adds.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
2. Support Vostok 1. Like Apollo 11, the one mission is more important than the program as a whole. Johnnie Runner (talk) 04:17, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Also support remove Apollo 11 ◎ 4.飞车过大关 (talk) 19:39, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

KhaiDo (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

I think we shouldn't list Apollo 11 at this level (although it was added recently) due to overlap with Apollo program ◎ 4, Moon landing ◎ 4, Space Race ◎ 4, and Neil Armstrong ◎ 4. Melozone crissalis (talk) 17:51, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Moon landing and Apollo program don't do Apollo 11 justice imo. Each has a much broader scope and simply doesn't have room for details of the actual moon landing. And considering that it's, you know, the moon landing, I think we can make an exception. The same goes for the first human spaceflight in history. KhaiDo (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Tightening up spaceflight-related topics

Remove Kennedy Space Center ◎ 4 and Baikonur Cosmodrome ◎ 4

Monumental spaceflights launched from these facilities, but the spaceflights themselves (Apollo 11 ◎ 4, Sputnik 1 ◎ 4, Vostok 1 ◎ 5) and the agencies that conducted them (NASA ◎ 4/Soviet space program ◎ 4) are the more central topics.

Support

1. Johnnie Runner (talk) 02:18, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
2. 飞车过大关 (talk) 05:39, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
3. Support removal of Baikonur Cosmodrome. --Thi (talk) 08:41, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
4. Ipedecha (talk) 09:45, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Remove Moon landing ◎ 4 and Apollo program ◎ 4

Moon landing ◎ 4, Apollo program ◎ 4, and Apollo 11 ◎ 4 overlap significantly. While the former two cover the many Moon landings (all six manned landings are from the Apollo program), Apollo 11 is the Moon landing, a symbolically peerless human achievement watched live by an estimated sixth of the entire world population. It's worth noting that Moon landing is listed in history under Space Race ◎ 4, and Apollo 11/program are listed in technology.

Support

1. Johnnie Runner (talk) 02:18, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I only support remove Apollo 11 ◎ 4, I believe a single misson are less important than multiple missons.飞车过大关 (talk) 05:41, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 08:41, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Add James Webb Space Telescope ◎ 5

The largest space telescope ever built, which has demonstrated unprecedented ability to observe phenomena from the early universe. I might be jumping the gun here since it launched only 5 years ago and has yet to discover aliens, but it's the most powerful instrument in astronomy history, likely for decades to come.

Support

1. Johnnie Runner (talk) 02:18, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. It's too recent, and I believe Space telescope ◎ 5 are definitely more important.​飞车过大关 (talk) 05:45, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Move Voyager program ◎ 4 to uncrewed spacecraft

The Voyager program is listed under 'uncrewed spacecraft' instead of 'programs and launch sites' at Level-5, but not at Level-4. I think this is the better sub-placement since the program comprises twin probes launched within 16 days of each other instead of a multi-year progression of missions, while the other articles under 'programs and launch sites' are mostly space agencies themselves. Maybe 'programs and launch sites' should just be shortened to 'space agencies' if the above removals pass.

Support

1. Johnnie Runner (talk) 02:18, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Hindu philosophy ◎ 5

Should be on the same level with Buddhist philosophy ◎ 4, Christian philosophy ◎ 4, and Islamic philosophy ◎ 4. One could argue that it's already covered by Indian philosophy ◎ 4, but the same applies to the Buddhist one.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 17:57, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
2. Per nom.飞车过大关 (talk) 12:00, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
3. Bluevestman (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

KhaiDo (talk) 17:57, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Splitting this talk page

Pinging: @Lophotrochozoa, Selina Dedalus, Ipedecha, Bluevestman, LaukkuTheGreit, and ChaoticVermillion: This page has a problem in mobile view. The VA link template is causing the collapsible sections on the talk page to be difficult to navigate since it is used over 1000 times on this page. I’m requesting that this page be split into different sections (no opinion on what) to remedy this problem. I will not perform any splits until discussion on this page is complete. Interstellarity (talk) 00:17, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 00:17, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Bluevestman (talk) 00:28, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Discussion

Just a quick note that I made the necessary changes temporarily for better accessibility at Module:Vital article. Interstellarity (talk) 00:29, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

@Interstellarity: Your edit has been reverted although something is making it render differently from before when it was somehow displaying HTML comments. It would be good if someone could explain the purpose of displaying an icon over a thousand times. Johnuniq (talk) 08:03, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

@Johnuniq See the relevant discussions at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Making this discussion easier to follow on a talk page and Wikipedia talk:Vital articles#Improving the vital articles in mobile view that I started to attempt to resolve this issue. When I made the edits to the module, I was able to get the collapsible sections back, but when it got reverted, the collapsible sections are gone. I’m trying to work on a solution that fixes the issue since I care about accessibility in mobile view and want to improve it as best as I can. Interstellarity (talk) 12:42, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Remove Means of communication

I don’t see how this article is important for communication.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 16:54, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 19:04, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
3. We had Communication ◎ 2, and I think Transmission medium  must be added to level 5 list.飞车过大关 (talk) 11:57, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
4. Bluevestman (talk) 22:30, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Melozone crissalis (talk) 23:57, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Add The School of Athens ◎ 5

I believe this also should be a tier above the rest. Described as Raphael ◎ 4's "masterpiece and the perfect embodiment of the classical spirit of the Renaissance ◎ 3". It depicts Plato ◎ 3, Socrates ◎ 3, Aristotle ◎ 3, Euclid ◎ 3, Archimedes ◎ 3.

Support

1. As nom Axeledits (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
2. Bluevestman (talk) 01:03, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 08:50, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
4. The painting doesn't depict the actual Platonic Academy, nor is that relevant to its artistic significance anyway. Raphael definitely deserves a VA4 work. KhaiDo (talk) 20:42, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Not important than Platonic Academy ◎ 5.飞车过大关 (talk) 14:48, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

   Strangely that article isn't at V5. Axeledits (talk) 15:48, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

I understand if some argue Italian Renaissance painting is covered sufficiently, as for some reason we seem to be a lot more judicious with works of visual art than with literature. Axeledits (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Great Women Scientists: Add Chien-Shiung Wu ◎ 5, Remove Tsung-Dao Lee ◎ 4

Tsung-Dao Lee ◎ 4 is undeniably one of the five most important physicists in modern Chinese history. However, I do not believe he belongs on the Level 4 list. This is because his most significant scientific contributions (for instance, in the field of Weak Interaction ) were achieved in collaboration with Yang Chen-Ning ◎ 4, whose research contributions far surpass those of Lee. Notable examples include the Yang-Baxter equation  and Yang-Mills theory . Consequently, I personally believe that Tsung-Dao Lee's major contributions overlap with those of Chen-Ning Yang, whereas Yang's major contributions do not overlap with Lee's principal contributions.

I have read biographies of both physicists separately. Yang's biography is quite substantial, covering complex political undercurrents and foundational scientific achievements. In contrast, Lee's biography seems to focus on asserting that he was the driving force behind their joint research outcomes, containing complaints about Yang allegedly monopolizing Lee's achievements.

To address the underrepresentation of women on the Level 4 list, I would like to propose Chien-Shiung Wu ◎ 5. She was one of the greatest experimental physicists of the 20th century and was also Tsung-Dao Lee’s most revered scientist and close friend.

In fact, it was precisely due to Wu experiment ◎ 5 that Lee and Yang were able to jointly receive the Nobel Prize. Furthermore, Wu established a remarkable scientific legacy of her own—for instance, her 1962 experiment provided crucial verification that helped Richard Feynman ◎ 4 and Murray Gell-Mann ◎ 4 secure their Nobel Prizes. She was even regarded by Isidor Rabi ◎ 5 as a figure who surpassed Marie Curie ◎ 3.

Support

1. Some person argue that my stance towards a "renowned" American female superhero reflects a systemic bias, stemming from a dislike of feminism and American culture, and demonstrating my ignorance and arrogance. However, this is entirely a misconception. I have always held a deep reverence for truly outstanding female heroes. It is simply difficult for me to extend that same attitude toward an American fictional character who has low visibility in China.飞车过大关 (talk) 13:34, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

   I only mentioned potential sysbias, not sure where you got "dislike of feminism" and "arrogance" from. KhaiDo (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

   Is it possible that the user I was referring to wasn't actually you?I didn't specify anyone in particular; I don't know why you assumed I was talking about you. Of course, I wasn't referring to you—the person I mentioned actually only voted in favor. 飞车过大关 (talk) 19:47, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

2. Support adding Wu, neutral on removing Lee Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 07:28, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

   I may not be deeply versed in physics research, but I’d like to know: aside from his outstanding collaboration with C.N. Yang, did Tsung-Dao Lee make any other groundbreaking contributions that place him above other 20th-century physicists on the Level 4 list of seven 'Contemporary era' physicists? Personally, I believe his academic contributions are arguably inferior to those of Asian physicists Shin'ichirō Tomonaga ◎ 5 or Hideki Yukawa ◎ 5? 飞车过大关 (talk) 07:39, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

3. Support add. Leaning oppose on removal. Bluevestman (talk) 22:38, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

   To add a bit more context, even in the field of QCD, Tsung-Dao Lee isn't considered one of the top 12 most important physicists. Just among Asian physicists alone, I’d argue that Yoichiro Nambu ◎ 5 was superior to Lee. 飞车过大关 (talk) 04:30, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

4. The Wu experiment is extremely famous. Definite support add. Fine with remove. Dess Dedalus (talk) 18:19, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Ahmose I ◎ 5

So a month back National Geographic released a special issue on the greatest ancient figures, and I swear to God Ahmose I was the only Level 5 person with a dedicated chapter; everyone else with a chapter is either at Level 4 or Level 3. And you know? As the founder of the New Kingdom of Egypt ◎ 4, I think he should be promoted to Level 4.

Support

1. Bluevestman (talk) 22:13, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
2. Per nom.飞车过大关 (talk) 07:27, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
3. Ipedecha (talk) 16:35, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
4. KhaiDo (talk) 20:55, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Literature swaps and adds

Swap James Bond (literary character) ◎ 4 for James Bond ◎ 5

He's the only VA4 character with a corresponding franchise article. Not only that, the franchise article has way more editors, watchers, pageviews, iwikis, and decidedly, more notable, as implied by how these two articles are titled.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 05:00, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
2. Per nom.飞车过大关 (talk) 07:29, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
3. Bluevestman (talk) 07:44, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
4. James bond is not the only one, as there's the Mario character at level 4, but not the Mario franchise, and I support a swap of the james bond and mario articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylan240 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Franchises vs. characters is always a weird debate and I usually prefer franchises, but I feel James Bond the character is more well-known even as just a stock character archetype than any of his individual films or books are, if you get what I mean ? Dess Dedalus (talk) 05:13, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
2. Any list that includes fictional characters should have James Bond the character. Kevinishere15 (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

Swap The Wind in the Willows ◎ 5 for The Stranger (Camus novel) ◎ 4

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

---

The former is an English children's novel that is clearly inferior to Alice's Adventures in Wonderland ◎ 4, while the latter is a French novel that ranks 23rd on thegreatestbooks.org and 1st on Le Monde's 100 Books of the Century, ahead of In Search of Lost Time ◎ 4.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 05:00, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
2. There’s an above proposal to swap Wind in the Willows out for Dune ◎ 4, but I support adding L’Etranger regardless. Dess Dedalus (talk) 05:19, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
3. 飞车过大关 (talk) 07:33, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
4. Bluevestman (talk) 07:44, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
5. Axeledits (talk) 14:46, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I don't thinkt that the The Stranger is necesessary at this level. --Thi (talk) 10:40, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

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

Swap A Christmas Carol ◎ 4 for Great Expectations ◎ 5

This novel ranks higher on thegreatestbooks.org and The Big Read.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 05:00, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
2. 飞车过大关 (talk) 07:33, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The Christmas Carol has greater cultural impact, even if it’s a lower-quality work. There’s a reason we list Twilight ◎ 5 and not Ancient Torso of Apollo , even if the latter is far better. Dess Dedalus (talk) 05:19, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
2. A Christmas Carol is a Christmas classic. Bluevestman (talk) 07:44, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
3. A Christmas Carol is highly culturally influential with it having "influenced several aspects of Christmas that are still celebrated in Western culture, such as family gatherings, seasonal food and drink, dancing, games and a festive generosity of spirit" plus having enough adaptations for a separate list page. I view it as an archetypal VA4 work.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:23, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
4. Kevinishere15 (talk) 00:32, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
5. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:45, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

Swap The Sun Also Rises ◎ 4 for The Old Man and the Sea ◎ 5

Seems like a no-brainer by every metric possible.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 05:00, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
2. Makes sense to me. Dess Dedalus (talk) 05:19, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
3. 飞车过大关 (talk) 07:33, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
4. Bluevestman (talk) 07:44, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
5. Support removal. --Thi (talk) 10:41, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose addition. Famous, but maybe not so great work, which is not necessary at this level. --Thi (talk) 10:41, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
2. I think The Sun Also Rises is more vital for breaking the mold. It's the one that brought Hemingway's theory of omission approach into serious acclaim, which was already well-established by The Old Man and the Sea. Johnnie Runner (talk) 15:17, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

Swap The Color Purple ◎ 4 for Alice Walker ◎ 5

Alice Walker herself is very notable for her activism also and not just the novel.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 05:00, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
2. Sure. Dess Dedalus (talk) 05:19, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
3. Only support remove.飞车过大关 (talk) 07:33, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
4. Bluevestman (talk) 07:44, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
5. Support removal. --Thi (talk) 10:42, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Opposing removal in case both Alice Walker and Beloved fail to be added. KhaiDo (talk) 18:24, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Beloved (novel) ◎ 5

The Pullitzer-winning work by Toni Morrison ◎ 4 ranks 52nd on thegreatestbooks.org and was named "the best work of American fiction from 1981 to 2006" by The New York Times.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 05:00, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
2. This isn’t here already? What? Dess Dedalus (talk) 05:19, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
3. Axeledits (talk) 14:49, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Bluevestman (talk) 07:44, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
2. Ipedecha (talk) 09:56, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
3. 飞车过大关 (talk) 04:44, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Ficciones ◎ 5

Most prominent work of Jorge Luis Borges ◎ 4, ranks as the 2nd greatest non-Western book on thegreatestbooks.org, right behind One Hundred Years of Solitude ◎ 4, and 45th overall.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 05:00, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
2. I’d argue this is even more foundational than 100 Years of Solitude. I always think of Borges as a borderline VA3 author and Ficciones is a big reason why. Dess Dedalus (talk) 05:19, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
3. Articles this important with this little information are exactly what the VA project was made for. Johnnie Runner (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
4. Ipedecha (talk) 09:58, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
5. Important non-English book. --Thi (talk) 23:22, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Bluevestman (talk) 07:44, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

   This thing only has 22 interwikis. I get I'm the only one with a hard minimum interwiki amount, but come on. Bluevestman (talk) 20:19, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

   What is your minimum? KhaiDo (talk) 20:24, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

   For this level, preferably forty, but I'm not going out of my to remove/oppose adding an article whose amount of interwikis are in the thirties. Bluevestman (talk) 20:35, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

   Also, the more I think about, the more I don't like promoting a piece of art solely based on their placement on a review aggregator. Especially since we don't have Pet Sounds ◎ 5, which has long been number one on Acclaimed Music. Bluevestman (talk) 20:55, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

   @Bluevestman: The interwiki approach is horrible for non-Western/European articles. Would you say Mao Zedong ◎ 3 is a lot less vital then Joseph Stalin ◎ 3 even though Mao ruled over a much larger population and was responsible for way more deaths, just because his bio has 25 fewer iwikis? Europe is home to a variety of languages spoken by small populations. A large number of Wikipedia languages, namely the Indo-European, Uralic, and Ibero-Caucasian ones, are mostly indigenous to Europe.

   Acclaimed Music has a very small sample size (about 30 magazines), while The Greatest Books takes from 700+ lists (all this information can be found on their respective home pages). KhaiDo (talk) 05:16, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

   40 also seems very arbitrary, this and "I'm not against article that are in the thirties" clearly reflect our modern everyday-life base 10 bias. If we counted in, for example, base 12, your cutoff would be something like 36. If base 16, then 32, etc. There's no point in having a hard minimum. KhaiDo (talk) 05:27, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

2. This is a compilation of short stories, which isn't as strong as a unit for vitality. There is a continuous theme of these fictional book reviews, but still, the reason there's not that much analysis in the main page, is that it makes much more sense to analyze each story in it's own article. An alternative would be to propose one of his short stories at VA5 (for which none currently are). ALittleClass (talk) 02:11, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

   I'm not sure how being a compilation is supposed to be held against it when we include Seven Wonders of the Ancient World ◎ 4, Dead Sea Scrolls ◎ 4, Hippocratic Corpus ◎ 4, One Thousand and One Nights ◎ 4, Shakespeare's sonnets ◎ 4, Piano sonatas (Beethoven) ◎ 4, Nocturnes (Chopin) ◎ 4, The Apu Trilogy ◎ 4, and a bunch of media franchises. The Bible ◎ 3 is a compilation. KhaiDo (talk) 04:21, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

3. Per ALittleClass.飞车过大关 (talk) 03:46, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

KhaiDo (talk) 05:00, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Swap Medea (play) ◎ 4 for Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves ◎ 5

We have a lot of Ancient Greek tragedies here, and Euripides ◎ 4 in particular has two, which seems a bit off when Sophocles ◎ 4 and Aeschylus ◎ 4 has only one each, and The Bacchae ◎ 4 is the better option to keep, basing off of the Dionysia and modern impact. One Thousand and One Nights ◎ 4 is probably the single most important collection of literature ever, so multiple tales at VA4 is appropriate. And even then, this was a later addition along with Aladdin ◎ 4 by a Western translator, which just further supports my stance.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 06:27, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
2. 飞车过大关 (talk) 07:33, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
3. Bluevestman (talk) 07:44, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
4. Alibaba Group ◎ 4 is named after it, because the founder realized that most people all around the world knew it. Ipedecha (talk) 10:03, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removal. Possibly greatest play ever written. --Thi (talk) 10:45, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

Add The Little Mermaid ◎ 5

Most well-known story by Hans Christian Andersen ◎ 4 and the most widely circulated fairy tale without a version published in Grimms' Fairy Tales ◎ 4.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 06:27, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
2. Bluevestman (talk) 07:44, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. For the Level 4 list, Mermaid ◎ 4 alone is enough.飞车过大关 (talk) 19:15, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
2. Per above. --Thi (talk) 08:28, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

Folklore galore (additions)

Add Yōkai ◎ 4

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

---

Supernatural beings pervasive in Japanese mythology ◎ 4. It's impossible to even touch on Japanese folklore without mentioning their prominence, and they've been frequently adapted into pop culture. They have 6 sub-articles listed.

Support

1. Johnnie Runner (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
2. Bluevestman (talk) 18:32, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
3. KhaiDo (talk) 19:27, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
4. The Account 2 (talk) 15:08, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
5. Given the number of V5 yokai listings it's fair to say the collective belongs on V4. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 16:23, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

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

Add Kami ◎ 5

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

---

The deities that Shinto ◎ 3 revolves around. Every town and every village has at least one shrine dedicated to its local kami. We also list their chief, Amaterasu ◎ 4.

Support

1. Johnnie Runner (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
2. Bluevestman (talk) 18:32, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
3. KhaiDo (talk) 19:27, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
4. The Account 2 (talk) 15:08, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. A collective concept comparable to the Twelve Olympians ◎ 5, considered as a holistic entity, is less significant than Xian (Taoism) —which isn't even on the level 5 list.飞车过大关 (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

   I thought about this, and I felt Shinto is widely practiced enough and centralized around their deities and their innumerability enough to make the distinction. The Olympians and Aesir of course aren't worshiped much anymore, Taoism to my understanding generally emphasizes concepts before deities (not to mention state atheism has taken its toll) while kami are always the central subject of Shinto, and Devas are only one class of deity out of several in both Buddhism and Hinduism. Johnnie Runner (talk) 20:56, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

   While Taoism itself does not place much emphasis on deities, for the general Chinese public, these gods hold far greater influence than abstract Taoist concepts. This is largely because these deities are deeply embedded in the culture, and Chinese folk religion ◎ 3 also hold them in high reverence. 飞车过大关 (talk) 03:02, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

2. Weak oppose, not sure about this one given that kami as a concept itself is just "god(s)" in a Japanese context. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 16:24, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
3. Per above. --Thi (talk) 16:56, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
4. Ipedecha (talk) 09:45, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

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

Add Medusa ◎ 5

Greek mythology is already prominently represented, yet this looks like an 'oversight'. Everyone recognizes the snake hair and knows what happens if you look at her face.

Support

1. Johnnie Runner (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
2. Bluevestman (talk) 18:32, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
3. One of the only Greek mythological characters I'd support a straight addition of. I'd swap out Pegasus ◎ 4 instead of Perseus ◎ 4 if we do need a swap (added 19:05, 9 May 2026 ->) but I will support the current swap option if we can get her in by doing so. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 16:26, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Swap with Perseus ◎ 4

1. If over-representing Greek mythology is a concern, this would be my go-to swap since his principal fame derives from her better-remembered infamy (and later from Pegasus ◎ 4). Similarly, the Minotaur ◎ 4 is listed above his slayer, Theseus  (who ought to be listed). Johnnie Runner (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
2. KhaiDo (talk) 19:27, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
3. 飞车过大关 (talk) 19:52, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
4. Oppose straight addition. Ipedecha (talk) 09:45, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Add Tao ◎ 4

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

---

The central concept of Taoism ◎ 3.

Support

1. Not sure how I missed this One. Johnnie Runner (talk) 20:59, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
2. Bluevestman (talk) 21:32, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
3. 飞车过大关 (talk) 03:05, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
4. Axeledits (talk) 14:53, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
5. The Account 2 (talk) 04:35, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
6. Easy add I suppose. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 16:20, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

And Rock paper scissors ◎ 5

Wonder how such a universal game hasn't been added yet, with the 30+ games at this level.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 19:15, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
2. Bluevestman (talk) 19:33, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Might as well nominate video games to be removed.飞车过大关 (talk) 19:35, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
2. Level 5 is sufficient. --Thi (talk) 19:50, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

KhaiDo (talk) 19:15, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Remove Franz Marc ◎ 4, add Mark Rothko ◎ 5

Franz Marc ◎ 4 sticks out as hardly one of the 40ish most vital modern era painters. Him co-founding Der Blaue Reiter ◎ 5 alone doesn’t seem like a good case to me, when Wassily Kandinsky ◎ 4, who is clearly V4, did that AND pioneered Abstract art ◎ 3.

The influential Mark Rothko ◎ 5, out of sheer household name status, beats the majority of the painters on this list. Ask anyone on the street what they know about Abstract art ◎ 3 and his name will likely come up. By pageviews, Rothko easily beats Marc - but also indisputably V4 modernists like Marcel Duchamp ◎ 4, Piet Mondrian ◎ 4, Joan Miró ◎ 4, and even Kandinsky himself.

Support

1. As nom Axeledits (talk) 00:56, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
2. KhaiDo (talk) 01:34, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
3. Only support remove.飞车过大关 (talk) 03:45, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
4. --Thi (talk) 08:12, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Axeledits (talk) 00:56, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Add First-person shooter ◎ 5

In an above proposal, Action film ◎ 5 is likely to be added over Science fiction film ◎ 5 or Horror film ◎ 5 because the action genre was transformed fundamentally by filmmaking, remains one of film's most popular genres, and has no equivalent umbrella genre (i.e., Science fiction ◎ 4). I believe the first-person shooter (FPS) is the analogous development in video games to action films.

First, there's nothing comparable to an FPS in other mediums. Paintball ◎ 5 and Airsoft ◎ 5 are close relatives, but the virtual aspect of video games totally transforms the possibilities for shooting other people. Second, FPSs are enormously popular. Doom (1993 video game) ◎ 5 has garnered significant support for addition in its own right (this is basically an alternative proposal), Call of Duty ◎ 5 is the third bestselling video game series of all time, surpassing Pokémon ◎ 4, and Counter-Strike ◎ 5 alongside League of Legends ◎ 5 is easily the most popular Esport ever. In terms of pure playerbase and revenue generated, I would wager the FPS is the most popular video game genre today, and it's not particularly close. If we were to name one genre exclusively representative of video games, it would have to be this one.

Support

1. Johnnie Runner (talk) 18:32, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
2. Support. This is an obvious addition. Not sure why video games get so much resistance while film and TV have disproportionate levels of representation. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:31, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. While this is more reasonable than Doom (1993 video game) ◎ 5, I think the more general Action game ◎ 5 or Video game genre ◎ 5 would still be better, or Video game industry ◎ 5.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 21:19, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
2. Why "First-person shooter ◎ 5" in particular? Fortnite (a third-person shooter) is more popular than most of those combined. --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:10, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

   Because the FPS genre has been more historically important to the development of video games (here's an svg of the history of game engines made just for the genre alone, many of which mark a major leap in 3D graphical technology), and because the format is archetypally "video-gamey" in a way that other genres aren't. When the average person thinks of video games, I'd bet many imagine a crosshair and a rifle in the corner. Johnnie Runner (talk) 20:19, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

3. The Level 4 list doesn't even include some basics of science.飞车过大关 (talk) 17:25, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
4. Nevermind, i thought that this was a nomination to level 5, what a crazy mistake! In my opinion, it doesn't need to be level 4, and there are better options out there, especially like video game genre, which encompasses everything. Dylan240 (talk) 09:29, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
5. --Thi (talk) 10:16, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Tencent ◎ 5

Currently the most valuable company in China, as well one of the most important technology companies in the country by far. We have Alibaba Group ◎ 4 here and Tencent is at least as important. Tencent is the developer of services such as WeChat ◎ 5 and Tencent QQ ◎ 5, a major video games developer, has a stake in numerous important companies, offers numerous other services such as one of China's largest music apps as well as many other services. Due to WeChat alone, one literally cannot live in China without using services by Tencent; basically any Chinese person you're gonna meet will have WeChat or (more rarely) Tencent QQ.

Support

1. As nom. The Account 2 (talk) 15:42, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
2. Support adding or swap with Alibaba Group ◎ 4.飞车过大关 (talk) 16:25, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

   I think keeping Alibaba Group is ok; they've revolutionized China's e-commerce industry and now are a leading AI company too. I feel like Chinese companies can get a bit more representation here. The Account 2 (talk) 19:59, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

3. Support addition, weak oppose swap. Alibaba Group is itself similarly important in China. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 11:48, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
4. Dylan240 (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Hussein of Jordan ◎ 5

If this article is added to WP:VA4, I anticipate its classification as People → Politicians and leaders → Modern → Asia and Oceania → Western Asia.

In light of the ongoing Gaza war, I would like to propose the addition of a key figure in the history of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict ◎ 4. King Hussein bin Talal, the father of the reigning Abdullah II of Jordan ◎ 5. Simply stated, Hussein made Jordan ◎ 4 the second Arab country (and first Arab monarchy) to recognize Israel ◎ 3, in 1994. More broadly, Hussein transformed Jordan into the stable constitutional monarchy it is today, partially via expertly navigating decades of geopolitical tension. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 20:08, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

More information on Hussein's significance

Under his reign, infant mortality decreased faster in Jordan than in any other country. During Hussein's time on the throne, he also sought peace in the Gulf War ◎ 4 and the 1994 Yemeni Civil War. Furthermore, thanks to Hussein, Jordan became a major non-NATO ally in 1996. (The linked external biography provides further accomplishments of King Hussein)

Support

1. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 20:08, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Ipedecha (talk) 00:57, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
2. Instead of recentism, the ancient Arab Caliphs are the ones that should be prioritized for addition.飞车过大关 (talk) 04:43, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
3. Bluevestman (talk) 21:16, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Discussion

AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 20:08, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Remove The Troubles ◎ 4

One aim the Vital article project has is to reduce Western bias, and having The Troubles at the VA4 level puts too much emphasis on a region which ultimately has a relatively small population (the Island of Ireland's population is around 7 million, while Northern Ireland's population is 1.9 million). To give a comparison, other conflicts such as the Xinjiang conflict ◎ 5 (which impacts over 20 million people), the Kurdistan Workers' Party insurgency ◎ 5 (which impacts Turkey's 15 to 20 million Kurdish population) or the Kashmir conflict ◎ 5 (which has led to multiple wars between two countries with a combined population over a billion) are all at VA5 level. Even the Syrian civil war ◎ 5 (which impacted 22 million lives, led to the deaths of 660 thousand, led to a migrant crisis which impacted politics as far away as Germany, France and even the UK, and resulted in an overthrowing of a government) is at VA5 level.

Support

1. As nom. The Account 2 (talk) 10:18, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
2. Per nom.飞车过大关 (talk) 12:14, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

   Oppose adding Syrian civil war.飞车过大关 (talk) 08:59, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

3. KhaiDo (talk) 14:37, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

   Oppose adding Syrian civil war, which is sufficiently covered by Arab–Israeli conflict ◎ 4 and Arab Spring ◎ 4. I think adding would put too much emphasis on recent history. KhaiDo (talk) 03:49, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

   Why do you think the Syrian civil war is redundant to the Arab–Israeli conflict? Israel wasn't involved in the Syrian civil war as far as I know. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:08, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

4. Swap with one of those conflicts mentioned (preferably Syrian civil war ◎ 5 given its impact on dozens of countries and how it resulted in the fall of the final Ba'athist regime.) Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 10:58, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
5. Support swap with Syrian Civil War. Dess Dedalus (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

   I also support a swap with the Syrian civil war. The Account 2 (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

6. Support swap with Syrian Civil War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChaoticV (talk • contribs) 01:27, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
7. Support swap. Bluevestman (talk) 22:04, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Swap Puduḫepa ◎ 4 with Šuppiluliuma I ◎ 5

If we need to have a Hittite leader at this level, then I suggest we pick someone with better stats than the one we're currently listing. Stats for Puduḫepa: 21 interwikis, less than 30 watchers, 634 views last month. Stats for Šuppiluliuma I: 37 interwikis, 76 watchers, and 3,250 views last month.

Support

1. Bluevestman (talk) 22:31, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
2. 飞车过大关 (talk) 04:58, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
3. KhaiDo (talk) 06:45, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
4. Ipedecha (talk) 09:45, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
5. Per consensus. --Thi (talk) 08:56, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Reza Shah

In #Swap: Remove Mohammad Mosaddegh, Add Reza Shah there was opposition to removing Mohammad Mosaddegh, but some support for adding Reza Shah ◎ 5. Starting a fresh discussion to see if that can gain consensus. the wub "?!" 20:40, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

1. I think it's best to close this proposal.飞车过大关 (talk) 10:30, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
2. Bluevestman (talk) 17:52, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
3. Ipedecha (talk) 09:45, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Neutral

Add Hendrik Verwoerd ◎ 5 and/or José Eduardo dos Santos ◎ 5

A follow-up to here. Several names were suggested as a replacement and it seems that Verwoerd and Dos Santos received some support. One was the architect of Apartheid ◎ 4, the other ruled Angola for 38 years. Both seem logical choices for V4.

Support adding both

1. As nom. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 18:47, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
2. Bluevestman (talk) 01:31, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Support adding Verwoerd only

Support adding dos Santos only

Oppose

1. I strongly oppose the proposal to list these two individuals among the 2,000 most important people in history. This stems from my dissatisfaction with the Level 4 list's current bias towards 20th-century political biographies and its focus on identity politics rather than actual contributions.I also believe the expansion of the Level 4 list is falling into a dangerous trend: the assumption that people are always more important than events or concepts, that 20th-century figures are inherently more significant than those from ancient eras, and that politicians always outweigh scientists, thinkers, or political concepts.".飞车过大关 (talk) 18:28, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

Tightening up holidays

Remove New Year ◎ 4

New Year is a generic article for the concept on any calendar. Since the vast majority of the world uses the Gregorian calendar, and we list a number of specific New Year's celebrations unrelated to the one on December 31st/January 1st (Chinese New Year ◎ 4, Nowruz ◎ 4, Rosh Hashanah ◎ 4*), listing the catch-all is unnecessary, especially when New Year's Eve ◎ 4 is in range of passing.

Support

1. Johnnie Runner (talk) 21:28, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
2. Axeledits (talk) 13:03, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Remove Pentecost ◎ 5

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

---

A Christian holiday connected to a much more religiously significant and universally recognized holiday, Easter ◎ 4. Less liturgy-oriented denominations don't even do anything special for it.

Support

1. Johnnie Runner (talk) 21:28, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 10:24, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
3. Per nom. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 12:29, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
4. 飞车过大关 (talk) 18:29, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
5. Can't think of any reason to keep this one. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 04:05, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

I also considered nominating Rosh Hashanah ◎ 4 for similar reasons as Pentecost: it's part of the Ten Days of Repentance, which culminates in the more important Yom Kippur ◎ 4. But unlike Pentecost, Rosh Hoshanah is universally observed and exceptionally important in Judaism.* Johnnie Runner (talk) 21:28, 12 April 2026 (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.

Striking underrepresentation of protist articles at ◎ 4 Organisms

Given the -9 variance of Biology and health sciences ◎ 4 articles and the relative overrepresentation of other categories that are at least on the same level of importance (e.g., fishes, reptiles and birds), I would like to propose the addition of the following protist-related articles covered by WikiProject Protista:

1. Ciliate, given the presence of Alveolate ◎ 4 and Paramecium ◎ 4 (a ciliate genus).
2. Amoeba, given that Amoebozoa ◎ 4 and Slime mold ◎ 4 are already here.
3. Flagellate, given that Cryptomonad ◎ 4 and Dinoflagellate ◎ 4 are already here.
4. Oomycete, due to its importance alone.
5. Apicomplexa, due to its importance alone.
6. Protozoa, self-explanatory.
7. Radiolaria and
8. Foraminifera due to their extreme diversity in comparison to already present groups.

Frankly I cannot comprehend how we have pages such as Red-winged blackbird ◎ 4 and Slow loris ◎ 4 but not any of these. There are 7 articles alone for specific turtles, but none for Trypanosoma brucei, Phytophthora, Giardia or Plasmodium falciparum (despite Malaria ◎ 3). I think the difference in representation speaks for itself, a revision is necessary. — Snoteleks (talk) 19:50, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Support

1. (nom, presumably)
2. Ipedecha (talk) 13:34, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
3. Yeah we have a bias towards Charismatic megafauna , probably because this is because this list is not made by experts, but largely by people who have an elementary school level understanding on the topics. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:07, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

   @GeogSage: As per the proposer's user page, he is a biologist, "currently working on [his] PhD on protists". I am not convinced. I am sure we have some bigger gaps in other areas. Tomorrow, a turtle expert comes and argues that turtles are important and beneficial, while these amoebas and radiolarians we have added just ruin everything for everyone and make the life on Earth miserable. --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:41, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

4. Very persuasive arguments down in the "comments" section, easy support now. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 16:14, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Partial support

1. I don't think protists are the most underrepresented in level 4. I don't think we really need additional representation of protists when only 4 bacteria species/subclades are listed. However there are some obvious adds in here. Support only Ameoba, Flagellate, and Protozoa. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 03:39, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. They aren't there probably because no one cares about radiolarias. (Maybe some people, especially schoolchildren, care a bit more about amoebas, but Alveolate ◎ 4 Amoebozoa ◎ 4 is already added, so...) --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:19, 14 April 2026 (UTC) (edited by Moscow Connection (talk) 16:02, 14 April 2026 (UTC))

   @Moscow Connection Your dismissal of this as a "schoolchildren" interest borders on bad-faith bait. You are also conflating alveolates with amoebae, even though no alveolate is amoeboid. Could you elaborate on why you think nobody cares about amoebae but everyone cares about the red-winged blackbird? — Snoteleks (talk) 15:30, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

   It was a typo. I copy-pasted that {{VA link}} template from the wrong place. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:02, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

   I have no idea why everyone cares about the red-winged blackbird. Maybe it is because it is beautiful and you don't need a microscope to appreciate it. (I've looked at the picture, and I don't think I ever saw one. Not unexpectedly, given the distribution map.) This list is random, and your "self-explanatory" proposal to wholesale add 8 articles doesn't make it less that.
   The female looks like a common sparrow, btw. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:20, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Comments

• Could the importance of these groups be elaborated on? Amoeba should be obvious, it's one of the most famous forms of microorganism. But the rest are less familiar even to non-specialists, and I'm left having to take your word that ex. Apicomplexa is very important. What, exactly, is the distinction of Protozoa as opposed to Protista as a topic? The logic that specific kinds of ciliate and flagellate being notable means the larger clade article is, like, is not clear to me. Slow lorises and galagos are level 4 vital articles, but that does not mean that Lorisoidea is. In spirit, I support having more recognition of protists as significant topics alongside flashier, more recognizable organisms, but I would like to feel confident in the specific proposals I'd be supporting. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 23:36, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

  @LittleLazyLass Happy to explain, but to be clear, my logic is not that larger clade articles should be notable just because their components are. If that was the case, well, I will answer further below. But first, I will elaborate the importance of the articles I proposed, hopefully succintly. I mainly prioritized these based on both relevance outside academia and on the most popular WikiProject protista pages.

  1. Protozoa are subject of extensive research, not just as model organisms but also as agents of the deadliest human, animal, and crop diseases every year. Protozoa was one of the basic categories of life considered throughout history, preceding Protista, and it is taught in basic education worldwide. The concept of Protista is narrowly used in evolutionary biology and taxonomy, whereas Protozoa is more prevalent in ecology, parasitology, zoology, and basic biology. They are separate topics because Protozoa are a functional category, much like Algae ◎ 3 (which are also protists), whereas Protista are a taxonomic category, like Fungus ◎ 3.
  2. Ciliates are by far the most popular and charismatic group of protozoa. Their cells are huge, easily identifiable, present abundantly in any pond sample, and also frequent model organisms for all kinds of research (hence the presence of Paramecium ◎ 4). Most people are more familiar with the term "ciliate" than with the term "protist".
  3. Apicomplexa and Oomycetes are the most diverse groups of animal and plant parasites, respectively. Apicomplexans include numerous human pathogens, and virtually infect all animals; they are probably as thoroughly studied as ciliates, except ciliates are mostly non-parasitic. A similar case with oomycetes, they are of inmense importance in agriculture; some examples are the potato blight.
  4. Flagellates are also a functional category, not a clade. Their importance is due to them being one of the fundamental cell forms, like amoebae. All eukaryotes descend from flagellates, and often include a flagellate form at least once in their life cycle (such as Sperm ◎ 4, or fungal zoospores). Some flagellates are parasitic (like Giardia duodenalis ◎ 5) or otherwise symbiotic (like the ones that allow Termite ◎ 4 to digest wood), but many others are free-living and compose the vast majority of protists. They have a fundamental role in the trophic web, as they are the link between bacteria and higher trophic groups.
  5. Radiolaria and Foraminifera are not only popular pages, but they also have a massive number of species, are dominant in the oceanic plankton, and are frequently used by paleontologists as fossil markers.

  As for the "larger clade" logic, I agree that it should not be followed, and I would like to further question the relevance of two protist-related articles that are here:

  1. Cryptomonad ◎ 4 is not relevant in the slightest. Cryptomonads are a niche, species-poor group of flagellated algae that barely have any impact on Earth in comparison to radiolaria, foraminifera, or already present groups like Haptophyte ◎ 4.
  2. Chromalveolata ◎ 4 should be removed, as it is an obsolete taxonomic name from a hypothesis that was quickly abandoned, even by its own author who then coined Chromista ◎ 5, also obsolete.

  I am open to discuss alternatives to radiolaria and foraminifera, especially since they are both represented by Rhizaria ◎ 4, but not without first discussing the exclusion of other articles that make no sense in level 4 and are clearly here due to bias (to name a few: Aurochs ◎ 4, Gun dog ◎ 4, Agkistrodon piscivorus ◎ 4, and many of the so-called "larger clades", like Perissodactyla ◎ 4, Palaeognathae ◎ 4 (but not Neognathae?), Ophidiiformes ◎ 4, etc.). It would be hypocritical not to review those first, as their relevance is so niche (simply being marginally popular without much material impact) that the protist equivalent would rival Cryptomonad ◎ 4, Yellow-green algae ◎ 5 or even more irrelevant articles. I believe I am being quite limited in my proposal; a lot of these evidently belong to level 5. Take a look at the difference of Fungi between levels 4 (edible, scientifically and materially relevant, or highly poisonous and popular only) and 5 (most of the popular fungi plus some "larger clades"); this is the ideal pattern, but animals are not following it. — Snoteleks (talk) 02:39, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  • "Ciliates are by far the most popular and charismatic group of protozoa. Their cells are huge, easily identifiable, present abundantly in any pond sample."
    – Cuteness overload! I know only Paramecium caudatum cause in Russia it is called "a lady's shoe" (because of its shape) and is very popular among schoolchildren. --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:12, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Add The Girl from Ipanema ◎ 5

Proposing this as a straight add due to the fact that Arts is slightly under its quota, but our current music has a severe western bias and this song, one of the most famous Bossa nova ◎ 4 standards if not *the* most famous, likely deserves a spot here. I think the article says it all: "It is believed to be the second-most recorded pop song in history." We don't include Yesterday (song) ◎ 5 (which is first) due to overlap with Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band ◎ 4, but this song is one of the most influential songs from outside the Western world (possibly moreso than Gangnam Style ◎ 4 and could the added focus on improvement which an article's promotion in vitality status provides.

Support

1. As nom. Dess Dedalus (talk) 01:57, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
2. Widely known.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:04, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
3. Ipedecha (talk) 13:32, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
4. Probably the only other non-English song to be possibly V4. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 17:57, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
5. Dylan240 (talk) 06:42, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I think Antônio Carlos Jobim ◎ 4 is enough, and I consider Happy Birthday to You ◎ 5 is the song that comes closest to the Level 4 standard. It is likely the only song that is truly universally known worldwide.飞车过大关 (talk) 10:26, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

   Then perhaps make your proposal for adding Happy Birthday to You in as well? Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 17:40, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

   I oppose nominating any song articles. I believe the Level 4 list doesn't have sufficient slots to support this 'add everything' approach, which will only lead to indiscriminate inclusion.飞车过大关 (talk) 05:41, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

   Isn't it also a form of bias to elevate this jazz piece as the most popular non-Western musical work? I don't think its historical depth or audience reach can surpass that of Mo Li Hua ◎ 5. 飞车过大关 (talk) 05:50, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

2. Bossa nova is represented by three articles. --Thi (talk) 08:57, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

Signature

Dess Dedalus (talk) 01:57, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Add Consumerism ◎ 5

This should be level 3. Consumerism is an important topic especially since it made it easier for people to buy things.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 22:33, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. "Consumerism" is just a vogue term. The English edition of Wikipedia is the only one to have a large article on it.
   "It made it easier for people to buy things," says the nominator. How? Psychologically easier? Or by stimulating economic growth? I thought it was just a derogatory term. --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:27, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
   Moreover, I don't believe that overconsumption didn't exist in ancient times. --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:33, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
2. Not important than Consumption (economics) ◎ 5.飞车过大关 (talk) 05:16, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
3. Bluevestman (talk) 09:04, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

1. We also have Consumption (economics) ◎ 5 and Consumer ◎ 5. I₂Overcome ^talk 02:10, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Add Sacagawea ◎ 5 and Pocahontas ◎ 5

We have very little representation of Indigenous peoples of the Americas ◎ 4 at this level and none are women.

In fact, there is already an indigenous woman from North America on the Level 4 list (La Malinche ◎ 4).飞车过大关 (talk) 13:11, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

I apologize for the oversight. Reading the article, it seems there are many similarities between La Malinche and Sacagawea, only major difference being one was in (now) Mexico, and the other in (now) the US. Hence I don't think there's any US-centrism here. KhaiDo (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

I would argue that the fall of the Aztecs ◎ 3 was clearly more far-reaching in its impact than the Lewis and Clark Expedition, and La Malinche's influence on human history also outweighs that of Sacagawea. 飞车过大关 (talk) 16:16, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Add Sacagawea ◎ 5

Sacagawea was the interpreter for the Lewis and Clark Expedition ◎ 4, which helped establish diplomatic relations and trade between the US and indigenous nations, as well as the former's knowledge of the natural history and culture of various regions across thousands of kilometers. She has since been revered as a symbol of women's worth and independence.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 07:24, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Does merely serving as a guide for Meriwether Lewis ◎ 5 and William Clark ◎ 5 make one greater than both of them combined? Does it make one as significant as the Lewis and Clark Expedition ◎ 4 itself? Does it even qualify one as one of the most important women in human history? I believe such evaluation criteria reflect a US-centric magnifying glass effect, as well as a tendency to tokenize marginalized groups to cater to the politics of diversity.飞车过大关 (talk) 12:09, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

   I'm not sure what you mean by "make one greater than both of them combined". Is there a single article that covers both of them like Montgolfier brothers ◎ 4 or something? If so, then I'd support adding it. Otherwise, no, I don't think she's more vital than both of them combined, but probably more vital than them individually. Lewis and Clark were among the 42 men in the Corps of Discovery, while Sacagawea was the sole interpreter, making her critcical in forming diplomatic relations. She was also an important navigator by recognizing geographical features and landmakrs, as well as helped locate supplies. Given we list about 20+ actresses among hundreds of women at this leve, I don't think it's a stretch to include her. KhaiDo (talk) 15:04, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

   Lewis and Clark Expedition ◎ 4 is already on the Level 4 list. "Lewis and Clark" redirects here. 飞车过大关 (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

   Which means adding Sacagawea to Level 4 would not make her more vital than the article that is also at Level 4. KhaiDo (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

2. If Lewis and Clark aren't at this level, then she shouldn't be either. Bluevestman (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
3. Ipedecha (talk) 09:45, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

1. This proposal was actually raised a long time ago but was ultimately rejected. See Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level 4/Archive 33#Move Lewis and Clark Expedition to history, add Meriwether Lewis, William Clark (explorer) and Sacagawea in biographies .飞车过大关 (talk) 13:09, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

   The main concern seemed to be of oversaturating the list with too many closely-related entries, since OP also proposed adding the bios of Lewis and Clark. I don't see any argument against Sacagawea specifically. KhaiDo (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Add Pocahontas ◎ 5

Pocahontas is seen as a diplomatic mediator between the Powhatan people and the English colonists. Although her story, one that seems pale when it comes to her own material impact, is heavily contested, I think judging the vitality of women from centuries ago based on their agency (or marginalized groups in general) is unreasonable and reflects systemic bias. What matters is the symbolism and narratives surrounding Pocahontas in the arts and propaganda, which this article goes into extensively. The sheer number of editors, watchers, and pageviews also helps her case a lot.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 07:24, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
2. Bluevestman (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. If we measure a person's overall significance solely by their prominence in artistic works and propaganda, then why not just go ahead and add a fictional character? Furthermore, I believe such evaluation criteria reflect a US-centric magnifying glass effect, as well as a tendency to tokenize marginalized groups to cater to the politics of diversity.飞车过大关 (talk) 12:09, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

   I assume you mean adding an article on a fictionalized version of Pocahontas? I don't think one exists, but if there were, I'm not sure how a specific interpretation of a person among many should be prioritized over the person herself. KhaiDo (talk) 15:51, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

   My point is, if a real person is notable solely for their status in propaganda and fiction, we might as well just add a fictional character—like a figure from folklore.飞车过大关 (talk) 16:10, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

   Okay? I assume this is a reductio ad absurdum, i.e., the inclusion of Pocahontas would imply the inclusion of a fictional character, which is somehow absurd or unreasonable. There are fictional characters at this level, so I'm not sure what's absurd with that. You can reiterate your point with more clarity if I'm wrong here, cause this is the only interpretation that makes sense as an argument to me. KhaiDo (talk) 16:28, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

   What I mean is that adding a real person shouldn't automatically justify adding a fictional one. However, if out of tens of millions of articles, we choose to add a US-based figure who is famous solely due to promotion or a fictional work, lacks actual necessity, and is included purely due to identity politics, then I would rather support a significant increase in fictional characters. This is despite the fact that I am actually against adding fictional characters. I simply want to demonstrate that this person's importance is far from sufficient. Moreover, there is no evidence to suggest that this does not reinforce the US-centrism of the Level 4 list. As far as I know, we determine US-centrism bias based on the proportion of American figures in the Level 4 or Level 5 lists. Adding American Indians still reinforces the American quota. Therefore, I strongly object to proposals that deliberately add non-white American characters under the guise of promoting diversity and opposing Western-centrism/US-centrism.飞车过大关 (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

1. This proposal was actually raised a long time ago but was ultimately rejected. See Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level 4/Archive 64#Add Pocahontas.飞车过大关 (talk) 13:04, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

KhaiDo (talk) 07:24, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Add Desktop computer ◎ 5 and Laptop ◎ 5

The two most widely used Computer ◎ 2 types that are not smartphones.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 01:34, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
2. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:14, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
3. Support Laptop ◎ 5. I think that's a specific enough variant on Personal computer ◎ 4 to warrant its own entry. Johnnie Runner (talk) 06:15, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
4. Bluevestman (talk) 19:21, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
5. Support Laptop per Johnnie Runner.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 07:53, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. First, Desktop computer ◎ 5 and Laptop ◎ 5 fall under the category of Personal computer ◎ 4. While the PC is the most well-known form of a computer, I consider it highly unprofessional to conflate the concept of a "personal computer" with that of a "computer" in general. Secondly, while personal computers are undoubtedly vital, given that a significant number of young people in China rely exclusively on Smartphone ◎ 4 and lack basic PC operational skills, I believe their ubiquity hasn't reached a level that warrants listing two specific sub-types in the Level 4 list. Furthermore, I am of the opinion that there are other articles that should be included in the Level 4 list instead.飞车过大关 (talk) 06:15, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
2. Per chinese editor above. Smartphones are more widely used, and both desktop and laptop computers are already represented by Personal computer. Dylan240 (talk) 09:24, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 10:14, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
4. Per 飛車過大關. Both types of personal computers seem too similar in scope to justify V4. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 09:02, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
5. Oppose Desktop computer.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 07:53, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Some basic culture and arts additions

Add Oral literature  and Storytelling ◎ 5

Universal across all cultures, especially important to Folklore ◎ 2. Oral literature in particular was literature as humanity knew it before Writing ◎ 2, which I think justifies skipping level 5.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 04:50, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oral literature is not even a Level 5 article. Bluevestman (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

   @Bluevestman: KhaiDo nominated articles that aren't on the VA5 list because he is adhering to WP:IGNORE. He believes that WP:VANOSKIP is detrimental to improving the VA4 or VA3 lists, so he chose to bypass the VA5 discussion and nominate directly in the VA4 discussion. Additionally, the proposal at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles#Proposal: Remove WP:VANOSKIP has already garnered considerable support. If you're interested, feel free to cast your vote.飞车过大关 (talk) 17:48, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

   Oppose addition of oral literature as it's redundant to Oral tradition ◎ 3. A problem with allowing direct proposals to levels 4, 3, and 2 is it's likely to result in a lot of redundant listings. Melozone crissalis (talk) 19:36, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

   @Melozone crissalis: How is it redundant when oral tradition also encompasses Oral history ◎ 5 and Oral law ? KhaiDo (talk) 03:37, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

   If defined that way, it is also a rather similar topic to Folklore ◎ 2. I don't think the distinction justifies listing this as well. Melozone crissalis (talk) 21:40, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

   Redundancy only works for articles at the same level. If I were to nominate this for level 3, which is where Oral tradition is ạt, then you would be more justified. But since I'm nominating ít for level 4, Oral literature, being a prominent component of Oral tradition (or else ít would have been a redirect) and of Literature ◎ 2, should be here, adhering to the "articles at higher levels tend to cover ones at lower levels" criterion. KhaiDo (talk) 05:46, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

   After more investigation, I may have been wrong about this, so I strike my vote. Melozone crissalis (talk) 05:02, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

   Again, you might want to reconsider your vote withdrawal on that proposal. Bluevestman (talk) 17:22, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Play (theatre) ◎ 5

Should be ahead of Musical theatre ◎ 4. We list about a dozen plays at this level.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 04:50, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
2. Bluevestman (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
3. Axeledits (talk) 12:57, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
4. ARoseThorn (talk) 20:50, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
5. Arguably plays define the concept of theatre as we know it. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 16:53, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Literary theory ◎ 5

Study of literature and methods for Literary criticism ◎ 4.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 04:50, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
2. Ipedecha (talk) 09:45, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Bluevestman (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
2. I prefer Critical theory ◎ 5.飞车过大关 (talk) 18:34, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Craft ◎ 5

We have Handicraft ◎ 4.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 04:50, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Bluevestman (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Film director ◎ 5

There is no separate article on the art of directing, so I think this is an appropriate addition.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 04:50, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
2. Bluevestman (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Ipedecha (talk) 09:45, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
2. 飞车过大关 (talk) 18:32, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Fashion design ◎ 5

We have Coco Chanel ◎ 4 and Yves Saint Laurent (designer) ◎ 4, the former is most definitely VA4.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 04:50, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
2. Bluevestman (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
3. 飞车过大关 (talk) 21:16, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
4. Ipedecha (talk) 09:45, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. We literally just removed all individual fashion designs from VA5 a little over two months ago. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 16:59, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

   Two things can be true. The concept of fashion design is light years ahead of any individual design in importance. All the specific clothes here are also fashion designs. KhaiDo (talk) 17:59, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Video game design ◎ 5

Similarly, we have Shigeru Miyamoto ◎ 4, and Video game ◎ 3 is VA3.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 04:50, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
2. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/it • talk • edits) 11:26, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
3. Ipedecha (talk) 09:45, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
4. Additionally we list six video games at VA4. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 16:59, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Bluevestman (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 17:25, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
3. Dawid2009 (talk) 10:17, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

What about Game design ◎ 5?--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 21:45, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Add Traditional animation ◎ 5 and Computer animation ◎ 5

Animation ◎ 3 is one of the few VA3 topics with little expansion at Level 4, with only Anime ◎ 4 and some specific works. Traditional animation is, of course, the dominant technique before the emergence of CGI, and is still essential to anime, while computer animation is the reason Toy Story ◎ 4 got here.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 04:50, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
2. I think the only real reason to oppose these is quota concerns (there are many other addition noms), but room can be made again. More important than e.g. Neon Genesis Evangelion ◎ 5 which I've thought about nominating as arguably more significant for anime history than Spirited Away ◎ 4.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 07:13, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
3. Ipedecha (talk) 09:45, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
4. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 17:00, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
5. Axeledits (talk) 19:42, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Bluevestman (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
2. 飞车过大关 (talk) 05:20, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

KhaiDo (talk) 04:50, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

1. @Axeledits:Level 4 and Level 5 discussion areas have different rules. A Level 4 proposal need 5 support votes to pass. You should to cast the 5th support vote and then wait 15 days before closing it.飞车过大关 (talk) 18:14, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Add Novella ◎ 5

Initially forgot about this, should be at least near the level of Novel ◎ 3 and Short story ◎ 3. Major examples include The Metamorphosis ◎ 4, A Christmas Carol ◎ 4, Heart of Darkness ◎ 4, Candide ◎ 4, The Old Man and the Sea ◎ 5, The Stranger (Camus novel) ◎ 4, The Alchemist (novel) ◎ 5, (might wanna change the titles), Animal Farm ◎ 5, Of Mice and Men ◎ 5, Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde ◎ 5, etc.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 18:09, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
2. Bluevestman (talk) 18:11, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Remove Oil

Oil ◎ 4 actually refers to several substances with only certain physical properties in common, which everyone in the vote to add it missed. We already list Petroleum ◎ 3, Fat ◎ 4 and Cooking oil ◎ 4.

Support

1. As nominator Lophotrochozoa (talk) 10:53, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I oppose the removal of Oil. It is more critical than the soon-to-be-added Neurodiversity, and arguably more important than the vast majority of biographies currently on the Level 4 list.飞车过大关 (talk) 11:07, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

   What do these disparate substances have in common that makes it worth listing on level 4? Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:32, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

2. Bluevestman (talk) 17:07, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

   Why do you insist on listing this glorified disambiguation? Lophotrochozoa (talk) 13:21, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

Add Obsessive–compulsive disorder ◎ 5

Very serious mental health condition that is more prevalent in the global population (about 2.3%) than Autism ◎ 3 (about 1%), Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder ◎ 4 (0.8–1.5%), and Schizophrenia ◎ 4 (about 0.32%), and comparable to Bipolar disorder ◎ 4 (about 2.4%, sources vary).

Support

1. As nom. I₂Overcome ^talk 12:48, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
2. Bluevestman (talk) 01:24, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
3. Unlike BPD which is at least somewhat covered by Personality disorder ◎ 4, OCD isn't really like any other mental disorder we list. Johnnie Runner (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
4. Per nom and Johnnie Runner. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 17:03, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Borderline personality disorder ◎ 5

Another serious mental health disorder with a global prevalence estimated at 0.7 to 2.7%:

Support

1. As nom. I₂Overcome ^talk 12:49, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
2. Bluevestman (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

General education topics

Add Tertiary education ◎ 5

Educational stage that encompasses Undergraduate education ◎ 5, Postgraduate education ◎ 5, and Vocational education ◎ 5. Should be on the same level as Early childhood education ◎ 4, Primary education ◎ 4, and Secondary education ◎ 4.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 13:52, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
2. 飞车过大关 (talk) 13:04, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
3. Easy add. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 09:34, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Teaching ◎ 5

If Learning ◎ 3 is at level 3 and Teacher ◎ 4 is at level 4. (For reference, Acting ◎ 4 and Actor ◎ 4 are both at level 4.)

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 13:52, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
2. Per below - I support swapping teacher with teaching. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:26, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Teacher ◎ 4 is enough, I would prefer to add Training ◎ 5.飞车过大关 (talk) 12:07, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

   Well you can support adding Teaching and removing Teacher, since the practice should be more vital than the person practicing ít, like how Learning ◎ 3, which Studying redirects to, is ahead of Student ◎ 5. KhaiDo (talk) 11:47, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

Remove Teacher ◎ 4 or add Student ◎ 5

They should be on the same level.

Remove Teacher

Add Student

1. 飞车过大关 (talk) 12:08, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
2. Axeledits (talk) 12:58, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Oppose both

Oppose addition

1. Except that we may end up swapping teacher with teaching. So that would mean we should consider Studying which redirects to Learning ◎ 3... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:26, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

   I suppose you mean Learning and Teaching should be on the same level as well, which I disagree, since teaching is supposed to serve the purpose of learning, while learning does not necessarily require teaching. KhaiDo (talk) 04:33, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

   That's what I mean, and I stand by that. Teaching might be somewhat less broad than learning, but it still much more basic and important than a lot of concept we have listed, or are considering. In fact, I'd support it before pedagogy discussed just below (which I also support). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:12, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Pedagogy ◎ 5

The academic discipline of education.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 13:52, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
2. 飞车过大关 (talk) 18:37, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
3. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:26, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
4. Ipedecha (talk) 10:47, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
5. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 09:34, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Homework ◎ 5

One of the most basic and widely discussed topics in education, alongside Lesson ◎ 4 and Exam ◎ 4.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 13:52, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
2. Support or swap with Lesson.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:08, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
3. One of the fundamental means of judging a student's ability to learn. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 09:34, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. It feels a bit too broad compared to the other two concepts.飞车过大关 (talk) 18:35, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

Remove Boarding school ◎ 5

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

---

We do not list any other school type at this level, aside from University ◎ 3. We do not list Kindergarten ◎ 5, Primary school ◎ 5, or Secondary school ◎ 5.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 13:52, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
2. Student accommodation  not in VA list.飞车过大关 (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
3. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:26, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
4. Axeledits (talk) 11:02, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
5. I'm not even sure why this is on V4 in the first place. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 09:34, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

KhaiDo (talk) 13:52, 26 April 2026 (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.

Some dual articles

Add Urban area ◎ 5

Due to Rural area ◎ 4, and Urbanization ◎ 3 is at level 3.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 17:13, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
2. Ipedecha (talk) 10:47, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 09:07, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
4. Dylan240 (talk) 05:35, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

1. Rural area already has a contrasting article on the list - City ◎ 3, as well as Metropolitan area ◎ 4. This is slightly redundant, but not enough that I'll oppose it. Melozone crissalis (talk) 22:45, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Add Emigration ◎ 5

Emigration and Immigration ◎ 4 are the two perspectives of Human migration ◎ 3.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 17:13, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
2. Ipedecha (talk) 10:47, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Remove Bob Woodward ◎ 5

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

---

Only known for collaborating with Carl Bernstein ◎ 5 to report the Watergate scandal ◎ 5, which is only at level 5. Pretty US-centric.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 17:13, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
2. Not important than Liang Qichao ◎ 5.飞车过大关 (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
4. Axeledits (talk) 12:59, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
5. The Account 2 (talk) 12:29, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
6. Ipedecha (talk) 10:47, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
7. Received numerous awards and wrote 14 bestsellers, but is likely secondary to Watergate.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 07:02, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

KhaiDo (talk) 17:13, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I generally agree with this argument, but I'm worried that every journalist will get removed from level 4 for only being important in one country (Ida Tarbell ◎ 5 has also been proposed for removal), and we'll be left with only David Attenborough ◎ 4, who is not really even a journalist. I also think some of the reason for listing so many journalists in the US and UK is because this is the English-language Wikipedia, and that's what readers will be most interested in. Melozone crissalis (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

I too think that English WP should tailor its vital articles list based on its English readership. We are in the minority with people wanting broader diversity of subject matter based on international interests.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:18, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Per WP:VACRIT, "While the vitals list is for English Wikipedia, the focus is on the world." To be honest, I don't know what "tailored to the English Wikipedia" is supposed to entail either. Nonetheless, there is no need to worry about every journalist being removed when there are clear locks like Joseph Pulitzer ◎ 4 and William Randolph Hearst ◎ 4. KhaiDo (talk) 03:21, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

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

Add Head of government ◎ 5

Head of state ◎ 4 is level 4.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 20:17, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
2. KhaiDo (talk) 06:23, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
3. The Account 2 (talk) 19:16, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Add Punctuation ◎ 5

Kinda basic languages stuff, most languages used nowadays, and its basically essencial to write. Writing any sentence in english without using spaces is kinda difulcut. The punctuation subsection has 18 other articles in v5, like Comma ◎ 5 and Hyphen ◎ 5.

Support

1. As nom. Ipedecha (talk) 10:47, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
2. Per nom.飞车过大关 (talk) 21:13, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Neutral on this one, as it is covered by Orthography ◎ 4, which also includes concepts like Spelling ◎ 5.

Oops, forgot to sign. KhaiDo (talk) 18:31, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Add Setting (narrative) ◎ 5

Other basic narrative stuff. Honestly is soo basic that the description of the vast majority of works saws the setting in the first paragraphy.

Support

1. As nom. Ipedecha (talk) 10:47, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. 飞车过大关 (talk) 21:10, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
2. There are many other likely better narrative elements to consider, such as Theme (narrative) ◎ 5 in addition to those KhaiDo already mentioned.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 06:58, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 17:20, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

I'm not sure about this. Out of all the entries at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level 5/Arts/Narrative arts#Narrative, Plot (narrative) ◎ 5 and Protagonist ◎ 5 seem to be much better candidates. KhaiDo (talk) 06:30, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Some glaring omissions

Add Natural environment ◎ 5

What most people mean when referring to "the environment".

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 18:25, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
2. 飞车过大关 (talk) 21:09, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
3. Ipedecha (talk) 11:00, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
4. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 10:53, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Traffic ◎ 5

Traffic laws also redirect here.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 18:25, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
2. 飞车过大关 (talk) 21:09, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
3. Ipedecha (talk) 11:00, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
4. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 10:53, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Contradiction ◎ 5

One of the utmost basic concepts in Logic ◎ 2, profoundly important to Mathematical proof ◎ 3.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 18:25, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
2. 飞车过大关 (talk) 21:09, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
3. Ipedecha (talk) 11:00, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
4. One can make the argument for a V3. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 10:53, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

The last two are procedural proposals to adhere to WP:VANOSKIP. Further information at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level 3#Writing.

Add Logogram ◎ 5

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 18:25, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
2. 飞车过大关 (talk) 21:09, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
3. Ipedecha (talk) 11:00, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
4. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 10:53, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Numeral system ◎ 5

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 18:25, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
2. 飞车过大关 (talk) 21:09, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
3. Ipedecha (talk) 11:00, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
4. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 10:53, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

KhaiDo (talk) 18:25, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Linguistics basics

Remove A Dictionary of the English Language ◎ 5

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

---

13 iwikis and abysmal numbers of watchers and editors for an English work, inferior to Oxford English Dictionary ◎ 4.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 07:45, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 09:06, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
3. Not more important than History of English ◎ 5, its author Samuel Johnson ◎ 4 is enough at this level. ~170 daily pageviews.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 10:36, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
4. Not important than Erya ◎ 5.飞车过大关 (talk) 21:07, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
5. The Account 2 (talk) 19:07, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
6. I can't see the purpose of keeping this.Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 10:55, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

Add Vocabulary ◎ 5

Pretty important for studying languages, and probably better than Lexicon ◎ 5.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 07:45, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
2. Axeledits (talk) 16:12, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
3. Word at V3, Vocabulary at V4, Lexicon at V5. That sounds logical. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 10:55, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. 飞车过大关 (talk) 21:07, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 17:21, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

1. We have Word ◎ 3.飞车过大关 (talk) 21:07, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Add Conversation ◎ 5

Not just important in linguistics but also in Socialization ◎ 4.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 07:45, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
2. Axeledits (talk) 16:13, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
3. 飞车过大关 (talk) 21:07, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
4. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 10:55, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Proposition ◎ 5

Also widely studied across philosophy, logic, and psychology.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 07:45, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
2. 飞车过大关 (talk) 21:07, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
3. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 10:55, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Question ◎ 5

Complementary to Proposition.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 07:45, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
2. 飞车过大关 (talk) 21:07, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
3. Axeledits (talk) 12:14, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
4. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 10:55, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Language acquisition ◎ 5

A critical part of human development.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 07:45, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
2. 飞车过大关 (talk) 21:07, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
3. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 10:55, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Philology ◎ 5

J. R. R. Tolkien ◎ 4 and Friedrich Nietzsche ◎ 4 were both philologists, as well as a bunch at level 5 such as Jacob Grimm ◎ 5, William Jones (philologist) ◎ 5, Max Müller ◎ 5, and Rasmus Rask ◎ 5.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 07:45, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Theoretical linguistics ◎ 5 and Applied linguistics ◎ 5

Some major branches of the field.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 07:45, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

KhaiDo (talk) 07:45, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

1. I'm not entirely sure which overview articles tagged with 'Applied' or 'Theoretical' are currently included in the Level 4 list. I believe both directions apply to all disciplines. However, if we explicitly list these two categories specifically for Linguistics but fail to do so for other fields, that seems somewhat unfair.飞车过大关 (talk) 21:07, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Add Gold rush ◎ 5

I was thinking of how, maybe the Brazilian gold rush ◎ 5 could be included as it had a immense impact both in Brazil and the Portuguese Empire ◎ 4. But, then i realized that as a gold rush, the gold rush should be added instead. Gold rushes are major event in anywhere they happened and majorly change the society around them. From the Australian, to the South african. All had a major impact.

Support

1. As nom. Ipedecha (talk) 10:50, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
2. KhaiDo (talk) 14:29, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
3. Bluevestman (talk) 18:41, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Health adds and swaps

Add Refractive error ◎ 5

The most common cause of Visual impairment ◎ 4; includes Myopia ◎ 5, Farsightedness ◎ 5, Astigmatism ◎ 5, and Presbyopia ◎ 5; affects 1 to 2 billion people worldwide; more important than Color blindness ◎ 4.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
2. 飞车过大关 (talk) 18:58, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
3. Bluevestman (talk) 18:17, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
4. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 11:00, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Swap Bubonic plague ◎ 4 for Plague (disease) ◎ 5

Why bubonic is likely the most common throughout history, there have been evidence to suggest that the pneumonic plague was the main culprit behind the Black Death ◎ 3. For the sake of WP:NPOV, I think these should be swapped.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
2. 飞车过大关 (talk) 18:58, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
3. Bluevestman (talk) 18:17, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
4. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 11:00, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
5. --Thi (talk) 09:00, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Learning disability ◎ 5

Including but not limited to Dyslexia ◎ 4, Dysgraphia ◎ 5, and Dyscalculia ◎ 5, closely related to Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder ◎ 4.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
2. Bluevestman (talk) 18:17, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
3. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 11:00, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Pathology ◎ 5

Study of Disease ◎ 2.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
2. Bluevestman (talk) 18:17, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
3. 飞车过大关 (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
4. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 11:00, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
5. Ipedecha (talk) 00:07, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Mood disorder ◎ 5 and Sleep disorder ◎ 5

Have their own sections at level 5.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
2. Bluevestman (talk) 18:17, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
3. If the sections exist, usually the general articles themselves are needed. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 11:00, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Swap Shaving ◎ 4 for Hair removal ◎ 5

There have been more increasingly popular methods of hair removal aside from shaving.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
2. The Shaving article is less visited (6,160 vs 9,974 pageviews in last 30 days) but more translated (44 vs 29 iwikis) than Hair removal; there are specific cultural associations with shaving which aren't captured in the Hair removal article, but hair removal is obviously more general. Leaning towards swap. ARoseThorn (talk) 20:18, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Bluevestman (talk) 18:17, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
2. Not convinced this is swap material. I might support adding hair removal but a swap seems like an overcorrection. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 17:00, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

   @DemocracyDeprivationDisorder: Shaving is the only hair removal method at either level. Waxing  and Laser hair removal  are not listed. KhaiDo (talk) 18:13, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

Swap Health effects of smoking tobacco ◎ 4 for Tobacco smoking 

I think this one is obvious enough for me to skip level 5. Tobacco smoking has played an important role in society as a whole.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
2. Bluevestman (talk) 18:17, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
3. The more general article is definitely more important here. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 11:00, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Will not support having an article skip a level. Bluevestman (talk) 06:48, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

   @Bluevestman The proposal at level 5 is about to pass. KhaiDo (talk) 06:52, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

   Not re-adding my vote. Bluevestman (talk) 07:05, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

KhaiDo (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Legal documents

Add Treaty ◎ 5

We list a bunch of treaties (international covenants) at this level. Peace treaty ◎ 5 falls under it. Pretty important in International relations ◎ 4.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
2. 飞车过大关 (talk) 17:41, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
3. The Account 2 (talk) 19:53, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
4. Bluevestman (talk) 00:43, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
5. Ipedecha (talk) 15:40, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
6. A cornerstone in international relations. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 11:08, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Remove Nuremberg principles ◎ 4

This is the only criminal law document at either level 4 or 5. International criminal law ◎ 5 is not even listed, as it is covered by International law ◎ 4. The Nuremberg trials ◎ 5, which established the principles, are also not listed.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
2. Per nom.飞车过大关 (talk) 17:41, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
3. The Account 2 (talk) 19:53, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
4. --Thi (talk) 20:29, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
5. Bluevestman (talk) 00:43, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
6. Ipedecha (talk) 15:40, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Remove Statute of Westminster 1931 ◎ 4

No real global influence or legal heritage outside a couple of states in the Anglosphere, and already implicitly repealed in former Commonwealth countries.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
2. 飞车过大关 (talk) 17:41, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
3. The Account 2 (talk) 19:53, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
4. --Thi (talk) 20:29, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
5. Bluevestman (talk) 00:43, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
6. Ipedecha (talk) 15:40, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
7. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 11:08, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Independence ◎ 5

If the United States Declaration of Independence ◎ 4 is here.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
2. The Account 2 (talk) 19:53, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
3. Bluevestman (talk) 00:43, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
4. Ipedecha (talk) 15:40, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
5. Support, and I question why two of thirteen specific documents pertain to the United States. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 11:08, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
6. Dylan240 (talk) 04:16, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Not a very meaningful concept for an article. Sovereignty ◎ 4, Self-determination ◎ 4, and Liberty ◎ 3 are more meaningful. Melozone crissalis (talk) 20:08, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
2. Per Melozone crissalis.飞车过大关 (talk) 20:12, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
3. Per M. crissalis. Johnnie Runner (talk) 17:31, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
4. --Thi (talk) 17:29, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

KhaiDo (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Remove Robert Moses ◎ 4

As much as he gets blame for how car-centric the typical American city is today, twenty-four interwikis is still too low to be on here.

Support

1. Bluevestman (talk) 00:52, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
2. 飞车过大关 (talk) 05:57, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 08:53, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
4. KhaiDo (talk) 11:17, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
5. Ipedecha (talk) 15:40, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
6. The Account 2 (talk) 14:22, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Swap Ahura Mazda ◎ 5 for Aphrodite ◎ 4 (or Venus (mythology) ◎ 4)

Ahura Mazda is the main god of Zoroastrianism ◎ 3, straight up first paragraph mention. The god section is missing a ton of very important gods, i mention Ahura Mazda, the main god of v3 religion, but chinese folk religion has almost no one, shinto has one, inca has 0, Astec has 1, Africa has 1, so i dont think is wise too double up on different versions of the same god (this includes jupiter and i might nominated a swap with Sol Invictus if my proposal pass), especially one that isnt the main god or even by far and away a main god. I think Venus is more important than Aphrodites, not only its name it common as a symbol of female sexuality like Venus flytrap and many famous painting uses venus instead of aphrodites like The Birth of Venus ◎ 4, but venus has a especial place in roman mythology that can be seen in works such as the Aeneid ◎ 4 and in Julius Caesar ◎ 3 claiming descend from her.

Support swap with Aphrodite

1. I would also support swapping with venus, but i prefer this one. Ipedecha (talk) 15:40, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
2. KhaiDo (talk) 15:47, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
3. 飞车过大关 (talk) 16:07, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Support swap with Venus

1. Bluevestman (talk) 18:31, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Partial support

Oppose

Discuss

Nonfiction swaps

Swap The Book of Healing ◎ 4 for Al-Jabr ◎ 5

Following the imminent promotion of The Canon of Medicine ◎ 4, both of Avicenna's vital works will be VA4. The only other person I can think of that has 2 VA4 works but 0 VA5 works is Homer ◎ 3, with his Iliad ◎ 4 and Odyssey ◎ 4, which makes sense since those are the only works unanimously attributed to him. The same thing cannot really be said for Avicenna. Indeed, his science and philosophy encyclopedia isn't quite on equal footing with his medical work. Al-Jabr, on the other hand, is the founding text (as a distinct discipline) and etymology of Algebra ◎ 2, as well as the single most prominent work of Al-Khwarizmi ◎ 3.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 20:08, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
2. Support addition, oppose removal. Avicenna's medical work traveled further outside of his native land, but his philosophical work is probably second only to Aristotle (who has 3 VA4 works) in influence in the Middle East. Johnnie Runner (talk) 18:03, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
3. Support addition, oppose removal per JohnnieRunner. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 10:53, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
4. Support add, oppose remove. Ipedecha (talk) 11:07, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Swap King James Version ◎ 4 for Buddhist canons ◎ 5

Hebrew Bible ◎ 4, Torah ◎ 4, Vulgate ◎ 4, Gutenberg Bible ◎ 4, Old Testament ◎ 4, New Testament ◎ 4. I shouldn't need to explain the bias towards the Bible and Abrahamic religions in general. Unlike the Gutenberg edition which is remembered for its historical and technological significance in relation to printing (something no other text at this level really covers), KJV is simply an English translation that is now used in Anglican and English Protestant churches, suggesting a heavy Anglosphere bias. The Buddhist canons, or Tripiṭaka, refer to the vast seminal texts within different traditions. Hence why I think just listing the Pali Canon ◎ 4, which is unique to the Theravada ◎ 3 tradition, is not sufficient.

Note that, however, Buddhist canons should be listed under Philosophy and religion → Religion and spirituality → Eastern religions → Buddhism.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 20:08, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
2. 飞车过大关 (talk) 20:16, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
3. The KJV may be the most readily recognizable version of the Bible but we have too many of them. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 10:53, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
4. The Account 2 (talk) 21:46, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
5. Ipedecha (talk) 11:07, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Swap Night (memoir) ◎ 4 for The Diary of a Young Girl ◎ 5

If we're going to have any piece of Holocaust literature, it should be this one. It is clearly more popular, dominates in page statistics across the board, and is ranked drastically higher (#109 vs #574) on thegreatestbooks.org. It was also #19 on Le Monde's 100 Books of the Century.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 20:08, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
2. Support removal, oppose addition.飞车过大关 (talk) 20:16, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
3. Support addition, oppose removal. While I get the concerns towards the major overlap between The Diary of a Young Girl and Anne Frank's life, it simply is not possible to discuss Holocaust literature without mentioning her book. It also provides for contrast between one written by a survivor of the Holocaust and one written by a victim of the Holocaust. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 10:53, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
4. Support only remove. Ipedecha (talk) 11:07, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose addition, overlap with Anne Frank ◎ 4 as stated in previous discussions. Undecided on removal, we do also have Night's author Elie Wiesel ◎ 4 on this level but I'd say there is less 1-to-1 overlap due to him living much longer and his book detailing the concentration camps themselves.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:28, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
2. Support removal, oppose addition because of overlap. --Thi (talk) 17:30, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

KhaiDo (talk) 20:08, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Remove Northeast Passage ◎ 4 and Northwest Passage ◎ 4

I have zero ideia why the only shipping routes in v4 are the one that almost nobody uses and only started being navigated during the 19th century. There is propably more commerce in the Kharg Island ◎ 5 than these two shipping lanes combined. Geography is full of more important thing in v5.

Support

1. As nom. Ipedecha (talk) 11:07, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
2. 飞车过大关 (talk) 16:34, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 17:31, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
4. Dylan240 (talk) 18:51, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
5. KhaiDo (talk) 18:54, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Partial support

Oppose

Discuss

Some specific structures

Remove Florence Cathedral ◎ 4

One of the five structures in Italy (alongside Colosseum ◎ 4, Leaning Tower of Pisa ◎ 4, Pantheon, Rome ◎ 4, and St. Peter's Basilica ◎ 4) and four Catholic churches (alongside Notre-Dame de Paris ◎ 4, Sagrada Família ◎ 4, and again, St. Peter's Basilica ◎ 4) at this level. Not quite the same significance as the rest.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 15:55, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
3. The Account 2 (talk) 18:10, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
4. I didnt understand the lack of support towards it, there is even thing not even in v5 (yet i have propose it) that i consider more important like the Shaolin Monastery . Ipedecha (talk) 00:07, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

   Setting aside the theme of Shaolin kung fu or Zen ◎ 4, which are completely unrelated to architecture, I believe it is inappropriate to place the Shaolin Temple above Florence Cathedral from a purely architectural and historical perspective. The Shaolin Temple itself is not considered a significant ancient building in Chinese architectural history, whereas Florence Cathedral holds an exceptionally high status in Western architectural art. Of course, if we are judging by religious significance, the White Horse Temple  is arguably far more important than the Shaolin Temple. 飞车过大关 (talk) 20:13, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I think what we should do is remove Western writers, instead of repeating recent discussions that failed (even though I also want to restart some of these failed discussions myself now).飞车过大关 (talk) 16:32, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

   I think restarting this soon is fine as long as there's sufficient reason to believe the original discussion did not tackle the matter in enough depth for the voters to make rational decisions. As someone raised Catholic, I can attest that the Florence Cathedral holds little to no religious significance, and I don't think it's the same level as most of L4 entries architecturally either. KhaiDo (talk) 16:59, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

2. Bluevestman (talk) 18:02, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
3. Concurring with 飞车过大关 here. Why are we relitigating this just a month after? Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 18:54, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

Remove Arc de Triomphe ◎ 4

One of the four structures in Paris (alongside Eiffel Tower ◎ 4, Notre-Dame de Paris ◎ 4 and Palace of Versailles ◎ 4) at this level. This one is definitely the weakest and one of the few structures here that is not part of a World Heritage Site.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 15:55, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
3. The Account 2 (talk) 18:09, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
4. 飞车过大关 (talk) 20:23, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Bluevestman (talk) 18:02, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Masjid al-Haram ◎ 5

The holiest Mosque ◎ 4, and one of the oldest, in Islam. Although some might say this is too much overlap with Kaaba ◎ 4, we also list both Acropolis of Athens ◎ 4 and Parthenon ◎ 4, so I don't see a problem.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 15:55, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
2. Bluevestman (talk) 18:02, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
3. Ipedecha (talk) 00:07, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

KhaiDo (talk) 15:55, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Trimming the Western canon

With a lot of new additions likely coming to Level-4, some reductions are going to be needed sooner or later. There's a vague consensus that the Western canon is overrepresented, but where exactly is a difficult question. Here are the safest removals I could come up with.

Remove The Scarlet Letter ◎ 4

It's a staple of high school curriculum in the United States, but I don't believe it's particularly well-read outside of that exact context.

Support

1. Johnnie Runner (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
2. KhaiDo (talk) 10:17, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 17:35, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
4. 飞车过大关 (talk) 04:21, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
5. I really want to oppose, but has not had serious attention in over 30 years. I don't think the 2010 comedy adaptation by Emma Stone helps the cause.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:09, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
6. The Account 2 (talk) 18:04, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
7. Ipedecha (talk) 00:07, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Bluevestman (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Remove The Call of the Wild ◎ 4

Similar situation to The Scarlet Letter, but I don't think this one's particularly popular even in high schools anymore. Jack London ◎ 4 alone is enough.

Support

1. Johnnie Runner (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
2. 飞车过大关 (talk) 19:37, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
3. Not more important than Yukon ◎ 5. KhaiDo (talk) 10:17, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
4. --Thi (talk) 17:35, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
5. Bluevestman (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
6. The Account 2 (talk) 18:06, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
7. Ipedecha (talk) 00:07, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Still popular enough to warrant a 2009 film remake and 2020 film remake starring Harrison Ford. Not many works get that much attention over a 100 years after the original publication (1903).-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:02, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Remove Patrick White ◎ 4

I opposed removing Banjo Paterson ◎ 4 for his highly-concentrated influence on Australian culture, but I can't say the same about Patrick White. He won a Nobel, but that doesn't translate to influence.

Support

1. Johnnie Runner (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
2. 飞车过大关 (talk) 19:37, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
3. KhaiDo (talk) 10:17, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
4. --Thi (talk) 17:35, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
5. Still think Paterson should be removed. Bluevestman (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
6. The Account 2 (talk) 18:08, 18 May 2026 (UTC)~
7. Ipedecha (talk) 00:07, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Remove Henry James ◎ 4

A fascinating author, maybe so much so that it's prevented his influence from being greater. Realism and modernism are both extensively covered categories of literature.

Support

1. Johnnie Runner (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
2. KhaiDo (talk) 10:17, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
3. The Account 2 (talk) 18:09, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
4. Ipedecha (talk) 00:07, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --Thi (talk) 17:35, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
2. Bluevestman (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
3. Unless Ivan Bunin ◎ 4 is removed, I refuse to remove him. His literary contributions far exceed those of many writers on the Level 4 list.飞车过大关 (talk) 20:02, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

   Both are American writers, yet Henry James, one of the most outstanding authors in the US, was at risk of being removed. Meanwhile, Alice Walker, a Black female writer, would likely be added to replace him. From the perspective of American literary history, I think this is purely due to identity politics rather than actual literary considerations.飞车过大关 (talk) 18:41, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Remove Enid Blyton ◎ 4

Between Dr. Seuss ◎ 4, Rudyard Kipling ◎ 4, and Roald Dahl ◎ 4, anglophone children's literature is very well-represented, and she stands out to me as easily the least still-read of the 4.

Support

1. Johnnie Runner (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
2. As a world literature enthusiast, I have absolutely no recollection of Enid Blyton.飞车过大关 (talk) 19:37, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
3. KhaiDo (talk) 10:17, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
4. --Thi (talk) 17:35, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
5. Bluevestman (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
6. The Account 2 (talk) 18:03, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
7. Ipedecha (talk) 00:07, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
8. Fourth-most translated author, and yet none of her titles stand out. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 18:57, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

(Tangential) Move Sun Wukong ◎ 4 from 'Literature and drama' to 'Eastern folklore'

Sun Wukong technically originates from a written work, but he's treated like a mythic figure in the same sense as King Arthur ◎ 4 or Zeus ◎ 4, with holidays, festivals, and monuments in Buddhist temples dedicated to him. On the Level-5 list, he's under Eastern folklore.

Support

1. Johnnie Runner (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
2. Dylan240 (talk) 11:27, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 17:35, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
4. Bluevestman (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
5. Ipedecha (talk) 00:07, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
6. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 18:58, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Remove all Carnatic musicians

All of them to me have what I feel to be inadequate amount of interwikis to be on this project, with Syama Sastri ◎ 4 only having fourteen. (Here's the amount the other two have: Tyagaraja ◎ 4–26; Muthuswami Dikshitar ◎ 4–21.)

Support all

1. Bluevestman (talk) 19:57, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
2. 飞车过大关 (talk) 04:24, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

   Due to the quota politics behind the Level 5 list, these musicians are somehow considered more important than ancient Indian writers and religious figures—managing to make it into the top 1,000 most influential people in human history. I think this is going too far. I won't bother listing specific examples, but I do know that some of the most outstanding painters and calligraphers from ancient China aren't even included. In my opinion, there's absolutely no justification for artificially inflating the status of Carnatic music figures.飞车过大关 (talk) 18:19, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

   The quota for biographies is currently 1,950. I'm not sure where the 1,000 figure is from. KhaiDo (talk) 18:35, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

   Personally, I think only those who are truly considered among the most important or influential 1,000 people in history should make it onto the Level 4 list. But honestly, the number of famous figures who deserve this title definitely goes way beyond just 1,000. 飞车过大关 (talk) 18:39, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

3. --Thi (talk) 07:02, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Support some

Oppose

1. Ronald Reagan ◎ 4 has 248 iwikis, maybe he should be added to Level 3. I've provided some points to show how flawed this approach is, especially in detriment towards non-Western entries. In terms of Indian and Chinese figures, iwikis are almost irrelevant as the sheer population of these civilizations alone make up for any lack of intercontinential reach. This approach also, as you can see from the example, favors recent/modern figure who are still relevant and whose information is easily accessible in the Internet era. If we remove these three, the only non-Western art musicians we'll be left with are Ravi Shankar ◎ 4, Ali Akbar Khan ◎ 4, Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan ◎ 4, and Mohammad-Reza Shajarian ◎ 4, which are all 20th-century and prominent in the West. This iwiki criterion, which is technically not even a page stat, would only turn this list into a recentist Western-centric mess. KhaiDo (talk) 17:32, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

   I repeat, one of them only has fourteen interwikis. Bluevestman (talk) 17:58, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

   You have just applied a method to respond to a critique of that same method. It is circular reasoning. Your fixation on a specific statistic, one that is easily, artificially manipulated I might add, is quite concerning. KhaiDo (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

   Per WP:VACRIT,

   Page statistics such as the number of views a page receives, the number of other languages with a similar page, the number of editors, the number of page watchers, etc. can be considered (i.e. it is a proxy on its importance to Wikipedia's structure). However, these values should be treated with caution as they can be driven by recentism, and other bias, which is a particular concern at Levels 1-4.

   KhaiDo (talk) 18:32, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

2. Since the whole purpose of this project is to draw attention to underdeveloped articles, we should be looking at what their interwiki counts ought to be, not what they are. Johnnie Runner (talk) 18:23, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

   You're acting like Level 5 is not a thing. Bluevestman (talk) 18:36, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

   That's still moving them down some 40,000 places in the theoretical queue. Johnnie Runner (talk) 19:22, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

3. I recently made a comment wondering if we should add more Asian musicians, and the answer is to remove three of them? I disagree that we should decide what's important based mostly on interwikis. Melozone crissalis (talk) 19:07, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

1. This is unbelievable. You guys are seriously telling me that it is absolutely acceptable to have someone with a measly amount of fourteen interwikis at this level. Wow. Bluevestman (talk) 19:18, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Rectifying some bio reps

There are entire major countries with zero or insufficient representation. Using D. S. Senanayake ◎ 4, the founding father of Sri Lanka, as a benchmark, I've compiled some bios of people of similar significance to countries with a roughly equal or greater population. I've also came up with same bios that I think are too redundant/overrepresent certain fields or regions, in order to make space.

Add Ahmed Ben Bella ◎ 5

With a population of 47+ million, Algeria is currently represented by Emir Abdelkader ◎ 4, Frantz Fanon ◎ 4 who is from the West Indies, and Albert Camus ◎ 4. Ben Bella was instrumental in bringing about Algerian independence, and alongside Abdelkader, is often referred to as the father of the nation.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 20:32, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
2. The Account 2 (talk) 21:50, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
3. Bluevestman (talk) 20:41, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Ipedecha (talk) 00:07, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
2. If he hadn't been overthrown by Houari Boumédiène ◎ 5 and had served a longer term, I will support adding him. However, given the current situation, it seems inappropriate to place Ben Bella above Abd el-Krim ◎ 5, Ahmed Sékou Touré ◎ 5, or Boumédiène.飞车过大关 (talk) 20:18, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 09:02, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Agostinho Neto ◎ 5

With 38+ million people, Angola is only mildly represented by the 17th-century monarch Nzinga of Ndongo and Matamba ◎ 4. Neto was the first president of the modern state, having lead the MPLA ◎ 5 during the Angolan War of Independence ◎ 5 and the start of the Angolan Civil War ◎ 4. He is also considered the nation's greatest poet.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 20:32, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
2. The Account 2 (talk) 21:50, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
3. Bluevestman (talk) 20:41, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

1. Interestingly, someone had already nominated Neto's successor, José Eduardo dos Santos, earlier above.飞车过大关 (talk) 04:44, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

   I think we should decide if Neto or dos Santos is more vital. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 09:00, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Add Tunku Abdul Rahman ◎ 5

With 34+ million people, Malaysia is only represented by Mahathir Mohamad ◎ 4, who is definitely important as the country's longest-serving prime minister, but Tunku is the second longest-serving, on top of being the father of the nation.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 20:32, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
2. The Account 2 (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
3. Bluevestman (talk) 20:41, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Samora Machel ◎ 5

The first president of Mozambique, which currently has a population of 34+ million and no representation at this level, he also co-founded FRELIMO, the ruling party of the country since independence, and lead them to victory in the Mozambican War of Independence ◎ 5.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 20:32, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
2. The Account 2 (talk) 21:50, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
3. Bluevestman (talk) 20:41, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
4. If we're going for modern Mozambique, it's either him or Joaquim Chissano ◎ 5, and I do think Machel fits in with VA4 better. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 09:00, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Andrianampoinimerina ◎ 5

18th-century ruler who initiated the unification of Madagascar, which now has a population of 31+ million and no rep, considered one of the greatest leaders in the history of the island, as well as a cultural hero/mythic figure among the Merina people, the largest ethinc group in Madagascar.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 20:32, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
2. The Account 2 (talk) 21:50, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
3. Bluevestman (talk) 20:41, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
4. We do have Ranavalona I ◎ 4 but he certainly rivals her importance. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 09:00, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Félix Houphouët-Boigny ◎ 5

The first president of Ivory Coast, also 31+ million and no rep, he was also the longest serving preseident in African history (33 years) at the time of his death.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 20:32, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
2. The Account 2 (talk) 21:50, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
3. Bluevestman (talk) 20:41, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Hafez al-Assad ◎ 5

With 25+ million people, Syria is barely represented by the sultan Saladin ◎ 4 who was initially based in Egypt before expanding. Having played a role in bringing the Syrian branch the Ba'ath Party ◎ 5 to power, during his 29-year tenure as president, Assad established an authoritarian regime with a strong cult of personality that would be succeeded by his son and culminate in the Syrian civil war ◎ 5.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 20:32, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
2. The Account 2 (talk) 21:50, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
3. Bluevestman (talk) 20:41, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Ipedecha (talk) 00:07, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
2. I feel that this person's contributions and influence haven't reached a crucial level in Syria, especially now that Bashar al-Assad ◎ 5 has been ousted.飞车过大关 (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
3. Per above. --Thi (talk) 08:26, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
4. Per 飞车过大关. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 09:00, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

Remove Woody Guthrie ◎ 4

An icon of the inherently Anglo-American Contemporary folk music , Guthrie is primarily known for his political lyrics concerning the US, which might or might not have influenced the selection process of his many entries in the Library of Congress. His genre is covered by the Bob Dylan ◎ 4 and Joni Mitchell ◎ 4, both of whom were featured on Rolling Stone's 100 Greatest Artists of All Time, whereas Guthrie was not, despite them making references to him. His influence or musical achievements do not seem a level above Pete Seeger ◎ 5 or Peter, Paul and Mary ◎ 5.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 20:32, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 21:24, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
3. 飞车过大关 (talk) 04:37, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
4. The Account 2 (talk) 21:46, 19 May 2026 (UTC)~
5. Ipedecha (talk) 00:07, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong oppose. Guthrie is incredibly important to the entire foundation of Folk music ◎ 3. He is to folk as Chuck Berry ◎ 4 is to rock and roll, being a pioneer and incredibly influential to nearly everyone who came after him, including Bob Dylan ◎ 4 and Johnny Cash ◎ 4. His entire attitude and political statements were hugely foundational to folk, to the point where his motto is known by many who don't even know who he is. AllyWithInfo (talk) 17:28, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

   Folk music has existed since ancient times and is not a genre invented in 20th-century America. What you described is actually his status in Anglo-American contemporary folk music, not his status in folk music as a whole. As for contemporary folk music, I think Pete Seeger ◎ 5 plays a more crucial role—after all, Guthrie was no longer very active during the folk revival movement and could only serve as a symbolic figure. But Pete Seeger was one of the leaders of the movement at that time. He also carried forward Guthrie’s tradition and made a more outstanding contribution to the development of folk music. Regarding the influence of contemporary folk music, I believe Bob Dylan, who is already on the Level5 list, is the key figure who brought the folk revival movement to a global audience. If there’s a second one, I think it should be Joan Baez ◎ 5. I don’t like measuring importance purely by influence—otherwise, Thales of Miletus ◎ 4 would have to be considered the greatest scientist and philosopher in human history and must be included in the Level 3 list.飞车过大关 (talk) 17:43, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

   Of course, I'm not trying to belittle Guthrie. But if Pete Seeger isn't on the Level 4 list, keeping Guthrie there seems a bit less meaningful. Folk music has indeed declined, while other pop genres are far more popular now. If folk music still mattered that much, then Lo Ta-yu —widely seen as one of C-pop ◎ 5 greatest singer-songwriters and a leader of the Taiwanese folk movement—would have been on the Level 5 list already.飞车过大关 (talk) 17:53, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

   As far as contemporary folk is concerned Guthrie's role is critical, being the driving force behind the entire architectural foundation. Pete Seeger is certainly important to the movement as well but he was more well-known in his time, I think this is a case where the originator of the movement is more important than the person who carried the message. Dylan himself too was a direct descendant of Guthrie, having visited him in the hospital and idolizing so much that he said he "was going to be Guthrie's greatest disciple." If Guthrie was just known to some then I'd agree but many many musicians cite him specifically. I don't rank vitality off of purely influence alone either, but he's too big of a symbol and has had just had too much influence for me to ignore. As a symbol for its earliest days, nobody stands above Guthrie.

   We used to list Baez until fairly recently, I would argue that although important as well she's mostly redundant to who's already listed. At this point I think the folk music section is perfectly balanced, listing the originator and the two most important disciples (Bob Dylan ◎ 4 and Joni Mitchell ◎ 4). AllyWithInfo (talk) 18:32, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

   "As far as contemporary folk is concerned" is exactly the problem. It is just a modern Anglo-American subgenre within the wider Folk music ◎ 3 genre that has been around for centuries. The article isn't even VA5 yet, while Rock and roll ◎ 4 is VA4. Guthrie simply does not have the sufficient international reach. And I don't think just being the pioneer is enough, or else Thales and Pythagoras ◎ 4 would be VA3, or Buddy Bolden ◎ 5 would be VA4 for his role in the development of Jazz KhaiDo (talk) 14:18, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

   Guthrie is important far beyond contemporary folk music too. That may be the genre he pioneered, but his attitude and grassroots approach to music can be seen in Country music ◎ 4, Punk rock ◎ 4, and Singer-songwriter ◎ 5 for instance. Half of the names that list him as an influence in his opening paragraph don't even play folk music. He's as essential to understanding America's cultural identity as Mark Twain ◎ 4. AllyWithInfo (talk) 18:38, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

2. Strong oppose. We list so many other pioneering American musicians with arguably lesser careers including Robert Johnson ◎ 4, Buddy Holly ◎ 4, Little Richard ◎ 4, and Hank Williams ◎ 4. CopiousAmountofCannons (talk) 07:44, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

   Rock and roll ◎ 4, Blues ◎ 4, and Country music ◎ 4 are all VA4 and more important than Contemporary folk music . And how exactly are those musicians' careers lesser? KhaiDo (talk) 14:22, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

   I think using the contemporary folk page and pointing to it being not vital is a mistake. Every single folk musician in the past 100 years can fall under the "contemporary folk" umbrella. All 25 folk musicians listed as vital is Western and "contemporary." And Guthrie is the biggest pioneer of Western contemporary folk music this century. Non-American and non-folk artists have also cited him as an influence - namely on the second paragraph of his page: Donovan ◎ 5 and Joe Strummer of The Clash ◎ 5.

   Robert Johnson ◎ 4 made 29 recordings in his lifetime to virtually no fanfare until 20 years after his death. Buddy Holly ◎ 4's made one album before dying less than two years later. But ignoring the specifics of my examples, we generally list music pioneers in VA-4. We also list very American-centric figures like Mark Twain ◎ 4 and John Steinbeck ◎ 4 and Walt Whitman ◎ 4 and every country artist. It seems bizarre to single out Guthrie. The folk section seems balanced to me, especially with Bob Dylan ◎ 4 classified as rock anyway. Joni Mitchell ◎ 4 has also explored pop, rock, jazz, and other genres so that would leave Guthrie as the only strictly folk musician listed at 4.

   Contemporary folk should be listed anyway. CopiousAmountofCannons (talk) 15:13, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

3. Per above.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:29, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
4. Per above. Bluevestman (talk) 20:41, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
5. Per above. One could probably start a nom based on Cannons' suggestions. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 09:00, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

Remove Johnny Carson ◎ 5

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

---

Also known as the King of Late-night television , which is synonymous with Late-night talk show  in the US. This format, while present, is nowhere nearly as prominent in the rest of the world. Comedians and TV hosts that cite his influence have all been from the US. Not more important than Television presenter ◎ 5.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 20:32, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 21:24, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
3. 飞车过大关 (talk) 04:14, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
4. This is a case that shows vitality is not permanent. Once upon a time, he would have been a lock to be among the 10k most vital.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:23, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
5. The Account 2 (talk) 21:45, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
6. Bluevestman (talk) 20:41, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
7. Ipedecha (talk) 00:07, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
8. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 20:49, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

Remove J. Edgar Hoover ◎ 4

Most figures at level 4 are representative of fields/areas/art forms that are also at least level 4. Izumo no Okuni ◎ 4, however niche she may seem, is still the creator of Kabuki ◎ 4. Hoover's legacy, however, is mostly tied to the Federal Bureau of Investigation ◎ 5, which is, of course, at level 5. Yuri Andropov ◎ 5, the longest-serving chairman of the KGB ◎ 5 and General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, is also at level 5.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 20:32, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 21:24, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
3. Lavrentiy Beria ◎ 5 and Kang Sheng ◎ 5 also at level5.飞车过大关 (talk) 04:12, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
4. The Account 2 (talk) 21:44, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Melozone crissalis (talk) 21:21, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
2. Bluevestman (talk) 20:41, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
3. Either swap Hoover for Andropov to reduce Anglosphere bias, or don't do anything as he appears to be the sole representation of any intelligence official. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 09:00, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

KhaiDo (talk) 20:32, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Sports and recreation

Remove Shogi ◎ 4

One of three descendants of Chaturanga ◎ 5 at this level, but unlike international Chess ◎ 4 and Xiangqi ◎ 4 which is popular across China, Vietnam and ethnic Chinese communities, shogi is primarily played in Japan. As a sport, the World Xiangqi Federation has 28 members from 4 continents, while the largest governing body of shogi is the Federation of European Shogi Associations, comprised of 15 European countries and not part of the International Mind Sports Association. The European Shogi Championship even has Japanese competitors. (And this is kind of a footnote but we do list several Japanese video games already.)

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 19:38, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 07:00, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
3. Shogi isn't even considered mainstream in Japan, and outside the country, it's virtually unknown. If it weren't for anime like The Ryuo's Work Is Never Done! and March Comes In like a Lion, I suspect most Chinese people wouldn't have a clue what Shogi is.飞车过大关 (talk) 06:02, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
4. Dylan240 (talk) 05:28, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
5. Ipedecha (talk) 00:07, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
6. Probably too niche for VA4. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 07:20, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Bluevestman (talk) 20:05, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

Remove Pinball ◎ 4

I don't think this is more important than Arcade video game ◎ 5, which is the original platform for many titles: Pac-Man ◎ 5, Mortal Kombat ◎ 5, Donkey Kong (1981 video game) ◎ 5, Street Fighter II ◎ 5, etc. The only other arcade game or genre at level 5 is Air hockey ◎ 5, and the only other type of platform at this level is Video game console ◎ 4. Hence I think Arcade game ◎ 4 is enough.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 19:38, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 07:00, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
3. 飞车过大关 (talk) 05:52, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
4. Arcade game already covers pinball and the arcade machines. Dylan240 (talk) 05:32, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
5. Honestly though of proposing swap this with Arcade video game ◎ 5. Ipedecha (talk) 00:07, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Bluevestman (talk) 20:05, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
2. Maybe when Elton John writes a song about video games, I'll reconsider.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:21, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
3. Oppose  Carlwev  06:54, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
4. We list several individual video games or game series as vital. Not that I don't think they're vital, I definitely think they are and deserve to be here, but pinball should be alongside them. λ NegativeMP1 20:53, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
5. Probably the most well-known generic arcade game. In addition pinball IMO would be a poor option to swap with arcade video games. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 07:20, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

Remove Slalom skiing ◎ 4

Right from the opening sentence: Slalom skiing is an Alpine skiing ◎ 4 and alpine Snowboarding ◎ 4 discipline. At the Winter Olympics, it is also just an alpine skiing event, alongside Alpine skiing combined , Downhill (ski competition) , Giant slalom , and Super-G .

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 19:38, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
2. Bluevestman (talk) 20:05, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
3. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:29, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
4. --Thi (talk) 07:00, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
5. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 07:11, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
6. Dylan240 (talk) 05:32, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
7. Skiing ◎ 4 suffices here. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 07:20, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Dawid2009 (talk) 10:22, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

Swap Mountain biking ◎ 4 for Road bicycle racing ◎ 5

Moutain biking is a bit too niche for this level, while Tour de France ◎ 4 is a road cycling race and Eddy Merckx ◎ 4 is a road cyclist.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 19:38, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
2. Bluevestman (talk) 20:05, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
3. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:25, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
4. Ipedecha (talk) 00:07, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removal. Competitive mountain biking is niche, but I don't think mountain biking in general can be considered unpopular - a lot of people do it recreationally. Melozone crissalis (talk) 22:40, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

Add UEFA European Championship ◎ 5

Also known as the Euro, it is the second most-watched football event on the planet, just behind the FIFA World Cup ◎ 4, and substantially more televised and viewed than the Eurovision Song Contest ◎ 4. Although when looking at average pageviews, one can see that UEFA Champions League ◎ 4 wins by a landslide, but this is unfair since one is quadrennial and the other is annual. The UCL daily views peaked at 300k, while the Euro peaked at nearly 570k. This addition would also help relieve the emphasis on club football (which favors certain countries), as we also list Premier League ◎ 4 and La Liga ◎ 4.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 19:38, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
2. Bluevestman (talk) 20:05, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Not before something like Futsal and not just as important as Champions League or Premier League. Dawid2009 (talk) 10:21, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
2. 飞车过大关 (talk) 12:03, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Copa América ◎ 5

The oldest still-running continental football competition, it is also the most prestigious outside of Europe. The article's daily viewership peaked at 900k in 2021. We also haven't listed any sports establishment in South America, despite 5 out of 9 footballers at this level are from it. (We also list 4 sports league in North America.)

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 19:38, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
2. Bluevestman (talk) 20:05, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
3. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:27, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
4. Dylan240 (talk) 05:32, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
5. The NHL should be removed from v4, btw. Ipedecha (talk) 00:07, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

   It's difficult to determine which of the "Big Four" is the least vital, since they all fill different niches. I generally believe that if a sport is dominated by a single league, globally speaking, then the league should be more vital than its players. And we list players of all four sports, so I'm fine with keeping all four. KhaiDo (talk) 03:29, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Dawid2009 (talk) 10:20, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
2. 飞车过大关 (talk) 12:02, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Grand Slam (tennis) ◎ 5

Interestingly, we do not have any subtopics of tennis, despite listing 7 players, and I think this is a suitable candidate. The achievement is an integral part to the culture of the sport, which is well-elaborated in the History section of the article. The Grand Slam tournaments are Australian Open ◎ 5, French Open ◎ 5, Wimbledon Championships ◎ 5, and US Open (tennis) ◎ 5.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 19:38, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
2. Bluevestman (talk) 20:05, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
3. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:23, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
4. Ipedecha (talk) 00:07, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
5. Even if we are to start another sportspeople purge, it would still be worth adding this in since the Grand Slam is seen as a primary indicator to a (professional) tennis player's importance. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 19:12, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

KhaiDo (talk) 19:38, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Remove Hippocratic Corpus ◎ 4

Yes, it's the foundation of western medicine, but still only 22 interwikis.

Support

1. Bluevestman (talk) 20:08, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
2. Hippocrates ◎ 3 is enough.飞车过大关 (talk) 12:00, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 12:50, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Move Timbuktu ◎ 4 to cities

While its vitality is firmly centered on its past, it still is a living city (albeit one currently under constant threat by Islamic extremists).

Support

1. Bluevestman (talk) 20:21, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 21:30, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
3. Ipedecha (talk) 00:07, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
4. As long as Timbuktu remains extant as a city, it shouldn't just belong in History. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 19:15, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
5. Dylan240 (talk) 04:37, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

1. Should we be moving all currently inhabited towns to the cities page? There are a lot on the level 5 history page. At some point, people had reasoned that places better known for their history should be listed on the history page. Melozone crissalis (talk) 22:55, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

   Can you show this discussion? Bluevestman (talk) 03:16, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

   Just some comments like Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level 4/Archive 49#Add Jericho, Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level 5/History and geography/Archive 6#Add Mdina ◎ 5. Melozone crissalis (talk) 03:51, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

   Both of these are listed as regular cities at level 5. Bluevestman (talk) 05:45, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Remove Dissection ◎ 4

Only twenty-eight interwikis.

Support

1. Bluevestman (talk) 22:29, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

1. We have Anatomy ◎ 3.飞车过大关 (talk) 05:58, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Add Rif War ◎ 5

I saw a lot of people(3) support adding Ahmed Ben Bella to this level, and i feel like people dont see the v5 history section. The Rif War is consider the predecessor of the Algerian War ◎ 4 and one of the main cause of the the collapse of the spanish state that resulted in the Spanish Civil War ◎ 4, and the harbigger of the decolonization of North Africa and it inspired other decolonization movement like the First Indochina War ◎ 4 and the uses of guerrila tactics, especially tunnels, inspired many movement such as tactics of Mao Zedong ◎ 3 and the vietnamese during the Indochina and Vietnam War ◎ 4. It has also just left deep mark in both Spain ◎ 3 and Morocco ◎ 3 memory to this day.

Support

1. As nom. Ipedecha (talk) 00:07, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Bluevestman (talk) 00:09, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
2. Per 飞车过大关. North Vietnam learned mostly from China, and before that guerrilla warfare was used all the way back by Trần Hưng Đạo ◎ 4 to defeat the Mongols. KhaiDo (talk) 02:53, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

   I also don't know where OP got the idea that the Rif War "inspired" the First Indochina War. Vietnam has a long history of resistance and rebellion against foreign invaders and colonialism. Don't think we needed any inspiration. KhaiDo (talk) 03:18, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

3. I don't think most historians would consider the Rif war to be a precursor to the Algerian War ◎ 4 either. It isn't mentioned a single time on the Algerian War article and the source used to cite this connection on the Rif War page doesn't back this up and should probably be cleaned up. Aurangzebra (talk) 04:39, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

1. I don't want to vote directly on a proposal related to 20th-century history, but I am quite angry because it is full of baseless hype about the Rif War. Specifically, the claim that Mao Zedong's military thought was influenced by the Rif War is frustrating. Therefore, I must point out the following:
   *Although Mao Zedong was aware of many international events during the Chinese Communist Revolution (such as the Prestes Column), there is no evidence showing he even knew about the existence of the Rif War, let alone that his military strategies were influenced by Africans.
   *The Vietnamese use of Tunnel warfare  was learned from the CCP's experience during the Second Sino-Japanese War ◎ 4 and has nothing to do with the Rif War.
   *The origins of tunnel warfare can actually be traced back to China's Warring States period and ancient Greece.
   *The Algerian War is not closely linked to the Rif War. Anti-colonial movements in Algeria were already thriving around the same time the Rif War broke out.
   I believe the Rif War is considered a cause of the Spanish Civil War due to its impact on the Spanish army and nationalist ideology. Furthermore, Francisco Franco ◎ 4 did become one of Spain's youngest generals and a key far-right figure precisely because of his military achievements in the Rif War.飞车过大关 (talk) 08:26, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Add Thomas Carlyle

This man definitely should be added, since he strongly influenced the intellectual and artistic culture of the Victorian era.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:08, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. If that's it, then he is probably not more important than the Victorian era ◎ 5 itself. KhaiDo (talk) 16:41, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
2. I think his influence on world history is not as great as D'Annunzio's.飞车过大关 (talk) 18:29, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
3. Bluevestman (talk) 19:48, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

Psychology, philosophy, and religion: 4 for 4

Add Boredom ◎ 5

One of the most prevalent emotions in everyday life, a major driver of human activity, and it doesn't overlap with any other state of mind; there's no emotion like boredom. Boredom might've been what brought you here.

Support

1. Johnnie Runner (talk) 20:19, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
2. 飞车过大关 (talk) 08:52, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
3. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 17:42, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
4. KhaiDo (talk) 07:12, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Add Loneliness ◎ 5

Arguably the central struggle of humanity. Less grandly, it's a near-universal phenomenon and key driver of the need for social connection in both humans and animals alike.

Support

1. Johnnie Runner (talk) 20:19, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
2. 飞车过大关 (talk) 08:52, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 09:06, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
4. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 17:42, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Add Human nature ◎ 5

Possibly the most prominent philosophical topic in all of human history. Just about all of history's most influential thinkers have had something to say about it, Mencius ◎ 4, Aristotle ◎ 3, Thomas Hobbes ◎ 4, and Karl Marx ◎ 3 to name a few.

Support

1. Johnnie Runner (talk) 20:19, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
2. 飞车过大关 (talk) 08:52, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Add Meaning of life ◎ 5

The Great Hunger, or, the other most prominent philosophical question. Intimately connected with other concepts like the Afterlife ◎ 3, the Soul ◎ 3, Ontology ◎ 3, and Free will ◎ 3.

Support

1. Johnnie Runner (talk) 20:19, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
2. We list quite a lot of specific mathematical theorems and problems like Riemann hypothesis ◎ 4 and P versus NP problem ◎ 4. Should start adding some philosophical ones. KhaiDo (talk) 07:49, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
3. 飞车过大关 (talk) 08:52, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Remove Jehovah's Witnesses ◎ 4

If we don't have Falun Gong ◎ 5 anymore, then I don't see any reason to list the JWs this high either. Despite their vigorous evangelism, they only report about 9 million members worldwide. As far as Restorationism ◎ 5 goes, Mormonism ◎ 4 is by far the most prominent current.

Support

1. Johnnie Runner (talk) 20:19, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
2. Not important than Historical Vedic religion ◎ 5.飞车过大关 (talk) 08:52, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 09:06, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. We have smaller religions in here, I think we have enough room for one cult-*ish* religious denomination on VA4, especially one that has 9 million adherents and 20 million Memorial attendees. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 17:42, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Remove Quakers ◎ 4

We list 11 different sub-articles under Protestantism ◎ 3. Of those 11, the Quakers stick out to me as far less prevalent than the other denominations. They've had a long history of advocacy, culminating in a Peace Prize in 1947, but their influence has waned. Current estimates put their population at half a million.

Support

1. Johnnie Runner (talk) 20:19, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
2. Rather shamefully, I actually have a stronger mental image of Quaker Oats Company than of the Quakers. 飞车过大关 (talk) 08:52, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 09:06, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
4. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:21, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
5. Re:飞车过大关 you're not alone in that (苦笑, strained smile). Sure we had two American presidents who were Quakers but neither were known for it, and the Society of Friends are increasingly a trivia than anything else. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 18:01, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Remove Rosh Hashanah ◎ 4

One of the most important Jewish holidays (second-most depending on who you ask), but it's part of the Ten Days of Repentance, which culminates in the holiest day in Judaism, Yom Kippur ◎ 4, so there's a more important holiday connected to the same event.

Support

1. Weakly, despite being nom. Johnnie Runner (talk) 20:19, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
2. Not important than Buddha's Birthday ◎ 5.飞车过大关 (talk) 08:52, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 09:06, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Remove Church (congregation) ◎ 4

While not technically the same thing as a Church (building) ◎ 4, other religions don't get the distinction between their place of worship and the group worshiping (i.e., Mosque ◎ 4 is listed, yet jamaat doesn't even have an article).

Support

1. Johnnie Runner (talk) 20:19, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
2. 飞车过大关 (talk) 08:52, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 09:06, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Computing and IT

Remove Mac (computer) ◎ 4

Considering Desktop computer ◎ 5 and Laptop ◎ 5 are likely failing to pass, I don't really see a justification to list a specific brand of PC, especially one that is not even the most commonly used. Combining with the fact we already list another Apple product with the IPhone ◎ 4, I think this is a necessary removal to avoid skewing the list towards recent brands over fundamental concepts.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 17:16, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
2. Mac isn't very popular enough.飞车过大关 (talk) 19:23, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
4. Dylan240 (talk) 19:35, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Support (weakly) swap with MacOS ◎ 5 or Mac operating systems ◎ 5, oppose outright removal. This seems to be listed effectively as a counterpart to Microsoft Windows ◎ 4 and Linux ◎ 4, as the PC brand has its own OS. Furthermore, Macintoshes were highly influential in the early development of PCs, in particular GUIs and adoption of mouses as far as I understand.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 07:44, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Application software ◎ 5

Or app, which includes Web application ◎ 5, Mobile app ◎ 5, Web browser ◎ 4, Spreadsheet ◎ 4, among others. One of the two main types of Software ◎ 4, the other being Operating system ◎ 4.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 17:16, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add File format ◎ 5 and Software development ◎ 5

Have their own sections at level 5 with 18 and 111 articles, respectively.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 17:16, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

KhaiDo (talk) 17:16, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Move Easter Rising ◎ 5

if Great Famine (Ireland) ◎ 4 can be vital 4 for its importance and impact on irish history and society (permanently impacting our population, etc.) The easter rising can definitely be vital 4, it was the event that directly led to the independence of Republic of Ireland ◎ 4 and to the The Troubles ◎ 4 and creation of Northern Ireland ◎ 4. multiple of its leaders are VA 5 Tom Clarke (Irish republican) ◎ 5 James Connolly ◎ 5 Patrick Pearse ◎ 5, and Michael Collins (Irish leader) ◎ 4 is VA 4. Finnfrog99 (talk) 11:34, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Support

1. Finnfrog99 (talk) 12:03, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

1. The Troubles ◎ 4 is likely to be removed from level 4 soon. Melozone crissalis (talk) 18:58, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Add West Asia ◎ 5

Procedural nomination. Further information here.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 15:33, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
2. Melozone crissalis (talk) 23:25, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

KhaiDo (talk) 15:33, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Society and social sciences

Swap Psychology of religion ◎ 4 for Religious studies ◎ 5

I believe the latter is broader and it was also brought up in a past discussion involving promoting Theology ◎ 3 to level 3, since religious studies have a more objective (therefore one could argue is broader) perspective than theology. Moreover, psychology of religion seems too specific compared to other psychology branches at this level and is not more important than Anthropology of religion ◎ 5.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 12:46, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
3. Per nom.飞车过大关 (talk) 17:19, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
4. Religious studies is certainly broader, but still a coherent topic. Psychology of religion may be a bit narrow for this level. Religious studies also gets more views. Melozone crissalis (talk) 23:28, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Social psychology ◎ 5

One of the core branches of psychology.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 12:46, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
3. 飞车过大关 (talk) 17:22, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
4. In my experience, clinical, cognitive, developmental, and social are the 4 standard psychology subfields (sometimes Neuropsychology ◎ 5 too, but the distinction between it, Behavioral neuroscience ◎ 5, and CogPsy is muddled at best). Johnnie Runner (talk) 23:39, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add the remaining branches of Anthropology ◎ 3

This section is quite empty right now, as we only list one branch that is Linguistic anthropology ◎ 4 (Archaeology ◎ 3, Ethnology ◎ 4, and Ethnography ◎ 4 can also be lumped into this but they are listed separately). It should make sense to add the rest:

• Biological anthropology ◎ 5
• Cultural anthropology ◎ 5
• Social anthropology ◎ 5

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 12:46, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Swap Shopping mall ◎ 4 for Shopping center ◎ 5

Shopping center is both the broader and more common term used outside of North America. It encompasses stuff like retail parks in Europe and various types of big-box stores in different parts of the world.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 12:46, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
2. Melozone crissalis (talk) 16:25, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
4. 飞车过大关 (talk) 17:24, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Swap Supermarket ◎ 4 for Marketplace ◎ 5

Marketplaces have existed as long as Trade ◎ 2 has existed, much longer than the 20th-century invention that evolved from the Grocery store ◎ 5.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 12:46, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
2. 飞车过大关 (talk) 17:34, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Remove Criminal procedure ◎ 4

This is too specific and already covered by Criminal law ◎ 4.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 12:46, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Remove International Criminal Court ◎ 4

This is not more important than International criminal law ◎ 5, which is covered by International law ◎ 4 and again Criminal law ◎ 4, and we already have the principal judicial organ of the UN which is the International Court of Justice ◎ 4.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 12:46, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
2. 飞车过大关 (talk) 17:44, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Remove World Bank Group ◎ 4

Not more important than Developing country ◎ 5 or Developed country ◎ 5. We already have a specialized UN finance agency (International Monetary Fund ◎ 4).

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 12:46, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
2. 飞车过大关 (talk) 17:46, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Swap North American Free Trade Agreement ◎ 4 for Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation ◎ 5

NAFTA was an agreement among 3 countries that was effective for 26 years (the only other VA4 organizations with this short of a history are the League of Nations ◎ 4 and the G20 ◎ 4). APEC, founded in 1989, is possibly the largest intergovernmental organization in the world without multiple member states in Europe, spanning 21 countries with a total population of around 3 billion people

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 12:46, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
2. Support removal. --Thi (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
3. Only Support removal. 飞车过大关 (talk) 12:54, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
4. The Account 2 (talk) 17:56, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Move Hedonism ◎ 4 from Interpersonal relations to Philosophical schools and traditions

I believe this is where it belongs.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 12:46, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
2. Melozone crissalis (talk) 16:25, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

KhaiDo (talk) 12:46, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Organization of literature

On Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level 4/Arts, what is the definition of "early printed book era" vs. "modern era"? And why are works of Post-classical history ◎ 2 / Middle Ages ◎ 3 listed as part of "antiquity"? Melozone crissalis (talk) 20:09, 16 June 2026 (UTC)