Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:37, 19 January 2025

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 Misplaced Pages? 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: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, 78Auto-archiving period: 4 months

This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages's essential articles.Vital ArticlesWikipedia:WikiProject Vital ArticlesTemplate:WikiProject Vital ArticlesVital Articles

Misplaced Pages: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.

People History and geography 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 Misplaced Pages should have high-quality articles. All Misplaced Pages 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: 09:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC) (Purge)
• 30 days ago was: 09:34, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
• 60 days ago was: 09:34, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Remove Sublimation (phase transition)

We don't list the opposite which is Deposition (phase transition) so it would probably make sense to remove at this level. Interstellarity (talk) 22:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 22:29, 12 June 2024
2. per nom. Makkool (talk) 19:03, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
3. Per nom. Kevinishere15 (talk) 04:19, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
4. Per nom. PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Add Democratic Party (United States)  5 and Republican Party (United States)  5

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

We list the Chinese Communist Party  4 at this level, so it make sense to add the two major political parties in the US at this level. Interstellarity (talk) 22:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 22:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
2. Support both Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 01:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

   Why one but not the other? The Democratic Party is older, but only by what? 20-30 years? _pbp 16:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

   At the time, I kinda felt the same way as Aszx5000; I just wasn't sure how many major parties we needed at V4, since we only have 20 or so at V5. Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 21:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

3. Support both. The argument could be made that the party structure has done more to direct the course of the nation than any individual politician belonging to it. In other words, it doesn't so much matter that FDR/Truman were individually Democrats and Reagan/Bush were individually Republicans, than that those were periods of Democratic and Republican policies prevailing. BD2412 T 22:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Way to focused on American politics. GeogSage 02:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
2. As GeogSage said below, The CCP is essentially the same thing as the government of China at this point. The same can't be said for any American party. feminist🩸 (talk) 07:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

• I think this is a worthy consideration, but once we go down the road of adding major parties, where will it stop? There are at least 20 more major political parties that could be included? We would almost need to drop another section to make room for them. However, I don't see why the Chinese Communist Party  4 would be here and not the Democrats and Republicans. Bit of a conundrum? Aszx5000 (talk) 17:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
• I think the requirement for a political party to reach VA4 should be major influence both within and outside of their home country. The CCP has that in my opinion. Is the same true for the Democratic and Republican parties? QuicoleJR (talk) 21:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  • The CCP is essentially the same thing as the government of China at this point. I really hope no political party ever has that kind of power Domestically, much less abroad. GeogSage 02:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Add Suicide prevention

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 common concept which is a subtopic of suicide. Interstellarity (talk) 00:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 00:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Some of its methods such as Medication  3 and Therapy  4, etc, are quite important but the concept itself isn't. The Blue Rider 14:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

   Curious as to why you think the topic as a whole isn't important but topics contained within are important. Nervelita :3🏳️‍⚧️ (talk) 10:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

   Medication and therapy are essential tools for treating various health conditions, not just suicide prevention. They're also pretty vital in their own right; so no, I wouldn't say that suicide prevention is more broad than medication and therapy. The Blue Rider 16:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

   Ok fair enough. I agree with that. Nervelita :3🏳️‍⚧️ (talk) 04:24, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

2. Per BlueRider, related things like Psychotherapy  4 are already vital, this just doesn't seem to pass the bar. Kevinishere15 (talk) 04:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
3. Unfortunately, I'm not convinced that this is level 4 in terms of vitality. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

• Social issues that society may try to prevent, crime prevention may be thought of as a wider and more important topic.  Carlwev  11:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  Suicide is illegal in some countries, so it would also partially include suicide prevention in it. The Blue Rider 16:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Add Third gender  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.

May be a better addition than nonbinary. Interstellarity (talk) 00:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 00:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Transgender  4 should already cover this at this level. The Blue Rider 14:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
2. per above. GeogSage 02:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
3. Per above. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

Add Multimedia

This encompasses all forms of media we use for communication. Interstellarity (talk) 23:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 23:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Nervelita :3🏳️‍⚧️ (talk) 09:55, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
3. Per nom. Jusdafax (talk) 01:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
4. Per nom. PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Add History of Mesopotamia  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.

Just added to level 5, makes sense to add to level 4. May support a swap with History of Iraq. Interstellarity (talk) 19:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 19:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
2. Support addition, not the proposed swap. Jusdafax (talk) 01:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
3. Very important, not sure about the swap. Kevinishere15 (talk) 18:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
4. Support addition, neutral on the swap. Lorax (talk) 01:00, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
5. Support addition, unsure about swap. PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

The history of Mesopotamia is far more important than the history of the modern state of Iraq. I would be more inclined to support a straight swap to move the history of Iraq to V5. Idiosincrático (talk) 04:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Add Moggy  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.

I am not actually supporting this, but we removed Domestic shorthaired cat from V4, and that was merged into Moggy  5. So, should we list Moggy or not? starship.paint (RUN) 14:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

1. From reading the article, most cats are moggy, so there's just too much overlap with Cat  3. We also do not list Mongrel  5 for dogs. starship.paint (RUN) 14:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
2. Per Starship. Kevinishere15 (talk) 18:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
3. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

1. We should either not add this, or add both Moggy and Mongrel imo. Nervelita :3🏳️‍⚧️ (talk) 09:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Remove Kabaddi  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.

Has never been contested in the Olympics and seems to be primarily contested in India, Iran, and surrounding area. _pbp 00:27, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. _pbp 00:27, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
2. weak support per nom. Makkool (talk) 17:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Australian rules football  4 and particularly Rugby sevens  4 are much much less important, and so is Sepak takraw  5 IMO. Really surprised this is seen as low-hanging fruit – the pole vault, tug of war, and angling are amongst many niche sports listed whilst kabaddi is certainly mainstream. It will likely be at the Olympics if India win the 2036 bid, in much the same way as a version of the similarly prominent American football  4 is being introduced in 2028. J947 ‡ 01:07, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

   First off, laughing at pole vault being "low-hanging fruit" considering what recently happened to Anthony Ammirati...

   Also confused why pole vault would be "low-hanging fruit" unless you consider it already covered by track and field. It's been contested in the Olympics since 1896 and also as part of the decathlon.

   Angling perhaps needs to be swapped for a different example of fishing for sport or leisure, but there DOES need to be a representative of that concept at this level.

   If Kabbadi DOES make it into the Olympics then (and perhaps ONLY then) should it be added to VA4.

   And finally, I wish people would stop throwing around the term "niche sport" without any sort of definition of what constitutes a niche sport. _pbp 14:55, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

   I am using "niche" to refer to sports with a small following: the number of sport competitors and fans in the pole vault, competitive angling, and tug of war is (comparatively) exceptionally small. Kabaddi, in which 200–400 million watch one league alone each year, does not appear niche to me. Using the Olympics as the primary bar for inclusion of sports places undue emphasis on traditional Western sports with a global but restricted reach (archery, triathlon, modern pentathlon, sailing, canoeing, the 10 (!) subtopics of track and field) over newer sports that are prominent but localised, particularly those outside of East Asia and the West. It bears repeating that I am absolutely shocked kabaddi and sepak takraw are being considered for removal over Aussie rules; the number of kabaddi viewers is 10 times Australia's population! J947 ‡ 00:20, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

   Track and field as a "traditional Western sport" with a "restricted reach"? At last week's Olympics, athletes from all six continents won medals. Discus and javelin are "traditional Western sports", in the sense that they originated in ancient Greece. The other tricky thing about track and field is that the disciplines within it are very different...high jumping is much different than sprinting, which is much different than throwing. _pbp 02:07, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

2. This shouldn't be removed for the same reason why American football  4 and Australian rules football  4 shouldn't be removed, worldwide popularity isn't required at this level, being extremely popular/important in one area or country is enough. Kevinishere15 (talk) 04:15, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
3. Oppose We have sports mostly within western nations, be it Australia or US, also La Liga and Premier League for Football in Spain and England, and India has 25x England's pop and almost 30x Spain's. Although Kabaddi is mainly Indian, it isn't completely confined to India either.  Carlwev  08:17, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Swap Steamboat  5 for Steamship  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 sure which one of two is more vital, but I'm leaning towards steamship since it has moved people over long distances but interested to hear your thoughts. Interstellarity (talk) 22:41, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 22:41, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
2. Steamship  4 had a greater impact on humanity. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
3. per above. starship.paint (RUN) 02:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
4. Support swap. Lorax (talk) 01:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
5. Sure. PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Move Golden Temple  4 from Religion to Arts/Architecture

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 article is about a specific structure, and we list every other specific structure in the Arts section. We already list places important to several religions there already, like Kaaba  4 and Sistine Chapel  4.

Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 18:43, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Nervelita :3🏳️‍⚧️ (talk) 09:33, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 22:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
4. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 02:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
5. support, agree with move  Carlwev  05:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Add Novak Djokovic  4, remove Rod Laver  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.

Arguably the greatest tennis player of all time. I'll let his lede do the talking: "He has been ranked No. 1 for a record total of 428 weeks in a record 13 different years by the ATP, and finished as the year-end No. 1 a record eight times. Djokovic has won a record 24 Grand Slam men's singles titles, including a record ten Australian Open titles. Overall, he has won 99 singles titles, including a record 72 Big Titles: 24 majors, a record 40 Masters, a record seven year-end championships, and an Olympic gold medal. Djokovic is the only man in tennis history to be the reigning champion of all four majors at once across three different surfaces. In singles, he is the only man to achieve a triple Career Grand Slam, and the only player to complete a Career Golden Masters, a feat he has accomplished twice. Djokovic is the only player in singles to have won all of the Big Titles over the course of his career, having completed the Career Super Slam as part of that accomplishment."

I don't know a whole lot about tennis but when deciding who to swap him with, it seems like Rod Laver is the best candidate. Though he has won the most single titles by a player in history and was considered by many to be the greatest tennis player in history, it seems like he has since been surpassed by the other VA4 male tennis players on this list. I do not feel too strongly about removing him but I just include him as an option here for those who wish to maintain balance in the section.

Support

1. As nom. Aurangzebra (talk) 20:15, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
2. Djokovic is objectively the greatest player of all time, and did it in the modern era. Aszx5000 (talk) 18:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
3. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 01:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
4. Add D, remove either Nadal or Laver is fine for me. starship.paint (RUN) 02:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
5. Same opinion as Starship. Kevinishere15 (talk) 04:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
6. Agree and he still has not retired yet. Sahaib (talk) 11:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. This is the wrong swap. It will leave VA4 with three male tennis players (Rafael Nadal  4 and Roger Federer  4) who have won major titles in the last ten years and no other male tennis players.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
2. As a 'tennis editor' I certainly oppose removing Rod Laver. He is widely regarded as the most significant male player in history (the only one to have won two Grand Slams) and should be the first name on the list.--Wolbo (talk) 10:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Counter-proposal

Add Djokovic, remove Nadal.

Support

1. Add Djokovic, remove Nadal. We cannot have the three men's tennis players listed be all from the exact same era. (But Djokovic has surpassed Nadal.) J947 ‡ 10:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

   I'd be fine with this too. Aurangzebra (talk) 00:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

2. Aszx5000 (talk) 12:49, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
3. It is not concievable to me that the 3 most vital tennis players of all-time are all players who have won majors in the last ten years.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Djokovic, Nadal and Federer constitute the Big Three of contemporary men's tennis. Each individual member of the trio is simply incomparable to literally any other player in history due to their unprecedented grand slam achievements. All three are of equivalent status and should be included in V4. Idiosincrático (talk) 00:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

   If there are still concerns for generational bias, I'd be tempted to keep Rod Laver and simply add Djokovic. Idiosincrático (talk) 00:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

   Would also be prefer to add Djokovic who, given his achievements and status, should be on the vital level 4 list.--Wolbo (talk) 10:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

@Tabu Makiadi:, thanks for the support on the proposal! I'm looking to close this. Would you support swapping with Nadal instead of Laver per J947? Aurangzebra (talk) 23:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Sure, support swap. Sorry for the late reply. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 08:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

If Djokovic can not simply be added to the list (my preference as stated above), I would support this swap.--Wolbo (talk) 10:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Add Russo-Ukrainian War  5 and remove Boyar  4

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

The major war of the last twenty years, it have a major impact on the global economy.

Support

1. As nom--Hoben7599 (talk) 12:34, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Once again, oppose adittion. Not a level 4 war by any metric, just a case of recentism. Take a look at Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/4/History and you will see the type of wars we have listed at this level; do you think this compares to Korean War  4, Crimean War  4, Second Opium War  4, Thirty Years' War  4, etc? The Blue Rider 14:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
2. Oppose both, since the war is definitely a case of recentism and no rationale was given to remove Boyar. I see no reason to remove a historical title several people claimed across half of Eastern Europe with no reason given. λ NegativeMP1 01:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
3. Oppose addition, neutral on removal. Kevinishere15 (talk) 04:09, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

Add Crime prevention

A subtopic of crime, of top interest today in all societies. Interstellarity (talk) 13:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 13:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Criminal law  4, Criminology  4, Court  4, Prison  4, Police  3, and Security  4 and a few more adjacent ones are all already vital at this level, most of crime prevention is already included. Kevinishere15 (talk) 04:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
2. Per Kevinishere15. PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

Remove Smoking cessation  4

More of a VA5 topic. Too much overlap with Health effects of tobacco  4, which is already contained in Smoking  3 and Tobacco  4.

Support

1. As nominator. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 01:53, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Kevinishere15 (talk) 18:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I'd rather remove Health effects of tobacco instead. Smoking cessation is clearly something that many people are doing. Interstellarity (talk) 19:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
2. This article and the article noted by Interstellarity are both vital at this level, in my view. Both are strong articles. Jusdafax (talk) 01:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Apocalypse  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.

File under Abrahamic religions. Recently added as V5, and suggested on the talk page to be included in V4 also. It's a significant concept in of itself, even though we already list Eschatology  4.

Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 16:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
2. Support per nomination. Quite a separate topic from Second Coming, in my view. Jusdafax (talk) 01:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
3. Per nom. Interstellarity (talk) 21:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
4. The concept of the apocalypse goes well beyond just the Second Coming. λ NegativeMP1 03:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
5. Support. PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Second Coming is also listed. --Thi (talk) 17:32, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Land transport

It is one of the major types of transportation.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 00:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
2. Support, per nom. BD2412 T 20:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
3. I suppose that a broad article on one method of transportation could be suitable for level 4. PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

1. Close call.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

I need to understand where a lot of related topics fall. Here goes: Car  3, Bus  4, Train  3, Truck  4, Horse  3, Highway  4, Road  3, Street  5, Transport  2, Rail transport  4, Land transport  5, Public transport  4.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Add Greed  4

Meaning selfish personal desire for something, greed is one of the most iconic and infamous personality traits in written human history. I think that it should probably even be level 3, but for now, it should definitely be level 4.

Support

1. As nom. PrimalMustelid (talk) 00:48, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
2. Support, per nom. Greed, for lack of a better word, is good. BD2412 T 20:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
3. Definitely an important topic. You could argue that most of human history was caused or driven by greed. λ NegativeMP1 23:48, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
4. Interstellarity (talk) 21:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I don't think it is much more important than the other vital deadly sins that I listed below.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

   It’s not about greed as one of the seven sins alone. It’s about human drive to have more than they need, what motivates that, and how such greed impacts the world around them. Alone, greed is very important within the context of different fields like economics, philosophy, religion (besides Christianity), history, etc. PrimalMustelid (talk) 22:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

Let's see where this ranks among the Seven deadly sins  5: Pride  5, Greed  4, Wrath, Envy  5, Lust  4, Gluttony, and Sloth (deadly sin)

Add Anglosphere  5 and Arab world  5

Two major topics with 37 and 87 interwikis respectively.

Support

1. As nom Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
2. Support Arab World, oppose Anglosphere. Western world, currently level 5, could be a suitable replacement for the latter, though. PrimalMustelid (talk) 22:21, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
3. Support both. I'd be fine if either Anglosphere or Western world is listed which is proposed below.

Oppose

1. Oppose Anglosphere, that article is about a subset of English-speaking countries with close diplomatic ties and was popularized in Neoconservative discourse in the early 2000s; English-speaking world is the article that potentially deserves to be on the vital list (interwiki links may not be making the distinction between Anglosphere and English-speaking world that English Misplaced Pages does). Plantdrew (talk) 22:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Add Western world

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 21:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Add Adam and Winckelmann

Adam

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.

Support

1. Greatly influenced religion. Pretty much every other biblical character who is at his significance or below is also at level 4. Wikieditor662 (talk) 03:58, 3 December 2024 (UTC) (original commenter)

Oppose

1. We already list Adam and Eve  4 at this level, and the two are very intertwined, almost always discussed as a pair. Listing Adam at this level would be redundant due to the amount of overlap. λ NegativeMP1 04:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

   I see... What about the other person I suggested? Wikieditor662 (talk) 19:12, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

   I'm not sure if I know enough about the Neoclassical movement to make a proper judgement on his influence. He definitely seems important, though. λ NegativeMP1 19:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

2. Oppose Adam per MP1. Kevinishere15 (talk) 03:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
3. per NegativeMP1.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
4. Oppose per above. Sahaib (talk) 12:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

Winckelmann

Support

1. Considered by some to be the father of art history, influenced the Neoclassical movement, influenced Gothe and Nietzche among others Wikieditor662 (talk) 03:58, 3 December 2024 (UTC) (original commenter)
2. Thought about this one for a bit longer, and yeah, I agree. He seems quite important. λ NegativeMP1 23:47, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
3. Interstellarity (talk) 21:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Add Public library

An important type of Library  3.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 21:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Move Technical geography  5 from level 5 to level 4

Within geography, there are several methods for organizing the discipline. Within the branch model, there is Human geography  4 that looks at topics like the distribution of human populations, Physical geography  4 that studies the natural environment, and Technical geography  5 that developes, studies, and applies the techniques like Cartography  4. I believe that technical geography should be on the same level as the other two branches. Ideally, this will be part of a broader project to make how we organize vital articles consistent with other ways of organizing geography, which is in a discussion here. Full disclosure, I originated this page.

Support

1. As nom GeogSage 06:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
2. Support, the other 2 branches make the precedent simple. I don't normally participate at Lv 4, but we've discussed the wider reorganization at other levels too. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:47, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
3. Interstellarity (talk) 21:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
4. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

GeogSage 06:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Add NBC  4

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

The peacock network is the oldest american broadcast network. 90 interwikis and 77,000~ monthly viewers. They produce several long running television such as Meet the Press  4 77 seasons, Saturday Night Live  5 50 seasons, Today (American TV program)  5 70 seasons. I think if this is not added then either ABC or CBS should be.

Support

1. As nom Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
2. Yes, it's on the decline, but it's still an important, long-lasting network. It's not like the company itself will cease to exist in a few years, stuff like Peacock (streaming service) is still going fairly strong. λ NegativeMP1 23:29, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
3. per nom Aurangzebra (talk) 02:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
4. Per NegativeMP1. Would also be open to listing CBS, American Broadcasting Company, or Fox Broadcasting Company. Interstellarity (talk) 21:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
5. PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Public broadcast is on the decline. It's importance/vitality is waning.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

   NBC isn't PBS... _pbp 04:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Add Profit (economics)  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.

What keeps capitalism running.

Support

1. As nominator. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 22:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
2. Interstellarity (talk) 21:35, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
3. Support, Lv4 already lists the even more technical Deflation  4 and Perfect competition  4. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
4. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
5. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Human settlement

Also known as a populated place, it's a place that humans live in. I would support if nominated to level 3 and possibly replace City at level 2.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 00:48, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
2. Strong support. I've discussed this as part of a broad reorganization of geography. GeogSage 20:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Strong support, if Lv4 lists Suburb  4 and Industrial park  4, something this general clearly makes sense. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
4. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Add Ligament  5

Given our listings for Bone  3, Cartilage  4 and Tendon  4, I think Ligament  5 deserves promotion.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:18, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:18, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
2. Support, Tendon  4 makes it a simple matter of precedent. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Add Nightclub  5

A cultural venue that's a popular place for entertainment around the world. Many of the world's subcultures developed in clubs.

Support

1. As nominator. To arts ----> Culture venues Tabu Makiadi (talk) 23:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Disc jockey is only at level 5. Sahaib (talk) 12:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

I don't think I'm opposed to the idea. But I added pub years ago, which was later removed through voting, which I opposed. The argument in part was it was believed to be redundant to bar. I'm not sure having bar and nightclub but not pub would feel right to me.  Carlwev  06:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Round quotas at Lv 4?

Hi everyone, I don't normally participate at Lv 4, but we currently have a proposal open at Lv 5 to round all of our page quotas to multiples of 100 or more:

Misplaced Pages talk:Vital articles/Level/5#General quota proposal: larger denominations (feel free to participate even if you normally don't work on Lv 5).

I noticed that at Lv 4, you have two sections with 450 slots each (Everyday Life and Religion/Philosophy), but otherwise your quotas are already denominated by 100s. I just thought I would go ahead & propose adjusting those two to round 100s also. I have no specific input on the best way to do it.

One reason is purely bureaucratic: we could unify the guidelines for our quotas across all 5 levels. However, if you check out the Lv 5 proposal, I give a few arguments for why we probably shouldn't be over-tuning the quotas.

Support

1. As nom. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. I see no reason to expect that the number of vital articles in a topic should naturally fall on 100 article boundaries. All your arguments for round numbers are on the Lv 5 page boil down to "make it easier to administer", but the point of the vital articles series isn't to be easy to administer, it is to identify the most vital articles. I'll also mention that there are 5 times as many Lv 5 slots as there are Lv 4, so if the step size on Lv 5 is 100, then I'd expect the step size on Lv 4 to be 20. Lorax (talk) 01:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

   Not expecting to change your mind, but to clarify, the bulleted-list on the other page does list administrative advantages, which are still advantages. The process needs to run well for the list to evolve.

   However, my #1 reason by far is actually in the paragraph below that. Essentially, the more specific the quotas become, the less they're functionally quotas and the more they become a box-checking exercise, and one that's misleading at that (minimizing variances makes the list look more finished than it really is). By agreeing quotas should match and change in larger chunks, we have to justify them on actual reasoning, not just tweak them just to match current size or proposal momentum.

   To your point about simply multiplying by 5 between levels, we've already had discussions about comparing proportions between levels, and the consensus was it didn't make sense to keep them constant. You also have to account for a larger variance (in a statistical sense) in the larger Lv 5 list. Every section is a moving target, so even if a Lv 5 section isn't a multiple of 500 at the moment, such a multiple could still be in the ballpark. Besides, Lv 4 has already settled on almost all even 100s anyways; this only requires shifting 50 or 100 slots at most to realize. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 13:51, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Discuss

Just to update on the Lv5 vote, we've now affirmed round 100s for quotas and reallocations. I understand the tighter margins here mean it may need more granularity, or Lv4 may not have many quota issues in general. I'll leave this open though in case there's interest in harmonizing the rules. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Swap University of Paris  4 with Sorbonne University  5

Sorbonne University is the current iteration of this educational institution. University of Paris merged with Sorbonne College before, and then in 2018 Paris-Sorbonne and Université Pierre et Marie Curie merged once more to form this university.

Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 22:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
2. per nom. Also, the Sorbonne 'brand' is what is VA4 in my opinion anyways. Aurangzebra (talk) 02:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 15:50, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
4. Interstellarity (talk) 21:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Add Jimmy Carter

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.

He just died today and I think now is a good time to nominate him. I'm not nominating him because of his presidency, his presidency is irrelevant for this level. I think his post-presidential work such as Habitat for Humanity is important enough to get him listed at this level.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 21:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I think today is a poor day to open unbiased assessment of this subject's vitality. Today is a day where our glasses are at their peak rosiness and prior to today, i don't think I would have supported this yesterday.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:19, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
2. Sorry, but I don't think that he crosses into level 4 territory like other US presidents listed there. I don't think that his other contributions cross into there, either. PrimalMustelid (talk) 22:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
3. I can kinda see why you think he could be level 4, but I just don't really think he has had that much of an impact besides the label of the longest living president. λ NegativeMP1 05:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
4. Longevity ≠ vitality, nor even does charity. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
5. Unfortunatly not really vital, and U.S. politicians are over represented. GeogSage 03:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

Jimmy probably falls just out of VA4. If we only have a couple dozen American politicians, he probably falls just a little short. _pbp 22:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Add History of the telephone

Important concept relating to the telephone and the smartphone.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 12:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Add Gun

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.

Belated addition of rationale: N.B. This is an important Firearm  3 and Weapon  3 We list several Specific_firearms that are guns (including 3 with the gun as part of their name: Gatling gun  5, Dreyse needle gun  5 and M134 Minigun  5). We list several implements/mechanisms with gun in their name, including Nail gun  5, Rivet gun  5 and Field gun  5. VA includes Handgun  4s such as Revolver  5 and Pistol  5. It includes Long gun  5s such as Arquebus  5, Musket  4, Rifle  4, Assault rifle  4, Sniper rifle  5, Submachine gun  5 and Shotgun  4. We also list Machine gun  4 and Taser  5. Gun or gun-releated elements include Action (firearms)  5, Firing pin  5, Magazine (firearms)  5, Gun barrel  5, Bullet  5, Trigger (firearms)  5, Bolt (firearms) and Cartridge (firearms)  5. Other subjects including the word gun include Gunship  5 and Gunboat  5 as well as Shotgun slug  5 and Shotgun cartridge  5.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
2. Yes. If Sword  4 is VA4, gun should be too. Aurangzebra (talk) 01:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Absolutely. Interstellarity (talk) 01:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Yes. We have so much extremely specific stuff that gets listed, I think people forget the general stuff like this. GeogSage 03:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
5. I also think that certain specific firearms / "guns" could be worthy of this level. I might nominate one or two. λ NegativeMP1 04:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
6. Per nom Mathwriter2718 (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
7. Organizational grounds alone are enough for me; this subsumes both Firearm  3 and Artillery  4. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
8. Not sure why this wasn't already listed. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Add Recep Tayyip Erdoğan

The Western Asia section doesn't list any leaders after 2004. More info: Erdoğan is the country's first directly elected president and the second longest serving prime minister. Under his tenure, the country has seen an economic crisis, involvement in Syria and Libya, etc. He won another five year term in the 2023 Turkish presidential election.

Support

1. As nom. Sahaib (talk) 08:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
2. The noms rationale could be more detailed,(rationale was updated since this comment) but this is someone that, the more I think about it, is definitely worthy of this level. He is quite possibly the most influential leader of modern Turkey since Ataturk, and I think the fourth paragraph of his lead section demonstrates why I believe so fairly well. Additionally, recentism appears to not be a concern in cases like this as we list many 21st century leaders at this level, granted they're mostly U.S. ones. Obviously, I'm not some Turkish history expert, so I could definitely be wrong about his true impact (and if I am, I'd like to be educated). But from how I see it, there is no reason why Erdoğan shouldn't be here. λ NegativeMP1 08:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Support, definitely an important leader in relation to European and Middle Eastern geopolitics. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

@NegativeMP1: I agree, I have added more info. Sahaib (talk) 09:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Add Narendra Modi

Surprised he is not listed. India is the most populated country, 4x the population of the United States so is actually quite underrepresented on this list.

Support

1. As nom. Sahaib (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
2. The previous proposal to add him failed, but I think he's gained enough stature after the 2024 Indian general election. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 00:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
3. An important leader in terms of India both domestically and geopolitically. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

1. I'm not sure but might be recency bias. I understand India is underrepresented, by why does Modi stand out as opposed to other worthy Indian leaders? Should we wait a few years before including him to see. GeogSage 03:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@GeogSage: I'm not an expert but here is a paragraph from the lead "Under Modi's tenure, India has experienced democratic backsliding, or the weakening of democratic institutions, individual rights, and freedom of expression. As prime minister, he has received consistently high approval ratings. Modi has been described as engineering a political realignment towards right-wing politics. He remains a controversial figure domestically and internationally, over his Hindu nationalist beliefs and handling of the Gujarat riots, which have been cited as evidence of a majoritarian and exclusionary social agenda." Sahaib (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Benjamin Netanyahu

Longest serving prime minister of Israel, could also swap with Golda Meir whose term in office was short in comparison.

Support

1. As nom. Sahaib (talk) 10:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Add Information Science

From the lede, "Information science is an academic field which is primarily concerned with analysis, collection, classification, manipulation, storage, retrieval, movement, dissemination, and protection of information." A quick Google Scholar search for "Information Science" here reveals multiple highly cited publication. Information science is taught at multiple schools in the United States, and has several subdisciplines such as Geographic Information Science. As technology progresses and we generate more data then ever before, I think this discipline is more important then level 5.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage 03:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Support, besides your arguments, it also subsumes Library and information science  5. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Support. PrimalMustelid (talk) 00:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

GeogSage 03:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Move Riemannian manifold  5 to level 4 from level 5

One of the most fundamental and important objects of modern geometry. 1,002 wikilinks last I checked.

There are many pairs of articles about a branch of math and its object of study, such as Riemannian geometry  4 and Riemannian manifold  5, Group theory  4 and Group (mathematics)  4, Graph theory  4 and Graph (discrete mathematics)  4, and Ring theory  4 and Ring (mathematics)  4. Of these, Riemannian manifold is uniquely discordant with the rating of its companion, which is level 4.

Disclosure: I have a lot of edits on Riemannian manifold.

Mathwriter2718 (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom Mathwriter2718 (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Support, if algebraic rings and ring theory are both already Lv 4, and so is Riemannian geometry, the precedent seems pretty clear. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Per above. --ZergTwo (talk) 01:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Per above. GeogSage 04:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Add Adenosine triphosphate  5

You know how the Mitochondrion  4 is the power house of the cell? Adenosine triphosphate or ATP is produced in the Mitochondrion and "is used throughout the cell as a source of chemical energy." I believe this chemical is critically important to biology, and as a biological creature think it should be at a higher level of vital article.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage 23:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

GeogSage 23:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Add Body of water  5

We have Sea  2 at level 2. The lede for that defines sea as "A sea is a large body of salt water" with "body" linking to the Body of water page. This term is inclusive of both fresh and salt water, and should be higher then level 5.

Support.

1. As nom. GeogSage 06:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Support, the current article is very listy, but that's arguably more reason to list it (and prioritize improvement). Promoting it at least to Lv4 makes sense on organizational grounds. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

GeogSage 06:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Swap both Homeopathy  4 AND Chiropractic  4 with Quackery  5

I don't see a particular reason to include homeopathy and chiropractic on the VA 4 list, there are many medicines (such as Osteopathy  5), and these two have a heavy western bias. By moving Quackery  5 up and these two down, we make some room at level 4, remove a bit of western bias, and de-emphasize some pseudoscientific health practices.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage 23:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 11:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Support only remove Homeopathy.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose move Quackery.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

Add Collective Security Treaty Organization  5

This is a current intergovernmental military alliance between Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, and Tajikistan. It is similar to NATO  3 and is what many countries joined after the collapse of the Warsaw Pact  4.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage 02:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

GeogSage 02:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Add Album  4

I don't really think I need to explain what an album is or give much of a detailed rationale as to why I think it should here. We list Song  4 at this level (at the moment at least), and we list several individual albums at this level to begin with. I don't see why the concept of an album shouldn't be here as well.

Support

1. As nom. λ NegativeMP1 04:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. GeogSage 00:45, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
3. per nom Aurangzebra (talk) 02:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
4. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Compact disc  5 is as important.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

   Optical disc  4 is at this level, so I'm not sure what your argument here is. λ NegativeMP1 05:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

Add MrBeast

There is currently 17 Web entertainers and internet personalities at Level 5 vital so it makes sense to have at least one level 4 vital article. MrBeast has the most subscribed YouTube channel and also the third-most-followed creator on TikTok. He has a number of related articles: Team Trees, Team Seas, MrBeast Burger, MrBeast Lab, Feastables, Finger on the App, Lunchly, Karl Jacobs, $456,000 Squid Game in Real Life!, 50 YouTubers Fight for $1,000,000, Beast Games, Beast Games lawsuit. In the last two years the page got more page views than other living Level 4 vital articles such as Tom Hanks, Rafael Nadal and Quentin Tarantino.

Support

1. As nom. Sahaib (talk) 10:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
2. I usually am a lot more strict about influencer proposals because I think being an influencer is a very fickle business and we could be victim to recency bias. But Mr. Beast averages over 200 million views a video . For comparison, the most watched Super Bowl ever had 123 million views. He has branched into other businesses and mainstream media/TV with much success (the Amazon Prime show Beast Games was the #1 show on Prime in over 50 countries in its debut ). It would take a VA4-level controversy for him to fall off the map completely (he has been the subject of many controversies in the last few months but his views numbers have stayed more or less unchanged). Youtube is such an insulated ecosystem that there's still a chance some of you haven't heard of him but I think his article speaks for itself. Aurangzebra (talk) 01:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose for a very specific reason. Before deciding, I compared the pageviews for PewDiePie  5 and MrBeast between January 11 2015 and January 11 2025. During this time, BrBeast has gotten 21,842,134 views and PewDiePie 21,091,502 views. There was a switch where MrBeast became more popular in 2019, but over the past decade the number of page views between these two is remarkably close. I'd want to wait another 5 or 10 years on MrBeast to ensure his page isnt' going to go the route of PewDiePie. GeogSage 07:45, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Oppose Too recent. --Thi (talk) 10:53, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Oppose, I don't normally participate at Lv 4 or on People proposals. But I'm skeptical of listing influencers even at Lv5, whatever their celebrity may be; I would think Lv4 has even less room to spare. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Oppose, too recent. His high view count is less impressive when compared to corporate and kid/toy channels. PewDiePie  5 also previously had unprecedented mainstream attention for an online celebrity. I'd like to wait a few years. CopiousAmountofCannons (talk) 04:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
5. Oppose like everyone else due to being too recent. Better to wait to see if long-term vitality is eventually achieved or not. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

1. This is a weird case. As Aurangzebra said, I would normally be more hesitant about this because of fears of recency bias. However, he is quite possibly the most successful internet celebrity / influencer ever. Even if he fell off in popularity, I feel that he has cemented himself in internet history, and it's hard for me to imagine someone ever reaching similar levels of fame as him in his field. It's also hard to imagine that he, and the impact he's left, will ever really fade into obscurity. But only about a decade or so worth of activity... I don't know. I'm voting neutral for now. λ NegativeMP1 01:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

Add some geographers

Add Bernhardus Varenius  5

Varenius wrote the Geographia Generalis which is seen as the dividing line between classical and contemporary geography.

Support

1. as nom. GeogSage 00:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. His seminal text Geographia Generalis has 0 interwikis and was an article that you created earlier this year. Though this could just be evidence of the gaps Misplaced Pages has when it comes to geography, I find it hard to believe that the most important work of a VA4 contender did not have an article until this year. Aurangzebra (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

   I provided multiple peer-reviewed publications when I created the article. There are extreme gaps in Misplaced Pages's coverage of geography, something I'm working to try and fix. Not a lot of editors working on 1650 texts, biographies of geographers, or concepts in the discipline. GeogSage 01:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

Add Gerardus Mercator  5

The Mercator projection  4 is named after him. This projection has seen widespread use even centuries after Mercator's death. Mercator is likely the most famous cartographer of all time.

Support

1. as nom. GeogSage 00:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Out of all these, this is my only weak oppose. I don't think any geographers deserve a spot on VA4 yet but if we absolutely had to choose one, it would likely be him. However, if you compare his accomplishments and his societal and cultural impact to the other people we list at VA4, he does not compare. Aurangzebra (talk) 00:52, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

Add Waldo R. Tobler  5

Waldo Tobler is regarded by many as the most influential geographer of the 20th century. Some pages based on his work include Tobler's first law of geography, Tobler's second law of geography, Tobler hyperelliptical projection, and Tobler's hiking function. Among other things, he wrote the first peer-reviewed publication suggesting the use of computers to make maps. He would represent the pinnacle of the field and is essential to the coverage of several articles.

Support

1. as nom. GeogSage 00:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Doesn't seem comparable to the other entries we list on VA4. I'm sure he was influential to modern geography but none of the articles you've linked seem to prove how he transcends beyond VA5. I know you are a geographer and I appreciate your passion for making sure geography is well-represented on VA but I think it is also important to zoom out a little bit and compare these entries to the ones we list (and the ones we don't list) to compare. Aurangzebra (talk) 00:59, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

   This can be said about almost all of our athletes. They literally don't matter in the grand scheme of things outside their sport. I can point to multiple publications discussing Tobler's impact on Geography  2. His publications have shaped the discipline and how research is done. Me being a geographer just means I'm aware of this, I'm sure we have countless highly influential scientists who are not included. GeogSage 01:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

   Fair point and I think our fundamental disagreement is in what we consider vital. As I've mentioned on that other football thread, I do think athletes are important in the grand scheme of things and you don't. I think 'entertainment' fields have just as much of an impact on society as more academic fields do. More people can chime in here and I will abide by the results of the vote but this is just my opinion. Aurangzebra (talk) 01:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

   Sports has an impact on society, however the individual athletes rarely do. Most athletes don't even impact how their sport is played, much less society as a whole. Influential academics quantifiably impact their field, and the field can have a quantifiable impact on society. Tobler published the first paper on Computer cartography  5, and his research has wide reaching implications on things like using your smart phone to find a place. On Google Scholar, if you search Tobler First Law you'll get several highly cited research papers using the term in their title. I base what I consider vital on the criteria on Misplaced Pages:Vital articles, what do you base yours on? GeogSage 01:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

2. Not particularly comfortable with a page with single-digit interwikis being at VA4 _pbp 02:23, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

   Since when are Wikilinks a criteria for vital articles? I keep seeing people using it, but it isn't listed. GeogSage 03:00, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

   If you want to instead use pageviews, 379 past 30 days is underwhelming also _pbp 05:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

   Sure! Criteria 2 is "Essential to Misplaced Pages's other articles," so lets look at the page views for articles associated with Tobler between December 12th 2024 and January 11th 2024 here. Tobler's first law of geography (1,444 views) Tobler's second law of geography (333 views), Tobler hyperelliptical projection (782 views), Tobler's hiking function (368 views), and Waldo Tobler bibliography (19 views). That is 2,946 views on articles directly related to his work during the time period, 3,147 if you count his main page. Tobler had a material impact on his field, and on the course of humanity, there are plenty of citations for this I can provide. He's one of the 349 entries in Springer Natures Encyclopedia of Mathematical Geosciences, for example. GeogSage 07:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

Add Mei-Po Kwan  5

Mei-Po Kwan is among the most influential geographers currently living. For those who care about such measures, her Impact factor on Google Scholar is enormous, with a h-index of 95 and a i10-index of 335 as of me writing this. Different sites will give different values, but all will show she has a large impact within geography. Pages based on her work include Uncertain geographic context problem and the neighborhood effect averaging problem. The page is notable and essential to the coverage of several articles. Her inclusion also might help reduce western bias, although she is a professor at U.S. universities.

Support

1. as nom. GeogSage 00:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Same reasoning as above but even stronger. Only 2 interwikis and nothing in her article indicates research of similar importance to the other social scientists we list at VA5. Aurangzebra (talk) 01:01, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

   Same argument as Tobler. GeogSage 01:04, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

2. Per Aurangzebra. Seems more Lv 5, maybe not even that. _pbp 01:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

GeogSage 00:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Add Central African long-serving leaders

Both Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo and Paul Biya have served for quite a long time with Obiang serving as president of Equatorial Guinea since October 1982 and Biya serving as president of Cameroon since November 1982. Biya would likely be more vital as he was previously prime minister (1975–1982) and also because Cameroon has a much higher population. That being said, Obiang actually got slightly more pageviews in the last decade and is about a decade younger suggesting he could remain leader for longer. Sahaib (talk) 08:49, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Add Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo

Support

1. as nom. Sahaib (talk) 08:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Add Paul Biya

Support

1. as nom. Sahaib (talk) 08:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Jacques louis david

i am of the opinion that Jacques louis david be upgraded to level three, does anyone else agree or should i not bother putting it forward capstar (talk) 17:36, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

• Jacques-Louis David  4

Support

1. capstar (talk) 17:36, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose: Level 4 seems the right level. Level 3 would make him among the most significant artists in world history and that's a bit much _pbp 18:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose: Of our level 3 artists, all but one are western. If you look at page views for the artists at level 3 over the past year and compare them with Jacques louis david, he consistently is less viewed then all of them, with one outlier date where he outperformed one or two of them. I think we need fewer individuals at level 3 as is, and in our artists I think we ultimately need to swap in some non-western options or scrap them at level 3. GeogSage 18:29, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

  I do agree about introducing non western artists, and certainly slimming down how many renaissance artists are featured capstar (talk) 20:36, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

Add a subarticle of artificial intelligence to this level

We already list Artificial intelligence at level 3, but I think it would be good to list a subtopic of artificial intelligence since it will likely become a part of everyday life in five or ten years time. I will provide my suggestions below. For me personally, I’m leaning towards large language model, but open to other articles as well. Interstellarity (talk) 20:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Generative artificial intelligence

Support

1. _pbp 15:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Leaning towards no for this one as this is the only one I can definitively think of as a "recent" concept. While I know that the concept has existed for quite a while, this kind of thing has only really been relevant for the past few years. I also think that this might be covered by LLM if we add that? λ NegativeMP1 21:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Chatbot

Support

1. They've existed, or at least been a concept, for a long time. λ NegativeMP1 21:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Large language model

Support

1. As the nominator said, I think this should absolutely be at this level as a sub-topic of AI. λ NegativeMP1 21:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
2. _pbp 15:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

ChatGPT

Support

Oppose

1. Weak oppose, as I think Chatbot probably covers for now. I might support in a few years as I do seriously think that ChatGPT alone has left a significant impact on the world as a whole. However, it could also easily be overtaken since AI chatbots / LLMs right now are in an arms race of sorts (Gemini, Copilot, etc.). Let's wait and see. λ NegativeMP1 21:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Still too recent and specific for this level, I'd rather have the more general AI boom  5 or Large language model  5.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 22:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Interstellarity (talk) 20:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Swap Bugs Bunny  5 with Donald Duck  4

Donald Duck  4 and Mickey Mouse  4 are both level 4, and both Disney Characters. If you look at the views for the three over the past 10 years, you see that Mickey is much higher then the other two, but that Bugs has consistently slightly more pageviews then Donald. Bugs is a Warner Bros. Cartoons product, and likely the most recognizable Loony Toon character. Mickey Mouse can properly represent Disney cartoons at level 4, and adding Bugs gives the Loony Toons some level 4 representation.

Support Swap

1. As nom. GeogSage 03:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Support Add Bugs Bunny without Swap

1. Failing Swap. GeogSage 04:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removal of Donald Duck whether or not Bugs is added to level 4. Donald Duck is a very important part of cinema because of his distinguishable personality that led to him literally overshadowing Mickey for decades and having historically also been popular in both Latin America and Europe. PrimalMustelid (talk) 03:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Per PrimalMustelid. λ NegativeMP1 04:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Donald Duck is more popular than Bugs Bunny and Mickey Mouse in Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway and Finland. Sahaib (talk) 06:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Looney Tunes  4 is already at this level; Donald Duck shouldn't be removed as long as Carl Barks  5 remains on mere level 5.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

Neutral

GeogSage 03:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• The reason Donald Duck is a Level 4 and not a Level 5 character is that HE, not Mickey, has appeared in the most Disney cartoons and products. _pbp 16:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  Fair, I think that Mickey is still the face of Disney world wide. Despite that, I think Bugs should still be added. I added an option for that as well. GeogSage 02:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Add Simone Biles  5

Arguably the greatest there has ever been in her sport regardless of gender. It appears this has been supported in 2019, but resulted in a withdrawal. While I'm sure some are familiar with her accolades, she's the most decorated gymnast of all time. She's won 30 World Gymnastics medals and her Worlds gold medal total alone (24) surpasses the second-highest female (Svetlana Khorkina)'s total medal count regardless of color (20). Additionally, she has 11 total Olympic Games medals with 7 of them being gold, both totals the second-highest in history. Throughout her career, she's had five separate skills named after her.

Support

1. As nominator. GauchoDude (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose add without swap. GeogSage 04:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

1. I would support a swap with one or more of the other level 4 sports figures. GeogSage 04:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Merge of Sabaeans to Sheba

Sabaeans, a level 4 vital article, got merged. Can we move the vital level thing to Sheba? Abo Yemen✉ 07:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support Sheba at VA4 _pbp 16:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Add Ma Long

Widely regarded as the greatest table tennis player of all time and also holds the record for most Olympic gold medals won by a Chinese athlete. Table tennis being one of the most popular sports globally should definitely have some representation.

Support

1. As nominator. Sahaib (talk) 00:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose add. GeogSage 04:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

1. Would support a swap with one or more of the other level 4 athletes only. GeogSage 04:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• WikiProject Vital Articles pages
• Pseudoscience