Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Vital articles/Level/4 page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcut WT:V4WT:V4

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83Auto-archiving period: 4 months

	This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Vital Articles This page is within the scope of WikiProject Vital Articles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of vital articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and work together to increase the quality of Wikipedia's essential articles.

Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4 is a reader-facing page intended for viewing by non-editors. Please prioritize their needs when adjusting its design, and move editor-facing elements to other pages.

General Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

Level 5 Subpages

People History and geography Arts and everyday life Society STEM

Introduction

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: 11:40, 16 August 2025 (UTC) (Purge)
• 30 days ago was: 11:40, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
• 60 days ago was: 11:40, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Add Bookkeeping

Latest comment: 1 month ago4 comments3 people in discussion

A recent V5 discussion about removing double-entry bookkeeping noted that bookkeeping is just V5. Well, I think that d-e bookkeeping is V5, and bookkeeping is an important concept related to the development of modern Finance   3, Accounting   4 and Economics   2, and should be at V4. I can see accounting at V4, but still... I'd push that one (bookkeeping) up. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:32, 9 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Support

1. As nominator. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:32, 9 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
2. Interstellarity (talk) 19:46, 17 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
3. Lazman321 (talk) 00:59, 25 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oppose

Discussion

Move up some academic degree related articles, propose several removals.

Latest comment: 6 days ago62 comments17 people in discussion

I am a bit surprised these are not higher given their relevance to most people, relation to other articles, and significance in popular culture. Proposing several additions, and recommending some removals to make room for them. More removals then suggested additions, if they all pass we can clear some room for other articles. I tried to take fat from education before moving to other sections, but that is a very lean section. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 15:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Additions

Add Bachelor's degree   5

The most common degree people get from college, the Bachelor's degree included things like Bachelor's of Science and Bachelor's of Art.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 15:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
2. PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
3. Interstellarity (talk) 16:10, 26 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
4. Lazman321 (talk) 00:59, 25 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
5. The Blue Rider 10:26, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Add Master's degree   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.

---

Often a terminal degree or a degree between a Bachelor's an Ph.D., these are very common standard products of the education system.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 15:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
2. PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
3. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:08, 27 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
4. Interstellarity (talk) 16:10, 26 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
5. Lazman321 (talk) 00:59, 25 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oppose

Neutral

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 Doctor of Philosophy   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.

---

A Doctor of Philosophy or Ph.D. "usually denotes the highest level of academic achievement in a given discipline and is awarded following a course of graduate study and original research."

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 15:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
2. PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
3. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:07, 27 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
4. Interstellarity (talk) 16:10, 26 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
5. Lazman321 (talk) 00:59, 25 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oppose

Neutral

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.

Removals

Remove California Institute of Technology   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.

---

American universities are a bit over represented, I think we can move this down to level 5.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 15:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
2. --Thi (talk) 20:01, 17 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
3. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 02:28, 18 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
4. Not a super-important institution. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:32, 19 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
5. Yeah, not really level 4. PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
6. per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 00:44, 28 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oppose

Neutral

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 University of Chicago   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.

---

American universities are a bit over represented, I think we can move this down to level 5.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 15:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
2. --Thi (talk) 20:01, 17 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
3. _pbp 14:14, 18 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
4. Per nom. PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
5. per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 00:44, 28 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oppose

Neutral

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 Doping in sport   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.

---

Not particularly vital, could be moved to level 4 to make room for other topics.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 15:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oppose

1. Oppose  Carlwev  20:17, 17 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
2. Per Carlwev below. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 12:25, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
3. Lazman321 (talk) 00:59, 25 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Neutral

Discuss

Most people are aware of the concept and it probably gets more coverage than majority of individual sportspeople we swapped with Lance Armstrong, 11 years ago, (see here). Obviously that was ages ago, and can be discussed again, but it had seven support, I wasn't one of them, I would prefer to keep this. We list 228 articles concerning sport across people and actual sports, I would expect to come across doping before mascot, luge, or Eric Heiden or Luciana Aymar. The more years tick by the more athletes will drift into history, but doping will probably be an important topic for as long as humans play sports; New drugs and methods such as gene therapy may make it more of a topic as years tick by.  Carlwev  20:17, 17 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Mascot should be moved out of sports, it is not exclusive to those fandoms. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:22, 17 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

I agree with this, maybe under fictional character or perhaps, advertising? Mario, Mickey Mouse and Ronald McDonald are all described as mascots in their articles and elsewhere, but completely outside the sports sphere.  Carlwev  21:21, 17 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

That sounds good. I don't think we need a nomination for a move like this based on previous discussions I've seen. If you want to move it I'd second, and if not I'll likely move it to advertising unless you feel strongly for fictional characters (I don't have a strong opinion either way). GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:21, 18 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

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 Professional wrestling   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.

---

We include Wrestling   4, I think professional wrestling is redundant at level 4.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 15:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
2. Level 5 stuff. --Thi (talk) 19:59, 17 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

   Per above. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:44, 17 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oppose

1. Oppose  Carlwev  21:06, 17 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
2. Moved to Oppose per Carlwev. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:18, 17 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
3. Per below. Kevinishere15 (talk) 07:39, 19 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
4. Not redundant to wrestling at all because it’s not really wrestling like the sport. It's a show. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:20, 19 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
5. Ridiculous nomination. Especially the "popularity is exaggerated a bit due to our western perception" comment. (the biggest audience in pro wrestling history is in... North Korea at 165,000 claimed people Collision in Korea). Even ignoring the 100 year history in North America (Professional wrestling in the United States) or the impact on modern day politics via Trump, it's a predominant form of entertainment in Mexico ("In 2018, Mexican lucha libre was declared an intangible cultural heritage of Mexico City by the head of the Government of Mexico City") and Professional wrestling in Japan. El Santo is arguably Mexico's biggest pop culture idol and Rikidōzan and Antonio Inoki are just as big in Japan and Muhammad Ali vs. Antonio Inoki is seen as the modern start of MMA (which is listed). Inoki is also the reason that North Korean event happened. Western influence only is flat out false and dismissive of Japan's culture, here's a academic article that shows a example of widespread name recognition of Hogan (and i'm sure you could find more stuff like this). [1]. That's 3 G20 countries that heavily have some aspect of this permeating their cultural history. WWE is widely, globally broadcast too and has been for decades. If Steve Irwin is the comparison, i'd say professional wrestling is more impactful. There's 1,792 results in JSTOR for professional wrestling. [2], compared to 392 for Gangnam Style. Comparable to stuff like Heavy metal music; which does not have a century of history or as widespread in the cultural histories of major cultural output countries (Mexico, Japan, US). GuzzyG (talk) 22:20, 19 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
6. Do you seriously not know the difference between pro wrestling and amateur wrestling? --Bluevestman (talk) 01:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Neutral

Discuss

As much as I hate Pro Wrestling, it is huge. Been around for over 100 years, been big for several decades, and isn't really disappearing. We will soon be adding Gangnam Style by the looks of it, due to it being a "cultural phenomenon" I would have thought Pro Wrestling is more of a cultural phenomenon. It has huge televised events, live events, toys, magazines, wrestlers themselves are huge stars. I'm as much for adding things due to artistic merit than the next person, we are soon to add Final Fantasy and we list artsy films like Mirror (1975 film), Children of Paradise, Bicycle Thieves, and Breathless (1960 film) at level 4 for their artistic merit. I could listen to an argument that Snow White, Wizard of Oz, or Star Wars or Star Trek, has had more cultural long lasting impact than Wrestling, but Children of Paradise or Gangnam Style?? Pro Wrestling is different from Wrestling as in, it is a performance rather than a competition, it is under a different part of the list for this reason. We list Judo and Sumo under wrestling, plus arm wrestling elsewhere, these would be more redundant and have more in common with plain wrestling due to being actual competition but I wouldn't suggest to remove them. Also there are 4 articles about different kinds of skiing and 3 for sledding, having a few for types of wrestling is not outrageous, pro wrestling probably has more media coverage, merchandise, viewership and fans than all kinds of sledding put together. We also list 28 professional wrestlers at level 5, which is more than regular wrestlers, and more than cyclists, gymnastics, rugby, swimming, skiing, rowing, climbing, horse riding, animators, puppeteers, much more than judo, kickboxing, karate or Sumo. In fact more than all martial arts/combat sports separately other than boxing. Only slightly less than figure skaters and golfers. All of those sports/entertainments are in at level 4, a few even level 3 (swimming, martial arts, animation). In past years it has had both support and opposition (previous), (discussions)  Carlwev  21:06, 17 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm not really the person to talk to about how many athletes we list, if you'd like to nominate all the wrestlers, professional wrestlers, types of skiing, etc. to be moved down a level I'd be first in line to support it. I don't think individual people are generally very vital, and think we need to dramatically reduce the list overall and would support major limits on BLPs we include. The reason I support Gangnam style is articles/publications like Gangnam Style and Global Visual Culture, “Gangnam Style” as Format: When a Localized Korean Song Meets a Global Audience, and The rise of ‘Gangnam style’: Manufacturing the urban middle class in Seoul, 1976–1996 in the academic literature. Not many songs have several pages of Google Scholar results with the song name in the title. Generally, when it comes to the vital article criteria, looking at professional wrestling as a sport makes me think it is less broad then regular wrestling and should be level 5. Looking at it as Theatre   3 or Performance art   4 makes me think it is a specific example that would fit at level 5 better. While having some international attention, I think its popularity is exaggerated a bit due to our western perception. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:19, 18 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

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 George Westinghouse   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.

---

Important but don't think he is one of the top 10,000 most important people of all time, much less most important topics.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 15:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
2. Per nom. --Thi (talk) 19:59, 17 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
3. PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
4. Interstellarity (talk) 16:11, 26 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

   I think nom is imprecise. Definitely one of the most important 10,000 people (thus should retain VA5), but not one of the 10k most important article topics for ENWP.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:14, 5 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

5. Not Level 4 vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:30, 13 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oppose

1. His company apparently invented electric energy distribution as we know it. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 17:37, 16 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
2. Changing my vote. Per above plus Railways brakes still rely on his patent over 150 years later.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:40, 16 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
3. Based on his influence, I think he should be kept. Lazman321 (talk) 00:59, 25 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Neutral

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 Nicolaus Otto  5

Latest comment: 15 days ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Given how ubiquitous the Internal combustion engine   3 is in daily life, and the fact that other contributors like Carl Benz   4 and Rudolf Diesel   4 are securely ranked at Level 4, I think it's an oversight that the inventor of the first commercially successful internal combustion engine and the Otto cycle   5 (in practice) is only ranked at Level 5. A Nature article from almost 100 years ago describes his work as having "proved of such fundamental importance that it may almost be compared with the invention of the separate condenser for the steam engine by Watt".

Support

1. As nom. Johnnie Runner 19:43, 3 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
2. Lazman321 (talk) 00:59, 25 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
3. Interstellarity (talk) 14:38, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oppose

Neutral

1. I would support if level 4 wasn't over quota. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 19:56, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Discuss

Remove Iceberg  4 to level 5.

Latest comment: 9 days ago8 comments5 people in discussion

We include several topics related to natural ice: Glacier   4, Ice sheet   4, Ice shelf   4, Sea ice   4, and Permafrost   4 in addition to Iceberg   4. Icebergs are "are chunks of ice shelves or glaciers that calve into the ocean." Based on this, I think we can place Iceberg at a lower level then sea ice and glacier based on Vital Article Criteria 1: Coverage. This can fee up some room for all the adds we get.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:14, 3 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
2. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 11:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
3. I could support Ice shelf too.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:28, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oppose

1. Arguably among the more famous of the concepts cited above. For example, I don't think I ever heard of "sea ice" before now, I'd remove it before iceberg (sea ice has 50 interwikis to iceberg's 100). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:35, 13 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

   Interwiki links are really not the metric I'd be using, and sea ice is a huge deal in climate science. I suspect icebergs are well known because of the Titanic   5, in much the same way Quicksand is popularized by popular media. Sea ice is what covers the North Pole and what Icebreaker   5 ships are designed to make paths through. Icebergs can become incorporated into sea ice, but are essentially just chunks that have fallen off of larger ice bodies. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:33, 13 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

   Well, vitality comes with popularity. Sea ice is certainly important, but "iceberg" is undeniably more popular as a term and as a concept than "sea ice." You seem to dismiss the Titanic iceberg too easily. I mean, it launched the term into the mainstream. Icebergs have been globally recognized, even if they are relatively unremarkable phenomena in general. The number of interwikis only bolsters this—icebergs are without a doubt the most recognized ice-related concept. Nub098765 (talk) 05:55, 22 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

2. Per my reasoning above. Nub098765 (talk) 05:58, 22 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Neutral

Discuss

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:14, 3 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Remove Lushan Huiyuan

Latest comment: 15 days ago8 comments6 people in discussion

So there does appear to be some agreement that a page got to have some activity in order to be on here. This person's page only has a more than a hundred edits, and a completely empty talk page.

Support

1. Bluevestman (talk) 22:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
2. I checked some sources, and he is not mentioned as frequently as the others listed. He is notable figure in the early development of Buddhism in China, which suggests Level 5. --Thi (talk) 11:10, 3 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
3. Lazman321 (talk) 00:59, 25 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
4. Interstellarity (talk) 14:47, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oppose

1. Purely based on balancing out western bias in our religious figures. I don't expect non-western figures to have the same statistics as western ones due to the inherent western bias of an English Wiki. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:54, 25 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Discuss

1. I don't think talk page activity and edit count should be among the main criteria used for determining vitality. Number of edits, MAYBE, but talk page criteria is arbitrary.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:37, 5 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

   Agreed. GauchoDude (talk) 18:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

   Seems like it gets crap pageviews. Bluevestman (talk) 18:45, 12 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Add Red-winged blackbird

Latest comment: 15 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

From the article:

Claims have been made that it is the most abundant living land bird in North America, as bird-counting censuses of wintering red-winged blackbirds sometimes show that loose flocks can number in excess of a million birds per flock and the full number of breeding pairs across North and Central America may exceed 250 million in peak years. It also ranks among the best-studied wild bird species in the world.

One of the most important avian species on the planet.

Support

1. Per nom. -1ctinus📝🗨 18:12, 8 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
2. Interstellarity (talk) 14:47, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Add Sholay  5

Latest comment: 15 days ago5 comments5 people in discussion

India currently sits with just 1 entry for film: The Apu Trilogy. Now, this serves well as an example of a acclaimed Indian film, but there's no real Indian blockbuster here, which is an awful blind spot. Sholay   5 is probably the most important movie of Bollywood, as it was by far the highest grossing movie in India at the time, established or popularized many key tropes of Bollywood, and remains very widely known in the country to this day.

(I'll note the last time this movie was proposed, 2 out of the 3 veto votes claimed that Indian films were not as important for the English Wikipedia, which is nonsense given the "No Western bias" rule on the main page.)

Support

1. As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 00:28, 11 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
2. Seems very important, and India is definitely underrepresented at Vital Articles. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:40, 12 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
3. Lazman321 (talk) 00:59, 25 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
4. Interstellarity (talk) 14:48, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

1. Another representation Indian cinema is due for sure, but I think other options should be considered as well. Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge   5 seems like another potential choice. AllyWithInfo (talk) 21:07, 26 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Remove Halldór Laxness  4

Latest comment: 15 days ago4 comments4 people in discussion

The People category at Level 4 has a lot of people who are at Level 5 importance, and Laxness is one of them. He seems important enough for Level 5, but nothing in the article suggests a level of impact that would make him one of the 250 most important writers of all time. There are plenty of other people that would be better uses of this slot.

Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:03, 12 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
2. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 13:25, 18 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
3. Seems only important in Iceland. Lazman321 (talk) 00:59, 25 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
4. Interstellarity (talk) 14:48, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Add Domestic duck

Latest comment: 3 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion

An animal that has been raised for meat and eggs for thousands of years, has dozens of breeds, has cultural impact (from the article: "appeared numerous times in children's stories"). The only reason I don't see this as listed is because domestic ducks are mainly raised in China, where there are not that many Wiki editors.

Support

1. As nom. -1ctinus📝🗨 15:40, 16 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oppose

1. Duck   4 itself is already listed at this level. Why would domestic ducks be just as important? Lazman321 (talk) 00:59, 25 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

   Because ducks are one of the most farmed animals in Asia.

   "n East and Southeast Asia, rice-duck farming is widely practised. "

   "In 2021 approximately 4.3 billion ducks were slaughtered for meat worldwide".

   "Since ancient times, the duck has been eaten as food" -1ctinus📝🗨 19:11, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

2. Interstellarity (talk) 14:49, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Discussion

Add Louis de Broglie  5

Latest comment: 15 days ago5 comments4 people in discussion

The guy that figured out matter itself behaves like a wave, and therefore follows Wave–particle duality   4. Even with how heavily physics (and quantum mechanics in particular) is represented at Level 4, leaving the man behind such a fundamental insight at Level 5 feels like an oversight. Without de Broglie's proposals, quantum doesn't leap from a critique of classical mechanics into a description of reality. If that's not enough, he also played a major role in turning science into an internationally-collaborative pursuit involving the general public, for which he received UNESCO's first ever Kalinga Prize for the Popularization of Science.

Support

1. As nom. Johnnie Runner 00:12, 20 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
2. Lazman321 (talk) 00:59, 25 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
3. Interstellarity (talk) 14:49, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oppose

Neutral

1. I would support if level 4 wasn't over quota. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:41, 29 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Discuss

Satyendra Nath Bose   5 and Lev Landau   5 also deserve strong consideration. Johnnie Runner 22:59, 27 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Add Fundamental interaction  5

Latest comment: 15 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion

We include Gravity   3, Electromagnetism   3, Weak interaction   3, Strong interaction   3, it seems odd to have fundamental interaction two levels below them.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:00, 22 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
2. Interstellarity (talk) 14:50, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oppose

1. I think it's redundant to Standard Model   3 (and to a lesser degree, Force   3). The content is pretty similar between Standard Model and Fundamental interaction. Also Level 4 is over quota. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 21:37, 22 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Neutral

Discuss

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:00, 22 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Add Head of government

Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion

We already list Head of state, so we might as well for this article.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 21:03, 26 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
2. I'd say it's just as important Lazman321 (talk) 17:24, 26 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oppose

Discussion

Add BTS  5

Latest comment: 46 minutes ago10 comments9 people in discussion

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.

---

There's been a lot of rumblings on expanding our selections to include more non-Western music. Well here you go, the biggest K-pop group in the world.

Support

1. Bluevestman (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
2. Primary band of K-pop   4. I can see it at V4. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:03, 18 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
3. Lazman321 (talk) 00:59, 25 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
4. Interstellarity (talk) 14:54, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oppose

1. I really like the push for non-western music, but it might be too early for BTS. I'd really like to see more suggestions from the 19th century, early modern period, classical, baroque, traditional eras of music, all of which are woefully underrepresented by non-western artists. Idiosincrático (talk) 04:17, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
2. Musicians is bloated and there's been way too many "add my favorite musician" proposals at VA4 _pbp 01:27, 3 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
3. Too soon for them. Bluesatellite (talk) 22:43, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
4. Now that I think about it more, yeah, too soon in my opinion. Even if it's the argument for wanting to include more non-Western music, I just don't think BTS is there yet. λ NegativeMP1 04:50, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Discuss

1. No opinion on whether or not to add them but I think the comment claiming that this is an "add my favorite musician" proposal should be discarded upon closing as a blatant bad faith assumption, and 99% likely casting aspersions. Votes should not be based on accusations towards other editors. Also that specific voter is now blocked, assuming that matters. Just my two cents. λ NegativeMP1 22:54, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

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 John McCarthy (computer scientist) or Marvin Minsky

Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think we should add a key figure in artificial intelligence to this list and I am suggesting two possible contenders to the table for discussion. I think in many ways, these figures shaped AI into what it is now.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 23:48, 1 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Add Ken Thompson

Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Considering that we list Dennis Ritchie at this level, I think it would make sense to include him as well.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 23:50, 1 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Add History of slavery

Latest comment: 6 days ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Covers Slave trade.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 00:14, 3 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
2. This is important enough and VA4 is not that much overquota anymore, we should be very able to find listings to remove for compensation.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 05:25, 3 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
3. Lazman321 (talk) 00:59, 25 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
4. Pretty major stuff. The Blue Rider 10:25, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oppose

Discuss

Remove Button

Latest comment: 1 month ago4 comments4 people in discussion

This is very specific clothing accessory that is already covered by articles like Clothing, Shirt, Coat or Suit.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 21:30, 4 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
2. --Thi (talk) 07:54, 5 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
3. Lazman321 (talk) 00:59, 25 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oppose

1. Pretty basic element. I think it's more vital than suit, for example. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:57, 18 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Remove Ballista

Latest comment: 15 days ago6 comments6 people in discussion

Obsolete military technology. Already covered in broader articles on ancient weapons.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 22:17, 5 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
2. --Thi (talk) 07:58, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
3. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 17:11, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oppose

1. This is a pretty significant invention. Obsolete military technology does not mean not vital. We have a recency bias when it comes to military tech. The ballista is also something that is fairly prominent in fiction and media. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
2. Idiosincrático (talk) 02:24, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
3. Just the fact that ballistas appear in many fiction works is a telling sign that it's quite vital for modern times, not to mention it very pertinent use in medieval times. The Blue Rider 18:36, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Remove Brush

Latest comment: 15 days ago6 comments5 people in discussion

A very general topic that is better covered for specific articles like Hairbrush or Paintbrush.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 22:20, 5 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
2. --Thi (talk) 07:58, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oppose

1. This argument doesn't really make sense to me. Aren't articles with broader coverage supposed to be at higher levels? Lazman321 (talk) 05:14, 3 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

   Not really, an example would be Human history   1 and History   2. The Blue Rider 18:39, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

2. Per Laz. Kevinishere15 (talk) 10:31, 4 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
3. Brushes have so many uses, such as in palaeontology, in households, industrially, etc. The Blue Rider 18:39, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Remove Chanakya, add Arthashastra

Latest comment: 15 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Chanakya   4 is listed as a social scientist, political writer or economist, which suggests that he is listed because he is traditionally considered the author of Arthashastra   5, but modern scholars don't think he wrote that book.

Support

1. As nominator Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:03, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
2. Lazman321 (talk) 00:59, 25 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
3. Interstellarity (talk) 14:55, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:03, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Remove Albert Speer

Latest comment: 6 days ago9 comments6 people in discussion

Albert Speer   4 is listed as an architect, but he is mostly known for being the minister for armament of Nazi Germany (I've proposed moving him). I'm not sure if even that is enough to list him on level 4, and we need to remove entries; the only other Nazis we list are Adolf Hitler   3, Hermann Göring   4, Joseph Goebbels   4, Heinrich Himmler   4 and Erwin Rommel   4.

Support

1. His works have not survived. --Thi (talk) 08:17, 14 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
2. Architecture probably played a secondary role in Nazi propaganda. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 11:32, 5 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
3. Lazman321 (talk) 00:59, 25 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
4. Interstellarity (talk) 14:56, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
5. Goebbels and Triumph of the Will   4 fill the 'Nazi cultural policy' niche. Johnnie Runner (talk) 20:58, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oppose

Neutral

• As nominator; I haven't made up my mind. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 17:11, 13 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Discussion

"we need to remove entries" we are 15 below quota and additions are slow, so it is not essential to do heavy cuts at this time. (In reference to the Louis de Broglie nom comment too). Now to address Speer, he is primarily known as a architect and is commonly cited in architecture history and education, that's worth more than 3 years as a government minister - but hard to tell the difference because of the overlap. But his role in Architecture history as the planned architect of Germania (city), with Triumph of the Will and Leni Riefenstahl (another Nazi listed) in which he built the Nazi Party rally grounds used for propaganda. He's listed first as Hitler's chief architect on Britannica [3], architecture sites always analyse him as a architect [4], JSTOR does too [5]. It shows that he's more notable as a example of the relation between architecture and propaganda than he has placement in political history. He has to be compared to other architects rather than head of states or political leaders. In the context of architecture as propaganda, he's the first example to be cited. Depends on how many architects we list, but we are 15 under quota, he wouldn't be the first one i'd cut. WWII history will last a couple of centuries of least, i don't think his role as a architect is less "secure" than any other 20th century person we list in the context of the visual arts. This would be like listing Arnold Schwarzenegger in American politics cause technically Califonia governor is higher ranked in traditional sources rather than his acting or bodybuilding career. GuzzyG (talk) 04:44, 14 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Apparently he was more important as an aritect than I thought, but still, our entire level 4 list is 10 over quota, and it would be farther over quota if additions weren't so slow. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 21:21, 14 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I forgot about Riefenstahl. I should have said "the only Nazi politians and militaries". Lophotrochozoa (talk) 00:15, 15 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Add Straight Outta Compton or N.W.A

Latest comment: 15 days ago4 comments4 people in discussion

So besides these two articles, we also have "Fuck tha Police   5", Eazy-E   5, Ice Cube   5, and Dr. Dre   5. That's a lot of things on here for a group that's level 5 (rightfully, so don't try to argue we need to get rid of one of them). I could simply argue to just add the group, but I think there's a case for adding their groundbreaking album. We don't have any hip-hop work ("Gangnam Style" does not count), and while it's not the most critically acclaimed hip-hop album (that would either go to It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold Us Back   5 or To Pimp a Butterfly   5), Straight Outta Compton did help make gangsta rap to be the dominant form of hip-hop.

Add Straight Outta Compton

1. Bluevestman (talk) 21:21, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
2. Interstellarity (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Add N.W.A

Oppose both

1. Too many recent musicians and music as is _pbp 23:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Discuss

1. If we were going to add any hip hop record to Level 4, I think it would have to be Rapper's Delight   5 for being foundational to the whole sound of hip hop (not just to one particular subgenre), and for being the first of its budding genre to achieve mainstream success. It's to hip hop what Johnny B. Goode   4 is to Rock music   3. Johnnie Runner (talk) 20:00, 31 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Add World economy  5

Latest comment: 10 days ago5 comments5 people in discussion

Major concept, not just thereotical but something mentioned in the news often and steadily, for decades. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:53, 18 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Support

1. Lazman321 (talk) 05:14, 3 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
2. Interstellarity (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
3. World economy has been a concept since classical liberalism and now even more important than never in the neoliberalist world we live. The Blue Rider 18:51, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
4. ALittleClass (talk) 17:08, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oppose

Discuss

Remove New Year  4

Latest comment: 15 days ago16 comments7 people in discussion

I don't think we need an article about the fact that some holidays are considered by their respective cultures to define the beginning of a year on level 4. This is a case where the specific cases are more important.

Support

1. As nominator. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 23:55, 20 June 2025 (UTC) I wouldn't mind removing New Year's Day instead. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
2. I think New Year's Eve is more vital than either New Year   4 or New Year's Day   4. If anything is level 4 it is NYE, which is not even currently VA5.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:38, 14 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
3. Lazman321 (talk) 00:59, 25 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
4. Interstellarity (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oppose

1. 135 languages think it's pretty important _pbp 20:22, 21 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

   Most of those are probably primarily about the European New Year holiday, wich is represented on out list by New Year's Day   4. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 00:04, 22 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

   I agree with what Carl said below...New Year's Day would be a better removal _pbp 18:11, 24 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

   You still haven't commented on the fact that our article New Year is about several unrelated holidays (on the other hand, so is New Year's Day, as Carlwev pointed out). Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:57, 24 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

   They ARE related though... Why do you think they aren't? The article you're suggesting removing most adequately addresses the concept of the New Year _pbp 18:04, 25 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

   Maybe not completely unrelated, but they are clearly distinct holidays. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:37, 25 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Discussion

My thoughts. The Idea of New Year I think is important and should be included at level 4. It is however probably less important than Christmas and should not get more attention than Christmas. For Christmas it is level 4, Christmas Day does not exist as an article, redirects to Christmas. Easter is level 4, Easter Sunday is not an article redirects to Easter. Christmas Eve, Boxing Day and Good Friday are at level 5. So my thoughts are if we treat New Year like Easter or Christmas, the main concept article is listed at level 4, (The article about the main day is not listed as it redirects to the general concept, secondary days get listed at level 5. If we follow this idea, the general article New Year should be listed, and the article about the day New Year's Day should not. The general article also includes other calendars/traditions of a New Year occurring at other dates.... but then so does the article about New Year's Day so...? The argument could be made that if Christmas Day and Easter Sunday redirect to Christmas and Easter, and New Year and New Year's Eve cover Jan 1 and also other dates, why is New Year's Day it's own article and not a redirect. Like mentioned above New Year is in 135 languages, but New Year's Day in 55. But counter to my prediction, New Year has had 4.1 million views since 2015, but New Year's Day more at 6.7 million..... My instincts say we should probably have one article like Easter and Christmas have and that article should be New Year, and we should remove New Years Day, not New Year. ... confusingly New Year's Eve also exists as an article separate from NY and NYD but we do not list it at all compared to Good Friday and Christmas Eve which we do??  Carlwev  07:04, 24 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

The problem is that we don't have an article specifically about the European New Year holiday. We should merge New Year's Day with New Year and split off an article about the European New Year holiday. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 09:49, 24 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Purplebackpack89 and Carlwev: Do you support merging New Year with New Year's Day, as I've proposed on the talk page of the former. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 21:22, 25 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

That would follow the pattern user's have picked with Easter and Christmas (Christmas Day and Easter Sunday redirect) which is an argument for it. Both NY and NYD cover Jan 1 and other traditions/dates together, so that's an argument for. I'm not sure how I feel that Good Friday Christmas Eve and Boxing Day are important and distinct enough to have a separate article but Christmas Day and Easter Sunday are not separate enough. In my head I think of saying City of Westminster can be an article separate from London, but City of London cannot be. But that might not be a fair comparison. Christmas and Easter have a specific 24 day at the centre and a wider general season that lasts longer. New Year is kind of the midnight event, the cross over of Dec 31 to Jan 1. New Year's Eve is an article with over 6 million views, almost as many as NYD much more than NY itself. I'm thinking about the argument that the NYD is more important than NYE is loud enough. They could be argued to say they are the same. Although it can be said that NYD is an official holiday and NYE is not. I'm not sure that's a cast iron argument that would make me agree beyond a doubt, as people meet to celebrate on NYE.

In short, I think I support, but weakly, not completely sure. I'm bot sure there is a cast iron argument that NYD should be merged, but NYE however should be kept. Should that too be merged? If not why? Would we lose content or some other important structure of the articles by merging them?  Carlwev  04:30, 26 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Just for completeness, I reproduce here my response at the formal "request to merge" discussion:

Oppose. Having a separate article for new year's Day providers a home for the plethora of descriptions of local celebrations. The New Year article is thus much less buried in trivia and the astronomy and history of calendars can get due prominence. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:53, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

It would be naive to think that the local celebration stuff would be kept out of a merged article.

I agree that New Year's Day is not a level 4 vital article and support that proposal only. The "New Year" article should remain as V4. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:14, 14 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Please list your vote in the voting section Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:14, 14 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Remove Social reality and Support group

Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Niche topics that would be better off with other topics.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 20:41, 22 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
2. --Thi (talk) 20:45, 22 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Remove Social research

Latest comment: 2 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Article	Vital_Level	Vital_Category	watchers	pageviews	revisions	editors	links_in	Site_links	Language_Links	Qid
Social research	4	Social studies	172	3649	484	283	603	24	22	Q12336277

Overlap with Research.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 20:42, 22 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
2. --Thi (talk) 20:46, 22 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oppose

1. I have a proposal on Level 3 to move Research   3 up. Added some statisics for the page I got about 10 days ago. From a purely quantiatiative standpoint, I could see this moving down so am not particarlly firm in this vote. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:06, 27 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Remove Michelangelo Antonioni

Latest comment: 27 days ago4 comments4 people in discussion

An italian director. He only has one film at VA5 on this list, L'Avventura   5. (We also currently list 2 other italian directors, if anyone had representation concerns)

Support

1. As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 19:18, 24 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
2. I believe he's only listed at this level because L'Avventura was also once at V4. Since the film has been moved to V5, there's no need to list the director at V4. SameOldSameOldSameOld (talk) SameOldSameOldSameOld (talk) 21:35, 26 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oppose

1. One of the most important directors of modernist films. --Thi (talk) 12:47, 27 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
2. One of the few situations where I think listing a creative above their work is justified. This director is famous not for one or two specific films which were impactful, but for the industry impact of his filmography as a whole. It was the man who changed the film industry, not any individual work of his. Multiple other VA4 directors singing your praises is also a sign of vitality. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:23, 3 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Discuss

Remove Vegetable oil  4

Latest comment: 15 days ago5 comments5 people in discussion

VA4 is overquota, with Everyday Life particularly over its quota (I'd like to give it 100 from People though). Cooking oil   4 is only at VA4, so I'm not convinced we should also list this specific type.

Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:40, 2 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
2. Support --Thi (talk) 10:59, 3 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
3. Support to get the quota down. Interstellarity (talk) 15:00, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oppose

1. The fact that there are 9 different types of vegetable oil at VA5 suggests that a general article is warranted at this level. ALittleClass (talk) 00:30, 4 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
2. Lazman321 (talk) 00:59, 25 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Neutral

Discuss

Add remove museums

Latest comment: 13 days ago49 comments7 people in discussion

Let's look at all of these together.

1. Be advised, that I am aware I am comparing museums based solely upon their highlights according to English Wikipedia's VA list rather than breadth, depth and instructive/educational value of its collection.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:38, 5 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Remove Rijksmuseum

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.

---

Upon returning from 10 days in Europe, including 3 nights in Amsterdam, I am weighing in on the arts with some thoughts. This museum is spectacular. I completed 4 or 5 audio tours and found it fascinating. However, it seems that only 1 VA specific work of art (The Night Watch   4) is housed here (although I did not look at the sculptural specific works lists very closely). -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:57, 3 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Upon further inspection no VA sculptural works, but I overlooked a handful of Self-portraits by Rembrandt   5.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:12, 4 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Support

1. As nom, you could go down the block and see a half dozen VA works (The Potato Eaters) and several elements from 2 series (Wheat Fields and Sunflowers (Van Gogh series)) at Van Gogh Museum   5. The museum has depth and breadth across many periods of art but there are several museums with broader sets of VA works not listed at VA4.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:57, 3 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
2. Support --Thi (talk) 10:51, 3 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
3. "Biggest museum in the Netherlands" is not enough for VA4. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:27, 3 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
4. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
5. ALittleClass (talk) 18:36, 8 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

1. Getting back to basics, I just realized that this museum punches above its weight in terms of interwikis (65 vs 39, 43 and 49) and pageview compared to the AIC, MFAB and KM below nominated as adds.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:58, 16 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

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 Musée d'Orsay   5 and Musée National d'Art Moderne   4

During a 4 day visit to Paris as part of my 60th BDay celebration last week I stopped in at several museums but not the Musée National d'Art Moderne   4, which does not host enough VA works for me to have prioritized it with visits to Rodin Museum, Louvre   4 and Musée d'Orsay   5. The number of important works at these other institutions is far superior, IMO. I admit, I have not really slogged through the sculptural specific works lists, but I don't think this should rank with the Louvre and above Musee d'Orsay.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:24, 3 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Musée d'Orsay

Paintings as follows Bal du moulin de la Galette   5, The Birth of Venus (Bouguereau)   5, The Card Players   5, Le Déjeuner sur l'herbe   5, The Gleaners   5, Olympia (Manet)   5, L'Origine du monde   5, 3 Water Lilies (Monet series)   4, Whistler's Mother   5

Sculptures as follows as follows The Gates of Hell   5, The Mature Age   5, a version of The Thinker   4

Musée National d'Art Moderne: Fountain (Duchamp)   4-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:17, 4 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Musee d'Orsay compares favorably with the Louvre

Paintings as follows Mona Lisa   4, The Four Seasons (Poussin)   5, several Self-portraits by Rembrandt   5, Virgin of the Rocks   5, The Barque of Dante   5, Grande Odalisque   5, Liberty Leading the People   5, The Massacre at Chios   5, The Raft of the Medusa   5, The Turkish Bath   5

Sculptures as follows as follows Venus de Milo   4, Sleeping Hermaphroditus   5-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:26, 4 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Support

1. As nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:24, 3 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
   1. Although larger than Musee d' Orsay, it is less visited, even counting visitors to the other elements of the Centre Pompidou.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:28, 3 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
   2. Further on this swap. It is not close in terms of pageviews (10x), watchers (5x), editors (4x), and edits (5x) Also interwikis is 118 vs. 27.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:39, 16 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
2. Lazman321 (talk) 17:59, 26 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oppose

Mixed

1. Support removing Musée National d'Art Moderne, weak oppose to adding Musée d'Orsay. I'm not sure we need this many art museums I might change my mind if we end up having room for it, but I think it's more likely that we should add a few works in that case. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:01, 17 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

   At Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/4/Arts#Cultural_venues we have 20 articles including 18 specific art, history and science museums. I can't say whether this is more than is what is best for VA4. I have merely presented 4 current adds and 3 current removes to improve the set. The 4 adds seem more vital to me based on their VA highlights than the 3 removes. I made the nominations before considering pageviews, interwikis, incoming/outgoing links, watchers, etc and without consideration of the broader collection and its educational, amusement, entertainment and informational values. This particular swap seems the most obvious of the 7 changes. I do know Arts is under quota and these are all currently VA5 institutions of import. Let's see what people think. In my experience at VA cultural institutions take a long time to get resolved. Look at this set of nominations from 6.5 months ago. It could be a while before these get peoples' attention.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:47, 18 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Neutral

Discussion

Add Art Institute of Chicago   5

Of all the museums in the world that host at least one VA4 specific work of painting or sculpture that is not a part of a series or set and at least one other VA5 or above work that is not a part of a series or a set, this is the only one that is not already VA4. Collection includes A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte   4, American Gothic   5, Nighthawks (Hopper)   5, Paris Street; Rainy Day   5, at least 3x Water Lilies (Monet series)   4. Also, seems to be the largest museum with at least 2 VA works that are not a part of a series or set that is not VA4.

Support

1. As nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:03, 8 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
2. Certainly vital, and I don't find the quota argument convincing. I'd rather support good removals than oppose good additions. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:48, 13 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
3. Lazman321 (talk) 17:59, 26 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oppose

1. This is not the right time to add more entries. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 21:10, 9 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

   User:Lophotrochozoa, The arts are under quota 695/700, would you care to explain this further.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:25, 10 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

   There are 10006 entries in the entire level 4 list but it's supposed to be 10000, and if we ever manage to remove enough, I wouls like to prioritize older addition nominations. Also, I don't think we need more museums on level 4. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 16:10, 10 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

   Lophotrochozoa A group proposal that includes 5 add nominations and 3 removal nominations does not have to adversely impact the effort to approach 10k. We could limit the additions to the number of removals. Although one pair is intended to be a straight swap. Also, if we are at 10006/10000 and 695/700, it would not be a bad idea to add one or two net Arts.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:45, 10 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

   Lophotrochozoa is this group of 5 4 adds/3 removals the only nomination on the page that you noted should not be considered right now due to overall quota? Would this objection be better placed at nomination for a subsection that is over quota. E.g., why don't you move this objection to a nomination like a social science straight add nomination that is 913/900 and 10006/10000.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:47, 10 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

   I have proposed a moratorium on new proposals for addition; we're unlikely to formally decide on the moratorium but personally I vote against all new proposals for addition. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 11:09, 11 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

   I see the last VA4 Add nomination (from June 3) that you voted on was against Hello Kitty, which is also in the Arts. The last VA4 Add nomination (from May 5) before that was in support of Presbyterianism, which is also in a subsection under quota. It would seem like your attempt to vote against all VA4 add while we are over quota would have you voting against adds in overquota subsections. I don't really understand what you are trying to do based on how you are voting although I understand what I think you mean to do. You of course are free to vote how you feel. But this is a section that I asked voters to consider together with 5 4 adds and 3 removes, which is different from a straight add. I see that there have been no straight adds in several weeks, so I guess you are exerting influence with your voting. I think looking at the adds and removes together we could improve our list with the proper consensus rather than just shut down all the adds in this group. I'll just wait for the rest of the votes to come in.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:49, 12 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

   User:Lophotrochozoa, Note that out of respect for your efforts to encourage limited add nominations, I have withdrawn the weakest of the 5 add nominations. That makes this a set of 4 adds and 3 removes. People should be able to evaluate them without throwing VA4 off its track towards quota. However, I do believe that all of these add nominations are more vital than the removal nominations, which means I am asking my fellow editors to address a correctible situation.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:43, 14 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Neutral

Discussion

Add Museum of Fine Arts, Boston   5

Second to AIC (above) in terms of largest museums with at least 2 specific VA works of painting or sculpture that are not a part of a series or set that is not VA4. Collection includes Athenaeum Portrait   5, The Slave Ship   5, Where Do We Come From? What Are We? Where Are We Going?   5, at least 3x Water Lilies (Monet series)   4, 1x Wheat Fields   5

Support

1. As nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:17, 8 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
2. Lazman321 (talk) 17:59, 26 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oppose

1. This is not the right time to add more entries. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 21:10, 9 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
   1. User:Lophotrochozoa, The arts are under quota 695/700, would you care to explain this further.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:25, 10 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Neutral

Discussion

Add Kunsthistorisches Museum   5

Seems to be the most visited museum in the world with at least 2 specific VA works of painting or sculpture that are not a part of a series or set that is not VA4. Collection includes The Hunters in the Snow   5, The Tower of Babel (Bruegel)   5, The Art of Painting   5, 1x Self-portraits by Rembrandt   5

Support

1. As nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:17, 8 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
2. Lazman321 (talk) 17:59, 26 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oppose

1. This is not the right time to add more entries. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 21:10, 9 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
   1. User:Lophotrochozoa, The arts are under quota 695/700, would you care to explain this further.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:25, 10 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Neutral

Discussion

Remove National Palace Museum   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.

---

This does not seem to host any VA works of painting or sculpture.

Support

1. As nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:33, 8 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
2. Not seeing vitality here. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:17, 13 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
3. Lazman321 (talk) 17:59, 26 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
4. --Thi (talk) 11:16, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
5. Interstellarity (talk) 15:01, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

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 Philadelphia Museum of Art   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.

---

Collection includes Nude Descending a Staircase, No. 2   5, co hosts The Gross Clinic   5 with Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts, 1x Sunflowers (Van Gogh series)   5, 2x Bird in Space   5, at least 1x Water Lilies (Monet series)   4 , 1x Wheat Fields   5

Support

1. As nom. Admittedly weaker case than some of the above because most of its important works can be experienced elsewhere by other elements of the set and it only co hosts one of these.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:36, 8 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oppose

1. This is not the right time to add more entries. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 21:10, 9 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
   1. User:Lophotrochozoa, The arts are under quota 695/700, would you care to explain this further.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:25, 10 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Neutral

Discussion

Not a strong enough candidate for the reasons already mentioned in my support. VA4 is over quota. It is more vital than some current VA4s but less vital than the other 4 nominees I have listed above. Let's just focus on the 4 above that are more deserving.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:55, 13 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

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 Hergé

Latest comment: 13 days ago5 comments5 people in discussion

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 cartoonist behind The Adventures of Tintin   4. Essentially all of his noteworthiness derives from making this series, and none of the other creators of a VA4 comic are listed at this level (Peanuts   4 - Charles M. Schulz   5, Asterix   4 - René Goscinny   5 and Albert Uderzo   5, Dragon Ball   4 - Akira Toriyama   5, One Piece   4 - Eiichiro Oda   5)

Support

1. As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 00:28, 4 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oppose

1. While his other comics aren't as iconic/influential as Tintin, they are still fairly popular in his home country and have even been the subject of critical analysis. I feel like if there is an entire community dedicated to studying your work, then you are influential enough to be in V4. I feel it's also worth mentioning that there are a few comic artists in V4 who are actually listed over their works (Osamu Tezuka   4 - Astro Boy   5, Jack Kirby   4 - Captain America   5, Winsor McCay   4 - Little Nemo   5) SameOldSameOldSameOld (talk) SameOldSameOldSameOld (talk) 18:00, 4 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
2. His biography is important for understanding Tintin. --Thi (talk) 21:18, 4 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
3. Per above. Thi raises an important point: the tone of Tintin volumes is heavily shaped by Hergé's mental state. J947 ‡ ^edits 07:20, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

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 Ingemar Stenmark  4

Latest comment: 1 month ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I'm not convinced we need two skiers at Level 4, and people keep saying that we need cuts. Stenmark is a great skier, but we only need one on this list, and the other skier is the most decorated Winter Olympian of all time, so I'd keep her instead of Stenmark.

Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oppose

1. No doubt a vital subject. The most accomplished male skier of all time.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:48, 14 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

   @TonyTheTiger: Maybe, and I would definitely keep him at Level 5, but I don't think we need two skiers at Level 4, and "best male skier" is a much weaker argument than "best Winter Olympian". QuicoleJR (talk) 13:14, 14 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

   I really don't like seeing athletes getting removed at VA4 and VA5, so I will defend his case. I consider him a more important subject than a lot of things being added at VA4.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:21, 16 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Neutral

Discuss

Add Geographic information system  5, remove Pechora (river)  4

Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments2 people in discussion

GIS is highly important in geography. Level 4 geography is at 1204/1200 so something has to go; I chose Pechora (river) as it seems one of the least vital in physical geography. It's the 72nd longest river, has the 65th highest discharge (though it is 6th longest and 3rd highest discharge in Europe). It doesn't go through a highly populated area (its basin consists of part of Komi Republic, pop 700,000 and part of Nenets Autonomous Okrug, pop 40,000). 96.79.100.209 (talk) 16:22, 15 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Support

1. As nom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.79.100.209 (talk) 16:22, 15 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
2. Agree. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:06, 21 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oppose

Require VA?

Latest comment: 5 days ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I have been doing research on the distribution of specific works vital articles. I have noticed that there are several VA4 listed sculptors (1/10) and painters (6/63) among the listed visual artists that have no specific works listed at any level. Should we either 1.) reconsider whether they should be listed by nominating them for removal, 2.) examine the list and try to determine their most notable/vital specific work for inclusion in the list; or 3.) ignore this finding as not relevant. I am requesting blind opinions before revealing the list, but would be happy to reveal the list if it people feel this list should not be considered blindly.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:23, 22 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I could see an argument where none of their individual works are vital by themselves, but the sum of the whole makes them vital. However, if they are only known for a select few works that are unlisted, they should probably be removed unless we decide that one of those works is vital. I would need to see the list to know how many fall in which of those two categories. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:36, 23 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

User:QuicoleJR, I have made the three nominations.

I have determined my best candidate for 3 others and opted not to nominate. I don't know if I have actually picked the best, but I don't think any of these is really strong enough to nominate:

1. Cathedral Square, Milan (painting) for Gerhard Richter, which was the most expensive artwork by living artist for 6 months in 2013. Only 2 interwikis.
2. Pont Boieldieu in Rouen, Rainy Weather for Camille Pissarro, Part of a series, which somewhat diminishes its individual significance.
3. How to Explain Pictures to a Dead Hare for Joseph Beuys, seems a bit esoteric to hold a VA4 sculptor slot with this.

I am undecided on the best candidate for 1.

1. The Blue Rider (Kandinsky) or Composition VII for Wassily Kandinsky.

My favorite of this bunch is Kandinsky, based on enjoyment of his works in my museum experiences in the past. I also think Pissarro belongs with his French Impressionist peers (Paul Cézanne, Edgar Degas, Édouard Manet, Claude Monet, and Pierre-Auguste Renoir) at VA4, and above Alfred Sisley, but I can't get behind any work for VA.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:55, 27 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

TonyTheTiger, I think the best representation for Kandinsky (and Marc) would be Der Blaue Reiter which was the most significant expressionist art group ever. The Blue Rider 10:20, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I don't think there's a single hard and fast rule regarding this, what is mentioned above should probably be one of several criteria taken into consideration, but not the only one. One artist may be famous and have a long career with hundreds of moderately known works, but not one huge stand out work among them. Another may have a short career with few works and an easy main piece to pick out. (different but vaguely similar concept...Bangladesh is level 3 but History of Bangladesh is only level 5, compare with Portugal is level 4, but History of Portugal is level 4. You may think a nation being at a higher level means the history of nation would be a higher level, but not always) There could be times when it makes sense to follow a loose rule, and times when it makes sense not to, we should discus case by case with this argument in mind among others...Also I hope we are sensible enough for it not to become a circular argument do inclusion or exclusion. Eg a user nominates a work but people oppose saying artist not listed at level 4 so their works shouldn't be listed, so user nominates artist at level 4 but is met with, oppose artist has no works at level 5. Also there are times where we list a work higher than artist, like Harry Potter is higher than JK Rowking, Tarzan higher than Edgar Rice Burroughs, Gangnam Style is higher than Psy. Some artists from long ago may be well known but have no surviving works to make a good article about.  Carlwev  09:10, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Swap Papua (province)  4 with Western New Guinea  5 or remove.

Latest comment: 19 days ago4 comments2 people in discussion

New Guinea   4 and Papua New Guinea   4 are listed. I think when this was listed, the province of Papua (province)   4 covered most of Western New Guinea   5, but now it has been reduced in size as more provinces are formed. IMO it could just be removed from level 4 as covered by New Guinea.

Support

1. As nom: prefer removal, also would support swap. 96.65.201.81 (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
2. Lazman321 (talk) 05:14, 3 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

   @Lazman321 Do you support swap with Western New Guinea   5 or removal? 96.65.201.81 (talk) 22:19, 11 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

   Removal. Lazman321 (talk) 02:38, 12 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oppose

Discuss

Remove Tocantins River  4

Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Seems of relatively low importance for a river at VA4, although it's fairly long and has a high discharge. Other rivers of South America are more important. Doesn't flow through a very populated area and doesn't attract a lot of interest, with an average of 34 daily pageviews.

Support

1. As nom. 96.65.201.81 (talk) 20:39, 23 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
2. Lazman321 (talk) 00:59, 25 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oppose

Discuss

Remove Structured programming  4

Latest comment: 15 days ago4 comments4 people in discussion

VA4 Technology is at 724/700. Maybe Programming paradigm   4, Functional programming   4, and Object-oriented programming   4 are enough for this level. Structured programming   4 also has lower pageviews, fewer watchers, and fewer interwikis.

Support

1. As nom. 96.65.201.81 (talk) 21:31, 23 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
2. Lazman321 (talk) 00:59, 25 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
3. --Thi (talk) 11:18, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
4. Interstellarity (talk) 15:01, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oppose

Discussion

Remove Fallingwater  4

Latest comment: 6 days ago5 comments5 people in discussion

Haven't spent much time in the arts list, but I stumbled across this and was baffled. Obviously a significant house design and no objection to it being L5, but on the same level of 'vital' as Stonehenge   4, the Kaaba   4, Acropolis of Athens   4 and Machu Picchu   4? I don't see it.

Support

1. As nom. YFB ¿ 21:21, 27 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
2. Lazman321 (talk) 05:14, 3 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
3. The Blue Rider 18:56, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
4. Not Level 4 vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 11:17, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
5. PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:24, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oppose

Discuss

A broad comparison of the ratios of specific works

Latest comment: 30 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

We list 36 architectural structures, 164 written works (93 fiction, 24 poetry, and 47 nonfiction), 33 specific musical works (all except Gangnam Style are western) 37 video-medium works (32 films and 5 TV shows), 28 other visual works (17 paintings, 8 sculptures and 3 "other"), and 4 video games (3+the character of Mario, this is the only time I accounted for characters, of which we list 18). Does anyone have any comments on these ratios, and suggestions for whether any category should be expanded or be trimmed? ALittleClass (talk) 10:07, 29 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I don't like that we only list five TV shows. If we can have The Simpsons   4 at V4 then surely there are other shows that belong as well. And I've made my stance on anti-video game bias at this level clear in the past already. λ NegativeMP1 19:46, 29 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I would agree with that, TV shows and video games could both use a couple more entries. If we list 32 films, we have room for a couple more shows and games. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:13, 31 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Add Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin  5

Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Cecilia Payne was one of the founders of modern astrophysics (arguably the founder), whose discoveries about the composition of stars completely changed scientific understanding of stellar objects. She overcame many barriers in academia at the time, distinguishing herself as a woman scientist, and was the first woman to be appointed as a professor at Harvard. She was a fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society and received numerous awards for her groundbreaking studies, which were widely recognised by the scientific community. Her article has 54 interlanguage links and receives 384 daily average page views. I think she would be a natural fit for the level 4 list of vital articles on physicists. --Grnrchst (talk) 19:25, 29 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Support

1. As nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 19:25, 29 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oppose

Discuss

Remove Sichuanese dialects  4

Latest comment: 6 days ago5 comments5 people in discussion

I was looking for something to remove as level 4 "society and social sciences" is at 914/900. Sichuanese dialects   4 seems too similar to Mandarin Chinese   4 to list. Also, it has 62 daily pageviews, which is low for a level 4 article.

Also, I didn't find consensus to add it to this level. Per Special:Diff/1151423799, it seems the consensus was to add to it level 5 instead. It wasn't even on level 5 until I added it just now.

Support

1. As nom. 96.89.118.93 (talk) 23:29, 31 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
2. Lazman321 (talk) 05:14, 3 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
3. --Thi (talk) 11:17, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
4. PrimalMustelid (talk) 23:31, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
5. A dialect that despite being in the 2nd most populous country has low numbers of speakers. The Blue Rider 10:15, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oppose

Discuss

Add Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory

Latest comment: 18 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Originally created in the early 20th century, it is now the most common axiom set used for the Foundations of mathematics   5. Essentially, the original spirit was that all of math could be converted into this specific language of sets, and then studied perfectly rigorously, a "Theory of Everything" of math (this wasn't the case, as it turned out). Almost all proofs of logical independence have used ZFC as a basis (such as the independence of the Continuum hypothesis   5, but see this list for a more comprehensive catalogue). This article gets ~200000 pageviews yearly which is strong for an abstract maths article.

But really, I think the strongest argument for this articles inclusion is already found within our own list: All 8 specific axioms of ZF set theory are VA5 already: Axiom of extensionality   5, Axiom of regularity   5, Axiom schema of specification   5, Axiom of pairing   5, Axiom of union   5, Axiom schema of replacement   5, Axiom of infinity   5, and Axiom of power set   5 (not including Axiom of choice   4). So, if ZF set theory is not voted to be a VA4 concept, I would actually consider proposing these for removal, for the sake of self-consistency.

Support

1. As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
2. Per nom. 204.195.97.109 (talk) 04:30, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oppose

Discuss

Remove Prose poetry  4

Latest comment: 14 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I think this is hardly a concept with VA4 level of cultural influence, and less fundamental than Metre (poetry)   5 and Verse (poetry)   5. Rated Low-importance in Poetry.

Support

1. As nom.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 11:16, 3 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
2. Per nom. 204.195.97.109 (talk) 04:30, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oppose

1. Oppose. I think that prose poetry has more global cultural influence then the vast majority of biographies we include. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:53, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Discuss

Add Julia Child

Latest comment: 21 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

To my knowledge, Level 4 lists no chefs or people in the culinary arts. I think listing one here would be a good fit, given that we seem to have a good selection of important people to specific sports. And at the end of the day, this was the biggest name in cooking I could think of.

Support

1. As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 02:54, 4 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oppose

1. There should be a chef but it has to be one of either Auguste Escoffier or Marie-Antoine Carême, They had more of a effect than a TV host. (which is important, but she's like 5th, there's also Paul Bocuse and Joël Robuchon who are the two most influential modern chefs). This would be like having a slot for painting left and instead of Gustav Klimt, Mark Rothko, Egon Schiele or Jean-Michel Basquiat we give it to Bob Ross. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GuzzyG (talk • contribs) 08:37, 4 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
2. --Thi (talk) 11:16, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Discuss

Add iPad

Latest comment: 3 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

It is the best-selling tablet computer of all time. We already list products like iPhone and Mac (computer) so makes sense to complement the list with this addition.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 12:32, 4 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oppose

1. We do not need three Apple products at Level 4. Æ's old account wasn't working (talk) 03:44, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
2. I don't think there's anything the iPad did technologically or culturally that the iPhone didn't do first. Johnnie Runner (talk) 06:07, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Add Auguste Escoffier

Latest comment: 24 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An alternative proposal to the "Julia Child" proposal (because I am not very familiar with the culinary arts). He seems to be one of the most important chefs in history, he codified much of French "haute cuisine", most notably the five mother sauces. Reiterating that this would be the first chef adding to this level. If this fails, I would suggest adding Culinary arts to this level.

Support

1. As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 19:51, 6 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oppose

Discuss

Add Hedonism

Latest comment: 2 days ago4 comments4 people in discussion

"...a family of philosophical views that prioritize pleasure." A very important philosophical position across world history and cultures.

Support

1. As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 20:45, 6 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
2. We arguably live in a hedonistic society. The Blue Rider 18:58, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
3. Seems pretty important. Also, we really need to add Optimism   5 and Pessimism   5 to VA4 as well. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:05, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
4. Support  Carlwev  13:01, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oppose

Discuss

Move Gaza Strip

Latest comment: 23 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Gaza Strip   4 is incorrectly listed in the cities section of VA4. It should either be under the Palestine   4 bullet point in "Unrecognized or largely unrecognized states, and disputed regions" or in the "Middle East" section of "Regions and country subdivisions". 166.140.230.92 (talk) 18:28, 7 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Add Hero of Alexandria  5

Latest comment: 20 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Arguably the best-known inventor of the ancient world, after Archimedes   3. Notable for the Aeolipile, Heron's fountain, Heron's formula, Heron's method, Vending machine, Hero's principle, among others.

Support

1. As nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 01:51, 11 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
2. --Thi (talk) 08:54, 11 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oppose

Discuss

Add Aesop  5

Latest comment: 10 days ago7 comments7 people in discussion

Like Homer, he's more of a literary persona representing a tradition than a single original author, but his fables may actually surpass Homer in readership because of their adaptations and permutations in children’s books and moral tales worldwide.

Support

1. As nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 01:51, 11 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
2. I'm surprised he wasn't in from day 1, but as we know, slow and steady wins the race. Johnnie Runner (talk) 18:20, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
3. Per nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:56, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oppose

1. Was swapped out for Aesop's Fables   4. We don't need both. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:51, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
2. I believe that the works of a person are generally more vital then the person themselves. Per J947, I think Aesop's Fable's are adequate. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:52, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
3. Aesop's Fables   4 cover the actual material. --Thi (talk) 08:07, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
4. Per above, for the same reason why list Harry Potter   4 above J. K. Rowling   5, or The Scarlet Letter   4 above Nathaniel Hawthorne   5. Aesop himself is less important than his Fables. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:04, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Discuss

Remove Muhammad II of Khwarazm  4. Add Timurid Empire  5

Latest comment: 10 days ago4 comments4 people in discussion

The former was a Persian ruler whose bad judgment led to a Mongol Invasion that toppled his empire. Doesn't seem to be much more notable beyond that (and many would argue that a Mongol-Khwarazm clash was highly likely eventually). The Timurids were not only a military power but also became a center of architecture, painting, literature, and astronomy in the "Timurid Renaissance" centered in cities like Samarkand   4 and Herat   4.

Support

1. As nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 06:08, 11 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
2. --Thi (talk) 08:54, 11 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
3. Easy swap. The Blue Rider 18:59, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
4. Per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 11:14, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oppose

Discuss

Remove Dmitry Donskoy  4

Latest comment: 10 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

At this level, we probably don't need two Russian leaders who defeated the Mongols. Donskoy is best known for his victory at the Battle of Kulikovo in 1380, but Muscovy remained under Mongol control until Ivan III of Russia   4 formally broke it in 1480. For a rough comparison, we list Isabella I of Castile   4 but not Alfonso VIII. Note that Battle of Kulikovo isn't VA5, though I will probably nominate it soon.

Support

1. As nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 06:30, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
2. --Thi (talk) 08:46, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
3. Per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 11:14, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oppose

Discuss

Add Enheduanna  5

Latest comment: 14 days ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Enheduanna was the high priestess of Nanna in Ur   4 and the daughter of Sargon of Akkad   4 (history's first emperor). She is the first credited author in history, having penned a number of texts in Sumerian literature   5 (including early examples of the Hymn   4) and pioneered early theories of Rhetoric   4. After her work was rediscovered by modern archaeologists, she became a prominent figure in the historiography of Second-wave feminism   5 and the namesake of a crater on Mercury. Her article has 59 interlanguage links and receives 228 daily average page views. I think she would be a very good fit on the level-4 list of ancient writers. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:55, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Support

1. As nom. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:55, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oppose

Discuss

Add Hu Jintao  5

Latest comment: 12 days ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Hu Jintao was the leader of China from 2002 to 2012, a pretty long time period. His tenure coincided with China's rise as a global power, with China overtaking France, the United Kingdom, Germany and Japan to become the world's second largest economy during his leadership. The Account 2 (talk) 08:20, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Support

1. As nom. The Account 2 (talk) 08:20, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oppose

Discuss

Swap 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami for 1976 Tangshan earthquake

Latest comment: 6 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The Tangshan earthquake was a far more deadly disaster than the Indian Ocean tsunami.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 21:23, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oppose

1. Oppose removal. The 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami was a pretty major event at the time not only in raw numbers but also long-term with the creation of Indian Ocean Tsunami Warning System, for example. The Blue Rider 10:12, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Discuss

• It doesn't seem like "far more"; according to their articles both killed an enormous number (200,000-300,000). 96.95.142.29 (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Add History of video games  5

Latest comment: 8 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Video game   3 is Level 3, so we can list the History subtopic here. Video games have had a very eventful 80-year history, with lots of rapid development. We have previously had proposals to add Pong   5 and Pac-Man   5 to Level 4, but adding this article would cover both of those, as well as several other near-misses. It easily warrants a slot. Rated High-Importance by WikiProject Computing and WikiProject Japan and Top-Importance by WikiProject Video games and WikiProject History.

Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 11:13, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
2. A broad topic with more long-term relevance than individual games (or game franchises).--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 11:32, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
3. Æ's old account wasn't working (talk) 11:42, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Add Region  5

Latest comment: 7 days ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Regions are an important concept in geography, in fact one of the Four traditions of geography is the Area studies, or regional, tradition. The organization of our geography section, particularly at the higher levels, is a bit out dated (to the point of accidently imposing slight Eurocentric views), specifically with regard to continents. For example, we can refer to the Middle East & North Africa as a cultural region without needing to consider the underlying geology, while the Continent model we are using throws the Middle East into Asia while giving the European Peninsula the distinction of continent. From an academic standpoint, region is a more important and useful term when organizing areas, and I think this concept should therefore be a bit higher up.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:13, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
2. It fills a niche in addition to Country   2 that we are lacking. But I don't want to see it any higher than VA4 since it's practically impossible to write a FA about. I very nearly opposed this on the basis that the article is too basic: it's broader than most VA2 articles, and that's saying something. J947 ‡ ^edits 21:43, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

   I disagree that it would be impossible to write a FA about region, as a concept. There are ALOT of sources on this, one quote that comes to mind by John Fraser Hart is: "The highest form of the geographer's art is producing good regional geography- evocative descriptions that facilitate an understanding and an appreciation of places, areas, and regions." So much thought has been put into what makes a region that the hardest part is boiling it down. Adding to my list of stuff to do literature reviews on. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:12, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

3. Sure, it's a pretty important concept. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:19, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oppose

1. VA5 is fine.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:35, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

   This concept is more important then any country we have listed. The fact it is at level 5 as it is flips the entire vital article criteria upside down. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:41, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Neutral

Discuss

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:13, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Remove Alfred, Lord Tennyson  4

Latest comment: 6 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

A British poet who, while accomplished, does not reach the same heights as the other Level 4 writers. His main claims to vitality are being Poet Laureate and influencing a major group of artists. While that is certainly enough for Level 5, Level 4 requires more than that. If we listed everyone who influenced other Level 4 people at the same level, we'd run out of slots. He doesn't have any other major claim to impact, and none of his works are listed at any level AFAICT. He should go down to Level 5.

Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:47, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
2. Per nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:48, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Add Pheromone

Latest comment: 5 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I saw a lot of people say that this should be Level 4 when it was nominated.

Support

1. As nom. (original nomination at VA5 was by 96.89.118.93) ALittleClass (talk) 22:36, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
2. It should. Johnnie Runner (talk) 17:14, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oppose

Discuss

Reorganizing the categories of the level 4 and level 5 vital articles

Latest comment: 4 days ago6 comments4 people in discussion

I would like to make a suggestion on reorganizing the categories of the level 4 and level 5 vital articles. The VA are divided up into ten categories. Unfortunately, when it comes to deciding where to put certain articles, it not all black and white. We have had those ten categories for vital articles ever since I've been around on the project. I would like to suggest a different way to categorize these articles. I don't have a specific category structure in mind, but one thought I have in doing so is modelling after the category of Category:Main_topic_classifications which does a pretty good job in categorizing articles. I would like to see something similar happen to the vital articles, especially the last two levels. I am hoping I can get some input on how to best categorize these articles. Unfortunately, picking categories is subjective and I would like to get a consensus on what to do about them. I will leave a note on the level 5 talk page as well as the main vital talk page to gather as much input as possible. Interstellarity (talk) 00:23, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

1. I agree we could probably do better for categorization/organization. I believe we have a lot of redundant sections that could be merged. Geography is, in my professional opinion, a "hot mess." If you have a more specific proposal that is well thought out, I'd likely support it, but would need to see a clear justification.

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:45, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

One thought I have is make the categories similar to what we have in WP:Contents like Culture and the arts. One possible thought I have could be:

• Biographies (People & Figures)
  • Historical figures
  • Politicians and leaders
  • Scientists and inventors
  • Artists, writers, musicians
  • Athletes and sportspeople
  • Business leaders
  • Religious figures
  • Fictional characters
• Geography & Places
  • Countries, territories, regions
  • Cities, towns, villages
  • Natural features (mountains, rivers, lakes, seas)
  • Landmarks and buildings
  • Administrative divisions
• History & Events
  • Wars, battles, revolutions
  • Political events (elections, treaties, coups)
  • Social movements
  • Natural disasters
  • Cultural and scientific milestones
  • Year articles (e.g., "1969")
• Culture & the Arts
  • Literature (novels, poetry, authors)
  • Visual arts (painting, sculpture, architecture)
  • Performing arts (theatre, dance, opera)
  • Film, television, video games
  • Music (songs, albums, musicians, genres)
  • Fashion and design
  • Cuisine and food culture
• Science & Mathematics
  • Disciplines (physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, earth sciences, mathematics)
  • Theories and principles
  • Scientific phenomena
  • Discoveries and inventions
  • Species (plants, animals, microorganisms)
• Technology & Engineering
  • Computing (software, hardware, programming languages)
  • Engineering fields and processes
  • Transportation (vehicles, infrastructure)
  • Inventions and innovations
• Health & Medicine
  • Human anatomy and physiology
  • Diseases and disorders
  • Medical treatments and drugs
  • Healthcare systems and professions
• Philosophy, Religion & Humanities
  • Philosophical concepts, schools, and thinkers
  • World religions (beliefs, rituals, sacred texts)
  • Mythology and folklore
  • Languages and linguistics
  • Ethics and education
• Society & Social Sciences
  • Politics, government, and law
  • Economics and finance
  • Sociology and anthropology
  • Demography
  • Media and journalism
  • Organizations (companies, nonprofits, NGOs)
• Sports & Recreation
  • Sports and games
  • Teams and clubs
  • Competitions and tournaments
  • Athletes and coaches
• Miscellaneous
  • Food and drink (specific dishes, ingredients, beverages)
  • Military (weapons, units, strategies)
  • Symbols, flags, emblems
  • Everyday concepts (tools, household items, cultural customs)

Please keep in mind that this list is not set in stone. We can always make adjustments to it. Anyone is free to edit this list if there is a way it can be improved. Interstellarity (talk) 11:56, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

If we are going to have a dedicated Biographies section, all of the biographies should be under it. I don't support most of these changes. We shouldn't have authors under Literature, we shouldn't have Fictional Characters under Biographies, we definitely shouldn't make Historical Figures different from the other categories, etc. The current system works fine and I see no need to change it, especially when this new version is arguably worse. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:51, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I've been working on a geography overhaul, slowly, for more then a year. Some of my proposals have gotten rejected and I needed to go back to the drawing board. That said, geography should be organized in a way that reflects outside literature. In my opinion, there are three ways to go about this, branches, themes, and traditions. In this case, using the same material in the proposed list, I'd stick with branches, so that we would have:

• Geography   2 (Level 2)
  • Human geography   4 (Level 3)
    • Countries, territories, regions
    • Cities, towns, villages
    • Landmarks and buildings
    • Administrative divisions
  • Physical geography   4 (Level 3)
    • Natural features (mountains, rivers, lakes, seas)
  • Technical geography   4 (Level 3)
    • Geographic information system   5, Remote sensing   4, and Cartography   4
    • Quantitative geography   5 (level 4)
    • Qualitative geography   5 (level 4)

This is how I've broken down the Geography page, and I can point to literature that uses this or similar organizations. I've said this before, but the current organization of geography (Especially at levels 2 and 3) looks like it was either organized by a 1930s 4th grader from Mississippi, or an ignorant and vaguely racist/supremacist modern American/European. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 15:04, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Like this setup for this specific topic. GauchoDude (talk) 18:55, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Remove Byzantine–Bulgarian wars  4

Latest comment: 6 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

History is getting crowded, and we may overrepresent Byzantine military history. From a world history perspective, this is not as essential as the Arab–Byzantine wars   4, the Byzantine–Ottoman wars   4, or the Fall of Constantinople   4. Note that the phrase "Byzantine–Bulgarian wars" isn't even mentioned in the article for Byzantine Empire   3.

Support

1. As nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 02:08, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
2. Per nominator. The Blue Rider 10:08, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oppose

Discuss

Remove Perfect competition  4. Add Competition (economics)  5

Latest comment: 6 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The former may be niche for this level. It's more of a theoretical construct that only explains a few markets (i.e. commodities) The latter is more general and covers the concept as a whole.

Support

1. As nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 02:08, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oppose

1. I disagree with the removal. Yes, perfect markets don't exist in real life, but they are the whole basis of economic theory and its through them that economists extrapolate imperfect markets mechanics. The Blue Rider 10:01, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Discuss

Remove Khanate of Sibir  4

Latest comment: 6 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Formally, this was a splinter of the Golden Horde   4, which itself splintered from the Mongol Empire. It was more geographically remote than Kazan or Crimea, and by the time it was formed, the Silk Road was essentially over, so I'm not sure how important this is from a world history lens. I couldn't find any of their leaders in VA5, which isn't a great sign either. Our coverage of post-Mongol Empire polities in Central Asia is pretty substantial. I think this one can go.

Support

1. As nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 02:08, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oppose

Discuss