Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/Archive 21

VA5 quota now 50,075. Reduce Countries and subdivisions by 50? 1348/1400 to 1348/1350
Per Vital articles/Level/5, VA5 quota is currently 50,075 articles, not 50,000. Countries and subdivisions is currently 1348/1400 articles. Shall we reduce the quota by 50? Making it 1348/1350.  starship .paint  (RUN) 08:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Per nom. Makkool (talk) 11:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) As nom.  starship .paint  (RUN) 09:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 3) We have too many pointless country subdivisions, so we could and should reduce it even further.  Vileplume  🍋‍🟩 ( talk ) 21:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 4) Per nom, rightsizing. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 5) Even if there would turn out to be demand for more of this category it can be increased again, and for now quota can be taken from under-quota pages.-- Laukku  TheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 08:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 6) I agree that this could be reduced even further. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 22:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Add List
Super-basic and fundamental topic. List should be under Information, as a list is one of the most common types of/ways to organize information.


 * Support


 * 1)  BD2412  T 01:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 05:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 3) Per nom. Don't think it’s true that these lists are just for improvement. FAs don’t get kicked out. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 4) We should definitely have List on the list. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) The purpose of the VA project is to identify a list of articles that we should devote more editing resources towards to make them high quality. We don't need that for list: there is no specialized history to them (the article itself mentions that the scholarship on lists is fragmented) and their purpose and existence is straightforward; it's basically a dictionary term. Almost everything on the article seems fairly obvious. It also establishes a dangerous precedent. Where do we stop? Should we add paragraph for example? Aurangzebra (talk) 06:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Neutral

What is the process from here? We have more than four participants and four support votes (80% support), and the discussion has been open for six weeks, with over a week since the last comment. BD2412 T 22:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Level 5 proposals must run for at least 15 days?
Currently, L5 proposals must run for at least 14 days. But, all higher level proposals must run for at least 15 days. Propose to standardise L5 to at least 15 days as well. starship.paint 07:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) as nom. starship.paint 07:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 2)  Vileplume  🍋‍🟩 ( talk ) 01:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 3) LOL-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 4) Barely makes a difference, but why not. Consistency is good. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 5) Makes sense to align with Level 1-4. Aszx5000 (talk) 11:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss