Should a globally visible RfC be required to make changes to the list of Level 3 Vital articles?
''' RfC discussion '''
* '''Require RfC'''{{snd}}to be blunt, I'm a bit concerned by the potential for counterproductive changes resulting from restless tinkering based on particularized interpretations of what the VA system is for and basic misreadings of its guidelines. This list has been fairly stable over the years, and while mere longevity is usually weak consensus, for a system whose results are so widely visible to editors it is distinctly less so. I think there is far more likelihood with the present system for a weak consensus localized here to do damage than to make efficient improvements to the list of what we consider the 1000 most vital articles, meant to stably guide the work of editors. At present, the overwhelming majority of proposals are not approved. Even though a supermajority is required for approval, the low turnout puts a considerable onus on individual editors to keep noticing and opposing clearly defective or lazy proposals, which is a waste of time. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 04:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}}
{{RFC list footer|proj|hide_instructions={{{hide_instructions}}} }}
