Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level 4

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

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: 04:51, 13 July 2026 (UTC) (Purge)
• 30 days ago was: 04:51, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
• 60 days ago was: 04:51, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

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)
5. Support swap. Interstellarity (talk) 22:15, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
6. Support removal. Neutral on addition. KhaiDo (talk) 15:52, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
7. Support removal. Oppose addition. CopiousAmountofCannons (talk) 06:18, 15 July 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)

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)

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)

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)
4. Interstellarity (talk) 22:29, 21 June 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

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)

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)
4. Interstellarity (talk) 22:45, 21 June 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

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)

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)

   Frank from five months later. I'm now weakly in support of adding in Beyoncé, but I remain strongly opposed to removals, especially one informed via ChatGPT. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 09:32, 24 July 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)
6. Oppose addition, oppose removal. Impact of the Eras Tour alone is enough for Swift inclusion here. Bluesatellite (talk) 03:09, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

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

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)
4. Oppose all.飞车过大关 (talk) 08:55, 15 July 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)

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)
3. Interstellarity (talk) 22:55, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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)
6. Add 25. Ipedecha (talk) 17:34, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
7. 飞车过大关 (talk) 08:59, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Signature

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

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)
2. Ipedecha (talk) 17:34, 14 July 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)

@the wub, I just cast my vote less than an hour ago! Will you please stop closing discussions within a day? Bluevestman (talk) 21:54, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

@Bluevestman and this was passing anyway even without your vote. I'm just trying to help clear the backlog and get the page down to a manageable size. But you know what forget it, I'll just stop closing discussions and they can sit open forever. the wub "?!" 21:59, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

No, it would not have passed had I not casted my vote. 飞车过大关 only voted to remove Marc. I WAS the deciding factor by being the fifth person who wants to add Rothko. Don't act like its too much of a task to wait a week after the last vote to close a discussion. Bluevestman (talk) 22:16, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

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)
3. Interstellarity (talk) 00:11, 22 June 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

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)
3. Interstellarity (talk) 00:11, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

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)
3. Interstellarity (talk) 00:11, 22 June 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)

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)
4. Interstellarity (talk) 00:11, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
5. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 00:35, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss