Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/Archive 21
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Vital articles. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 15 | ← | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 |
VA5 quota now 50,075. Reduce Countries and subdivisions by 50? 1348/1400 to 1348/1350
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 Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5, VA5 quota is currently 50,075 articles, not 50,000. Countries and subdivisions is currently 1348/1400 articles. Shall we reduce the quota by 50? Making it 1348/1350. starship.paint (RUN) 08:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Support
- Per nom. Makkool (talk) 11:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- As nom. starship.paint (RUN) 09:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- We have too many pointless country subdivisions, so we could and should reduce it even further. Vileplume 🍋🟩 (talk) 21:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Per nom, rightsizing. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Even if there would turn out to be demand for more of this category it can be increased again, and for now quota can be taken from under-quota pages.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 08:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that this could be reduced even further. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 22:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Add List
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.
Super-basic and fundamental topic. List should be under Information, as a list is one of the most common types of/ways to organize information.
- Support
- BD2412 T 01:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 05:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Per nom. Don't think it’s true that these lists are just for improvement. FAs don’t get kicked out. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- We should definitely have List on the list. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose
- The purpose of the VA project is to identify a list of articles that we should devote more editing resources towards to make them high quality. We don't need that for list: there is no specialized history to them (the article itself mentions that the scholarship on lists is fragmented) and their purpose and existence is straightforward; it's basically a dictionary term. Almost everything on the article seems fairly obvious. It also establishes a dangerous precedent. Where do we stop? Should we add paragraph for example? Aurangzebra (talk) 06:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discussion
What is the process from here? We have more than four participants and four support votes (80% support), and the discussion has been open for six weeks, with over a week since the last comment. BD2412 T 22:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Level 5 proposals must run for at least 15 days?
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.
Currently, L5 proposals must run for at least 14 days. But, all higher level proposals must run for at least 15 days. Propose to standardise L5 to at least 15 days as well. starship.paint 07:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Support
- as nom. starship.paint 07:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Vileplume 🍋🟩 (talk) 01:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- LOL-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Barely makes a difference, but why not. Consistency is good. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- Makes sense to align with Level 1-4. Aszx5000 (talk) 11:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Proposed new rule: while nominating an article, also list the proposed location in the vital article list
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 purpose of this new rule (to support a nomination, the location to where it should be added it must be listed) is to lighten the burden on closers, who are working without reward. They have to figure out where the article should go, despite not necessarily having any expertise in the topic. The burden of effort should be on the nominator and the supporters, not the closer. Ideally, the nominator should provide the location. If the nominator does not know the best location, they can provide multiple potential locations and the other supporters can chime in on which is the best one. This will apply to all nominations made after this proposal passes. starship.paint (RUN) 01:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- Support
- per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 12:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- Seems fair. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- I have seen the wave of terror that is User:feminist's proposals in the society section. I don't envy you at all when you close their discussions. SailorGardevoir (talk) 06:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- Sometimes the nominator does not know (speaking from experience), but most of the time this should be done. Would make closing things that aren't removes much easier. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, harder, but makes sense. Is this a proposal for all Levels? Aszx5000 (talk) 22:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Aszx5000: - higher levels are less of an issue now that we are mandating that nominations must be included at lower levels. Thus there is already a clue on where the nomination should go at higher levels. starship.paint (RUN) 08:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
If you need an example of a nomination where the potential location is not immediately obvious, see Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/Society#Add Self-defense. starship.paint (RUN) 01:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)