Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/Archive 4

Proposed reorganization:
Specifically, for the Vital articles/Level/5/People/Politicians and leaders page. Currently, it is organized first by time, then by continent and country. I suggest that it be organized first by continent and country, and then by time, which would better follow the other pages and be easier to parse. I'm willing to do the reorganization --DannyS712 (talk) 19:49, 5 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm neutral on this proposal. How would leaders from ancient empires be grouped with modern countries? Will all Roman leaders be grouped with Italy? Many ancient empires were transnational or transcontinental and don't really have a successor country. Also the earlier levels of political leaders are divided by time first too. Another alternative would be dividing the other pages on Level 5 to a similar way to politicians and leaders. That will make easier to see how much recentism there is on each page too. Gizza  (t)(c) 02:52, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I was thinking for along the lines of having all of the US people together, all of the mexico people together, and both in a north america section. Rome would have its own subjection separate from Italy, etc. --DannyS712 (talk) 02:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No objection, and I would welcome attempts to improve the list. Smallchief (talk) 11:39, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If you do go about this, Danny, please shoot me an e-mail. I have a table that would assist you in making those changes.  p  b  p  22:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the offer. I'm going to wait a week to see if there are any objections, and then work on reorganization, which should then make any "holes" that should be improved more visible. --DannyS712 (talk) 23:02, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with sorting by continent and then time, or even by sub-continent ("East Asia"), but doing this by country will have too many problems. Countries are not consistent enough over the thousand-year timeframes involved to sort by those before sorting by time. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 23:23, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The way I solved this in my table was to have two columns for countries: one for the name of the country as it was in the leader's time and one for where that country is located now. For example, Tiberius is Rome/Italy, but Vittorio Orlando is Italy/Italy.  p  b  p  00:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * It sounds like a good idea to me. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I think this is a good idea. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:30, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Adding articles about races
I noticed that several articles pertaining to race, such as human skin color, white people, and black people, aren't listed. I think it'd make sense to add them, along with others in that vein, even if some terms are a little U.S.-centric. Where would it make sense to put them? - Sdkb (talk) 21:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Fred Ott's Sneeze, add Steamboat Willie
Former feels somewhat redundant to Roundhay Garden Scene, and feels more like a piece of trivia than something that genuinely deserves a high-quality article, while the latter had a huge impact on the animation industry and "has been the center of a variety of controversies regarding copyright".-- Laukku  TheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 19:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) As nominator.-- Laukku  TheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 19:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support removal --Thi (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Support removal --Makkool (talk) 14:15, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 07:06, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) Support (Ios2019 (talk) 14:25, 2 February 2019 (UTC)).


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Swap: Remove Won't You Be My Neighbor? (film), add A Trip to the Moon
Former is too recent (personally I'd be extremely hesitant to add anything younger than 10 years), while the latter is iconic and "one of the most influential films in cinema history".-- Laukku  TheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 19:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) As nominator.-- Laukku  TheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 19:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --Thi (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Dawid2009 (talk) 15:42, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Support removal --Makkool (talk) 14:15, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 07:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) The removal, since Won't You Be My Neighbor? is currently the highest-grossing biographical documentary in history and one of the top 10 films in 2018 by Time.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Discuss

"Particle and theoretical physics" -> some restructuring and add "Linear particle accelerator" and "Semiconductor detector"
"Particle and theoretical physics" is wrong. There is a lot of theoretical physics in various fields (e.g. theoretical thermodynamics), but the section only covers experimental and theoretical particle physics. The scope is good but we should rename the group to "Particle physics", this automatically covers both the experimental and the theoretical side. --mfb (talk) 03:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support renaming
 * 1) As nominator, see above. --mfb (talk) 03:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Other


 * Discuss

"Devices" subsection
I propose to add a section "devices" for physical objects used to study particle physics to particle physics. This is mainly re-grouping existing entries: Particle accelerator (with three sub-entries), Particle detector, Cloud chamber, Collider, Calorimeter belong in this section. Cloud chamber and Calorimeter can be listed under "particle detector", collider can become a sub-entry of "particle accelerator". --mfb (talk) 03:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) As nominator --mfb (talk) 03:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Other


 * Discuss

Add Linear particle accelerator

 * Support
 * 1) As nominator: as important as collider --mfb (talk) 03:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Other


 * Discuss

Add Semiconductor detector

 * Support
 * 1) As nominator: part of basically every modern particle detector --mfb (talk) 03:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Other


 * Discuss
 * 1) If you really want to add these two devices to the list, then just go to the physics subpage and add them, since currently adding articles to any subpage of WP:VA5 does not require any discussion or votes.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Implemented all the suggested changes, and then some more (in a separate edit). --mfb (talk) 15:02, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

About Language Movement in Vital_articles/Level/5/History
This article is currently a disambiguation page. Although it is listed under the Southern Asia subsection, which ultimately belong to the 20th century section, I still can not judge which article is actually the one the adder intended because the disambig page contains 8 language movements in Southern Asia. May the adder point out which one is the one he was actually meant when adding language movement?--RekishiEJ (talk) 04:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Add Lynn Hill
Add Lynn Hill to Climbing/Mountaineering Sportpersons Spacepine (talk) 14:17, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If you really want to add him just go to the sports figures subpage and add that article by yourself. Currently only removals and structural modifications require discussion here.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:34, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Her. And the section has reached it's quota. Shall I ignore that? Spacepine (talk) 21:22, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ignore that quota because I've skimmed the lede of the article and found out that she is one of the best climbers in human history, and sooner or later the quota will be doubled.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Cool, done. Might come back and refine that list a bit when the quota is actually worked out --Spacepine (talk) 12:27, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Edible Fruits Additions and Removals
While this section is pretty well fleshed out, I think a reasonable quota would be 100 Edible fruits (75 Culinary Fruits and 25 Botanical Fruits Used as Culinary Vegetables), and that there are a decent number of articles worthy of inclusion, as well as a handful we could stand to remove. This is just a rough start, as I'm no expert in the area, and I would be open to any other suggestions. Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 13:24, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


 * There are 50 edible fruits at Level 4 so 100 at this level would only be a 2x expansion. And plants overall is still less half full under the current quota. It could easily go up to 150 and still feel small relative to other sections that expanded more than 5 times. Also I believe that edible plants are generally more vital than the non-edible ones since they have a practical use for humans. Gizza  (t)(c) 01:57, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, I can't argue with that. I definately think we could stand to add more foreign culinary staples, as well as probably some more cultivars/variants of well-known (Level 4) fruits like apples, pears, and the like. This is just a start of some with immediate name recognition that I thought should definately be added. Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 15:58, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Add Key Lime

 * Support
 * 1) Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 13:24, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Add Açaí

 * Support
 * 1) Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 13:24, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Add Huckleberry

 * Support
 * 1) Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 13:24, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Add Redcurrant

 * Support
 * 1) Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 13:24, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Add Horned melon

 * Support
 * 1) Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 13:24, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Add Opuntia (prickly pear)

 * Support
 * 1) Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 13:24, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Remove either Papeda or Kaffir lime

 * Papeda
 * 1) Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 13:24, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Kaffir lime
 * 1) Oppose essential and ubiquitous ingredient in Thai cuisine, which is one of the most popular in the world, including Western English-speaking countries. Gizza  (t)(c) 01:57, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Neither

Remove Piri piri

 * Support
 * 1) Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 13:24, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Star formation
Under Stellar astronomy, I'd like to propose replacing the stub Pre-stellar core article with the FA Herbig–Haro object. The Protostar article can cover the topic of collapse from molecular clouds in sufficient detail. Praemonitus (talk) 18:13, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Finishing cities/cities quotas
For your consideration, I offer the following table, including my recommendations for quotas for cities by geographic region:


 * E. Africa includes Burundi, Comoros, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Mayotte, Mozambique, Réunion, Rwanda, Seychelles, Somalia, South Sudan, Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe
 * C. Africa includes Angola, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo Republic, Congo DRC, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon and Sao Tome & Principe
 * W. Africa includes Benin, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Ivory Coast, Liberia, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Saint Helena, Senegal, Sierra Leone and Togo
 * S. Africa includes Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia, South Africa and Swaziland
 * N. Africa includes Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, Sudan, Tunisia and Western Sahara
 * Central American includes Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama
 * C. Asia/Caucuses includes Afghanistan and the Asian former Soviet republics (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan)
 * Other E. Asia includes the Koreas, Mongola and Taiwan
 * Other S. Asia includes Bangladesh, Bhutan, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka
 * SE Asia includes Brunei, Cambodia, East Timor, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam
 * The Middle East includes Bahrain, Cyprus, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, UAE and Yemen.
 * The Balkans includes Albania, Greece and the constituents of the former Yugoslavia (Bosnia, Croatia, Greece, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Slovenia)
 * Other E. Europe includes Belarus, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Moldova, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Ukraine
 * Other W. Europe includes Austria, Belgium, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Switzerland
 * Scandinavia includes Denmark, the Faroe Islands, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden
 * The Baltic include Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania
 * S. Europe includes Andorra, Gibraltar, Italy, Malta, Monaco, Portugal, San Marino, Spain and the Vatican City

There were two general goals of these quotas: 1) bring the quotas more in line with an equitable distribution according to population, and 2) bring them more in line with a 4-to-5-fold increase from the Lv 4 levels.
 * There needs to be substantial increase in the number of African and South American cities on this list, particularly in East and West Africa.
 * 155 seems about right for China. But India and the U.S. probably shouldn't have more than that, so I propose reducing the number of Indian cities to 155 and U.S. cities to 150.  There are a number of questionable American cities on this list so 150 seems reasonable.
 * according to List of cities in India by population, the 150th largest Indian city has a population slightly larger than 300,000 people in 2011. Whereas according to zh:中華人民共和國城市人口排名 (much more readable than List of cities in China by population and built-up area; the three columns are Metropolitan area, Administrative area and Urban area respectively), the 150th largest Chinese city by urban population has a population of around 670,000 in 2010. The 50th largest city in India has around 950,000 people, while the 50th largest city in China has around 1,500,000 people. So, if both China and India have 155 articles on the list, the average Chinese city would be much larger than the average city in India. feminist (talk) 04:12, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * In contrast, according to List of United States cities by population, the 50th largest US city has a population slightly less than 400,000, while the 150th largest city has around 170,000 people. However, according to Wikimedia statistics, the US is by far the largest consumer of the English Wikipedia, with 39.8% of enwiki's monthly page views coming from the US, so US cities would be relevant to more people relative to their population. I'd argue that Power's point below regarding European cities applies to the US as well, albeit to a much lesser extent. feminist (talk) 04:31, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I propose reducing the Caribbean quota to 30. IMO, some of the Caribbean nations have too many cities compared to their population (Cuba-11.5 million people, 7 cities→5, Guadeloupe, 449K, 2 cities→1, Jamaica, 2.8 million, 4 cities→3, Puerto Rico, 3.6 million, 4 cities→3, Trinidad and Tobago, 1.4 million, 3 cities→2).  We might want to remove additional Caribbean cities in favor of adding Willemstad and/or Charlotte Amalie.
 * We could add 40 or 50 South American cities and it still would only represent a 4-fold increase from the VA4 and would amount to one South American city for every 3 million South Americans
 * There is a great deal of bloat in Japan and Malaysia in comparison to other countries. Malaysia has 26 cities despite only having 31 million people.  Japan has 91 cities despite only having 128 million people.   (If China and India had a commensurate number of cities, they would each have about 1,000) We need to cut the number of Japanese and Malaysians cities, with the reduction in Japanese cities going toward non-Asian cities and the reduction in Malaysian cities spread amongst other SE Asian nations.
 * For Malaysia I'd suggest removing cities introduced in this edit. Pinging . feminist (talk) 03:40, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Please do as you see fit. I don't understand this quota system. I made a comment below. --Zaheen (talk) 12:12, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ cities removed. feminist (talk) 13:00, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

p b  p  19:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Southern Europe is also heavily overrepresented.
 * Australia and New Zealand could do with losing a few. New Zealand has more cities than millions of people!
 * For New Zealand, I'd suggest removing Queenstown, which I added. feminist (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Explanations of the reductions or additions in European quotas available on request.


 * Comment there is a certain amount of history involved in the selection of cities, not simply modern population. As a result, Europe will be over-represented according to any system based on current population.  (China and India balance their history with a massive current population.)  I agree that Japan has too many cities currently and Brazil has too few. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 20:01, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting that, in my quota proposal, Europe has about one city per 1.99 million people, whereas "Not Europe" has one city per 4.26 million people. p  b  p  20:14, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Noted. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 20:16, 5 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: quotas for countries should take into account the percentage of people living in cities. If less people in a country live in cities, the number of cities from that country in this list should be fewer. I added most of the cities in the China list; each of them have more than 500,000 residents in metro areas, and most have more than a million. I am not sure about Indian cities, but I suspect that the average Indian city in the list would have a lower population than the average Chinese city. feminist (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - I fail to understand this quota system, which seems overly complicated to me. In my opinion, cities should first be picked strictly on population or number of inhabitants (objective), then on administrative, historical or cultural significance - i.e. progressively from objective to subjective criteria. --Zaheen (talk) 12:12, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I think your approach has its merits, as it's easier to follow. The main problem is that different countries have different definitions for "cities". For example, the whole of Chongqing (82,403 km2) is classified as one city by China, despite most of it being rural areas. In contrast, cities in the Greater Tokyo area form a largely homogeneous urban area with no practical boundaries, despite the area being legally separated into dozens of individual "cities". Would anyone honestly say that Funabashi is more important than Florence? In England, Milton Keynes (pop. 230k) is not legally a "city" yet Wells, Somerset (pop. 10k) is, only because city status in the United Kingdom is granted by the Queen. Population generally serves as a useful guideline, but ignoring other criteria would result in an unbalanced list.
 * Another obvious problem with including, say, all "cities" with a population above 250,000 in this list, is that you would get more than 400 cities from China. I don't think I have to explain the problem with that. feminist (talk) 13:22, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with having many cities from China if it fulfils the objective, impartial demographic criterion of a minimum threshold of "x" inhabitants? I don't understand. Is it because Chinese cities of "x" people have less intrinstic significance than cities from other countries with "x" number of people? Some kind of anti-oriental bias? I sincerely hope not. I also do not understand the need to compare the cultural or historical significance of cities to determine their inclusion in the list. Are we saying that a collection of Japanese people living in a suburban town are inherently less significant than the collection of Italians living in Florence? A manifestation of subtle pro-occidental bias that Wikipedia has been accused of in the media before? Again, I sincerely hope not. (FYI: Don't take these as personal attacks, please.) This kind of subjective cultural comparison viewed through a skewed lens of so-called cultural significance unnecessarily muddies the whole selection process. As I said, the most objective criterion would be to (sort of blindly) follow the number of people and then, administrative significance of the city within the country. For example, as for Tokyo, we could have Tokyo proper and then its most important suburban towns as well, granted they meet our demographic criteria. Same with Chongqing. If Chongqing is officially considered a city, then even with large semi-urban regions, it still can be considered a city using our second criterion, i.e., its administrative status in China. Only after that can we add cultural and historical significance in the mix, albeit in a limited manner. In my opinion, this list should not be an endorsement of how "travel-worthy" or how "culturally interesting" or how "purely city-like" a city is, which is the feeling I get by reading the above discussion. I am for looking at the whole thing in a much more impartial, neutral and simpler manner, i.e. by giving primacy to pure demographics and administrative status. Otherwise the debates will go round and round, with people chiming in with their subjective preferences, trying to "hivethink" a ranking of the worthiness of cities. And then there are quotas too, based on another set of subjective criteria, essentially creating a fishmarket or an auction out of this list, where people would be demanding and clamoring for this and that numbered quota of cities for this or that country (Based on what exactly? Gut? Hunch? Feel?). Pardon me, but I think this is just too complicated a solution for a problem which could be handled in a simpler, objective, impartial manner. Just my opinion. --Zaheen (talk) 15:47, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with having many cities from China if it fulfils the objective, impartial demographic criterion of a minimum threshold of "x" inhabitants? I don't understand. Is it because Chinese cities of "x" people have less intrinstic significance than cities from other countries with "x" number of people? Some kind of anti-oriental bias? I sincerely hope not. I also do not understand the need to compare the cultural or historical significance of cities to determine their inclusion in the list. Are we saying that a collection of Japanese people living in a suburban town are inherently less significant than the collection of Italians living in Florence? A manifestation of subtle pro-occidental bias that Wikipedia has been accused of in the media before? Again, I sincerely hope not. (FYI: Don't take these as personal attacks, please.) This kind of subjective cultural comparison viewed through a skewed lens of so-called cultural significance unnecessarily muddies the whole selection process. As I said, the most objective criterion would be to (sort of blindly) follow the number of people and then, administrative significance of the city within the country. For example, as for Tokyo, we could have Tokyo proper and then its most important suburban towns as well, granted they meet our demographic criteria. Same with Chongqing. If Chongqing is officially considered a city, then even with large semi-urban regions, it still can be considered a city using our second criterion, i.e., its administrative status in China. Only after that can we add cultural and historical significance in the mix, albeit in a limited manner. In my opinion, this list should not be an endorsement of how "travel-worthy" or how "culturally interesting" or how "purely city-like" a city is, which is the feeling I get by reading the above discussion. I am for looking at the whole thing in a much more impartial, neutral and simpler manner, i.e. by giving primacy to pure demographics and administrative status. Otherwise the debates will go round and round, with people chiming in with their subjective preferences, trying to "hivethink" a ranking of the worthiness of cities. And then there are quotas too, based on another set of subjective criteria, essentially creating a fishmarket or an auction out of this list, where people would be demanding and clamoring for this and that numbered quota of cities for this or that country (Based on what exactly? Gut? Hunch? Feel?). Pardon me, but I think this is just too complicated a solution for a problem which could be handled in a simpler, objective, impartial manner. Just my opinion. --Zaheen (talk) 15:47, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


 * There's some merit to that, but...
 * How many total cities in the world are there of over 200,000? It's probably way more than 1,950.  And how does that break down from country to country?  I'd be interested to know
 * In countries that divide cities certain ways, you get a lot of suburbs of over 200,000. Glendale, California is a hair over 200K now and Chandler, Arizona is well over 200K but I don't think we should have either on the list.  Our list should primarily be of core cities, with only the largest of suburbs included
 * As such, perhaps focus on size of the metro area (if available) than the size of the core city?
 * With 1,950 slots available, we have room for the capitals and largest cities of every country (regardless of size) and major country subdivisions. One example of a place I've added that fits this criteria but is significantly under 200,000 pop is Nuuk
 * We should probably avoid half the list being from a small handful of countries, while at the same time make sure countries with large urbanized populations each have several representatives. There's more marginal benefit to the 1st or 2nd city from a particular country than the 151st
 * There's general agreement to give disproportionate weight to the Western and English-speaking world, at it makes up a disproportionate number of consumers of this Wiki. A Wikipedia in a different language would by its nature generate a different set of vital articles
 * There's some agreement to consider pageviews and interwiki links at least a little
 * There a number of cities of historical or cultural significance that are not particularly large. For example, Hollywood is not a particularly populous place, but it is easily one of the 100 most evocative place names in the world

Is my quota proposal perfect? Probably not. Feminist pointed out that my list doesn't take into account differences in the levels of urbanization between countries. But it's a point of discussion. And, for at least some of these, there are ways to add subjectivity and weighting in to consider multiple factors. p b  p  18:15, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Pinging who (IIRC) added many cities to this list. feminist (talk) 15:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I generally agree with Feminist and Purplebackpack that quite often historical or turistics settelments should be added ahead of larger suburbs in big countries. Although population is important metric, adding not vital subburb with 600 000 population ahead of Florence it is such like add average Chinese dialect from level 5 (diversity of Chinese language is pretty the same as diversity of Indoeuropean languages) ahead of Hebrew laguage or Esperanto language. Dawid2009 (talk) 15:38, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I really don't like this type of quota system for cities or so much emphasis being put on population numbers as a measure of vitality. Ideally all cities would be judged against each other to determine which ones are more vital than others, but I understand that might not be practical. So if we are going to have this type of quota system for cities, the U.S. looks a little low to me. I think it should be 175-200, and I'd have Europe being at 400. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:08, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Maybe I won't go as high as 175-200 for US, but I don't see a pressing need to remove cities either. feminist (talk) 05:26, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Just to illustrate my point regarding different definitions of cities: should Sha Tin be added to this list? Is it more significant than Montpellier, Heraklion, Haifa or Hebron? I would say no. feminist (talk) 05:37, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Even if we need 175-200 quota for USA I think that it is easier to recuce quota of cities to 1950 as first for stabilisation/inclusionism the list than reducing of cities while we are over quota. Dawid2009 (talk) 15:52, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: Establish a quota of 60 for Japanese cities
91 Japanese cities seems excessive in comparison to other countries, especially other Asian countries. p b  p  14:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1)  p  b  p  14:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Leaning oppose I've cut the list down to 67 cities, which should be much more manageable. feminist (talk) 11:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Tl;dr: population may not be a reliable indicator of the significance of Japanese cities.
 * Discussion

As the editor who inserted most of the Japanese cities currently on the list, I'd say most of the bloat currently in the list comes from suburbs/commuter towns of major cities. E.g. stuff like Funabashi or Kashiwa would be to Tokyo what Newark, New Jersey is to New York City. I based the list on core cities of Japan (and above), cities scheduled to be classified as core cities, and prefectural capitals. I'd start by removing smaller cities (or places classified as cities) in the Greater Tokyo Area and Keihanshin that are currently on the list. These cities have a high population because they serve as commuter towns, not because they are significant in their own right. This means, for example, I would prefer to remove Amagasaki or Kawaguchi, Saitama before removing cities significant in their own right, such as Himeji, Hakodate, Kure, Hiroshima, etc. feminist (talk) 19:28, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I've removed 22 cities currently on the list. That leaves 69. feminist (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: Establish a quota of 60 for Brazilian cities
South America, especially Brazil, is currently underrepresented. p b  p  14:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1)  p  b  p  14:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 02:30, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Support 55-65 Dawid2009 (talk) 15:53, 23 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose

I agree that we should add cities to the Brazil list, though I think quotas in general are undesirable. Better to have an allowed range (e.g. 55-65 cities) than enforcing an exact quota. feminist (talk) 16:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Proposal: Establish a quota of 15 for Australian cities
That's about one per every 1.6-1.7 million Australians. The current 18 is one for every 1.3 million; significantly greater representation than many other English-speaking countries. Average across the world is about 4 million. p b  p  14:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1)  p  b  p  14:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Not really necessary. I'd say Broome, Western Australia, Alice Springs, Cairns, Geelong, Launceston, Tasmania, and Townsville can be removed immediately. That leaves just 12 cities. Darwin, Northern Territory has a low population as well, but it's a capital city, so I'm leaning towards keeping it. feminist (talk) 03:24, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I've removed these six cities. feminist (talk) 03:34, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Alice is tiny. Should it really be added before Townsville, Cairns or Geelong? feminist (talk) 11:10, 8 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Discussion
 * I think that Cairns and Alice Springs are enaugh vitalbecause of are known and have a lot of pageviews in forgein languages while other mentioned by you do not. In my opinion Australia also should has at least 13 stattelments among 1950 articles. This country is 29-th by Urbanization by country. Dawid2009 (talk) 15:41, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I see. Reasonable. feminist (talk) 16:08, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Cairns is more important than the Sunshine Coast. It's the biggest city in tropical Australia. Its permanent population is smaller but its temporary population (tourists) is much larger. And also in region with no cities at the moment (North Queensland) while the Southeast Queensland already has two cities. In the future, the Sunshine Coast will be engulfed by Brisbane as it grows and just become an outer suburban area. Alice Springs also represents a region not covered by any other city (the arid interior). Gizza  (t)(c) 05:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I just added Cairns back to the list. feminist (talk) 15:54, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Remove Dunedin
Five Kiwi cities is too many for a country of less than 5 million. City and metro both under 200,000 population. p b  p  15:21, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support
 * 1)  p  b  p  15:21, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) --Thi (talk) 17:23, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not convinced 5 NZ cities is too many for this list. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 02:30, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Per J947. feminist (talk) 14:24, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Discussion

I'm an NZ'er, I made the list based upon the fact we have two NZ cities at L4. What I'm thinking is that giving Italy 46 cities is mad, with Scotland only 3. Anyways Dunedin, despite having little people, has far more historical significance than Hamilton and honestly that would be the better removal if one is in order.  J 947 &thinsp;(c) , at 08:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Delap-Uliga-Djarrit, add Lae
It's kinda redonkulous that we have two "cities" from the Marshall Islands, especially when a) the entire nation has less than 60,000 people, and b) Delap-Uliga-Djarrit is a district of Majuro anyways. By contrast, I suggest we have a second city from Papua New Guinea. p b  p  21:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1)  p  b  p  21:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Delap-Uliga-Djarrit and Majuro might be mergeable as articles; certainly we don't need both here. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 02:30, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Support removal, oppose addition because of Lae's low population. I agree that Delap-Uliga-Djarrit should be removed. I remember I was adding remaining national capital cities that were not added, and this article was in a category of capitals. I think it's worth including New Delhi and (to a lesser extent) Sri Jayawardenepura Kotte though. feminist (talk) 07:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Support removal, oppose addition Rreagan007 (talk) 02:31, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Support removal, neutral on addition. --Thi (talk) 08:10, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Gizza  (t)(c) 02:20, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Dawid2009 (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 8) Support removal, Oppose addition as per above Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 18:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove Belize City or Belmopan
Belize City is the largest city and economic capital of Belize, while Belmopan is the national capital. Neither city seems significant enough for this list. Which one (or both) should be removed? feminist (talk) 09:31, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Remove Belize City


 * Remove Belmopan


 * Oppose

I'm not particularly sold on the urgency of removing either, but, given the choice, I believe we should retain seats of government. p b  p  14:43, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Hmm, in this case I actually think Belize City is more worth keeping, because it has higher long-term significance. It's similar to how Lagos is more important than Abuja, how Yangon is more important than Naipyitaw, or how Sydney is more important than Canberra. But I don't feel strongly either way. feminist (talk) 16:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you somewhat suggesting that every country (or at least every country but the very smallest) be represented, but the representative need not be the capital? p  b  p  15:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Well... in cases where the capital is eclipsed by the largest city in history/population/other measure of significance (which are few), it may make sense not to include the capital. Such cases are likely few and far between, and as there are only ~200 countries/territories to be concerned with, evaluating them on a case-by-case basis shouldn't take too much time.
 * As to whether every country should be represented on this list, I haven't made up my mind. IIRC a while ago there was a big dispute here regarding whether every country should be represented on the list of politicians, and the general consensus was no. The same may apply for cities.
 * How a "city" can be defined varies, especially between different languages, and some countries may not have a "city" at all depending on definition. Belize is one of the smallest countries in the world by population - its population is barely higher than that of Iceland. Its capital is very recent and small, and its largest city isn't that big either.
 * But you have a point. I think both Belize City and Belmopan are marginal for the list, though there is no pressing need to remove either. feminist (talk) 15:18, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * How a "city" can be defined varies, especially between different languages, and some countries may not have a "city" at all depending on definition. Belize is one of the smallest countries in the world by population - its population is barely higher than that of Iceland. Its capital is very recent and small, and its largest city isn't that big either.
 * But you have a point. I think both Belize City and Belmopan are marginal for the list, though there is no pressing need to remove either. feminist (talk) 15:18, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * But you have a point. I think both Belize City and Belmopan are marginal for the list, though there is no pressing need to remove either. feminist (talk) 15:18, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Remove St. Augustine, Florida
Small city with a low population, although the article suggests that this place has significant history.


 * Support
 * 1) feminist (talk) 09:23, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --Makkool (talk) 14:14, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) First settlement on present-day American soil.  p  b  p  14:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose A major tourist attraction. --Thi (talk) 10:09, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose – Distinct historical nature as well as the two comments above me makes my opinion up.  J  947 &thinsp;(c) , at 05:04, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. Historically significant. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose The first European city in the U.S. (outside of Puerto Rico) deserves to be on this list. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Discuss

What do you think about swap for Arlington County, Virginia? Arlington have more pagewatchers. I also note that settelments which are historically significant usually have a lot of pagewatchers and few pageviews in forgein/not-local Wikipedias (for example Arlington) while tourism stettelments have few pagewatchers but a lot of pageviews in forgein languages (for example Palm Springs, California). My examples are not specific accidents, historical stattelmens usually are less interesing for readers in forgein/not-local Wikipedias but have more pagewatchers than sttatelments significant due to tourism. Dawid2009 (talk) 15:06, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Remove Bangor, Maine
Metro population of well under a quarter-million (just over 150K) and neither its state's largest city nor its capital p  b  p  18:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1)  p  b  p  18:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --Makkool (talk) 14:14, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Not a particular long history for a city on the East Coast, and not a particularly large city either. feminist (talk) 15:13, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove Tifariti
It's tiny. Perhaps significant as the temporary capital of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, but if we are to include something involving SADR, Tindouf would likely be more significant.


 * Support
 * 1) feminist (talk) 09:49, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --Makkool (talk) 14:14, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Gizza  (t)(c) 02:16, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Rreagan007 (talk) 04:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Remove Espoo and Vantaa
Suburbs of Helsinki


 * Support
 * 1)  p  b  p  21:46, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --Thi (talk) 11:22, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Rreagan007 (talk) 04:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Vantaa Dawid2009 (talk) 20:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Gizza  (t)(c) 01:34, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose removing Espoo, support removing Vantaa. Both are quite large for Finland, but Espoo in particular only has a short border with Helsinki, unlike Vantaa. Espoo is home to the headquarters of several major companies including Nokia. I'd say Espoo is similar in independence and significance to cities like Campinas, Newark, New Jersey, or Gimhae. feminist (talk) 03:39, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Espoo Dawid2009 (talk) 20:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

"Espoo in particular only has a short border with Helsinki". The two city's centers are only 19 km (12 miles) apart by road. Espoo is clearly a suburb of Helsinki. Also, "large for Finland"...there are only 5 and half million people in the entire country. p b  p  00:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Discuss

Remove Boulder, Colorado
Depending on how you look at it, it's either a suburb of Denver or an anchor of a not-that-large (<350,000) metro area. I'm not sure being the location of the University of Colorado is notability enough; we do not have State College, Pennsylvania, Berkeley, California, Champaign, Illinois, Charlottesville, Virginia or College Park, Maryland. p b  p  19:19, 23 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1)  p  b  p  19:19, 23 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove Aurora, Colorado
Suburb of Denver. Got fewer than 15,000 page views in a recent month (Denver, by contrast, got over 90,000) p  b  p  19:19, 23 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1)  p  b  p  19:19, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support removing most suburbs. Gizza  (t)(c) 03:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Rreagan007 (talk) 04:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Thi (talk) 17:58, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove Joliet, Illinois
Suburb of Chicago, and not a particularly large one at that (just under 150,000). Got fewer than 15,000 page views in a recent month (Chicago, by contrast, got over 200,000) p  b  p  19:19, 23 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1)  p  b  p  19:19, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Sure. feminist (talk) 14:46, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Rreagan007 (talk) 04:49, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Thi (talk) 19:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove Ann Arbor, Michigan
Depending on how you look at it, it's either a suburb of Detroit or an anchor of a not-that-large (<400,000) metro area. I'm not sure being the location of the University of Michigan is notability enough; we do not have State College, Pennsylvania, Berkeley, California, Champaign, Illinois, Charlottesville, Virginia or College Park, Maryland. p b  p  19:19, 23 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1)  p  b  p  19:19, 23 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose

Somewhat significant in multiple areas, including education and technology. This is pretty borderline for a US city. feminist (talk) 14:44, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Remove Tri-Cities, Washington
With a metro population of just under 300,000, one of the smallest metro areas on this list that isn't a capital or the largest city in its state (one of the smaller ones, Bangor, is up for removal above). None of the constituent cities have a population over 100,000; neither they nor the Tri-Cities receive more than 10,000 monthly pageviews (compare Portland receiving almost 100,000 and Seattle receiving well over 100,000). Only city on this list to a) not be a capital, b) not be the largest city in its state, c) have under 300,000 metro population, and d) have fewer than 10,000 monthly pageviews. p b  p  19:19, 23 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1)  p  b  p  19:19, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Sure, why not, as Spokane is listed. feminist (talk) 14:41, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Rreagan007 (talk) 04:49, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Thi (talk) 07:32, 26 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

United States VA5 cities with under 125,000 city population
(capitals italicized, largest cities emboldened, *-Has been nominated for removal):


 * Fairbanks, Alaska
 * Juneau, Alaska
 * Hollywood, California
 * Palm Springs, California
 * Boulder, Colorado*
 * New Haven, Connecticut
 * Stamford, Connecticut*
 * Dover, Delaware
 * Wilmington, Delaware
 * St. Augustine, Florida*
 * Quad Cities (Davenport only)
 * Springfield, Illinois


 * Frankfort, Kentucky
 * Augusta, Maine
 * Bangor, Maine
 * Portland, Maine
 * Annapolis, Maryland
 * Cambridge, Massachusetts
 * Lowell, Massachusetts
 * Plymouth, Massachusetts
 * Salem, Massachusetts
 * Ann Arbor, Michigan*
 * Lansing, Michigan
 * Duluth, Minnesota


 * Independence, Missouri
 * Jefferson City, Missouri
 * Billings, Montana
 * Helena, Montana
 * Carson City, Nevada
 * Concord, New Hampshire
 * Manchester, New Hampshire
 * Atlantic City, New Jersey
 * Trenton, New Jersey
 * Santa Fe, New Mexico
 * Albany, New York
 * Lake Placid, New York


 * Bismarck, North Dakota
 * Fargo, North Dakota
 * Oregon City, Oregon*
 * Allentown, Pennsylvania
 * Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
 * Newport, Rhode Island
 * Pierre, South Dakota
 * Burlington, Vermont
 * Montpelier, Vermont
 * Olympia, Washington
 * Charleston, West Virginia
 * Cheyenne, Wyoming

United States VA5 cities with under 300,000 metro population
(capitals italicized, largest cities emboldened, *-Has been nominated for removal):


 * Fairbanks, Alaska
 * Juneau, Alaska
 * Dover, Delaware
 * Springfield, Illinois
 * Topeka, Kansas
 * Frankfort, Kentucky
 * Augusta, Maine
 * Bangor, Maine*
 * Duluth, Minnesota


 * Jefferson City, Missouri
 * Billings, Montana
 * Helena, Montana
 * Carson City, Nevada
 * Concord, New Hampshire
 * Atlantic City, New Jersey
 * Santa Fe, New Mexico
 * Lake Placid, New York
 * Bismarck, North Dakota


 * Fargo, North Dakota
 * Pierre, South Dakota
 * Sioux Falls, South Dakota
 * Burlington, Vermont
 * Montpelier, Vermont
 * Olympia, Washington
 * Tri-Cities, Washington*
 * Charleston, West Virginia
 * Cheyenne, Wyoming

United States VA5 cities with under 20,000 pageviews
(capitals italicized, largest cities emboldened, *-Has been nominated for removal):


 * Mesa, Arizona
 * Santa Ana, California
 * Santa Rosa, California*
 * Aurora, Colorado*
 * Bridgeport, Connecticut
 * Dover, Delaware
 * Joliet, Illinois*
 * Springfield, Illinois
 * Quad Cities, IA/IL


 * Topeka, Kansas
 * Frankfort, Kentucky
 * Augusta, Maine
 * Bangor, Maine
 * Lowell, Massachusetts
 * Plymouth, Massachusetts
 * Lansing, Michigan
 * Independence, Missouri
 * Jefferson City, Missouri


 * Helena, Montana
 * Carson City, Nevada
 * Concord, New Hampshire
 * Manchester, New Hampshire
 * Elizabeth, New Jersey*
 * Trenton, New Jersey
 * Lake Placid, New York
 * Fayetteville, North Carolina
 * Bismarck, North Dakota


 * Oregon City, Oregon*
 * Salem, Oregon
 * Allentown, Pennsylvania
 * Newport, Rhode Island
 * Pierre, South Dakota
 * Montpelier, Vermont
 * Olympia, Washington
 * Tri-Cities, Washington*

United States metros with multiple VA5 cities

 * Phoenix, AZ (Mesa)
 * Los Angeles, CA (Anaheim, Hollywood, Long Beach, Santa Ana)
 * Riverside, CA (Palm Springs)
 * Denver, CO (Aurora)
 * Bridgeport, CT (Stamford)
 * Miami, FL (Fort Lauderdale)
 * Chicago, IL (Joliet*)
 * Boston, MA (Cambridge, Lowell, Plymouth, Salem)
 * Baltimore, MD (Annapolis)
 * Minneapolis, MN (St. Paul)
 * Kansas City, MO (Independence, Kansas City-KS)
 * New York City (5 boroughs, Elizabeth-NJ*, Jersey City-NJ, Newark-NJ)
 * Portland, OR (Oregon City*, Vancouver-WA*)
 * Philadelphia, PA (Wilmington-DE)
 * Providence, RI (Newport)
 * Dallas, TX (Arlington, Fort Worth)
 * Norfolk, VA (Virginia Beach)
 * Seattle, WA (Tacoma)

Do we want the capital AND the largest city of EVERY U.S. state?
At present, there are 10 U.S. states with 2 or more VA5 cities, but under 2 million population (capitals italicized, largest cities emboldened): Note that in every case, the largest city in the state gets substantially more pageviews than the capital. In some cases, the state capital has a very small population (South Dakota and Vermont especially). How OK are we with this? Are we OK with, say, Nebraska but not Vermont? Thoughts? p b  p  19:19, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Alaska has Anchorage (294,356 city pop, 400,888 metro pop, 112,456 pageviews), Fairbanks (32,751 city pop, 99,703 metro pop, 40,283 pageviews) and Juneau (32,094 city pop, 32,094 metro pop, 40,835 pageviews)
 * Delaware has Dover ( 37,786 city pop, 176,824 metro pop, 9,760 pageviews) and Wilmington (71,106 city pop, part of the Philadelphia metro area, 22,081 pageviews)
 * Maine has Augusta (18,494 city pop, 120,569 metro pop, 9,610 pageviews), Bangor (32,658 city pop, 151,957 metro pop, 13,553 pageviews, nominated for removal above) and Portland (67,067 city pop, 514,098 metro pop, 32,716 pageviews)
 * Montana has Billings (109,642 city pop, 170,498 metro pop, 22,938 pageviews) and Helena (31,169 city pop, 79,664 metro pop, 18,489 pageviews)
 * Nebraska has Lincoln (284,736 city pop, 331,519 metro pop, 22,241 pageviews) and Omaha (466,893 city pop, 933,316 metro pop, 51,324 pageviews)
 * New Hampshire has Concord (43,019 city pop, 143,582 metro pop, 9,498 pageviews) and Manchester (111,196 city pop, 409,697 metro pop, 19,484 pageviews)
 * North Dakota has Bismarck (72,865 city pop, 132,142 metro pop, 16,407 pageviews) and Fargo (122,359 city pop, 241,356 metro pop, 31,416 pageviews)
 * Rhode Island has Newport (24,779 city pop, part of Providence metro area, 13,972 pageviews) and Providence (180,393 city pop, 1,621,122 metro pop, 40,582 pageviews)
 * South Dakota has Pierre (13,646 city pop, 19,814 metro pop, 8,919 pageviews) and Sioux Falls (176,888 city pop, 228,261 metro pop, 25,529 pageviews)
 * Vermont has Burlington (42,417 city pop, 219,395 metro pop, 24,230 pageviews) and Montpelier (7,535 city pop, 58,504 metro pop, 13,423 pageviews)
 * The state capital and largest city of each state should most definitely be listed. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * State capitals and largest cities would generally be more significant than most suburbs, even though the suburbs may have a larger city population. So I'd say it's OK to keep both for every state. feminist (talk) 14:54, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Arts/Music removals
I noticed that the music section in the arts sublist is getting over-quota. Currently 29 articles need to be removed to make space for more specific musical works. I suggest that we trim the 29 articles from the popular music genres section, because in my opinion it has many niche sub-genres that are not vital. I will suggest more articles to remove later, but here are a few: --Makkool (talk) 22:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Pinging who (IIRC) added many of these. feminist (talk) 10:21, 2 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Of the ones listed, I think I only added a few of the hip hop sub genres, screamo, viking metal and power metal. I added them because I saw other sub genres of similar importance listed already. If you all don’t feel they are vital enough for the list then fee free to remove them.  red sparta  •••  talk to me  01:29, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Remove Exotica
Very obscure genre from the 1950's. --Makkool (talk) 22:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. feminist (talk) 17:20, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support --Thi (talk) 07:27, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support --Makkool (talk) 11:58, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 02:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Orser67 (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Remove Power metal
Same as above, a sub-sub-genre. --Makkool (talk) 22:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose The definition of this genre is perhaps needed at this level. --Thi (talk) 07:27, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support --Makkool (talk) 11:58, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose sub-sub genre means nothing if it's popular enough. GuzzyG (talk) 08:23, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose feminist (talk) 04:08, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Remove Symphonic metal
Same as above. --Makkool (talk) 22:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support --Makkool (talk) 11:58, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 02:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose important as the one genre predominantly fronted by women in heavy metal. we're still 41 under quota too. GuzzyG (talk) 08:23, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Guzzy. feminist (talk) 08:53, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I can understand including power metal, but not this. Orser67 (talk) 22:13, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Remove Viking metal
Same as above. --Makkool (talk) 22:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. feminist (talk) 17:20, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support --Thi (talk) 07:27, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support --Makkool (talk) 11:58, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 02:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Orser67 (talk) 22:13, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Remove Synthwave
A popular electronic music genre, which has gained wider success only recently. Too recent to be considered vital. --Makkool (talk) 11:19, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support as nom. --Makkool (talk) 11:19, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support --Thi (talk) 11:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Remove Chiptune
Rather obscure as a electronic music genre. Much of this is also covered by video game music, which is also listed vital. --Makkool (talk) 11:19, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support as nom. --Makkool (talk) 11:19, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support --Thi (talk) 11:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Orser67 (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 15:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Remove No wave
A short-lived genre of avant-garde music. Too obscure as well. --Makkool (talk) 11:19, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support as nom. --Makkool (talk) 11:19, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support --Thi (talk) 11:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Orser67 (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 15:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Remove Alternative R&B
According to the article, it's a term used mostly by music journalists. --Makkool (talk) 11:19, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support as nom. --Makkool (talk) 11:19, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support --Thi (talk) 11:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support feminist (talk) 14:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose many important artists fall under this umbrella and it wouldn't be right to list them under contemporary R&B because the genres are too diffrent and established at this point. Swordman97  talk to me  23:01, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Remove Tallava
A genre from a narrow geographical area in Europe. --Makkool (talk) 11:19, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support as nom. --Makkool (talk) 11:19, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support --Thi (talk) 11:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Orser67 (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 15:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Remove Chalga
Same as above. --Makkool (talk) 11:19, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support as nom. --Makkool (talk) 11:19, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support --Thi (talk) 11:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Orser67 (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 15:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Remove Manele
Same as above. --Makkool (talk) 11:19, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support as nom. --Makkool (talk) 11:19, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support --Thi (talk) 11:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Orser67 (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 15:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Ānanda
Please correct the symbol at Ānanda. It has been a GA article for a couple of weeks now. Thanks.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 21:23, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Bot stopped updating counts?
User:Bot0612 used to daily update WikiProject assessments and article counts for the VA5 lists. It's already been many months since it ceased to do so, in late November. What gives?-- Laukku  TheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 08:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * do you want me to take over the bot task? --DannyS712 (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Please please please do, Danny p  b  p  21:10, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * then I'll look into it --DannyS712 (talk) 22:53, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * What do you think about checking what is wrong with bot? Updating counts could be very helpfull to aanalyse of curret selection etc. Dawid2009 (talk) 05:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * sorry, I started looking into it, and its really complicated. I was going to borrow some code from MediaWiki:Gadget-metadata.js to get the assessments, but it'll require heavy modifications. But, if you just want the section counts to start, that would be easier --DannyS712 (talk) 05:59, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you working on github? I might be interested in messing around with it --Spacepine (talk) 07:08, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * no, haven't written anything yet, I gave up in april after taking a look DannyS712 (talk) 07:20, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Move History of video games and Olympics events to history section
Article like History of video games should be listed in history section agaist articles like Generation X. Article like 1896 Athens or History of chess should be listed in history section against articles like history of ballet or History of the FIFA World Cup. Why we list all these historic articles in every day section? And why we list so plenty specialistics terminology to video games? Should we also list endless topics for terminologies related to chess gameplay or clasical music (including very few viewed pages just like altissimo) in art section? Dawid2009 (talk) 20:17, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thoughts:
 * First off, at Lv 5, sports should be spun off from life onto its own page
 * Specific iterations of the Olympics, or any other sporting events that make Level 5, should be listed under sports
 * History of...'s should be at history
 * Video games need to be pruned bigtime p  b  p  20:25, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Remove Roosh V
Not particularly notable PUA/provocateur Spacepine (talk) 13:57, 4 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support Spacepine
 * 2) Support --Thi (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Gizza  (t)(c) 01:44, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 11:36, 15 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose as odious as this vote is, if we have 500 activists, it should cover every form of activism and men's rights is one form of activism. until the section is full why is there such a urge for removal? Why was the super negative guy picked over the autism, asexual, body-positive activists who have gotten less attention? we can't remove every bad kind of activism from a list of 500. Also this list isn't a honor, we have 250 criminals. not everyone is going to be an amazing person. Being one of the top 2 PUAs is enough for a 15k list.  Erik von Markovik the other one is listed too. But let's show off the diversity i've created in the activists section, we have feminists and anti feminists, civil rights activists and odious people like William Luther Pierce, Gay rights activists and odious people like Fred Phelps, odious people like David Thorstad, pro and anti guns rights, pro weed legalization activists and anti drugs activists, domestic violence campaigners, union activists, =asexual rights activists, autism rights, pro body weight activists, im working on a massive list of activists and to cut out just the bad is a major setback, on a list of 500 activists is there a reason not to list one men's rights activist? Who's better / more known? I don't know. I had two to be fair, Warren Farrell and Roosh V. Anyway just thought i would give my reason for listing him, it'd be a disappointment if one kind of activism is left out because it's super bad on such a massive project.   GuzzyG (talk) 05:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Props for the list, I think it's covered a great range of activists! But by wiki's own article on the subject Roosh V isn't event mentioned - I added Warren Farrell instead. Spacepine (talk) 12:20, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * ... and if more than one is justified, I suspect there are better options --Spacepine (talk) 09:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Warren Farrell was on my to do list instead, i thought i must have added him. My mistake, sorry. I was not adding anyone until i transcribed the lists to my excel sheets that i work on where i track every addition by wikipedia page views, worldcat hits, britannica mentions, wikidata languages, wikiedits, google trends and a bunch of different methods, which is a part of my own independent biographical dictionary and database i am working on. My preferred methods of addition to this list is covering each genre of a field and people from each century. Naturally that means i am in support of 21st century people, now that i have finished with this section and have seen we have space for 97 more articles; i am in favor of adding more 21st century activism articles like DeRay Mckesson, Shaun King, Colin Kaepernick, Brianna Wu, Zoë Quinn, Jazz Jennings, Emma González and David Hogg. But on the other hand while we have Milo Yiannopoulos under commentators/journalists and Tommy Robinson (i didnt add Tommy). I do not believe articles such as Roosh V and articles like Lauren Southern for example are that much out of place as the Manosphere (which is what i meant) and the Alt-right are unfortunately prominent in the United States and in which have had a part in the election of the President of the United States. I think the "manosphere/red pill" movement and "alt-right" movement are dominant forms of online right wing activism and have a place in a list of 500 figures, roosh himself gets 1.5 mil pageviews, which is pretty much a higher then average viewcount then normal 21st century activists and  the average alt-right figure at about 2.5 mil; meanwhile Warren Farrell  gets 236k total; so quite the difference. Now pageviews mean nothing in a historical sense; but as a tracking method for 21st century figures who are yet to be written about in a past tense it's a good measure. If we have over 50 serial killers, mass murderers and murderers being a "notorious PUA/provocateur" doesn't seem like a particularly useful removal rationale. Obviously i dislike having to defend such a figure, but as you see if you look over every section of this list and go indepth on the people listed in each field, i just have a core philosophy of trying to include everything (for example in models i list: normal models, male models, plus-size models, fitness models, cosplayers, one of each major four beauty pageant winners, playboy playmate, artists models, fetish/pin-up models and glamour models while including some from every decade of fashion modeling from the 1950s to the 2010s) i mention that so my vote is taken on it's own and not as a fan of such a subject of it. People disagree but my philosophy of building a encyclopedia is covering every strain of human endeavor and on that note Roosh is the main architect of the Manosphere which is a dominant form of men's rights activism and on that note is why i oppose the removal. Sorry if i sounded aggressive in my initial post and i shouldve made a better rationale for my vote. GuzzyG (talk) 08:56, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries at all, thanks for clarifying. I'm not objecting to his inclusion because he's a turd, but because he hasn't really done much... I think the "manosphere" in general is pretty scattered, mostly exists online and there's little verifiable information on any given leader so I would prefer to include the concept, rather than choose a figurehead. Individual White supremicists and Christian right leaders have a lot of information about them however, and probably have a larger impact on the global alt-right movement. I would support including a few of them (although it seems wrong to categorise them as activists, since they are largely regressive) --Spacepine (talk) 13:50, 23 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Discuss

Remove Jacinda Ardern
Probably added for being known nowadays, but this is too soon. Jim Bolger, David Lange, Robert Muldoon, Mike Moore, Norman Kirk, Āpirana Ngata, Robert Stout, and many others are more vital than her just looking at NZ politicians who aren't on the list. — J 947 &thinsp;(c) , at 03:49, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Just adding that I'm from New Zealand, and have a good political eye (also I added Muldoon).  J947 's public account 00:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nominator.  J  947 &thinsp;(c) , at 03:49, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support The list of other NZ politicians not on the list is convincing. feminist (talk) 10:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Support I'd remove both Morrison and Ardern. Too recent. Neither of them really need to be known in detail for a solid understanding of Australia and New Zealand's political history. Gizza  (t)(c) 01:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * Oppose Surely more notable that Scott Morrison on the Australian list --Spacepine (talk) 14:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, remove him too. This recentism is outstanding. We should be comparing by country. Time will tell whether either are notable. And Morrison is the leader of 4/5 times more people than Ardern.  J947 's public account 00:09, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't mind a bit of recentism in this context - but removing them both sounds fine Spacepine (talk) 07:21, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


 * 1) Oppose --Thi (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) The fact that she chaired Christchurch Call to Action Summit with Emmanuel Macron, and European Commission and 17 countries signed the agreement which is meant to eliminate terrorist and violent extremist content online means that she is no doubt vital for contemporaries at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:28, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hardly deserves it just from that. It's the type of topic that generates heaps of coverage on Wikipedia and this barely scrapes past start-class. Just a testament to how globally unimportant that is. We don't have unlimited space here.  J947 's public account 02:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose The longer this goes on, the more notable she seems to get  p  b  p  17:33, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) At this point, she has made her name on the world stage. It helps that she leads an Anglophone country, making her more relevant to readers of the English-language Wikipedia than other comparable countries that don't speak English as their main language. feminist (talk) 06:13, 13 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Other


 * Discuss

Cuts to fictional characters from literature, film, TV and comics
Characters from literature is about six articles over quota. Characters from film, TV and comics is about sixty articles over quota. Nearly all of the film, TV and comics characters are either American, Japanese or British, and the last 40 years or so is overrepresented. In particular, I'd like to note that slasher film franchises are overrepresented. Furthermore, there are only a handful of franchises that deserve more than 1-2 representatives. Therefore, I am proposing the following cuts. p b  p  01:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I support removing all you listed. People just keep adding figures from their favorite franchise at the moment. These things should be put up for discussion because people are likely biased. --mfb (talk) 03:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Ready to close yet? Seems like there is now clear consensus on at least a majority of the proposals that can be closed. Just wanted to make sure no one else had any pressing input. Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 12:59, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Harry Potter universe
I know it's a very, very popular book and film series, but I'm not wholly convinced any of the characters other than the title guy (in addition to the franchise itself) belong p  b  p  01:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Remove Ron Weasley and Hermoine Granger

 * Support
 * 1)  p  b  p  01:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) -- Laukku  TheGreit  (Talk•Contribs) 05:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) --Thi (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per nom. Harry Potter himself is sufficient. Gizza  (t)(c) 01:19, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * Discussion

Remove Albus Dumbledore

 * Support
 * 1)  p  b  p  01:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) -- Laukku  TheGreit  (Talk•Contribs) 05:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) --Thi (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per nom. Gizza  (t)(c) 01:19, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discussion

Remove Severus Snape

 * Support
 * 1)  p  b  p  01:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) -- Laukku  TheGreit  (Talk•Contribs) 05:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) --Thi (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per nom. Gizza  (t)(c) 01:19, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discussion

Remove Lord Voldemort

 * Support
 * 1)  p  b  p  01:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) -- Laukku  TheGreit  (Talk•Contribs) 05:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) --Thi (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per nom. Gizza  (t)(c) 01:19, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discussion

Remove Sancho Panza
Sidekick. We have Don Quixote the franchise and Don Quixote the character (under Alonzo Quixana, his other name) p  b  p  01:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support
 * 1)  p  b  p  01:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) --Thi (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) Makkool (talk) 14:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discussion

Remove Abraham van Helsing
We already have Dracula p  b  p  01:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support
 * 1)  p  b  p  01:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) --Thi (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) Makkool (talk) 14:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discussion

Remove Professor Moriarty
We have Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson. This guy wasn’t even mentioned in most of the Holmes stories. p b  p  01:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1)  p  b  p  01:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) --Thi (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) Support even Dr. Watson is borderline. Gizza  (t)(c) 01:20, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) Spacepine (talk) 11:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * Discussion

Remove Atticus Finch
The book he’s in should be sufficient p  b  p  01:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1)  p  b  p  01:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) -- Laukku  TheGreit  (Talk•Contribs) 05:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) --Thi (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) --Makkool (talk) 14:24, 2 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Since Atticus Finch is considered the greatest hero of American cinema by AFI, he has been influencing American legal profession and the Alabama State Bar erected a monument dedicated to him in Monroeville in 1997, he is no doubt vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:31, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Discuss

Disney
There are 2 Lv 4 vital articles and four more at Lv 5.

Remove Pluto (Disney)
Easily the least vital of the six Disney characters on the list.


 * Support
 * 1)  p  b  p  01:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) -- Laukku  TheGreit  (Talk•Contribs) 05:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 3)  Swordman97  talk to me  08:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) --Thi (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Gizza  (t)(c) 01:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * Discussion

Halloween
At present, there are two characters from this movie franchise. I’m not sure there need to be any, but Loomis is the less vital of the two (Michael Myers is the other) p  b  p  01:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Removal Samuel Loomis
I’m not sure we need any characters from the “Halloween” franchise. If we do, Michael Myers is more important p  b  p  01:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1)  p  b  p  01:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) -- Laukku  TheGreit  (Talk•Contribs) 05:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 3)  Swordman97  talk to me  08:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) --Thi (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discussion

Looney Tunes
We have 8 representatives of the Looney Tunes in the fictional characters. I think Bugs, Daffy and/or Porky, and that’s all, folks p  b  p  01:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Remove Elmer Fudd, Marvin the Martian, Sylvester the Cat, Tweety, and Wile E. Coyote and the Road Runner
I don’t think any of these characters are among the 40 most important film/TV/comics characters all-time  p  b  p  01:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support
 * 1)  p  b  p  01:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) -- Laukku  TheGreit  (Talk•Contribs) 05:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 3)  Swordman97  talk to me  08:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) --Thi (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose removal of Wile E. Coyote and the Road Runner. --Thi (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Remove Daffy Duck and/or Porky Pig

 * Remove Daffy Duck
 * Remove Porky Pig
 * 1)  p  b  p  01:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Remove both
 * Retain both

Lost
I’m not sure the series itself is VA5 vital, let alone any of the characters p  b  p  01:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Remove Kate Austen, Jin-Soo Kwon, Jack Shephard and Sun-Hwa Kwon

 * Support
 * 1)  p  b  p  01:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) -- Laukku  TheGreit  (Talk•Contribs) 05:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 3)  Swordman97  talk to me  08:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) --Thi (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Gizza  <sup style="color: teal;">(t)(c) 01:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 6) Jin-Soo Kwon and Sun-Hwa Kwon, since these two fictional characters actually do not influence any later ones significantly, and can not be called something with superlatives in TV history.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Kate Austen and Jack Shephard, since the former was voted #1 Sexiest Woman on Television by TV Guide and made FHM's Top Sexiest, and the latter is considered probably the greatest leader in any television series by J. J. Abrams, the man who created Lost.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the series should be removed, it was a huge deal in the 00s. Swordman97 talk to me  08:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Discuss

Mario
Mario is Lv4. At that level, he represents all the characters and titles of the Mario universe, as well as all other characters of the video game universe. Luigi and Bowser join him at Lv5, but I have a hard time believing that either are among the 40 most important fictional film/TV/video game characters of all time01:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Remove Bowser

 * Support
 * 1)  p  b  p  01:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) -- Laukku  TheGreit  (Talk•Contribs) 05:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Dawid2009 (talk) 08:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) Makkool (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1)  Swordman97  talk to me  08:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) --Thi (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Discuss

Remove Luigi

 * Support
 * 1)  p  b  p  01:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) -- Laukku  TheGreit  (Talk•Contribs) 05:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) --Thi (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) Makkool (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose

When we list Super Mario Bros. theme we for sure should have two characters from Mario francise. In my opinion Luigi is second the most important character and more vital than Browser. Dawid2009 (talk) 08:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Discuss

Muppets
We currently have two Muppets from the Muppet Show and two more from Sesame Street. I think two total is the correct number p  b  p  01:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Remove Big Bird and/or Elmo

 * Remove Big Bird
 * 1)  Swordman97  talk to me  08:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) --Thi (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) Makkool (talk) 14:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Remove Elmo
 * 1)  p  b  p  01:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) -- Laukku  TheGreit  (Talk•Contribs) 05:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) --Thi (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 4)  Gizza  <sup style="color: teal;">(t)(c) 01:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Remove both
 * Retain both

Remove Miss Piggy

 * Support
 * 1)  p  b  p  01:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) -- Laukku  TheGreit  (Talk•Contribs) 05:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 3)  Swordman97  talk to me  08:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) --Thi (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discussion

Naruto
We currently have four characters from this franchise. I’m not exactly an expert in manga and anime, but I doubt any characters more than the head man belong p  b  p  01:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Remove Kakashi Hatake, Sasuke Uchiha and Sakura Haruno

 * Support
 * 1)  p  b  p  01:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) -- Laukku  TheGreit  (Talk•Contribs) 05:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) Support but keep Sasuke.  Swordman97  talk to me  08:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) --Thi (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Gizza  <sup style="color: teal;">(t)(c) 01:22, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Pokemon
We currently have seven Pokemon at VA5. Pikachu obviously stays, but I think most of the rest should be dispensed with in a list with a quota of 40


 * They were recently added without prior discussion, I would be fine with reverting that first. We are now two that think they don't belong here, vs. one editor who thinks they do. If an addition is questioned it should be discussed here. User:InvalidOS? --mfb (talk) 03:09, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * What we ought to do is have a rule allowing BOLD removals anywhere that's over quota. p  b  p  13:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As InvalidOS didn't object and now four users supported removing them I removed all the additional Pokemon. Pikachu is still in, of course. --mfb (talk) 00:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Remove Bulbasaur

 * Support
 * 1)  p  b  p  01:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) -- Laukku  TheGreit  (Talk•Contribs) 05:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 3)  Swordman97  talk to me  08:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) --Thi (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discussion

Remove Venusaur

 * Support
 * 1)  p  b  p  01:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) -- Laukku  TheGreit  (Talk•Contribs) 05:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 3)  Swordman97  talk to me  08:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) --Thi (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discussion

Remove Charmander

 * Support
 * 1)  p  b  p  01:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) -- Laukku  TheGreit  (Talk•Contribs) 05:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 3)  Swordman97  talk to me  08:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) --Thi (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discussion

Remove Charizard

 * Support
 * 1)  p  b  p  01:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) -- Laukku  TheGreit  (Talk•Contribs) 05:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 3)  Swordman97  talk to me  08:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) --Thi (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discussion

Remove Squirtle

 * Support
 * 1)  p  b  p  01:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) -- Laukku  TheGreit  (Talk•Contribs) 05:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 3)  Swordman97  talk to me  08:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) --Thi (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discussion

Remove Blastoise

 * Support
 * 1)  p  b  p  01:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) -- Laukku  TheGreit  (Talk•Contribs) 05:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 3)  Swordman97  talk to me  08:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) --Thi (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discussion


 * General Discussion for All
 * 1) I added these because I felt that they had become notable enough to be on the same level Pikachu is. Now that I think about it, however, Eevee would probably be more fitting; considering that the games Pokémon: Let's Go, Pikachu! and Let's Go, Eevee! indicated that Game Freak felt Eevee was a good choice for introducing Pokémon Go players to the main series Pokémon games. Even then, Eevee might be a little iffy when it comes to being listed as Level 5.  InvalidOS  talk  12:37, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

SpongeBob SquarePants
One character from this tops. Certainly not the supporting characters p  b  p  01:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Remove Patrick Star and Squidward Tentacles

 * Support
 * 1)  p  b  p  01:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) -- Laukku  TheGreit  (Talk•Contribs) 05:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, not iconic compared to SpongeBob himself.  InvalidOS  talk  12:41, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) --Thi (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discussion

Star Trek
No removals proposed. Kirk and Spock are the only representatives on the list p  b  p  01:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Star Wars
We currently have six Star Wars characters. Even though Star Wars is a vast franchise, I don’t see any particular need to keep any characters except for Darth and Luke p  b  p  01:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Remove C3PO and R2D2

 * Support
 * 1)  p  b  p  01:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) -- Laukku  TheGreit  (Talk•Contribs) 05:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) Gag characters.  Swordman97  talk to me  08:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) --Thi (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 5)  Gizza  <sup style="color: teal;">(t)(c) 01:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 6) Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 12:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discussion

Remove Princess Leia

 * Support
 * 1)  p  b  p  01:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) -- Laukku  TheGreit  (Talk•Contribs) 05:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) Makkool (talk) 14:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1)  Swordman97  talk to me  08:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) --Thi (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 12:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Remove Han Solo

 * Support
 * 1)  p  b  p  01:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) -- Laukku  TheGreit  (Talk•Contribs) 05:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 3)  Gizza  <sup style="color: teal;">(t)(c) 01:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 12:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discussion

The Simpsons
Homer, OK. Family? Maybe? Bart and Lisa? Not if we have the first two. p b  p  01:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Remove Bart Simpson and Lisa Simpson

 * Support
 * 1)  p  b  p  01:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Makkool (talk) 14:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discussion

X-Files
We don’t need characters from this show. p b  p  01:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Remove Dana Scully and Fox Mulder

 * Support
 * 1)  p  b  p  01:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) -- Laukku  TheGreit  (Talk•Contribs) 05:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) --Thi (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) Support agree. Gizza  <sup style="color: teal;">(t)(c) 01:23, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * Discussion

Remove HAL 9000
The film he’s in is at level 4 p  b  p  01:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1)  p  b  p  01:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) One of the earliest and most influential instances of an antagonist AI. -- Laukku  TheGreit  (Talk•Contribs) 05:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  Swordman97  talk to me  08:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) --Thi (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) --Spacepine (talk) 11:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Remove Gregory House
I have a hard time believing that he’s one of the 40 most important film, TV and comic book characters of all time p  b  p  01:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1)  p  b  p  01:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) -- Laukku  TheGreit  (Talk•Contribs) 05:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 3)  Swordman97  talk to me  08:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) --Thi (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) Support I'd say even the show is not vital at this level (maybe in a 100K list). Gizza  <sup style="color: teal;">(t)(c) 01:25, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Too recent. Probablymy wrong addition. I did not noted/realised that he is so recent. Dawid2009 (talk) 08:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discussion

Remove Peni Parker
Probably not one of the 400 most important fictional characters, let alone 40. Also probably would belong under superheroes if retained p  b  p  01:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support
 * 1)  p  b  p  01:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) -- Laukku  TheGreit  (Talk•Contribs) 05:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 3)  Swordman97  talk to me  08:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) --Thi (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Gizza  <sup style="color: teal;">(t)(c) 01:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * Discussion

Remove Nancy Thompson (A Nightmare on Elm Street)
I’m not sure we need anybody from the Nightmare on Elm Street franchise, but Freddy Kreuger should be sufficient. p b  p  01:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support
 * 1)  p  b  p  01:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) -- Laukku  TheGreit  (Talk•Contribs) 05:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 3)  Swordman97  talk to me  08:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) --Thi (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) Spacepine (talk) 13:14, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discussion

Mass media
See Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences for the list of topics in this category.

Cartoon shows removed
I just reverted an edit which removed a dozen articles from Society and social sciences. Can we get a consensus on de-inclusion before articles are removed because of "bloat"? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * In my opinion WP:Bold editions should be couraged, not discouraged, although should more focussed on inclusion rather than deletion when we are under quota (although I realise that many articles were earlier added without discussion). Worse issue which we currently do IMO is sinhandelly stating suggesting quotas for future but on the other hand we also do not have enough participants on the level 5 to make productive discussins about everything. So we should take patient approach (I of course hope we will finish the list). In the archives there were even suggestion that maybe 50 000 is too larger number but there were alsosuggestions about reaching limit and later romoving wrong articles instead slow process Dawid2009 (talk) 22:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Could the vital articles FAQ be a good starting point for consensus? It says that vital articles are "considered essential to the subject". So what shows would be essential in a discussion of tv history?--Makkool (talk) 13:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * In the question of deletion/inclusion, I think that both are equally important. The current state of the list is directing the work of the editors by example. I think the list should reflect the our consensus even in an incomplete state. --Makkool (talk) 13:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:CAREFUL comes to mind here too though as the changes effected a number of pages that also saw another editor undo. The only reason why I left a warning template is that I saw other editors had raised the same concerns in the past on the part of Makkool. Starting a discussion on inclusion might be for the best. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:24, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

YMCA
I believe that the YMCA is vital at this level, but in what section or subsection does it belong? p b  p  18:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * IF we are going to keep specific olympics/sport iterations (I do not know how far much the iterations are vital in diffrent sports) we should also list World Youth Day which is similar to YMCA, but when we are going to list niche sports I would also cinsider addition of niche religions (just like Cargo cult), niche languages (WE have two last native speakers in misc section of people). I also belive that we also have clearly too many universities on level 4 and way too few languages there. Jagiellonian University (Top 400 in world ) can not be more more vital than Catalan language. What do you think? Dawid2009 (talk) 14:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * probably in Non-governmental organizations under Society and social sciences. feminist (talk) 15:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I support having some notable NGOs at Level 5 vitals. The correct location is Vital_articles/Level/5/Society_and_social_sciences. I'd also suggset adding World Wide Fund for Nature (better known as WWF), BRAC (organization), Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, World Vision and TED (conference). Sources for importance:,. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:01, 21 November 2019 (UTC)