Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5

General Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

Level 5 Subpages

People History and geography Society STEM

Introduction

The purpose of this page is for discussions of over-arching matters regarding Level 5 Vital articles, such as procedures, quotas, or other broad changes. Level 5 Vital articles are meant to be 50,000 topics for which Wikipedia should have high-quality articles.

If you want to propose articles to be added, removed, or swapped from the Level 5 Vital articles lists, please do so at the relevant subpages: #1 People; #2 History & geography; #3 Society (arts, philosophy, religion, everyday life, recreation, and social sciences); #4 STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics).

Discussions on this page and its subpages follow these guidelines:

Voting count table (>60%)

P = passes F = fails		opposing votes
		0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
0	supporting votes	–	–	–	–	F	F	F	F	F	F
1		–	–	–	F	F	F	F	F	F	F
2		–	–	F	F	F	F	F	F	F	F
3		–	F	F	F	F	F	F	F	F	F
4		P	P	P	F	F	F	F	F	F	F
5		P	P	P	P	F	F	F	F	F	F
6		P	P	P	P	F	F	F	F	F	F
7		P	P	P	P	P	F	F	F	F	F
8		P	P	P	P	P	P	F	F	F	F
9		P	P	P	P	P	P	F	F	F	F

1. Before being closed, a Level 5 proposal must:
   1. Run for at least 15 days; AND
   2. Allow at least 7 days after the most recent vote; AND
   3. Have at least 4 participants.
2. For a proposal to be implemented on the Level 5 list:
   1. It must have over 60% support (see table); AND
   2. It must have at least 4 support votes !votes.
3. For proposed additions from August 2024 onwards, the nominator should list (and possibly link to) at least one potential section in the level 5 vital articles list for the article to be added to. Supporters can also help in this regard.

For reference, the following times apply for today:

• 15 days ago is: 11:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
• 7 days ago is: 11:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

If you're interested in regularly participating as a closer, the following browser tools may also be helpful:

• Streamlined closing with User:DaxServer/DiscussionCloser.js
• One click archiving with User:Elli/OneClickArchiver
  • Consider User:andrybak/Archiver if you prefer archiving several discussions in one go

Trying to improve the nav bar in level 5

I'm trying to improve the nav bar at level 5 to make navigating through lists a lot easier. The link is at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Nav bar/5. Because this list is broken down into many sublists that are difficult to navigate, I'm trying to figure out the best way to organize this navbar. The level 4 navbar seems to be OK, so I am looking for some advice on how I can improve navigation with the navbar. Right now, it is a bit of a mess so any advice and editor improvements to it are welcome. Interstellarity (talk) 23:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

It the table on Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5 useful in this regard. I think the table is trying to break up into equivalent sized sections? Aszx5000 (talk) 22:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Let's bump this discussion a bit longer because the nav bar is cluttered for sure, especially when you get into sublists. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Add a button that makes it easier to nominate vital articles according to the new rules

I think it would be helpful to have a button in each of the subpages that makes the nomination process for adding and removing articles a lot easier. I was thinking a template could look something like this. The format proposed is commented in the edit source screen. Please let me know your thoughts on this. That way, we can have more nominations that are rule-binding. Interstellarity (talk) 21:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

• I like it, if you can make it, sure. starship.paint (RUN) 14:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Propose quota change: Culture +100 Biological and health sciences -100

There's clearly work remaining, but I don't think there are that many easy cuts in the Culture section (Universities? Museums?), which is almost 200 entries over quota. On the other hand, Biology has taken too long to fulfill (nearly 400 under quota), and a similar proposal was made for Level 4 months ago. This one would be:

• Culture 1750 ---> 1850 (currently has 1946 entries).
• Biology 5815 ----> 5715 (currently has 5412 entries).

1. Biology, biochemistry, anatomy, and physiology 1200 ---> 1150 (currently has 1062 entries).
2. Plants, fungi, and other organisms 1075 ---> 1050 (currently has 968 entries).
3. Health, medicine, and disease 1140 ----> 1115 (currently has 1005 entries).

Support

1. As nominator. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 16:37, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
2. Support, other cuts could definitely be made to Television articles for example Makkool (talk) 14:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

   Support, although I have been trying to improve the Health section. The problem is that nobody votes on the more technical proposals. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

3. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
4. Regardless of current potential cuts (and this increase wouldn't even take Culture under quota as it stands), "Culture" is extremely broad, and there are some areas such as ethnic groups that are still lacking. Iostn (talk) 00:21, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
5. Support. Some comments: 1. I also the think the television section is a little too big. 2. We genuinely do need to add more biology articles instead of only shrinking the biology quota. If this takes a while, so be it. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 15:19, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

   @Mathwriter2718: Your comment seems to support not making this change. Why did you support this proposal? QuicoleJR (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

   @QuicoleJR I support the proposal. I think the quota for culture is a bit too low and the quota for bio is a bit too high. These comments are additional remarks I wanted to say. Maybe it would have been clearer for me to put them in the discussion. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 02:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

6. I rarely weigh in on quotas, but this just makes us look better by reallocating overages.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:19, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. oppose. I think we could likely trim plenty from both sections, and we should emphasize reducing the list rather than shuffling stuff around. For example, while I love academic journals, I think half could probably be cut from the list. We could likely cut half the magazines, TV, and Radio articles while we're at it. I struggle to believe WWE Raw is one of the most important articles on Wikipedia, and while King of the Hill might be among the greatest animes of all time, I think it probably could be cut as well. While an argument could be made that Sports Illustrated is impactful, I don't know if Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue needs to be included as well. Biology and health sciences probably could be expanded tremendously, but I'm sure there are cuts to be found there as well. I look through Public health topics, and pages like Infant mortality and Birth defect are not included. In short, I believe that Wikipedians have been a bit overzealous about getting their favorite TV show or publication listed while slacking a bit on Biological and health sciences topics.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:20, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
2. Strong oppose, on a few counts. I'll be slowly coming back from a hiatus & doing some other things (like a mark-1 vitality estimator) before proposals here. I'm against removing slots from the biology section for now though because: 1. I don't think its current size reflects the subject, just a bias in the interest level by proposers. I'm not a botanist, but I have 45 plant nominations alone that I didn't get around to earlier this year. So we could probably exceed the current quota with more participation. 2. I know it's not an agreed convention for now, but I think we should also move away from overly-tuned quotas with more than 1 or 2 significant digits. 3. If any of the Society sections gets a quota bump, I would actually like to see it go to Religion & Philosophy. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 11:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
3. After thinking about it for a bit, oppose per Zar2gar1. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:00, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
4. After looking closer, biology is only 331 under quota, and I think it is missing a lot of articles. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 14:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

If Biology is 400 below and Culture is 200 above, who are we not just shifting 200 from Biology to Culture? BD2412 T 15:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

1. I may propose something similar if this one passes, but I think there's a decent amount of cuts for an outright +200 increase. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 16:37, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't support that, since I think there are certainly enough additions to get at least the Health section to the quota. I also think enough cuts can be made to get Culture down to the new quota. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

What are your more technical proposals? GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

• This proposal is close enough that one oppose vote would put it in jeaopardy. It is now overlapping with another proposal below. This proposal no doubt got a lot of support because the sciences had spaces to spare. Below we eliminate those spaces. I think if both of them pass it might not be clear that the voters support the outcome of any science sections being put in an over quota situation.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

General quota proposal: larger denominations

Hi everyone, how about one quick process proposal? It's a simple one: from here on out, let's restrict all Lv5 quotas and quota proposals to rounder numbers, specifically multiples of at least 200 (or 300, 400, etc.)

If this passes, we can round the current quotas to the nearest multiple, and if those wind up summing to less than 50,000, we'll add extra slots to the most over-quota sections (or subtract from the most under-quota if wind up over 50k). This won't supersede the active quota proposal above either; if that one passes, we'll apply the 100 slot change, then round the updated sections appropriately.

We've actually discussed this before, but I've never brought it for a formal !vote. I can think of several various reasons to make our quotas chunkier though:

• We already use soft quotas at Lv 5 so smaller changes take up energy without much benefit
• Round numbers are much easier to subdivide (especially if we ever re-introduce header-level quotas within lists)
• Round numbers make it easier to read and audit our tables & data reports
• Round numbers make things easier to swap when we do have quota proposals

Perhaps my main reason though is that I think we all agree the quotas (even if they're soft) are meant to discipline the lists and proposals, not just reflect the current size and proposal activity. If they become the latter, they're largely an exercise in box-checking and should arguably be done away with completely. By restricting quota changes to significant amounts though, we force ourselves to better justify the quotas, which also improves the list quality.

And as for the exact multiple, we can do multiples of 100 if everyone prefers. I honestly think Lv 5 is large enough for bigger chunks though, plus sections with prime multiples (e.g. 1700) can cause minor hiccups with subdivision. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 13:42, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 13:42, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
2. Support multiples of 100 per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:14, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

   I would also support doing away with quotas entirely outside of the main 50K quota. In my opinion, they do more harm than good. Additions and removals should be decided based on how vital something is, not what section the article goes in. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

3. Support multiples of 100 per nom. (Anything which improves list quality is good.) Makkool (talk) 15:41, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
4. Support multiples of 100 per nom. I also agree with Makkool's stance that some of these new slots should go to Arts (if possible, I'd say at least a couple hundred). λ NegativeMP1 19:35, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. This will restrict us unnecessarily.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:24, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
2. Per Tony _pbp 22:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

I can't support this when it might put Health over its quota. Consider this a support if moving slots to Culture fails and an Oppose if it passes. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Hmm, this was what I was trying to avoid, that we'd get bogged down in short-term implementation. I don't normally horse-trade over votes like this, but we're on the undecided margin now, and it unfortunately looks like we're not getting much input.

What if I start up separate proposals to add 100 back to Health and another 100 to Arts? If you're OK with the main goal of the proposal, to stick to round 100s, would you be willing to go back to supporting it? Like the others that want to see slots shifted to Arts? I think I can find a couple sections people will be OK pulling from.

As you know (from the proposal above), I personally don't like seeing the Biology sections cut back at all. I think I've mentioned before that I'd also like to see People cut drastically. Unfortunately, this project has to work effectively by committee, which inevitably means we all wind up disappointed about something. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I am willing to support this proposal as long as Health's quota is not reduced by 100. I agree with the multiples of 100 idea, but I think that reducing the Health section's quota that heavily would be very problematic. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Consider it done then. There's a specific proposal below to shift 100 from Animals to keep Health at 1,100 (it almost definitely looks like the shift to Culture is going to pass). I also started a proposal to move 100 to Arts since others expressed some interest in that. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

• Could we also consider potential gaps, when dividing extra slots to over-quota sections? There's a need for more articles to Arts, because there could be possible vital films still missing that haven't been considered yet. It would be good to leave room to add, in addition to covering over-quotas. Makkool (talk) 15:41, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't see a problem if the slots ultimately wind up with other sections; I just wanted to separate this proposal from any debates over specific sections. Shifting to the most over-quota sections seemed like the least controversial way to handle a potential remainder for now.

I suppose if everyone wanted to, we could hash that out in a sub-proposal here. I was really hoping we could just start up separate quota proposals though, in parallel or after this one is settled. Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• User:Zar2gar1, could you present a table with three columns, 1. the current quotas, 2. the rounded quotas you propose, and 3, the rounded quotas, if the currently active reallocation discussion passes.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:41, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
• I noticed Countries and subdivisions quota gets bumped up to 1400. We have purged the section down over the year, and I think there's still many non-vital subdivisions from before in there. Could we instead decrease this section down to 1300 and move the hundred articles elsewhere? I'm not sure where they would be needed though. Could they be necessary for something else in Geography? There hasn't been support for metropolitan areas, but they could be used to fill the space. Or maybe there's enough basic geography topics that GeogSage has been proposing. Makkool (talk) 07:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  Sure, like with the other ones though, I'd just ask that we make it a separate quota proposal. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Proposal in table format

This is my first pass guess at what you are actually proposing This table is the future of quotas if the votes pass.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Sublist	Current	Old Target	This passes	Both Pass	Complete?
People	15,144	15,185	15,300	15,300	Yes
Writers and journalists	2,053	2,000	2,000	2,000	Over quota
Artists, musicians, and composers	2,193	2,175	2,200	2,200	Yes
Entertainers, directors, producers, and screenwriters	2,168	2,175	2,200	2,200	Yes
Philosophers, historians, and social scientists	1,337	1,360	1,400	1,400	Yes
Religious figures	493	500	500	500	Yes
Politicians and leaders	2,390	2,400	2,400	2,400	Yes
Military personnel, revolutionaries, and activists	873	900	900	900	No
Scientists, inventors, and mathematicians	1,270	1,275	1,300	1,300	Yes
Sports figures	1,205	1,200	1,200	1,200	Yes
Miscellaneous	1,162	1,200	1,200	1,200	No
History	3,263	3,300	3,300	3,300	Yes
Geography	5,164	5,250	5,300	5,300	Yes
Physical geography	1,846	1,900	1,900	1,900	No
Countries and subdivisions	1,331	1,350	1,400	1,400	No
Cities	1,987	2,000	2,000	2,000	Yes
Arts	3,359	3,300	3,300	3,300	Yes
Philosophy and religion	1,437	1,400	1,400	1,400	Over quota
Everyday life	2,425	2,400	2,400	2,400	Yes
Everyday life	1,207	1,200	1,200	1,200	Yes
Sports, games and recreation	1,218	1,200	1,200	1,200	Yes
Society and social sciences	4,398	4,100	4,200	4,300	Over quota
Social studies	504	500	500	500	Yes
Politics and economics	1,940	1,850	1,900	1,900	Over quota
Culture	1,954	1,750	1,800	1,900	Over quota
Biology and health sciences	5,484	5,815	5,600	5,500	Yes
Biology, biochemistry, anatomy, and physiology	1,068	1,200	1,100	1,100	No
Animals	2,397	2,400	2,400	2,400	Yes
Plants, fungi, and other organisms	974	1,075	1,000	1,000	No
Health, medicine, and disease	1,045	1,140	1,100	1,000	Over quota
Physical sciences	4,789	4,850	4,800	4,800	Yes
Basics and measurement	354	350	300	300	Over quota
Astronomy	898	900	900	900	Yes
Chemistry	1,178	1,200	1,200	1,200	Yes
Earth science	1,187	1,200	1,200	1,200	Yes
Physics	1,172	1,200	1,200	1,200	No
Technology	3,230	3,200	3,200	3,200	Yes
Mathematics	1,208	1,200	1,200	1,200	Yes
Total	49,901	50,000	50,000	50,000	Yes

My question is whether I am interpreting things correctly (especially with the plants, health and measurement sections).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

@Zar2gar1: Am I interpretting your nomination correctly.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I appreciate you running the numbers; I wasn't planning on doing it unless the vote passed.

But yes, I get almost the same results running the procedure. I just realized I wasn't super-explicit that we should round first, then check which sections are most over/under quota, but that looks like what you did.

For the math, I got that...

1. The initial rounding creates an extra 300 slots we have to trim
2. The most under-quota sections after rounding, as a % and in order, then become...
   1. Basics & measurement (and full disclosure, I am so glad this one gets cut back)
   2. Plants, fungi, and other organisms
   3. Biology, biochem, etc.
   4. Health, medicine, etc.
   5. Military personnel, etc. (literally just 1 or 2 articles closer to quota than Health)
3. The first 3 sections then each lose 100 slots, and the 4th would too if 100 are shifted to Culture

So the only differences in my results are that

• Biology, biochem, etc. will drop to 1,100 regardless of the other quota proposal
• Health, medicine, etc. will drop to 1,000 to make up for the extra 100 to Culture

Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Should we get rid of the quotas?

This isn't a formal proposal yet, but I want to bring this up for discussion. I don't think that the page quotas are good for the project. Either they limit the number of listings we can have for a topic, potentially barring vital topics from being added, or they get shifted around based on where the listings already are, making them an effectively useless exercise in box-checking. Either way, they are not helpful and should be removed. Any thoughts? QuicoleJR (talk) 23:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I think they are more of a guideline then a rule. They help to keep the project generally organized and well rounded. Without them, it might be challenging to see what areas are over represented, under represented, or whatever at a glance. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

They are essential in terms of keeping the project well rounded. Without quotas, we would probably restore all US Presidents and half of the politicians we purged last year. They are all more important than half the biographies we include. However, If we try to maintain a broad and diverse set of bios, we have to figure out who is most vital from all professions.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

i think they're useful for avoiding overrepresentation in certain areas. I think it's a good thing that we can change the quotas later if we realize later that they were off. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 13:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I think we could probably tell which sections are overrepresented without the arbitrary article limits. Removing all of the subquotas didn't change our ability to see which sections within the pages had too many articles, and which didn't have enough. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

The quotas are tedious, bureaucratic, and annoying... but I think they're unfortunately the only thing that keep VA5 disciplined at this point. So if the choice is between keeping or dumping them, I say we keep them.

Now, if anyone has any better ideas of how to regulate the separate sections, I might support replacing them. Even then though, you'd want to factor in some of the advantages the quotas do have:

1. They allow the lists to evolve independently for the most part. Without them, arguments over balance will likely devolve to comparing individual items across sections.
2. They add a little protection to sections with less participation. Not much, but at least now, people have to create a proposal to shift slots based on sectional arguments, not just articles. Without them, I expect what will happen is the popular sections will just steamroll ahead, and people may even start brigading removals in the unpopular ones.
3. As numbers, they're simple to work with and some tasks can be automated. We may not be there yet, but I plan to work up a bot myself that will do some of that.

To your first point about them barring vital topics from being added, I'd actually disagree with that. If a topic is presumably vital and an item that isn't vital is on the same list, the quotas don't prevent swaps. If such a swap fails, that's on us as participants. And if the problem is that one section has a higher standard of vitality than another, the quotas actually make it easier for us to rectify that with a single proposal. If that fails and one section is tolerated at a lower standard, again, that's on us as participants.

To your point about box-checking if we just shift them where the articles already are though, I agree with you 100%. And yes, my above proposal does that in the short-term as a practical measure. My hope though is that if we lock in some general rules for the quotas, we can start holding quota proposals to a stronger standard, which should rebalance things for the best in the long-run. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Quota proposal: move 100 from Animals -> Health

This is mainly to decouple concerns about individual sections from the above proposal to round all quotas.

I actually agree with QuicoleJR above that we've been cannibalizing most of the Biology sections for a while now. Health in particular is almost definitely incomplete; we just recently added Birth defect  5 and off the top of my head, we still don't even list Skin condition. Participation on health topics has actually been decent in the past few months too so we can definitely hit the new quota.

As for why we would cut from Animals, it's clearly over-represented: more than double any other Biology section, despite only representing one kingdom of life. Many of the items there are just taxonomic place-holders too that I think we added almost mechanically, which is fine for initial brainstorming. But now we could probably cull the section a bit.

There are non-Biology sections I'd personally suggest cutting even more, but when possible, I think shifting quotas within a category is simpler and steps on fewer toes. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
2. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak Oppose. Can we see which of the earlier proposals pass first.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

   Sure thing, both will be open for at least another week, though I think the shift of 100 slots to Culture will almost definitely pass at this point. I saw your comment there too, which is considerate. From my experience trying to work on the Science lists though, I doubt the Biology section shrinking more (I hope only temporarily) from the rounding will change many minds. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Quota proposal: move 100 from Military personnel -> Arts

This is mainly to decouple concerns about individual sections from the above proposal to round all quotas.

Multiple participants in the above proposal were interested in shifting slots to Arts. I'll let them provide detailed arguments if needed.

As for where to take the 100 slots from, I'd definitely suggest People / Military personnel, etc. In the general quota proposal, we calculated it's actually the most under-quota non-science section. I've also been trying to fill it out on the People talk page myself and can personally attest that:

• There isn't much interest in the section, so even if it should ideally be larger, it won't happen anytime soon
• Even some of my proposals were a bit borderline and more what you would see in an initial brainstorming

Support

1. As nom. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. And to offer my own rationale, I personally believe Arts is at the point where I don't know how many articles could be removed, despite my best efforts of trying to find stuff like movies or musical works to get rid of. However, I can definitely think of ones that should be added. This proposal would give us room to allow for the ones we already have that I think should be kept, and 41 more. λ NegativeMP1 19:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
3. per NegativeMP1. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Support, and not only for adding new works to movies or music. There's surely still some basic articles that are missing from the Literature section for example. Currently, it feels less broad than the Music section when it comes to general topics. Makkool (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I think relevant Wikiprojects could/should be notified and brought in for comment. That said, from a historic perspective, military leaders are often extremely influential on the course of world affairs. Vasily Arkhipov  5 personally decided to not launch nuclear weapons against the United States during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and likely a nuclear war, for example. Looking at the guidelines for vitality, it says it should not have a western bias, and that "Individuals within the People section represent the pinnacles of their field with a material impact on the course of humanity, such as Albert Einstein 3 in "Inventors and scientists", William Shakespeare 3 in "Authors", and Genghis Khan 3 on "Leaders." Based on this, I think we could remove all articles related to American Football and football players if you need broad room for "Arts," as the emphasis on American Football is definitly a "Western Bias," and virtually no athltete has a material impact on the course of humanity.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

   Actually, I agree with you completely in the long-run. If you look on the People talk-page, I probably have over 30 active suggestions for Military personnel or Rebels to add. Unfortunately, there just doesn't seem to be as much interest in the section.

   Plus I've accepted that Lv5, if you'll pardon a military metaphor (without the connotation of conflict), is somewhat a "war of maneuver". Maybe it's for the best if we give everyone that works on the Arts list a bit more breathing room for now, let them refine their own system for ranking things. And to be fair, the Military & Rebels section probably could use some pruning: ~1/8 of the entire section is still American activists, and I'm really not sure how notable some of the other non-American ones are. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

   When the United States has 330 million people, some representation of the most popular sport in the country is warranted. The real Western bias is that India and China don't get the same treatment. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

   I'd much rather see American athletes get the same treatment as Chinese and Indian athletes. Very few athletes actually fit the projects requirements to be deemed "vital" in my opinion. They are popular, but that is not the same thing as vital. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

2. Weak Oppose. Can we see which of the earlier proposals pass first.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Military personnel is actually the military personnell rebels, and activists section, which was already cut a while ago from 1000 > 900 and saw a lot of removals (this is when subquotas where still a thing and the cut was actually for specifically the US activists section, so that's where everything that was removed was from). Since I was waiting for my proposal to go through on moving bandita and pirates etc to Misc > Criminals, I was planning on afterwards adding more primarily non-US activists and revolutionaries that have been overlooked. Iostn (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

   Not looking to change your mind, and I actually hope to see this section bumped back up in the medium-term. Just to clarify, you don't have to drop any of your addition proposals even if this passes. We'd just need to give the list a more critical once-over and propose removals to balance it out. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Quota proposal: move 100 from Countries and subdivisions -> Technology

This is another tweak to individual sections in the above proposal of rounding the quotas.

Like I mentioned above, we have been culling the Countries and subdivisions section over the last year and we could bring it down even more significantly, as there are still articles of non-vital provinces and states. I suggest that instead of increasing the section quota up to 1400 we would move 100 articles to Technology.

There is a lot of interest in adding articles to Technology on the STEM talk page, and this quota increase would serve that purpose. I agree with the idea expressed in this discussion that getting support for removal proposals in hard, and if we increase the quota we wouldn't have to find stuff to get rid off (and we wouldn't need to consider pausing tech additions).

Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 19:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. There are othersections we can remove from. Culling the countries and subdivision section makes room for more subdivisions. There are other sections that we could cull and move around if needed. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

If you think we can find other country subdivisions to replace the ones that would be need to be cut, then that's a good optimal solution. But this section is going to get 50 articles more, when the quota is will be rounded up. I wonder if we can find that many more, and that's the rationale for this suggestion. Makkool (talk) 08:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

1. Very strongly oppose adding to Tech, but support moving to Arts. While I'm ambivalent on cuts to Countries, the Tech section is extremely imbalanced and lacking in depth right now, on top of other issues. I won't get into ranting about examples unless people want me to. We can let the current Tech addition proposals wrap up, but I really think we need to hold at the current quota, rethink what we're trying to do there, then prune & reorganize the section. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

@Makkool: I don't know how much support there is for cutting the Countries section you mentioned, but I was surprised how much push-back cutting Military Personnel & Rebels got. I mainly started the proposal as a courtesy since I know you & someone else expressed interest in moving slots to Arts, on top of the other concerns about Health. Truth be told, I was really hoping we could avoid haggling around the round 100s proposal, then re-evaluate the quotas on their own terms later on. Anyways, I'll probably withdraw the Military -> Arts proposal for now, but I'm not opposed to moving 100 to Arts from here or several other places (including Math actually, I think it could handle the pruning). I just feel very strongly that we need to start keeping Tech on a short leash for a while. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed military personnel has had push-back. If the community feels that it can be worked on without a decrease in quota, a move of 100 articles from Countries and subdivisions to Arts would be a doable compromise. Makkool (talk) 08:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Recounts necessary for Dwelling

Closed as 4-1 pass. Seems to be a 3-2 fail after 5 months, Dwelling:

+:Interstellarity, Kevinishere15, TonyTheTiger

-Zar2gar1, Big Blue Cray(fish) Twins

-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

My bold formatting may not have been the best, but if you read my vote closely, I actually only opposed adding it to Tech. The article clearly describes a legal concept so I supported adding it to Society -> Law, and Kevinishere15 also mentioned putting it there. Since the other votes were unqualified, I put it there. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Resolved

-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Reopened Add Atlantic hurricane

The reason we went back to the queue system was so that all nominations could get 4 voters. If it is open a year, then we can close it. Otherwise let it sit until it either gets a 2nd oppose + 7 days of no votes or 4 supports. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

If you want to reopen it, that's fine, but we talked about it on the main page: WP:VA#Level 5 closes

Nobody wanted to make it an official rule, but the other 4 levels officially time out proposals, and almost everyone seems to agree that if the talk-page starts getting too large, we don't have to wait forever to retire the proposals that don't get enough interest.

It's not something we've really discussed much, but most of the talk pages are way past what's normally recommended: WP:TALKSIZE. They may still be trending down overall since we started them, but they definitely still haven't reached an equilibrium. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 06:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

The 90-day statement seemed more appropriate when we had a few more voters and almost things weren't hanging around so long without 4 votes. Too many subjects would not achieve quorum with 90 day closes. I'll probably try to reopen almost anything that has not gotten 4 supports or 2 opposes unless there is another reason other than 90 days. Something like a rehashing of a previous consensus might mean people are tired of debating a topic. However, if it has not been discussed in over a year, I am not sure what else could waive giving the nominator and subject a chance to get at least three feedbacks. Possibly something like a page merge/split/move could also give reason or a page being more of a dab than a specific subject. I'm just likely to try to give a subject a full hearing if it still has a chance. The irregular regs who come by every few months or during certain seasons, may get around to something that has been listed for months. Also, the queue will increase the prominence of the subjects most in need of discussants. This subject will be the very top discussion when an archiving update happens. It'll probably get votes in the next few months at the top.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)