Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/Arts and everyday life/Archive 1

Archive 1

Add Syrian literature

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 GA, covering the history of Syrian literature as a national subgenre of Arabic literature. It covers the definition and beginnings of this literature up to works of the 21st-century, including a host of works reflecting exile, war and imprisonment of the latest period in Syria's history. - If necessary, we could swap it for Sumerian literature , that is VA-5, but obviously not as relevant for the present.

Support

1. as nom-Munfarid1 (talk) 15:32, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
2. Seems vital enough. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
3. We have room now that the arts quota has been increased. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 16:38, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
4. very Vital, considering that Finnish literature and Icelandic literature are V5 (no disrespect intended) FuzzyMagma (talk) 16:33, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I feel we already have enough articles on national literatures. Maybe as a swap I could support this. Makkool (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

   It has been suggested as a swap. And what would be your maximum number of national literatures? IMHO, few are about non-Western literatures, and to be fair, all should be equally valid. Munfarid1 (talk) 20:16, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

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

Swap Wannabe with Con te partirò

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.

---

Non-English songs are a bit underrepresented. Con te partirò gets more pageviews than Wannabe and has the same number of language links (25). Con te partirò or "Time to Say Goodbye" is one of the best-selling singles of all time (as well as in France and in Germany), the song has been covered and sampled a lot more (such as this Jason Derulo and David Guetta song) and has featured in more media (such as recently Squid Game). Wannabe does not have as big of a legacy, Like a Virgin (song), another female empowerment song is already listed.

Support

1. As nominator. Sahaib (talk) 08:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Support remove, oppose add Makkool (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Support add per nom, it seems vital enough and Arts deserves more slots. Weak oppose remove, Wannabe seems like an important female empowerment song and is the best-selling single by a girl group of all time. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:13, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Support add, oppose remove. We're going to increas the quota. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:14, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
5. Support add, oppose remove. ALittleClass (talk) 07:41, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

@Sahaib, Makkool, QuicoleJR, and ALittleClass: Where should we list Con te partirò? I don't know which genre it is. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 16:54, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

@Lophotrochozoa: The infobox says operatic pop, which makes it a pop song. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Remove Sing, Sing, Sing (With a Swing)

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.

---

Going through some of the specific musical works that we list at present, I think this one kinda sticks out to me as not really having much of a claim to vitality. It's creator, Louis Prima, is not vital even at this level and saying that a popular song like this is more vital than it's original artist is a very hard sell. Especially when the artist himself probably shouldn't be at this level regardless. There's not really much of a claim to vitality in the article itself either. And if you wanna play the pageviews and interwikis game (which may be a bit flawed for older songs like this, but whatever), it only has about 5,400 pageviews in the past month and 12 interwikis. I believe that these numbers are the lowest out of every song like it on this list. We don't necessarily have a shortage of representation for classical jazz or swing music on this list (in-fact, there were a lot of those additions not that long ago). Not to say that it's over-represented, I think it's perfectly represented. But rather my point is I don't think this song is filling in any gaps in our coverage, and it can probably be cut in favor of a more important song or album.

Unless we're listing it solely to represent Benny Goodman  5 (who is currently at V4), which I suppose would be fair, but I don't think we should be listing songs solely to represent a musician who didn't even originally create or sing that song. A better work to represent Goodman would probably be The Famous 1938 Carnegie Hall Jazz Concert, assuming that Goodman is worthy of V4 and stays there after my recent proposal to remove him from that level.

Support

1. As nom. λ NegativeMP1 04:45, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
3. There are no claims to vitality present here, and Goodman got demoted to VA5. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:03, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
5. ALittleClass (talk) 20:30, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

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

Swap A Brighter Summer Day with Pulgasari

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.

---

Both receive similar pageview numbers but Pulgasari currently has 9 more language links. Another thing to point out is that Pulgasari is rated on its talk page as high‑importance to WikiProject Korea (as well as mid-importance to WikiProject Japan and low-importance to WikiProject China, as it was a co-production between 3 countries) whereas A Brighter Summer Day is currently rated as low importance to WikiProject Taiwan.

Support

1. As nom. Sahaib (talk) 17:09, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Weak support add, dunno about swapping. I think most of Pulgasari's international recognition is because it's origin and premise have been viewed by many as absurd, leading it to become a cult classic of sorts. That being said, I would welcome non-Western art listings whenever possible and fit, and I'm almost certain we don't list many works originating from Korea. λ NegativeMP1 17:24, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Weak support remove per nom. Oppose add per NegativeMP1, I'm hesitant to add any cult classic status works before all-time classics that aren't listed yet. Makkool (talk) 18:02, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. As said above, Pulgasari is only really well-known due to the strange story behind it. Also not convinced basing a remove rationale based on the subjective importance ratings when you can find plenty of really strange ratings there all over the place Iostn (talk) 23:06, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Oppose removal of A Brighter Summer Day, neutral to adding Pulgasari. We have room for both. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 00:01, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

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

Remove Vietnamese iced coffee

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'm aware we are over-quota in Everyday life, so I'll balance the coffee additions with a removal. I think we can cut this; Iced coffee  5 is enough.

Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 19:41, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Support  Carlwev  13:42, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 08:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 13:36, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

There is a proposal to increase the quota for everyday life. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 13:28, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

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

Move architectural elements

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 discussion above was relisted here because Zar2gar1 wants to move the entries about architectural elements, but those that are already listed are still on the technology subpage. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Move to architecture (Arts)

1. I'm leaning architecture for most of these articles. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Move to everyday life

1. It's hard to decide between architecture and everyday life for some articles such as Floor  4 and Room  4. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Keep on technology

1. Keep Elevator  4 and Escalator  5. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

I had to step away from Wikipedia before the last discussion was resolved. Unless something's changed about how we do moves generally though, I'd support you or anyone willing to move the articles to follow their best judgment. Moves typically don't get much feedback or cause much controversy; it's been a month since you posted this without feedback too, which I'd consider sufficient notice. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 01:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

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

European literature removals

If we add western literature, I'll suggest some non-vital European literatures by country to be removed for balance. All of these have low daily pageviews according to LaukkuTheGreit's listing. We wouldn't have to cut them all, but at least some of them feel obvious cases.

Remove Belgian literature  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.

---

Low daily pageviews

Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 09:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Belgian literature is a small subset of French literature  4 and Dutch-language literature  5, both of which we list. Belgium is a small country, and its works have not made a global impact. Walloon-language literature isn't enough to offset this, because it doesn't even seem particularly influential in Belgium. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:05, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The literature for a country is usually a well-covered subject, even if the sources may not be in English. Literature may be more important than you assume. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 08:06, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

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

Remove Swiss literature  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.

---

Seems equally non-vital as Belgian lit.

Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 09:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
2. No real impact outside of Switzerland itself. Like Belgium, Switzerland is made of a variety of languages, with no one dominant language, meaning that much of this literature is only impactful in part of Switzerland. The number of redlinks present in the article is telling. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:39, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Limited in international impact Iostn (talk) 15:31, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The literature for a country is usually a well-covered subject, even if the sources may not be in English. Literature may be more important than you assume. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

   @EchoVanguardZ: I agree that many literatures can be important, but we can only list so many. Think of this as removing one of the least important ones to make room for one which is more important, like Nigerian literature  5 below. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:38, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 08:06, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

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

Remove Finnish literature  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.

---

Maybe it's enough we list Scandinavian literature  4.

Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 09:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The literature for a country is usually a well-covered subject, even if the sources may not be in English. Literature may be more important than you assume. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 08:06, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

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

Remove Danish literature  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.

---

Maybe it's enough we list Scandinavian literature  4.

Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 09:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The literature for a country is usually a well-covered subject, even if the sources may not be in English. Literature may be more important than you assume. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Hans Christian Andersen  4 and Karen Blixen  4 are Danish. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:17, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Kevinishere15 (talk) 05:01, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
4. Iostn (talk) 15:31, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

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

Remove Romanian literature  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.

---

Not as well known than other literature from Eastern Europe.

Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 09:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The literature for a country is usually a well-covered subject, even if the sources may not be in English. Literature may be more important than you assume. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 08:06, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

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

Remove Austrian literature  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.

---

About as vital as Swiss lit.

Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 09:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The literature for a country is usually a well-covered subject, even if the sources may not be in English. Literature may be more important than you assume. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 08:06, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

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

Remove Norwegian literature  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.

---

Maybe it's enough we list Scandinavian literature  4.

Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 09:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The literature for a country is usually a well-covered subject, even if the sources may not be in English. Literature may be more important than you assume. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 08:05, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

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

Remove Czech literature  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.

---

A smaller country for literature in Central Europe.

Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 09:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. _pbp 10:05, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
2. The literature for a country is usually a well-covered subject, even if the sources may not be in English. Literature may be more important than you assume. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Highly influential literary tradition, small country or not (see: Karel Čapek  5, Franz Kafka  4, Milan Kundera  5 Iostn (talk) 15:31, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

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

Remove Dutch-language literature  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.

---

A not so big country for literature, maybe it doesn't make the cut?

Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 09:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The literature for a language, just like for a country, is usually a well-covered subject, even if the sources may not be in English. Literature may be more important than you assume. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Dutch is spoken in several countries that aren't the Netherlands. The language seems common enough to include IMO, and it is rated High-Importance by WikiProject Literature. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:08, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

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

Remove Portuguese literature  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.

---

A not so big country for literature.

Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 09:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The literature for a country is usually a well-covered subject, even if the sources may not be in English. Literature may be more important than you assume. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 08:05, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

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

Remove Swedish literature  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.

---

Maybe it's enough we list Scandinavian literature  4.

Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 09:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The literature for a country is usually a well-covered subject, even if the sources may not be in English. Literature may be more important than you assume. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 08:05, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

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

Remove Icelandic literature  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.

---

Maybe it's enough we list Scandinavian literature  4.

Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 09:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Swap with Sagas of Icelanders. 5x the views and 8 more interwikis. _pbp 12:50, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Swap with Edda - more interwikis. Ping User:Purplebackpack89 in case they'd consider this a better swap. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:23, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
3. The medieval Icelandic literature is famous.Lophotrochozoa (talk) 12:57, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Oppose simple removal, support swap with Edda which is a non-list class article unlike Sagas of Icelanders.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 07:16, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

1. The only one in this series that might have some sense, but even then, Edda is pretty famous and influential. I might support a swap for that, since the rest of the Icelanding literature does not seem to have much impact outside that, well, tiny island. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:33, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

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

Remove Polish literature  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.

---

A smaller country for literature in Central Europe.

Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 09:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Poland is one of the bigger European countries. _pbp 10:05, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
2. The literature for a country is usually a well-covered subject, even if the sources may not be in English. Literature may be more important than you assume. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Kevinishere15 (talk) 21:17, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
4. Poland is a sizable country, and it has two VA4 authors, three if you count Joseph Conrad  4. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:23, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
5. Iostn (talk) 15:31, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

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

Add Jules Maigret  5 to fictional characters/literary and drama

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 French detective has been in 75 books, 28 short stories, and something like 200 television episodes _pbp 12:06, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Support

1. _pbp 12:06, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
2. per PBP89. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:17, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Support. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:58, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 16:47, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

Add Western canon  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.

---

A major concept in world culture. IMHO this should replace VA3 of English literature, but that's for some future rehashing of other discussions. For now, let's get this to V5, or preferably, V4. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:17, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Support

1. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:17, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Big and general enough of a concept at the very least on this level. (I also wonder about World literature  5 on higher levels, but that concept may not be as well-established.)--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 15:42, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
3. per nom Aurangzebra (talk) 19:41, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Can somebody explain the difference between Western canon  5 and Classic book  5? Feels like they share most of the same territory _pbp 16:19, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Classic book is a broader concept (and arguably could be V5) too, as it should cover non-Western classic books (which the current, poor article only briefly acknowledges). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:37, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

PS. To add re classic books, not all Western canon works are "books" (think poems, dramas, non-literary works like visual arts...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:21, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

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

Add East Asian tea ceremony

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

---

Important part of Asian culture. Tea ceremony redirects there. If it is made into its own article, we could, at that point, consider a swamp. Folks may also look up at the older, related proposal to remove tea culture, with which I disagre and which inspired me to nom this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:17, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Support

1. as nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:17, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Iostn (talk) 15:31, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 12:40, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Bluevestman (talk) 01:59, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

Add Microsoft Flight Simulator  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.

---

Long-running and culturally important video game series not listed; early releases were some of the most advanced software of their time. The article has 26 interwikis, and I expected it to be on the list. It would belong in Everyday life/Sports, games and recreation#US products. Æ's old account wasn't working (talk) 14:33, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Support

1. A very prominent example of earlier computer games and software + a long running series. I also don't think we list any examples of Simulation video games and all of the removals we did last year should allow us to squeeze this one in. We could also probably add the broad article for a Flight simulator. λ NegativeMP1 15:39, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
2. It was a thing. Although that can be said about quite a few games. Would welcome suggestions for a swap. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:03, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 19:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Support automatically as nom Æ's old account wasn't working (talk) 01:15, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

Add Changdeokgung

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 main royal palace of Korea for centuries. Also a UNESCO World Heritage Site, the best preserved Korean royal palace, and among the top 10 most visited locations in Korea by tourists. I'm also working on this article as well.

Should go under Arts/Specific structures. Think it's at least as prominent as many other things on the list.

Support

1. As nominator seefooddiet (talk) 23:56, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
2. 45 interwikis, UNESCO WH, yes, I it can be V5. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:00, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Seems very important. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:44, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

Add Film producer

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.

---

Per above, a well known occupation that many folks recognize. 79 interwikis. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:12, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:12, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
2. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 05:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Obviously. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 01:45, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 12:10, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

Arena football proposals

Remove Arena football

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 just dropped Super Bowl to VA5, and, in that spirit, I wonder if this belongs at all. 14 interwikis is low for a VA5 (typically 20+). This sport isn't particularly old (only 44 years), and is almost exclusively played in the United States and Canada, and not at the highest level of gridiron football (the various Arena leagues are not at a talent level, compensation, or fan base to the NFL, arguably not even than college football)

Support

1. _pbp 21:00, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Does not seem like a vital sport. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:10, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Aye. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:26, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Never heard of this before. I am not interested in sports, still... just football indoor, barely notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:21, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

Swap Arena Football League vs American Basketball Association

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.

---

Only 12 interwikis for Arena Football vs 33 for the ABA. Keeping AFL would be like include Minor League Baseball or Continental Basketball Association, as all are de facto or de jure major leagues with less than 20 interwikis. _pbp 21:00, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Support

1. _pbp 21:00, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Support remove only

1. Support remove, neutral on add. We definitely don't need an arena football league, but I'm not sure if the ABA is vital either. It didn't last very long as a rival to the NBA. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:10, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Per above. The problem with the ABA was that even though it was big at the time, it only lasted 9 seasons. The American Football League was a longer-lasting and (arguably) more popular (don't say that the ABA was popular outside of the United States, it wasn't) rival league during this time period. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 01:53, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Per above. Regional and otherwise niche. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Aye. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:26, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Support add only

Oppose

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

Discussion

Remove Lu Zhishen

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. 2001:4455:389:2700:F964:CFF3:EB57:C37C (talk) 19:09, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. No rationale provided. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:14, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Unclear what the nominator intended, see below. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 14:34, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

Article was originally nominated for removal at VA4, unclear if IP understood that they were at VA5 and not VA4 or if he wanted them bumped down to VA5 or removed outright. _pbp 19:34, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

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

Remove Hikaru Genji

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. 2001:4455:389:2700:F964:CFF3:EB57:C37C (talk) 19:09, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. No rationale. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:29, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Unclear what the nominator intended, see below. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 15:09, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

Article was originally nominated for removal at VA4, unclear if IP understood that they were at VA5 and not VA4 or if he wanted them bumped down to VA5 or removed outright. _pbp 19:34, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

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

Remove Dr. Watson

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 don't need another vital character from Sherlock holmes. Arsène Lupin is also vital, and now this? Dr. Watson doesn't have that much impact at all.

Support

1. 2001:4455:389:2700:F964:CFF3:EB57:C37C (talk) 19:09, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Agreed that only Holmes himself is vital _pbp 19:34, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Popularised a character type, I would not remove as long we don't list Sidekick.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 19:55, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Sherlock is V4, so Watson being V5 makes sense, also contributed to sidekick characters per above. Kevinishere15 (talk) 04:04, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Per above. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

Article was originally nominated for removal at VA4, unclear if IP understood that they were at VA5 and not VA4 or if he wanted them bumped down to VA5 or removed outright. _pbp 19:34, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

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

Basketball teams change-up

When I look at what basketball teams are listed, I feel like it's very lackluster. We can all agree that there's no doubt that the Boston Celtics  5, Harlem Globetrotters  5, Los Angeles Lakers  5, and United States men's national basketball team  5 are all 100% vital. But the rest need some fixing.

Remove Chicago Bulls  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 just simply can't see why the Bulls are listed. Oh, I know why? Michael Jordan  4, that's why. The single reason why the Bulls are listed is because they were a dynasty FOR LESS THAN A DECADE because they had (arguably) the greatest person to ever play basketball. They were never good before Jordan, and they've never been good after Jordan (besides those 2 years Derrick Rose was good). They're well behind the Celtics and Lakers in terms of NBA champions (a mere 6 compared to 18 and 17 respectively), and they're not even third in NBA championships; they're behind the Golden State Warriors! The Warriors would definitely be a better team to list because of more success (and also all of their championships at least weren't contained in less than a decade), and even then I don't think they should be listed! The point is, the Bulls are only listed because of Jordan, and they should not be listed because of that.

Support

1. As nom. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 02:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
2. λ NegativeMP1 03:05, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Mediocre except for Jordan era, and now have fewer rings than the Warriors _pbp 03:06, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Support. mixed vote. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:14, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Did you forget about Scotty Pippen? --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

   Yes, Pippen is a notable player too (and Dennis Rodman  5 while we're at it), but the problem is that he only played for the Bulls during the Jordan era. That changes nothing about how the Bulls have been irrelevant before and after Jordan. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 04:11, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

   The Chicago Bulls still have a cult following around the world. While just below you are proposing to add some teams that absolutely no one outside the U.S. knows about. (The Bulls would destroy those for sure. /j) --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:22, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

   The Warriors also have a cult following (mainly because of their recent success), and I can't see the Warriors being listed (as mentioned above). JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 04:30, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

   I think we have place for both. Still better than adding the 330 ml can – I'm hinting at all those different types of towers and rooms, and the architectural elements and "Short hair  5" just above. At least, here, you can write actual articles and people will actually read them. (Opps, they are already written and have thousands of views per day.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:12, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

   Like really, how come you supported "Short hair  5", which is a non-article that may even wake up on AfD tomorrow, and at the same time you want to get rid of the Chicago Bulls? Just saying. This "Vital articles" project is really messed up. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:24, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

   @Moscow Connection You bring up an interesting point that I've been thinking about of late. I may want to workshop this with you on your talk page _pbp 19:01, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

2. Oppose -1ctinus📝🗨 18:21, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
3. We have not forgotten about them yet.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:13, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

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

Add Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball

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.

---

You know what surprises me? We have no college basketball teams listed, men or women. Especially considering it's as popular as college football (which we have 2 teams listed), we should have at least 1, possibly 2 listed. Maybe it's because it's hard to pick one, and indeed it was. I decided to choose Kentucky (also considered North Carolina, Kansas, Duke, and UCLA) because they are the team that I feel has the most sustained success (although UNC does come very close). They have the most bids in the NCAA tournament by a good margin, the second most championships (and the one team that's ahead of them is because of an unstoppable decade-long dynasty), the best winning percentage, the most victories, several Hall of Fame coaches, many amazing players, and higher pageviews than UNC, Kansas, and UCLA. The statistics point in UK's favor, and although I definitely think UNC could be added too (we have room to add 2), I'm starting with just this proposal.

Support

1. As nom. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 02:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I understand the logic behind this proposal but I simply cannot support proposals to add Ameri-centric topics like this when we in reality need far less. 7 interwikis. λ NegativeMP1 03:05, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

   Then why do we list 2 college football teams? The arguments against adding this and UConn could also be applied to the 2 college football teams we list (Ameri-centric, low interwikis) and college football has a similar vitality to college basketball. If anything, college basketball has more international players so it would be recognized more internationally (although that's not saying much). One of the major reasons why I did this proposal, as mentioned, was because 2 college football teams are listed, and college basketball teams have similar vitality to college football teams. It's an either/or situation; I feel listing college football teams is incomplete without listing college basketball teams, but if these proposals fail (which seems likely), then we shouldn't list any college football team either. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 04:05, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

   I don't think we should list those. λ NegativeMP1 05:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

   @NegativeMP1 Let's remove them _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:25, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

   Make the proposals and there's a good chance I will support them. λ NegativeMP1 03:30, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

   I'd support them too based on this discussion. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 22:55, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

2. Not enough interwikis. The concept of College basketball  5 just isn't well enough known outside the Uited States. Also should be UCLA anyway _pbp 03:11, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Oppose. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:27, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

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

Add UConn Huskies women's basketball

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 also believe that we should list a women's team (especially considering women's basketball as a whole is on the rise), and thankfully this one was so much easier to pick. There's no doubt to who should be listed. UConn is pretty much the runaway leader in women's basketball success, and is the name that most people recognize. There's no doubt that UConn is a worthy candidate for vitality.

Support

1. As nom. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 02:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I understand the logic behind this proposal but I simply cannot support proposals to add Ameri-centric topics like this when we in reality need far less. 3 interwikis. λ NegativeMP1 03:05, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Three interwikis for a fame topic = 😬😬😬. For some idd reason, the team has three interwikis but their coach has eight. _pbp 03:13, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
3. oppose. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:27, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

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

Swap: Remove Shape note, add Musical note  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.

---

The former is more of a special case in musical notation (and probably a fairly niche American thing at 4 interwikis, thus hardly more important than e.g. the not-listed Solfège). The latter on the other hand is a less obscure concept in music, some of you might even have heard examples of it.

Addition can go under Music theory alongside other fundamentals like Pitch (music)  5.

Support

1. As nom.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 10:14, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Support  Carlwev  10:39, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Shape note does not seem important enough. Also, musical note is not just a part of musical notation, it is one of the primary elements of music in its own right. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 01:56, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Strong support add, I feel shape notes are too obscure to not support the swap. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 01:19, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
5. ALittleClass (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

Remove several American TV shows

Time to have this discussion again, I suppose.

Remove Leave It to Beaver

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.

---

Of the six shows in the 'Pre-1960' section, this one appears to be the least vital. Nothing in it's article suggests influence except for a few urban legends, the house being an attraction at Universal Studios, and a film adaptation that didn't even make back its budget.

Support

1. As nom. SameOldSameOldSameOld (talk) SameOldSameOldSameOld (talk) 00:05, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:24, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
3. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 07:25, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Idiosincrático (talk) 16:03, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

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

Remove Laverne & Shirley  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.

---

Nothing in this article suggests vitality. It was nominated for six Golden Globe Awards and one Emmy, but didn't win any of those. It received merchandise and an animated series, but this was common for many sitcoms of the 70s-90s. Lastly, the article for Happy Days  5 should be enough to cover this show as well as the entire franchise, none of its other spin-offs seem particularly noteworthy.

Support

1. As nom. SameOldSameOldSameOld (talk) SameOldSameOldSameOld (talk) 00:05, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
2. We should make space for more important creative works such as Pinocchio (1940 film)  5, The Rose of Versailles and whatnot.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 07:25, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Based on the number of references I see to this in other media, I'm going to have to oppose. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:24, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Idiosincrático (talk) 09:44, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

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

Remove I Dream of Jeannie

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.

---

Even the article states that it was "never a major ratings hit". Aside from a few movies, games, and comics, this doesn't seem vital at all to me.

Support

1. As nom. SameOldSameOldSameOld (talk) SameOldSameOldSameOld (talk) 00:05, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
2. _pbp 02:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Weak support. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:24, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Weak support, have heard of it but seems too cult-classicy in the overall history of TV shows.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 07:25, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

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

Remove The Smurfs (1981 TV series)

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 don't think The Smurfs  5 needs to be represented this much; the article's "In popular culture" section just lists a few random examples (Some of which can apply to other shows we don't list, such as being parodied on Family Guy or Robot Chicken). It's enough to list Peyo  5 if we want to represent this franchise more than once.

Support

1. As nom. SameOldSameOldSameOld (talk) SameOldSameOldSameOld (talk) 00:05, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Support. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:24, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Crossed my mind to nominate this, but was too lazy to check first if the wider Smurf article was listed, then forgot about it.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 07:25, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
4. --Thi (talk) 11:57, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

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

Add California Love  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.

---

Tupac Shakur  4 is a Level-4 artist that doesn't have any specific work listed at Level 5. In my opinion, all artists at V4 should have some sort of specific work listed at V5—regardless of whether or not that work was super influential. Thankfully, this song is extremely well known, won a ton of awards and is considered one of the best songs ever made (including being ranked on Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time, even though #320 isn't exactly a high placement), and is also ranked Top-importance by WikiProject Hip hop. Honestly, even if Shakur wasn't Level-4, this is a song that probably warrants placement here as it's one of the most well known, popular, and critically acclaimed hip hop / rap songs.

Support

1. As nom. λ NegativeMP1 22:57, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. It is also rated Top-Importance by WikiProject Hip Hop. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:36, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Idiosincrático (talk) 16:02, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
4. Bluevestman (talk) 21:56, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. _pbp 17:39, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

   Is there a reason why you oppose? λ NegativeMP1 21:33, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

   @NegativeMP1: I see no reason to clutter this list with recent American popular song. FWIW, I would support bumping Tupac down to VA5. _pbp 14:47, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

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

Add The Phantom of the Opera (novel)  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.

---

Famous novel. 40+ interwikis. Many adaptations, inspirations, etc.

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:10, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Support, I had planned to nominate this again (I had a failed swap against an obscure Chinese work a couple of years ago) if/when there would ever be more room available in Arts. Most famous work of Gaston Leroux  5; the 1925 silent film adaptation is famous in its own right and the most major appearance of Lon Chaney  5; loosely adapted into an important early work in Chinese cinema; was an inspiration for Two-Face and possibly V (character) (as noted in the film's article; the original comic predates the Phantom musical).--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 06:35, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
3. I am surprised this wasn't listed yet. We should list more works, and this is a good one to add. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:09, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Kevinishere15 (talk) 04:22, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

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

Remove Concert saloon

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 don't know whether this is vital. Low pageviews (13 daily average), and no interwikis.

Support

1. As nominator. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 03:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
2. _pbp 17:51, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Not seeing how this is vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:59, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
4. support  Carlwev  23:49, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
5. ALittleClass (talk) 18:50, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
6. No idea how this was listed. -1ctinus📝🗨 01:07, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

Add The Seagull

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 don't think we list any work by Anton Chekhov  4, at least I haven't noticed any. While I'm not terribly familiar with his output, I know he's important enough for representation, and The Seagull  5 seems one of the best choices, since it's among the most-viewed in Category:Works by Anton Chekhov and "Stanislavski's production became 'one of the greatest events in the history of Russian theatre and one of the greatest new developments in the history of world drama'".

Support

1. As nom.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 06:41, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Very important play. QuicoleJR (talk) 10:50, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
3. ALittleClass (talk) 21:20, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Surprising omission. We should include The Cherry Orchard too. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:03, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
5. Idiosincrático (talk) 15:54, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

Add No Longer Human

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.

---

Classic 20th century Japanese novel, one of the most-viewed in Category:20th-century Japanese novels with 1000+ average daily pageviews.

Support

1. As nom.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 07:00, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Seems very important. QuicoleJR (talk) 10:48, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
3. looks very important, with musical and manga version -EleniXDD※Talk 13:28, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
4. I feel Japanese literature is underrepresented on the list. SameOldSameOldSameOld (talk)
5. ALittleClass (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
6. Definitely one of the best examples for 20th century Japanese literature. AllyWithInfo (talk) 20:42, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

Add Pinocchio (1940 film)

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 bet several of us have been salivating at the prospect of adding this. Widely considered a masterpiece in the Disney animated canon; some discussion of importance can be found at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/Society/Archive 16#Add The Little Mermaid (1989 film).

Support

1. As nom.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 07:12, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
2. It was the first animated movie to win competitive Oscars and it is considered one of the best animated movies of all time. We should list it. QuicoleJR (talk) 10:52, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Has lots of historical significance. SameOldSameOldSameOld (talk) 13:34, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Idiosincrático (talk) 15:54, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

Add Nigerian literature  5

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

---

This one should be obvious. Nigeria  3 is the sixth-largest country in the world and the largest in Africa, with an internationally impactful literature scene. We list three Nigerian authors among the 2000 people at Level 4. I can't think of any reason not to include this article at Level 5.

Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:43, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
2. ALittleClass (talk) 22:40, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Things Fall Apart  4 is by a Nigerian and the country is of the largest in the world, fair enough. Lowish stats at ~30 daily pageviews and 10 interwikis but that's not total obscurity, not bad enough to outweigh the representation argument.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 06:49, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Major country. Significant literature. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 04:04, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

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

Add Arthur (TV series)

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.

---

Iconic TV show. Served as the inspiration to Peppa Pig and Bluey (TV series), which we both list.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 19:19, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Weak support. Probably more vital than both Peppa Pig and Bluey all things considered. λ NegativeMP1 18:43, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
3. After thinking about it some more, I think that we can add this. I also don't think we need to cut more TV shows, especially now that Arts has more quota room. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:09, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Idiosincrático (talk) 15:48, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

With the recent push towards cutting TV shows, would we even deem Peppa Pig or Bluey vital? λ NegativeMP1 22:14, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@NegativeMP1: Yes, I would consider both vital, and I don't think we really need many more TV cuts at this time. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:36, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Love the show but probably agree with Negative. It's probably the...fourth most notable PBS children's television show? Sesame Street  4, Mister Rogers' Neighborhood  5, Reading Rainbow (unlisted) _pbp 15:36, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not advocating for Arthur here, I don't have an opinion on it either way. I am simply stating my opposition to removing Bluey or Peppa Pig. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:39, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Remove Hannah Montana

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.

---

Per Phineas and Ferb discussion above, this is a good candidate for removal.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 00:56, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
2. A short lived TV show fad. Yes, it was popular at one point. Yes, it has a lot of interwikis. Yes, it won awards. But when was the last time that it's been actively discussed by the public outside of nostalgic retrospectives, and comparisons over the public image of Miley Cyrus  5. It's not relevant anymore. We've removed several TV shows that I would personally deem far more vital than this one. Again, I don't deny that it was popular and important at the time... but it simply isn't anywhere close to that anymore with no long term impact, critical acclaim, or influence on future TV shows. I would argue that something like High School Musical was as influential and popular as Hannah Montana, and we don't list that. λ NegativeMP1 01:03, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Sure. I knew a lot of people who were really into it when I was a kid, but not sure it has much impact today. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:06, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Covered enough by the Miley Cyrus  5 article itself. ALittleClass (talk) 05:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
5. Per Class _pbp 15:32, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
6. Per Class. Kevinishere15 (talk) 22:06, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

1. As I mentioned in the discussion on adding P&F, I wouldn't even consider Miley Cyrus vital. There's nothing that separates her from other contemporary recent American celebrities and I would endorse a complete cleanse of most people on this list like her. λ NegativeMP1 18:33, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Add Horror game  5 or Survival horror  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 examples of these genres but not the genres themselves, on one hand, horror game is the broader topic, with survival horror being a subset, on the other hand, since most horror games are at least arguably survival horror (both of the examples we list definitely are), I've seen a lot of people use them interchangeably, and the survival horror article focuses more on the gameplay aspect, also a lot more interwikis.

Support

1. Support adding whichever one of the two gets consensus, or both of the two if that does. Kevinishere15 (talk) 23:02, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Support both, I generally support listing major genres and particularly important subgenres, and these two articles qualify. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:55, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Support Survival horror, it has more focus from a gameplay angle and has better stats. Not only covers Silent Hill  5 and Resident Evil  5, but also Alone in the Dark and Clock Tower (1995 video game) the two of which are historically important but IMO not on the level of VA by themselves.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 05:25, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
4. If we list Horror film  5, then I think we should also add the other most popular type of horror ("Horror literature" just redirects to the article for horror fiction). SameOldSameOldSameOld (talk)SameOldSameOldSameOld (talk) 01:20, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
5. Support both as each type has its popularity and influence over video games as a whole. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:47, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Horror game, I think we should deprioritise thematic/narrative game genres in favour of gameplay ones due to overlap with cross-media thematic/narrative genres. I think we should have at most one of these two, and ideally the article on Horror fiction  4 should have sufficient coverage on games.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 05:25, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

1. @SameOldSameOldSameOld: Are you supporting both of them or just one? Kevinishere15 (talk) 03:29, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
   1. I'm supporting both of them, sorry for not making that clear beforehand. SameOldSameOldSameOld (talk) SameOldSameOldSameOld (talk) 14:50, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

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

Add Video game modding  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.

---

Big part of video gaming. "Mods have arguably become an increasingly important factor in the commercial success of some games" (the enduring popularity of The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim  5 is an example, with Todd Howard saying modding "feeds the game for a long time"). Category:Video game mods even includes dozens of specific mods, and there's a List of video games derived from mods. Hot Coffee (minigame), discovered and enabled by modders, created major legal controversy. Fan translation mods have made innumerable games more accessible.

Support

1. As nom.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 06:31, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Also can't forget they're a big part of Minecraft  5. Kevinishere15 (talk) 07:17, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Sure. They definitly have a collective impact on the game themselves. Would not support outside level 5. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 07:23, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Skyrim modding, Minecraft modding, Grand Theft Auto modding, Doom modding, and more. A good candidate for Level 5. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:24, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
5. Reasonable. But then we should V5 (at least) the parent concept of Modding, no? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:25, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

   I had thought of that, but was too lazy to consider where it would be added, and moreover the video game article has significantly better stats. Either somewhere under Technology#General (slightly overquota) or Sports, games and recreation#Entertainment and leisure? (Technically I should've specified where this should go too but I thought it's obvious enough that it goes under Sports, games and recreation#General video game topics.)--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 05:42, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

Add The Pink Panther  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.

---

Very popular and culturally important Comedy film  5 series not listed. Would go under Specific films#Comedy. Æ's old account wasn't working (talk) 03:27, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Æ's old account wasn't working (talk) 01:14, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Idiosincrático (talk) 15:38, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
3. The character is part of modern popculture; V5 is fine. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:53, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
4. Bluevestman (talk) 22:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

@Æ's old account wasn't working: FYI, at the VA project, nominators typically count themselves in the support section unless they don't support the proposal. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:15, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

So what happens now? Do I add myself in the support section? Æ's old account wasn't working (talk) 05:56, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

If you support adding Pink Panther to the list, then yes. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:22, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Add Sense and Sensibility  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.

---

The debut novel by Jane Austen  4, Sense and Sensibility is one of those works where, even if you have never read it, you have likely heard of it. While it isn't as important as Pride and Prejudice  4, I think it deserves a slot at VA5 next to Emma (novel)  5. This book is very well-known and has had a major impact in popularizing the Romance novel  4 genre. It also looks like Arts is getting some extra quota slots soon, so that shouldn't be a point against this work. 46 interwikis is quite good, and it is rated High-Importance by WikiProject Novels and WikiProject Women writers.

Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:07, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 05:11, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:09, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Idiosincrático (talk) 15:57, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

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

Add Garter

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 think this belongs at Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Everyday_life#Accessories.

Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:52, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 13:39, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Seems important enough, given its use in certain traditions and its interwiki links Lazman321 (talk) 05:20, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

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

Remove Quiff

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 vital, same argument as bowl cut above. start class in 8 other languages. Would consider swapping with hair gel or hair spray. Maybe.

Support

1. As nom.  Carlwev  09:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
2. I think this style had a moment more than a generation ago. Not vital.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:30, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
4. Lazman321 (talk) 05:20, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

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

Add Special Olympics World Games  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.

---

Per above discussion, the Olympics are getting unwieldy and I proposed removing the articles for the specific Summer or Winter games. Looking into it, I saw we are missing the Special Olympics World Games. We have Paralympic Games  4, which is a distinct thing operated by the International Paralympic Committee, while the Special Olympics are operated by an organization recognized by the IOC. I think if we remove most or all of the individual games, adding this shouldn't be much of an issue.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
2. λ NegativeMP1 04:38, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
3. Support, but ONLY if Special Olympics  5 gets added as well. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 18:58, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
4. Add at least one of them. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 13:30, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Support Special Olympics ahead of this Makkool (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

@JpTheNotSoSuperior, Makkool, GeogSage, and NegativeMP1: Do you vote for adding Special Olympics  5? Lophotrochozoa (talk) 13:30, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

where is this nominated? I would likely prefer that to this, not sure if I didn't notice it wasn't already included or what several months ago when I nominated this one. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:44, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

We can vote on Special olympics here. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 10:52, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

@Lophotrochozoa: 100% JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 18:19, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

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

Soft drink removals

Remove Ribena

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.

---

Our least vital soft drink brand. The annual global sales number seems quite large (500 million pounds), but I'm not sure if we need to have the UK represented in this section. I haven't never heard of this drink.

Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Have never heard of this ever. λ NegativeMP1 19:40, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Maybe swap with Irn-Bru or Lipton (not a soft drink but founded by Thomas Lipton  5) per pageviews. Sahaib (talk) 20:38, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
4. I don't think I've heard of it. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 21:29, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

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

Remove Ice cream float

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 think it's more a historical thing. It's a drink you can still easily make yourself at home, but I don't think it's that significant or common dessert to warrant a VA slot.

Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
2. They're pretty well known and significant, and this in a sense represents a larger category of "float" based drinks/deserts (e.g. "coke floats" or "root beer floats"), but I don't really know if it's something worth having on this level.
3. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 23:34, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
4. On the same level as other sodas? Lazman321 (talk) 05:20, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Less significant than ice pop  Carlwev  18:54, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Add Naturism

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.

---

Over 10 million page views since 2015 or 2800 views per day [1] article appears in 57 languages if I coiunt correct. According to some surveys somewhere between 7% and 14% of the population in US and UK identify as naturist/nudist, as much as one in seven people. There is a category dedicated to naturism, including categories and articles specific to 10 nations on top of other topics, while the main article mentions naturism in sections dedicated to 24 nations. There are events, resorts, magazines and some TV shows and movies dedicated to naturism, some of which have there own article. The topic is of interest to law, ethics, religion, and society in general. The media and many non-naturists often interested in the the topic possibly due to being interested in the concept of nudity in general, or offended by it. Nudity is included at level 4, but it is not unreasonable to expand upon it and add this article about the lifestyle choice here which covers some of the same ground, but is not the same thing.

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  12:42, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
2. I thought this was a subset of nudism, in which case I would have supported nudism instead, but it appears to be the same thing, so I support, as this is a bit like a "subculture" which is fairly common and Nudity  4 is level 4. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 02:40, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Very culturally important topic. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:35, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 11:26, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discus

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

Add 21 (Adele album)

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.

---

As the best selling album of the 21st century this is a must.

Support

1. -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:23, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
2. One of the 20 best-selling albums of all time, and it was very well-received by critics. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:45, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Definitely, I would also support swapping this album with an album by an artist that is already represented on the list, such as Blonde on Blonde (Dylan is represented by Highway 61 Revisited), or The Wall (Floyd is represented by Dark Side and Wish You Were Here) ALittleClass (talk) 01:13, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

   May be off topic here, but I think Wish You Were Here is the better choice for a Floyd album to remove. The Wall is probably the most famous concept album of all time, while all WYWH appears to have going for it is its critical acclaim (which if you look at the Good Kid, m.A.A.d city discussion below, critical response solely should not be why an article is listed). JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 22:27, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

4. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 21:14, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Don't see the need to add this. It's a purely commercial album (though good/solid). It sold an immense amount on the strength of a couple of big singles. But does it stand out? Kelly Clarkson is kind of similar, and her second album also sold a lot. Oppose. --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:08, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

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

Swap: Remove The Crocodile Hunter  5, add Cosmos: A Personal Voyage  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.

---

The former is a stub with the best vitality claim being that the subject is a decently popular long-running series, but it's among the least-read TV show articles on VA5, whereas the latter has better vitality claims ("a watershed moment for science-themed television programming", groundbreaking special effects, bringing the music of Vangelis  5 "to the attention of a global audience", "seen by over 500 million people", although not all this is sourced) and stats (34 vs. 11 interwikis, ~300 vs. ~170 daily pageviews, 228 vs. 85 page watchers), is older, and is honestly what I'd expect to be included in a list of important television productions from all time. The Crocodile Hunter's host, Steve Irwin  5, is the one who gets the majority of reader attention instead of his show, and while the same could be said about Carl Sagan  4 vs. Cosmos, this swap still would be an improvement.

Link to previous discussion attempting to remove The Crocodile Hunter.

Support

1. As nom.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 14:54, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Weak Support. I proposed adding Steve Irwin on level 4 just now, I think if he isn't level 4, we can safely cut the biographies in half. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removing The Crocodile Hunter, still a notable show largely because of its international outreach. Its article really doesn't do it justice. That being said, the Sagan show should definitely be added, huge impact. Idiosincrático (talk) 18:21, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Mixed

1. Add Cosmos, don't remove Crocodile Hunter. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:37, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

@GeogSage: Given that Irwin is not gonna pass the vote at level 4, you may want to change your vote here.
P. S. The Crocodile Hunter is a very notable show but must less so since Discovery Channel left Russia... :-) Like, really, you may be surprised to know how easily everything is forgotten. While there were Animal Planet and Discovery, people watched them. But when they disappeared, they aren't even needed. Watching animals run around was a very niché hobby to start with... --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Noting that Arts quota has since been increased, so people can vote for just the addition now too.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 07:34, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

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

Add Cocomelon  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.

---

Might be a bit to early to call this one, but looking at the trends of articles we include this looks like it might meet the criteria. Multi billion dollar children's YouTube channel that has some of the most watched videos of all time on YouTube. Likely to have a major impact on this generation of children, and definitely at least as vital as many of the cartoons and media franchises we include.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:38, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Weak support. It's recent but there's already evidence to suggest that it'll leave a long lasting impact [2] [3]. λ NegativeMP1 20:47, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
3. My kid watches it... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:52, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
4. I think it is safe to say at this point that it has had enough of an impact on the next generation to warrant being listed at Level 5. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:48, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I think there are better shows we could list to represent animation. SameOldSameOldSameOld (talk) SameOldSameOldSameOld (talk) 21:43, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

Which category does this go under? I didn't see any other YouTube channels listed. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 21:23, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Add Standard 52-card deck  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.

---

Most common type of Playing card  5 deck. 1000+ daily pageviews (although the interwikis are surprisingly few at 6). We have well enough room at the games section.

Support

1. As nom.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 16:06, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Low interwikis, but this is an essential part of many card games. λ NegativeMP1 16:11, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
3. ALittleClass (talk) 00:59, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Per NegativeMP1. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 23:42, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Too niche unless we get playing card to V4. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:37, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

Deck (cards)) redirects to Playing card and Playing card deck doesn't exist. _pbp 16:16, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Add Good Kid, M.A.A.D City

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.

---

Hello fellow Wikipedians. I am aware that the rapper Kendrick Lamar already has one studio album listed at this vital level, being To Pimp A Butterfly, however, I believe that Good Kid, M.A.A.D. City should be added as well. The album pushed Lamar further out into the mainstream and was his first album on a major label. While the album didn't receive any Grammy awards, it was nominated for seven different award categories and commercially, has remained a chart staple on the Billboard 200, having never fallen off the chart ever since its release in 2012—of which I personally find astonishing. Tying in with the albums commercial performance, I believe the album is certified diamond by the RIAA and was ranked on Rolling Stone's 2022 version of their 500 greatest albums of all time list. Due to the reasons that I have listed above, I believe that the album should be added to the level-5 vital article listing on Wikipedia. Sincerely, JustTryingToBeSmart (talk) 01:52, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Support

1. assumed support by non

Oppose

1. Left no industry impact outside of critical acclaim and commercial success (yes, it was on the Rolling Stones greatest album list, but 500 albums were, yet we don't list 500 albums). For an album (or anything, for that matter) it needs to be considered one of the 50,000 possibly most important subjects of all time. And we can only list so many specific modern musical works. Also, Kendrick himself is only a V5 artist - I think that musical works can be on the same level or ranked higher than their creator, but not if the rationale for its inclusion is just demonstrating how Kendrick became popular. I already barely consider TPAB worthy of being on this list due to its recency and lack of industry impact. There's no way that GKMC is worthy of being here. λ NegativeMP1 02:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Critically and commercially successful, but not at the level necessary for vitality. I also don't think we need two Kendrick Lamar albums on the list. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:59, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Weak oppose. First off, Lamar is only V5, so it seems a bit much to have two albums from his on the list. Second, I feel that an album shouldn't be added by only critical acclaim unless if it's complete widespread, genre-changing like TPaB. GKMC fits well with other unlisted yet critically acclaimed albums like Madvillainy, In Rainbows, The Black Saint and the Sinner Lady, and Remain in Light (although we really should add RiL). JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 23:45, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Childcare

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'm guessing there were not many parents involved with making this list.

Add Child care

Support

1. As nominator. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 04:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Very important topic. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Definitely. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 23:49, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
4. ALittleClass (talk) 18:53, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
5. Likely V4. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:15, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
6. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:43, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Babysitting

Support

1. As nominator. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 04:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Very important topic. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Definitely. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 23:49, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
4. ALittleClass (talk) 18:53, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
5. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:15, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
6. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:43, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Nanny

Support

1. As nominator. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 04:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Very important topic. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Definitely. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 23:49, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
4. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:15, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

Remove Aggressive inline skating

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.

---

Inline skating  5 is itself only VA5, and I don't think it deserves two subtopics. Inline speed skating  5 seems like the more vital of the two by far, so let's remove this one. It seems too niche and obscure to be worth listing.

Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:27, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Aye. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:11, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
3. ALittleClass (talk) 02:35, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Not vital even at this level. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:20, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Would be better to include skatepark  Carlwev  18:26, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Add Cinema of Indonesia  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.

---

Indonesia is the fourth-largest country in the world, with a film industry that sees massive domestic success. We list the film industries of 25 other countries, many of which are less important, and the three countries with more people than Indonesia all have their film industries at Level 4, so I think we can add this to Level 5.

Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:12, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. ALittleClass (talk) 01:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Weakly support, considering how popoulous that country is. It's culture does influence 100m+ people easily, even if primarily domestically. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:22, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
4. Weak support per Piotrus.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 07:22, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

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

Add Wedding ring and/or Engagement ring

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.

---

Although Ring (jewellery)  5 is only VA5, Wedding  4 and Engagement  5 are also VA topics.

Support

1. As nom.TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Support wedding. Engagement is pretty much a fork that I'd see merged. I'd also support bumping ring to V4. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:12, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Support wedding per Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrusl -EleniXDD※Talk 13:52, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Support wedding ring, they are very culturally important. Oppose engagement ring as redundant to wedding ring. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:11, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
5. Support wedding ring.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 07:13, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
6. Support wedding ring. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 23:51, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

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

Add Frozen food

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.

---

At the recently passed Frozen meal  5, I mentioned that I would prefer this get a slot. The discussants there seemed to think it is not really a one or the other issue.

Support

1. As nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:25, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Definitely. Could arguably make Level 4. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:30, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
3. hugely important a case could be made for level 4. effects peoples eating and shopping habits and less food waste. Huge innovation in food storage/preservation  Carlwev 
4. Per above. Kevinishere15 (talk) 08:08, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
5. Big part of Food preservation  3.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 17:04, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
6. Per what I said on frozen meal. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 23:52, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
7. ALittleClass (talk) 18:55, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

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

Remove Pizza cheese

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.

---

Including Pizza cheese is really too much emphasis on one aspect of Pizza  4 that would be better covering other things. Pizza cheese can be other listed forms of cheese. This was brought up in a discussion in February.

Support

1. As nominator. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 06:02, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
2. _pbp 18:24, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
3. ALittleClass (talk) 23:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
4. I agree that Pizza Cheese shouldn't be listed and that Pizza is more vital. JustTryingToBeSmart (talk) 10:54, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

Add Metre (poetry)

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.

---

Fundamental concept in Poetry  3. Iambic pentameter is a famous type in English. I was contemplating nominating the removal of Prose poetry  4 at level 4 when I noticed this is missing.

Support

1. As nom.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 12:16, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Support  Carlwev  13:31, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Seems important enough. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 00:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Looks pretty important. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:10, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
5. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:45, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

Remove Notre Dame Fighting Irish football and Alabama Crimson Tide football  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.

---

Per the points brought up in my failed proposal to add Kentucky and UConn basketball; a lot of those points apply to these two as well. They're both very Ameri-centric, and I doubt many people outside of the United States would recognize these teams. They also have very low interwikis (4 and 6 respectively). As I argued in the failed proposal, college football and college basketball have similar vitality, and if anything, college basketball would be recognized more internationally. If college basketball teams shouldn't be listed, then neither should college football teams.

Support

1. As nom. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 00:10, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
2. I doubt any college sports team is vital enough. (talk) SameOldSameOldSameOld (talk) 02:08, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Per above. They might be vital in terms of understanding academic budgets and student loan debt, but in the grand scheme of things are probably not vital on a global scale. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:12, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Especially weird these were listed considering there are only 4 other American football teams on the list. ALittleClass (talk) 03:51, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
5. Support Notre Dame. Kevinishere15 (talk) 07:18, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Didn't we just add Bama. So many Bama football bios are VA that it makes sense.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:02, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Oppose removing Alabama Crimson Tide per above, we could remove one of the bios to make room for it. Kevinishere15 (talk) 07:18, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
3. I don't know much about Notre Dame, but Alabama deserves to be listed. It has an insane amount of cultural importance in the United States. QuicoleJR (talk) 11:28, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

I have no opinion on removal, but Alabama Crimson Tide football  5 was approved to replace University of Alabama in March. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 04:02, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Remove New England Patriots  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.

---

From the Alabama page, there seems to be consensus to reduce the number of NFL teams. Of the four, they seem the least vital; their vitality stemming from a single era and two men (Tom Brady  4 and Bill Belichick  5)

Support

1. _pbp 15:03, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Aye. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:32, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The Brady-Belichick era is considered one of the greatest sports dynasties according to the article. The Patriots hold a lot of major records, the main ones being Super Bowl wins and Super Bowl appearances, and they are extremely popular in New England. I would remove the Steelers before I would remove the Patriots. QuicoleJR (talk) 11:34, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

   The Steelers have as many Super Bowl rings as the Patriots, and are also a lot older franchise that is less dependent on two dudes for their vitality. They are extremely popular in Pennsylvania. And I'm not necessarily oppose to removing them either. _pbp 16:01, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

2. I think that as of right now, all four NFL teams listed have good reasons for being listed (Pats and Steelers have the most Super Bowl wins, with the Pats also having most Super Bowl appearances, the Cowboys are the most popular team in the league, and the Packers are the history team and have the most NFL championships). When a team does eventually win a seventh Super Bowl (most likely the Chiefs as of right now), then both the Pats and Steelers should be removed, but for now, they should stay. Not to mention the Brady-Belichick era. I'd personally rather remove the Steelers (although I fear that's because of both recency bias and that I'm a Pats fan), but like I said, both should stay for now. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 01:13, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Add Single parent

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 can't believe this wasn't included. It's a very important aspect of families, especially in recent times.

Support

1. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 03:58, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
2. ALittleClass (talk) 07:38, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Very important topic. QuicoleJR (talk) 11:46, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Aye. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:16, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
5. Support  Carlwev  04:07, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

Readd 1936 Summer Olympics

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 get that we removed all olympic games previously, but this one has much more political significance given what it was used for.

Support

1. As nom. -1ctinus📝🗨 20:20, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Definitely this one and tbh all Olympics. I think we forget how much of a BFD the Olympics is. It's the de jure or de facto world championship in a bunch of different sports all at once. It's so big It's bankrupted cities and occasionally even countries. They have tons of interwikis. And 36 is a BFD even for the Olympics because of all the Hitler-related movies that feature them _pbp 20:54, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
3. λ NegativeMP1 21:12, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Would support the readding of a few other Olympic games as well, the 1972 Summer Olympics come to mind (partly because of the Munich massacre  5). SameOldSameOldSameOld (talk)

   I believe we added the Munich massacre as a replacment for that, we don't need both. I'd support a swap for one or the other, but not a straight add. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:03, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

5. I think it really should go in History though.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 18:46, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
6. --Bluevestman (talk) 23:15, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
7. ALittleClass (talk) 23:49, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
8. Very historically important, one of the only individual Olympics I could support listing. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:18, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
9. J947 ‡ ^edits 03:29, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I'm more inclined to support adding specific things that happened at the event that made it stand out over the Olympics in question. For example, Olympia (1938 film)  5 "is a 1938 German propaganda and documentary film written, directed and produced by Leni Riefenstahl, which documented the 1936 Summer Olympics, held in the Olympic Stadium in Berlin during the Nazi period." This article is at level 5 already. There are other topics related to this event, like the Berlin-Marzahn concentration camp, I'd prefer to see added. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:28, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

   It seems disingenuous that a film about the Olympics would be more vital than the Olympics themselves _pbp 20:54, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

   Berlin-Marzahn concentration camp has seven interwikis, the 1936 Olympics has 83. There were more athletes who competed in the 36 games than there are people deported to the Marzahn camp _pbp 20:57, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

   Language links are not my default metric for measuring "vitality," there are other statistics I'd consider first, and there are also qualitative things to consider as well. The article on the film states it is one of Time magazines "All-Time 100 Movies." While I'm not really a fan of those subjective lists, the propaganda film is likely highly influential in cinema, especially from a technical standpoint. I don't really consider the individual Olympics that much of a "BFD;" they are certainly an opportunity for countries to squander the wealth of their people on a spectacle, and have a massive environmental impact, but an individual spectacle isn't really "Vital." I don't consider the 1936 Olympics to be more vital then the 2008 Summer Olympics hosted by the Chinese Communist Party, both were political shows by authoritarian countries, and both saw the democracies of the world fail to boycott an authoritarian countries propaganda event. We don't list the individual World's fair  4 either, or the individual FIFA World Cup  4, nor should we in my opinion. It is easy to go through any particular event and find a reason it stands out for inclusion, someone motivated could probably make a case for why all of the Super Bowl  5 articles are unique and vital. We don't have room for that, so including Super Bowl is enough. If something particularly vital happens at a game, I'd assume it has it's own separate article.

   Per the article on the camp, "eventually, the men from Marzahn would be sent to Sachsenhausen concentration camp (in 1938), and women and children were sent to Auschwitz (in 1943)." I don't consider a bunch of athletes competing in a game hosted by the Nazi party to be significant, I consider one of the first moves of Nazi Germany to murder Romani people to be vital. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:41, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

   1. A movie about the Olympics is not as notable as the Olympics. (You say "Olympia is one of the 100 most important movies". I'd counter by saying that Berlin 1936 is one of the 100 most important sporting events, and it ain't No. 100 or No. 99 either)
   2. Events that are associated with a particular iteration of the Olympic Games are less notable than that Olympic Games. Examples include the Marzahn deportations, the Munich bombing, and the boycotts of Moscow and LA
   3. Athletes that are primarily notable for performance at a single Olympic Games aren't as notable as that Olympic Games
   4. The World Cup is 32 nations (16-24 until not that long ago) playing a single sport. The Olympics are ~200 nations playing many sports.
   5. Some of the World's Fairs, such as 1893, 1904 and 1964, are culturally significant enough that they may merit VA5 inclusion
   6. We are NOT going to eliminate all athletes, nor all sports-related articles from VA. This should be clear from several discussions

   None of these six statements should be controversial in the slightest. _pbp 17:53, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

   1. A movie about the Olympics might be more notable as a movie then the any particular years Olympic games
   2. Olympic games are not notable in of themselves, events that happen around them might be. Those events can be specified.
   3. Athletes aren't vital in my opinion, at all. Playing a game is not vital, any more then players in the Smash World Tour would be considered vital.
   4. Neither individual events are vital.
   5. Disagree.
   6. So what? I disagree and will continue to vote to change that.

   GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:17, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

   Recent past discussions agree with me/disagree with you on #3 and #6. Should this pass, they will agree with me/disagree with you on #2 and #4 as well. _pbp 14:11, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

   Actually, the current consensus says that the Munich massacre is more vital than the Olympics it occurred at. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:19, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

   Recent discussions have no impact on my opinions of what makes something "vital," and I will continue to vote and propose things based on my opinion. Consensus can change, and this isn't a sport where you get points for dunking on someone. If everyone is thinking the same thing, someone isn't thinking, people with dissenting opinions are valuable to discussions. I will note again that this was removed less then 6 months ago, and while I'm not a huge fan of those project recommendations, you were pretty heated about re-opening past discussions (even those that had exceeded the 6 month recommendation.) Specifically, on the Calhoun post you had said, "Doing this over and over IS absurd. Maybe not disruptive, but absurd. If Calhoun is removed, what's to stop me or somebody else renominating him for addition on July 4, 2026?" You specifically brought up the previous Olympics discussion, to which I said "feel free to make a case at a time you think is appropriate," and "I'm perfectly fine with a dynamic list where discussions are encouraged and we flip flop on decisions periodically." I stand by that, but don't think your case here is very strong. Lots of new editors on vital articles though lately, several voting on this proposal, and as I stated in the Calhoun discussion, "New people are joining Wikipedia all the time, and binding them to decisions made by a small group of editors a year before they were a part of the project seems to me like an attempt to exert ownership over the list." GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 07:13, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Add city pop and Plastic Love

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

---

This is might be too cultish to actually be vital, and admittedly the name is mostly a retroactive term (like yacht rock) to describe some Japanese popular music in the 1980s that have some Jazz/R&B influences. Still, we can always have some more non-Western music on here, and I think it's popular enough to warrant some discussion. I'm also going to nominate "Plastic Love", probably the city pop song (although seeing how every WikiProject views it as low-importance, I understand you guys not wanting to add it).

Support

1. Bluevestman (talk) 22:44, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Mixed

1. Weak support of city pop being listed; we list Tatsuro Yamashita  5 so I can see there being an argument for the genre's inclusion. But no way can I see Plastic Love being on the list, being popular in somewhat niche online circles does not equate to vitality. SameOldSameOldSameOld (talk) SameOldSameOldSameOld (talk) 23:18, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Is vaporwave vital? No. The aforementioned anachronistic genre is comparable to that. -1ctinus📝🗨 22:50, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

   Think there's a bit of a difference between this and a micro-genre such as vaporwave. Bluevestman (talk) 23:13, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

2. Oppose Plastic Love, neutral on adding City Pop. The genre is definitely more important than the song but I don't really know if it has enough sustained influence and popularity to warrant adding. AllyWithInfo (talk) 01:27, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Aside from Plastic Love, city pop wasn't even normally called that when it was still being actively made and was limited solely to Japan, regardless of nostalgiabait Iostn (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

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

Add Tambourine  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.

---

Yet another (very) common musical instrument that's not listed yet.

Support

1. As nom. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 02:38, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Very important instrument for folk music. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:57, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
3. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 14:08, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
4. ALittleClass (talk) 22:52, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
5. Easy support. Kevinishere15 (talk) 06:45, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

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

Add Braid (hairstyle)

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.

---

Suggested by @Carlwev. Nearly a cultural universal, so many cultures around the world have had this hairstyle. Dates back about 30,000 years.

Support

1. As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 20:30, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
2. Of course. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:48, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
3. Definitely. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 18:18, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

This just passed in March by User:Makkool (who has only made one edit in the last 3 months): Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Society/Archive_18#Add_Braid_(hairstyle).-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:53, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

It seems to have been properly listed at that time.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:12, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

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

Add Panthéon

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'm gobsmacked that this isn't on here. It is the highest honor as a French citizen to be interred at this building. The remains of Voltaire  3, Marie Curie  3 and her husband Pierre Curie  4, Jean-Jacques Rousseau  4, Victor Hugo  4, Émile Zola  4, Louis Braille  4, Toussaint Louverture  4, Alexandre Dumas  4, and Josephine Baker  4 are among those honored.

Support

1. Bluevestman (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
2. Huge oversight for sure. User:SameOldSameOldSameOld SameOldSameOldSameOld (talk) 21:06, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
3. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 05:16, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
4. Famous. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:46, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

1. I mentioned on the discussion to split up art that architecture and infrastructure are scattered all over the VAs. Art is where we keep buildings like this, technology would be where we keep infrastructure, I'm not sure if we have similar stuff scattered through Society. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:10, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

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

Add Al-Jabr

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 most important book of Al-Khwarizmi  3 and one of the most important mathematical texts ever. It's sometimes regarded as the first true algebra text (the title of the book is literally where the word "algebra" comes from); it introduced balancing and reducing equations and methods for solving quadratic equations. From the article: "it was used until the sixteenth century as the principal mathematical textbook of European universities."

Support

1. As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 01:32, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
2. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 05:15, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
3. Seems very important. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:57, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
4. Bluevestman (talk) 22:29, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

Add Eggnog

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 drink served during the Christmas season.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 21:35, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
2. Sure. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:35, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
3. Yeah. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 18:26, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
4. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:25, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

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

Add Blouse  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.

---

Very common item of clothing not listed.

Support

1. As nom. Æ's old account wasn't working (talk) 01:34, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
2. Of course. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:29, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
3. Makes sense. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:33, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
4. Definitely. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 18:31, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

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

Add Robin (character)  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.

---

In light of the above proposals for adding more characters from superhero media. As the sidekick of Batman  4 and a character that has existed and been popular for 80+ years, he is probably the most famous and shining example of a side character in comic books and superhero media in general. I don't think we list any examples of sidekicks or side characters at all in the superhero characters list, actually. Granted, we also don't list the concept of a Sidekick yet, but I don't see why that would stop us from listing him. The only legitimate concern here might be over-representation of Batman characters (this would place us at four), but at the same time, it's warranted given the importance of Batman itself, and all of those characters are here for their own reasons - as should him.

Support

1. As nom. λ NegativeMP1 00:44, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
2. As a side kick, Robin is likely the only one who I would include. I actually enjoy super hero media quite a bit, but can't honestly think of any stand alone side kicks that would be vital besides him. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:42, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
3. The classic sidekick. this is similar to listing Dr. Watson  5. Kevinishere15 (talk) 02:13, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
4. Bluevestman (talk) 21:37, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
5. I can see having him, as the classic superhero sidecick, at V5. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:22, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

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

Add either Found footage (film technique)  5 or The Blair Witch Project  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'm torn over which should be listed (or even if both should be listed), so I'll put this one up to you all. Found footage movies are now a staple of modern horror movies, with films such as Paranormal Activity and Cloverfield making millions at the box office. While the found footage subgenre has existed since at least the 60s (according to its article), it wouldn't become truly mainstream until The Blair Witch Project came out. The "legacy" section on the film's article being as lengthy as it is should be an indicator of how important it is in the horror genre.

Support both

1. As nom. SameOldSameOldSameOld (talk) SameOldSameOldSameOld (talk) 02:03, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
2. Support both, but if I absolutely had to choose, I'd prefer found footage, the genre should always be at the same level as the example or higher. Kevinishere15 (talk) 04:01, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
3. Weakly for the technique, but both seem V5. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:25, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
4. Bluevestman (talk) 21:38, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Support Found footage only

1. As nom. SameOldSameOldSameOld (talk) SameOldSameOldSameOld (talk) 02:03, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
   1. Revoked support following discussion below. SameOldSameOldSameOld (talk) SameOldSameOldSameOld (talk) 04:29, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Support Blair Witch Project only

1. As nom. SameOldSameOldSameOld (talk) SameOldSameOldSameOld (talk) 02:03, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
2. ALittleClass (talk) 18:30, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Epistolary novel crossed my mind, how it compares to Found footage in terms of importance should be considered.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 10:56, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

1. @SameOldSameOldSameOld:, You put your support in all 3, did you do that just to say "I support whichever gets consensus"? Because if you remove your "support found footage only" vote we have above 60% consensus to add both, it's your choice, of course, just asking
   1. I supported all three for the reason you suggested. Thinking about this proposal now a month after it was posted, I'm certain that both Found footage and the Blair Witch Project could be added to the list. I could remove my vote for "Support Found footage only" if you want me to. SameOldSameOldSameOld (talk) SameOldSameOldSameOld (talk) 20:03, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
      1. @SameOldSameOldSameOld:, Feel free to do it. Kevinishere15 (talk) 23:06, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
         1. @Kevinishere15: I've now removed my vote. SameOldSameOldSameOld (talk) SameOldSameOldSameOld (talk) 04:29, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

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

Add Gong  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.

---

Insert common "article should be listed because it is common" spiel. Bohemian Rhapsody  4 anyone?

Support

1. As nom. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 18:54, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
2. SupPOOOoOooort--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 19:25, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
3. Bluevestman (talk) 21:51, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
4. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:28, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
5. Insert common "facepalm because we missed that". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:44, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
6. ALittleClass (talk) 19:30, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

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

Add Damsel in distress  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.

---

With the recent specific character noms I thought I'd propose a more general concept for a change. Damsel in distress is a common age-old trope, more recently a major subject of critique regarding gender roles in fiction, and in my opinion an appropriate counterpart to the already-listed Femme fatale  5.

Support

1. As nom.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 07:48, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
2. λ NegativeMP1 15:32, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
3. Easily vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:38, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
4. Bluevestman (talk) 01:00, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

Add totem pole

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.

---

Famous Native American/First Nation type of art, to the point that a lot of people are not aware only those living in the Pacific Northwest make these.

Support

1. Bluevestman (talk) 01:04, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
2. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 10:46, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 12:00, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
4. Iostn (talk) 16:20, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

Add Slasher film  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.

---

Major subgenre of Horror film  5, we already list one example, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre  5, thanks to Laukku for suggusting.

Support

1. As nom. Kevinishere15 (talk) 00:50, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
2. Surely bigger than Found footage (film technique)  5 proposed above.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 06:59, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
3. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 10:26, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
4. Most popular horror movies are slashers. SameOldSameOldSameOld (talk) SameOldSameOldSameOld (talk) 20:52, 24 June 2025 (UTC) (UTC)
5. @User:LaukkuTheGreit: Do you still oppose adding Freddy and Jason? Bluevestman (talk) 20:58, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

   Revoked my vote now.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 21:15, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

6. Psycho (1960 film)  4 is VA4. Easily a vital genre. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:24, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

Add Mahabodhi Temple

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 UNESCO World Heritage Site... marking the location where the Buddha is said to have attained enlightenment... The site contains a tree believed to be a descendant of the Bodhi Tree under which the Buddha gained enlightenment and has been a major pilgrimage destination of Buddhists for over two thousand years. The Mahabodhi Temple at Bodh Gaya is the holiest and most revered pilgrimage site for Buddhists worldwide."

Support

1. As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 04:58, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:17, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
3. Iostn (talk) 16:20, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
4. We could list more buildings Makkool (talk) 18:02, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

Move Tower and Bell tower

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.

---

Bell tower  5 is listed on the Technology subpage even though the discussion leaned toward listing in on Arts. Presumably this is because Tower  4 is still listed on Technology. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 16:58, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

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

Add Horror game

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.

---

Although survival horror is already listed at level 5 and is a very prominent subgenre, horror games are very wide in scope but still prominent in virtually in all areas.

Support

1. As nom. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:53, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

1. @PrimalMustelid: It's already vital Horror game  5. Kevinishere15 (talk) 05:16, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

   Whoops, in that case, I'll close this. PrimalMustelid (talk) 05:20, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

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

Remove Demi's Birthday Suit

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.

---

From what I could gather from the article, "Demi's Birthday Suit" is... an above-average in popularity magazine cover? I couldn't find much information explaining it's legacy, also More Demi Moore is an example of a similar photo that seems slightly more famous in pretty much every metric (and also predates this cover by a year), and we don't list that. (3 interwikis which is quite low as well)

Support

1. As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 19:38, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
2. How did this get added? Kevinishere15 (talk) 05:41, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

   User:Kevinishere15 I believe this is the single most vital specific bodypainting work in world history. Since Bodypainting's nomination below is now at 4-0. Would you care to comment on whether you concur it is the most vital specific bodypainting work in history, given we list 295 specific works of visual art and Arts is under quota at 3687/3700--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:44, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

3. Not as important to visual art history as e.g. Oath of the Horatii (which isn't included but probably should be).--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 17:03, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

   User:LaukkuTheGreit, You are comparing the 300thish most vital painting to the single most important bodypainting. Also there is sort of a soft cap at 3 works for an artist unless they are VA3. Also, I am not sure that you are pointing out the next best painting by Jacques-Louis David. I have nominated a different one based on France's glorification of Napoleon and the choice by my tour guide at the Louvre last week. I am getting far afield. Let's discuss whether the work at issue here is the single most vital specific work of body painting in history and what that means if bodypainting passes as it looks like it will.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:18, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

   One contributing aspect for the painting's importance I was thinking of is originating the Roman salute, a pretty big case of real-life consequences. (Salute  5's addition nomination is still open, it really should have been closed as successful by now.)--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 08:24, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

   I am not an art scholar. I would without prejudice or any further research concede that the painting that you mention is between the 50th and 500th most vital specific painting work in world history. We currently list 295 specific works of visual art and 152 specific works of painting. It is a reasonable nomination. Regarding this nomination, would you comment on whether you believe that this is the single most vital specific bodypainting work in history. Then, if bodypainting (whose nomination is immediately below at a 4-0 count) passes, how you think we should regard this work for VA in that light since Arts is under quota at 3687/3700.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:41, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

   Not an art scholar either, just going by article contents, stats and subject ages. I'd prefer to include the general article on body painting over a specific such work; I'm not necessarily convinced the medium is big enough to include individual examples. OTOH, Arts (and VA5 as a whole) is indeed underquota.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 11:17, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

   So I interpret your vote as these two nominations together amount to a swap out of specific for swap in of general. I'm just making sure my argument is heard as there was a quick 4-0 runup before I commented. I respect that. A few month back a lot of level 5 sports, like croquet and frisbee, lost a lot of specific biography subjects, so this is not unfair. Many general level 5 subjects have no specific examples on the list.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:54, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

4. No indication of vitality. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:42, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
5. Only three interwikis with a lack of true impact demonstrated in the article. There's only a few sentences describing how it is impactful, but its all extremely shallow impact that I cannot imagine being at any regard of vitality. "It had a cultural impact by causing numerous celebrities to pose for photographs in advanced pregnancy, which has made pregnancy photos fashionable and created a profitable business for photographers such as Jennifer Loomis." So? Also I don't view the arguments given to keep it as enough. λ NegativeMP1 21:06, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
   1. OK. Well let's nom the MDM photo then.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:56, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
      1. I have nominated MDM below.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:23, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
6. It may be one of the most vital magazine covers or the most vital works of bodypainting but those are obscure media. A JSTOR search for "Demi's Birthday Suit" finds zero results as opposed to 659 for "Oath of the Horatii". J947 ‡ ^edits 03:26, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The work has vitality as the most important, notable, prominent and vital specific work of body art/body painting in art history with model Demi Moore  5, as photographed by Annie Leibovitz  5 for Vanity Fair (magazine)  5 and painted by Joanne Gair  5. I see a body painting nomination with good traction toward it being VA5. I am not sure More Demi Moore would be a good swap as it would be competing against photographs. It is not the most important/famous photograph in history.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:13, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

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

Add Body painting

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

---

This article also covers face painting. This is one example of a culturally universal artform that's existed across history, and the article gives plenty of notable examples.

Support

1. As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 19:40, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
2. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:33, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
3. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 17:04, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
4. -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:13, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
5. Important topic. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:30, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

Replace Ahmes with Rhind Mathematical Papyrus

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.

---

Ahmes was (as far as we know) not a mathematician who contributed anything original, just a scribe who copied the Rhind Mathematical Papyrus  5.

Support

1. As nominator. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:03, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
2. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 18:29, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
3. Bluevestman (talk) 18:28, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
4. ALittleClass (talk) 22:54, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:03, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

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

Add The Jungle  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.

---

Upton Sinclair  4's most famous work. The lead states that "A review by Sinclair's contemporary [...] compared The Jungle to America's most famous novel written to expose a cruel system, by calling it "the Uncle Tom's Cabin  4 of wage slavery." The novel also lead to sanitation measures improving majorly in the US. I would also be open to swapping another entry with this, since the Arts section is a little over quota.

Support

1. As nom. User:SameOldSameOldSameOld (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:49, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Seems vital enough for Level 5. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:45, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Sure. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 01:59, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Very influential work. Lazman321 (talk) 05:20, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

1. Reasonable, but the quota is an issue. I'd entertain a swap or improving the quota. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:22, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I think Arts could potentially use 100 more slots. I definitely think we could fill it, and I'd like to swap some creators with the works they created. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:04, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

After the more general TV topics were also moved to Arts getting the page to quota is going to be tricky, and there is an unallocated quota chunk of 100. On the other hand, I suppose it would be possible to cleanup the Arts section enough to meet quota, but that maybe would make things imbalanced in favour of things like sports and video games (their page has a lot of room right now) the latter of which we've been cautious about adding more examples of.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 08:35, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

@QuicoleJR: @LaukkuTheGreit: I would suggest that you propose a quota increase on the main level 5 talk page, but since the vote to reallocate the unallocated quota slots has been ignored (though it's still possible to vote), I suspect that we don't have a functioning system for reallocating the quota. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 15:06, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

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

Add Booker Prize  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.

---

A major prize for English-language literature. Even being nominated to the shortlist is considered very prestigious. It also has a decently long history, being first awarded in 1969. The page has a shocking 74 interwikis and is rated High-Importance by WikiProject Novels.

Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
2. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 01:43, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 12:01, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
4. Lazman321 (talk) 05:20, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

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

Add Webtoon

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.

---

Manhwa  5 is currently listed but there are no related topics (specific artists, individual works, or general topics) to give the medium more representation, as well as help eliminate western bias. Webtoons are a nearly $6 billion market according to the article, and they have continued to rise in popularity since their inception in the 90s. There's even an entire category dedicated to works that are based off of webtoons. Perhaps this could be a subtopic for Webcomic  5.

Support

1. As nom. SameOldSameOldSameOld (talk) SameOldSameOldSameOld (talk) 02:05, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
2. 28 interwikis, rated High-Importance by WikiProject Korea. Pretty important. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:16, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Not the same as mahwa, popculturally significant. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:24, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
4. Lazman321 (talk) 05:20, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

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

Remove Smoke and mirrors

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'm assuming this is only here because it is used as an idiom. I don't see this as all that important.

Support

1. Per nom. -1ctinus📝🗨 15:11, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Redundant Idiosincrático (talk) 15:48, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Alternate

1. Swap with Magic lantern _pbp 15:20, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

   I'd support this -1ctinus📝🗨 15:23, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

2. Per nom. J947 ‡ ^edits 03:28, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
3. Swap with Magic lantern. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 23:00, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
4. Support swap with magic lantern (we should also consider adding phantasmagoria where this technique was used Makkool (talk) 18:16, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

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

Additional adds of specific year Olympics

Add 1896 Summer Olympics

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 first one _pbp 01:33, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Support

1. _pbp 01:33, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Iostn (talk) 22:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
3. ALittleClass (talk) 21:21, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Weak support. Idiosincrático (talk) 15:45, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:53, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
2. I'm not convinced we should list the first one just because it is the first one. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:15, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Per Quicole, only an especially major event in retrospect. I don't believe in inherent vitality stemming from its being a famous first: I very much doubt this event would have made a VA5 list 100 years ago. J947 ‡ ^edits 06:34, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

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

Add 1972 Summer Olympics

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.

---

Notable for the anti-Israeli bombings and for Mark Spitz winning seven golds _pbp 01:33, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Support

1. _pbp 01:33, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
2. I think we can afford listing a few especially big Olympics in its late–20th century pomp. Indeed, due to broadness I'd rather list this article than Munich massacre  5. J947 ‡ ^edits 06:34, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. (Oppose vote, mobile formatting is a mess) we already list the munich massacre separately. A one hit wonder for legacy -1ctinus📝🗨 01:44, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
2. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:53, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Per 1ctinus; the Munich Massacre is already listed, that's enough. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 19:37, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Listing the Munich massacre  5 is enough, listing this would be redundant. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:14, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
5. Massacre article is more than enough Idiosincrático (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

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

Add 1976 Summer Olympics

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.

---

Notable for its disastrous financial impact but also Nadia's perfect 10s and the first Olympic women's basketball tournament _pbp 01:33, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Support

1. _pbp 01:33, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
2. J947 ‡ ^edits 06:34, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:53, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
2. I don't see how this is one of the most important Olympic Games of all time, the reasons you give are very weak and can be applied to most other Olympics (ex. Rio). JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 19:37, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Idiosincrático (talk) 15:43, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

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

Add 1980 Summer Olympics  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.

---

Notable as the only time the Olympics were held in the Eastern bloc, and notable for the American boycott of these Olympics. _pbp 01:33, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Support

1. _pbp 01:33, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Political impact is important enough to justify adding back again. -1ctinus📝🗨 01:42, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Important in Cold War history, I missed the previous discussion but I would have opposed the blanket removal. Kevinishere15 (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Very important to Cold War history, one of the few individual Olympics I could get behind listing. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:11, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
5. Would support this or the boycott article. Idiosincrático (talk) 15:42, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
6. J947 ‡ ^edits 06:34, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:53, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
2. 1980 Summer Olympics boycott should be listed instead, the Games itself were not notable like 1972. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 19:37, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

   Would support that add over this. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:38, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

   @JpTheNotSoSuperior I'm sorry, it just strikes me as disingenuous that the boycott would be notable but the Olympics themselves wouldn't. An article about the Olympics would obviously cover the boycott and a whole lot more. An article on the boycott would cover the boycott and no other aspects of the Olympics. Hence why the boycott itself has 23 interwikis but the corresponding Olympics has 89 _pbp 21:37, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Add 1984 Summer Olympics

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.

---

Notable as one of the few times the Olympics actually made money, and notable for the Communist boycott of these Olympics. _pbp 01:33, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Support

1. _pbp 01:33, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Important in Cold War history just like above. Kevinishere15 (talk) 06:49, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
3. J947 ‡ ^edits 06:34, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:53, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
2. 1984 Summer Olympics boycott should be listed instead, the Games itself were not notable like 1972 and 1980. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 19:37, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Idiosincrático (talk) 15:41, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Discuss All

• Just want to note these were all removed on 23 January 2025 with a vote of 6-0. That's a bit under the 6 month threshold, which is more of a guideline then a hard and fast rule. The comromise was to add the Munich Massacre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeogSage (talk • contribs)
  • Interestingly, it was closed as 6-0 even though the vote was 4-0. And both Kevin and I have indicated that we would have opposed. The tricky thing about that discussion was it more or less offered the sole choice between all Olympics or none of them. _pbp 14:16, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

  @Makkool closed it, and Makkoool was on of the two opposed. The two opposed stated "Keep 1972 Summer Olympics", and "Per TonyTheTiger, keep 1972 and maybe move it to History (remove the rest)." . The problem was on the 1972 one specifically, @TonyTheTiger suggested swapping it for the Munich massacre  5. I believe that was kept, and then swapped in another discussion for Munich massacre. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:49, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

  • Ehh, these are seperate proposals with a different scope. -1ctinus📝🗨 22:24, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Philosophy Book Proposals

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 pair of philosophy works I think are vital, especially since we have just expanded the quota in the "Arts" section (where these would go).

Add Being and Time

Martin Heidegger  4 currently has no works listed. This is his magnum opus/most important book, and had a huge influence in existentialism and philosophy generally, including on Jean-Paul Sartre  4. 38 interwikis.

Support

1. As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 01:51, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
2. Seems very important. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:56, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
3. Iostn (talk) 19:16, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
4. Lazman321 (talk) 05:20, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Being and Nothingness

Jean-Paul Sartre  4 also has no works listed currently. This is usually considered his most important work of philosophy, and also one of the most important works of existentialism. 37 interwikis.

Support

1. As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 01:51, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
2. Seems very important. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:56, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
3. Iostn (talk) 19:16, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
4. Lazman321 (talk) 05:20, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

Add Auto-Tune

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.

---

Huge tool in music production. Usually used to hide vocal deficiencies, but can be used creatively as demonstrated by Cher  5's "Believe", Daft Punk  5's "One More Time", and Kanye West  5's 808s & Heartbreak.

Support

1. Bluevestman (talk) 00:18, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
2. Way too common in music to not be listed. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 18:49, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
3. Lazman321 (talk) 05:20, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
4. Important. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:52, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

Add Bowser  5 (possible swap with Hatsune Miku  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.

---

With the above proposals to add more villains from superhero media, it made me realize that we do not list a single video game antagonist. And with how prevalent video games are and how they, like most other media, generally have a protagonist and antagonist, we can probably list one, even if only one. Especially since we don't list that many video game characters anyways. So with that being said, there's basically only one option here.

• Obviously, Bowser is the primary antagonist of the video game franchise. Furthermore, he is likely the most iconic video game antagonist, and the most popular. Nobody else competes. Both him and Mario  4 were introduced around the same time too, meaning that Bowser has been a known character for 40 years - roughly the duration of time that video games themselves have been popular in mainstream culture. He obviously isn't as popular as Mario, but he would be at V5, not V4 like Mario. I think Bowser would be a good fit to be vital, but again, at a level lower than Mario. He's a good sub-topic.
• Furthermore, he's the highest in stats out of any video game antagonist, with the only exception being Donkey Kong (character) (not much of an antagonist anymore though), which he is tied with in interwikis at 41. I do not believe a single other video game antagonist is on the same level. He is also at roughly the same level of interwikis as Hatsune Miku  5 and Lara Croft  5 (only has 3 less than both).
• There are several franchises that we list two characters from: Batman has three, Peanuts and Star Wars have two. I think at this point Mario is a franchise that makes sense to have two characters.
• Again, we don't list any video game antagonists. In fact, we don't list many villains/antagonists at V5 in general, which the above superhero media proposals are attempting to address.

And now for the part in the title about the possible swap with Hatsune Miku  5. Basically, I think that Bowser is the only exception I will make over my past remark about the current five video game characters we list being "perfect", which I think other editors in the past have agreed with. I think that Bowser should be here, else I wouldn't be making this proposal. However, I accept that adding video game characters could be unpopular, so as a last resort, I propose a reluctant swap with Hatsune Miku  5. Note I do not support it yet, as I think that she is vital in her own unique ways, being a pop culture icon of sorts, but she's definitely the weakest video game character listing at vital articles. Likely the weakest of all character listings here. Bowser is probably more vital than her, so once again, in the event that a swap is needed, I'll leave the option there.

Support

1. Support direct add as nom. λ NegativeMP1 05:34, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
2. Support, Bowser is one of the most famous antagonists in modern fiction, Mario  4 is Level 4, and gaming deserves more than 5 characters. However, I oppose removing Hatsune Miku because she is easily iconic enough to list. We don't need a swap. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:37, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

   This is my thoughts but I don't know how popular/unpopular adding video game characters could be. Hence why I gave the option. λ NegativeMP1 01:16, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

3. Support adding Bowser, oppose swap. Per QuicoleJR. Bluevestman (talk) 01:00, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
4. Support add with no swap. Æ's old account wasn't working (talk) 02:29, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
5. Support Bowser, oppose removing Hatsune Miku Lazman321 (talk) 05:20, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

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

Add Method acting  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.

---

Famous acting concept, closely associated with Marlon Brando  4. Add as subtopic of Acting  4.

Support

1. As nom.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:38, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
2. Pretty famous concept. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:46, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
3. Bluevestman (talk) 01:00, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
4. Lazman321 (talk) 05:20, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

Add Wolverine (character)

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.

---

Extremely popular X-Men  5 character in his own right. He has three movies that focus on him.

Support

1. Bluevestman (talk) 19:44, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
2. Extremely noteworthy and popular character that I've said several times in the past that I would support the addition of. λ NegativeMP1 21:30, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
3. Kevinishere15 (talk) 21:46, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
4. Lazman321 (talk) 05:20, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

Add The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

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.

---

Extremely heinous book, but I think it's necessary to include due to how important it is to the history of Antisemitism  5.

Support

1. Bluevestman (talk) 20:58, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
2. Yeah, it's a disgusting book but it did indeed change history even if it was for the worst. If list Mein Kampf  5 at this level, we have to list this too. The helper5667 (talk) 05:04, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
3. Long international history, has a Britannica article, significantly better stats than International Jewish conspiracy  5. Weak support due to the conspiracy article itself already being listed.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 08:34, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
4. Iostn (talk) 16:20, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
5. Lazman321 (talk) 05:20, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

Add East of Eden (novel)

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.

---

Speaks for itself. Also, it had a prominent film adaptation and South Korean TV series, among other adaptations.

Supporters

1. As the nominator. ALittleClass (talk) 08:07, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
2. Ranked currently 180th at thegreatestbooks.org--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 08:10, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
3. Iostn (talk) 16:20, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
4. Lazman321 (talk) 05:20, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Opposers

Discussers

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

Add Y.M.C.A. (song)

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.

---

One of the most popular disco songs in the world. Included in the Grammy Hall of Fame and National Recording Registry. Dance craze comparable with Gangnam Style  4 and Macarena  5.

I don't believe any swaps is necessary, considering arts is under quota. If we insist on swapping with another disco song, I'd pick Stayin' Alive  5 since it's already represented by Saturday Night Fever (soundtrack)  5.

Support

1. As nominator. CopiousAmountofCannons (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
2. The dance is iconic and the song even has a bit of American political importance as Trump's anthem during his campaigns. Should be added. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:43, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
3. Iostn (talk) 16:20, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
4. Lazman321 (talk) 05:20, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

Add Cross-dressing  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.

---

Integral part of Fashion  3 and Gender studies  5 topics. Would probably go somewhere under Clothing and fashion, but where exactly do we list it?

Support

1. As nominator. Æ's old account wasn't working (talk) 14:56, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
2. Not sure where it goes, but it is an important topic. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:25, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
3. ALittleClass (talk) 19:13, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
4. Lazman321 (talk) 05:15, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

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

Add Fan art  5

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

---

The artistic equivalent of Fan fiction  5, and arguably just as important. Fan art is a very important topic in modern culture, and I don't see any reason not to list it. It has 29 interwikis and pretty solid pageviews as well.

Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:25, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
2. Widespread.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 16:36, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
3. Sure. Kevinishere15 (talk) 21:13, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
4. Lazman321 (talk) 20:28, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
5. Ubiquitous. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:04, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

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