Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/History and geography/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

American history cleanup (colonial era removals - reducing sysbias)

Thanks to all who started related cleanup in various discussions above. Here are some of my proposals. For context: US has currently 114 articles in history by region. The entire Europe has 112 and Asia, 84. No quotes exist to enforce, but IMHO the US bias in those numbers is pretty obvious. Since the history section is at quota, more or less, I think we should remove ~25-50 articles from the US section and use the space to add "other" history stuff. Not opposed to some swaps, there are probably some US history topics we should have but missed, time will tell. Anyway, individual proposals are below, but I think we should cut most of the articles from 'Colonial' US history (again, most countries don't even have such periodization, heck, other countries don't even get 25 entries total, although categorization splits make such comparisons iffy as we know). I'd keep 5 the entries with most interwikis - Colonial history of the United States  5, Plymouth Colony  5, Pilgrims (Plymouth Colony)  5, Roanoke Colony  5 and Thirteen Colonies  5 - and that's it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

TBH, the U.S. has more than 114 because battles of World War I, World War II, Korea and Vietnam aren't listed under U.S. but world pbp 05:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that all of our colonial entries cover English colonization, excluding French and Spanish colonization. I would definitely support swapping some of the ones below for, say, Louisiana (New France) or Spanish Florida. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:23, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Remove New Haven Colony

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.

---

~30 years of history; this is effectively a small part of the history of New Haven, Connecticut and in related discussions above (#Balance of History by city) we are considering removal of histories of much more prominent cities. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
2. per nom. I don't even think I learned about this in my AP US History class way back when. Aurangzebra (talk) 05:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
3. Totalibe (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
4. per nom.TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
5. per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:55, 22 January 2024 (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 Province of Carolina

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.

---

~40 years of history predating the split into South and North Carolina. We already have History of South Carolina  5 and History of North Carolina  5 (and I am not sure most US states really need such regional history). This one is surely too much, particularly if we are keeping the others two (for now?). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
2. per nom Aurangzebra (talk) 05:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
3. Totalibe (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
4. per nom.TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:50, 19 January 2024 (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 Dominion of New England

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 entity existed for just ~3 or 4 years. Historical trivia, not vital. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
2. pbp 04:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
3. per nom Aurangzebra (talk) 05:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
4. Totalibe (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
5. per nom.TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:50, 19 January 2024 (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 Massachusetts Bay Colony

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.

---

70 years or so, almost 30 interwikis, but why is this vital? Maybe keep if we remove Province of Massachusetts Bay  5 as suggested below, but overall, I think this is not vital (regional history). Redundant to History of Massachusetts  5. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
2. per nom.TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
4. SailorGardevoir (talk) 00:59, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Per pbp's comment below. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Discuss

In response to "why is this vital?", I guess I gotta get on my teacher soapbox again. The history and culture of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, particularly the "city upon a hill" mantra, has been co-opted into the myth of the United States writ large. That's not necessarily enough to justify this at VA5, but y'all need to know that. pbp 05:32, 15 January 2024 (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 all individual Thirteen Colonies

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.

---

Thirteen Colonies  5 is just V5. Unless we agree it is a V4, why list the individual entries: # Connecticut Colony, # Delaware Colony, # Province of Georgia, # Province of Maryland, # Province of Massachusetts Bay, # Province of New Hampshire, # Province of New Jersey, # Province of New York, # Province of North Carolina, # Province of Pennsylvania, # Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, # Province of South Carolina, # Colony of Virginia. Do note that those are are reundand to V5 histories of individual states we currently list at V5 (ex. Connecticut Colony to History of Connecticut  5, etc.) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Actually I think they are all vital and I agree that Thirteen Colonies should be VT4. The Blue Rider 00:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Discuss

1. Swap with New England Colonies, Middle Colonies and Southern Colonies. I've read enough American history textbooks to notice that most textbooks spend a sizeable part of the colonial history chapters on explaining the agriculture, economy, religion etc of the three regions of the Colonial United States pbp 05:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

   agree with this proposal. Aurangzebra (talk) 05:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

   It's better than keeping them, although those terms have ~5 interwikis and are not known outside US. But it is a reasonable compromise for now, vital is not the same as world history. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

2. I agree with pbp's counter-proposal. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:38, 31 January 2024 (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 Roanoke Colony  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.

---

If we're discussing removing the 13 colonies, we should discuss this as well. This is something that Piotrus would call "U.S. trivia". While it was the first British colony in what is now the United States, it lasted five years or less and was abandoned. pbp 04:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

1. Per cultural impact. Totalibe (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
2. per Totalibe. Taught in almost every single American history class in grade school + the cultural impact in the US is VA5 worthy. Aurangzebra (talk) 02:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
3. per nom.TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

I did not list this one on purpose: 33 interwikis beats most other entries here, plus Roanoke_Colony#In_popular_culture. It may not be historically important, but culturally, it beats most others IMHO. For now I will be neutral here (and I note lack of support as nom as well?). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Compare 79 for Thirteen Colonies, 52 for Jamestown, 42 for Plymouth Colony. Or if you want to compare it to current U.S. states, New Hampshire has 180. And why does it "beat most others culturally"? Where's your evidence for this? Flesh this out. You're not an American history expert. Saying it must be vital because it has an "in popular culture" section is rather misleading; many articles don't have "in popular culture" sections because the number of popular culture references is too exhaustive. Other topics have whole articles that are just lists of popular culture topics. In sum, if we remove articles on the successful 13 colonies, we should remove an article on an unsuccessful colony as well. pbp 05:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I did say most, not all. IMHO various sources like seen here show this had a non-trivial impact on modern culture, larger than most other colonies from that time. Does it make it vital? Maybe. For me it is more vital than most of those other colonies, that's all. Which is why I am abstaining, and I don't see you voting either... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:41, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I still say you're out on a limb saying a defunct colony is more vital than an extant one pbp 15:51, 15 January 2024 (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 Wedding of Prince Charles and Lady Diana Spencer

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 watched TV events of all time. Interstellarity (talk) 01:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 01:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. A specific weeding vital? Straight up no, to me. The Blue Rider 23:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
2. We already have Chuck and Di pbp 01:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
3. Regretably-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

1. There is something to be said for bias against "low culture" (celebrity gossip or such), but just 11 interwikis. Meh. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

1. Could we add Death of Diana, Princess of Wales instead? Iostn (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2024 (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 Kiev offensive (1920)  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.

---

Polish-Soviet War is V4, but only one battle is listed for it at V5. Kiev offensive (1920) is arguably a very important part of the war (it is one of the operations listed in the lead of that war, the other is the already V5 Battle of Warsaw (1920). If it succeeded, the world history might look very different... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:48, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:48, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Per nominator. The Blue Rider 15:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
3. Per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
4. per nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:08, 20 February 2024 (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 Plague of Justinian

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.

---

While its death toll has been contested by more recent estimates, it is the first episode of the first plague pandemic. Its disruption on the Eastern Roman Empire led to shifts of power in the Near East that would ultimately shape the following centuries.

Support

1. As nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
2. This wasn't vital yet? So much to do, so much to do. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
3. Huge historically. Volunteer Marek 09:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
4. Funny, I was actually thinking about this one earlier. Totalibe (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
5. Funny, i was actually thinking about this one and opened the thread below because I never saw this. Doh. Vital between 15 and 100 million deaths, huge impact on Europe, the Med and Middle East.  Carlwev  17:04, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
6. Obviously. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
7. Vileplume (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2024 (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 all of the U.S. "History by time period" pages.

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.

---

These ten articles do not have many interwikis and are not vital enough subtopics of History of the United States  4. The only other articles like this that we have are for modern-day India and occupied Poland. These slots would be better used for ten different topics than a ten-part timeline.

Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
2. US' history isn't that vital to warrant such an extensive coverage; plus the US wasn't particularly predominant until recently, so the earlier articles aren't even less vital. The Blue Rider 14:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
3. Takes too many slots. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 18:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
4. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 13:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
5. Might support a swap for a broader periodization, but that's too much at V5. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:13, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
6. The U.S. hegemony is dissipating, and it didn't last for very long. Vileplume (talk) 02:11, 6 March 2024 (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 Chetnik war crimes in World War II

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.

---

See above. Here: estimated average death tall at 70k. Interwiki count: 7. Daily pageviews: 100--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Totalibe (talk) 23:52, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. World War II in Yugoslavia (which is where "Yugoslav Civil War" redirects to) isn't a VA either. Nor is the whole Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia or Kingdom of Yugoslavia. This seems a weird place to start if expanding Yugoslav history in VAs. SnowFire (talk) 16:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
2. Not sure if this is important enough. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Discuss

1. Should we add Chetniks first? Totalibe (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

   @Totalibe Right, I'll propose it now. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:30, 16 January 2024 (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 History of the Southern United States  5

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

---

Regional history with just 5 interwikis. We don't list other articles like that for other countries, nor for the US (many don't exist yet, they should but that's not our problem). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
2. per nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I actually kind of prefer the approach of focusing on "History of [region]" articles for the US more than individual states. Totalibe (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

   @Totalibe I'd be fine with a swap for a bunch of history of southern states. Can you suggest relevant articles for a swap? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

   As one of the smaller ones, Arkansas, possibly? Not too sure on others Totalibe (talk) 16:56, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

2. We list events and trends that were predominantly Southern in nature, it makes sense to have the South as well. West Virginia is trending remove, Arkansas and perhaps Mississippi could also be removed. Of the former slave states, I think Virginia, Texas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana and both Carolinas are safely KEEP. Alabama is fairly small but a lot of shit went down there. pbp 00:57, 18 January 2024 (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 Time capsule  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.

---

Suggested as vital in a discussion a while ago by User:Kammerer55. 35 interwikis, almost 400 daily page views. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. Weak support - a bit trivial? But worth thinking about. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Totalibe (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
3. Yup, makes sense. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
4. Weak support per Piotrus. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 13:18, 29 February 2024 (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 Genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia  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.

---

Some stuff I noticed a while ago as while looking at not vital 20th century concepts from Template:Genocide sidebar (still need to check the more historical entries). We list many similar tragedies and even events where nobody died (see ongoing #Remove Expulsion of the Chagossians above). Here: estimated average death tall at 250k. Interwiki count: 13. Daily pageviews: 375 --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Totalibe (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
4. Seems vital enough. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
5. Vileplume (talk) 02:21, 6 March 2024 (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 Ikiza  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.

---

See above. Here: estimated average death tall at 200k. Interwiki count: just 3 (sysbias...). Daily pageviews: 120.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Totalibe (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
4. As a bonus, it is rated Top-Importance by WikiProject Burundi. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
5. Vileplume (talk) 02:29, 6 March 2024 (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 Gukurahundi  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.

---

See above. Here: estimated average death tall at 10k. Interwiki count: 12. Daily pageviews: 220--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Totalibe (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
3. Weak support per below. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
4. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 13:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Death toll is much lower than the other proposals. I do not think it is as vital as the others proposed here, but ping me if you disagree. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@Piotrus and Totalibe: I have been thinking about it a bit more, and I still don't see how this is as vital as the other options we could list. Could you please explain to me why this should be included on the list? QuicoleJR (talk) 22:36, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

@QuicoleJR For me it is bizarre we kept Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/History_and_geography/Archive_2#Remove_Expulsion_of_the_Chagossians but would not list this: death toll, interwikis, and page views are all much higher here then there. This seems to be a major case of sys bias colored by White guilt here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure that we should have kept that, but after I thought about it more, 10k is a reasonably high death toll for an event. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:47, 26 February 2024 (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 Isaaq genocide  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.

---

See above. Here: estimated average death tall at 75k. Interwiki count: 9. Daily pageviews: 450--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Totalibe (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
3. Seems to have had a major effect on the region. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
4. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 10:03, 19 February 2024 (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 Guatemalan genocide  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.

---

See above. Here: estimated average death tall at 200k. Interwiki count: 12. Daily pageviews: 350. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Article could use work but definitely of very high importance. Volunteer Marek 09:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
3. Totalibe (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
5. Very important. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
6. Vileplume (talk) 17:55, 4 March 2024 (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.

American history cleanup 1945-present

Support removing all entries listed here unless I comment otherwise, feel free to copy my signature to relevant sections. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Add Mid-20th century baby boom  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.

---

One of the more significant demographic trends. Large portions of American social history 1945-present have been in response to the Baby Boom. Balanced out by several removals below pbp 17:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 17:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Although this isn't solely relevant to the US. Totalibe (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
3. Based on User:Totalibe, I thought this was a domestic article, but it seems to be global.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
4. Most certainly more vital than Baby boomers  5. Vileplume (talk) 16:30, 4 March 2024 (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 Sun Belt  5 under history? Or Geography?

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 have the Rust Belt but not the Sunbelt. Possibly could be added under geography, in which case Rust Belt should also be moved pbp 17:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Support in history

1. pbp 17:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Support in geography

1. It is technically a geographic region so slightly favor Geography but wouldn't mind History. Aurangzebra (talk) 02:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
2. It is a geographic region.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
3. Would support addition of Bible Belt  5 too. J947 ‡ ^edits 23:45, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
4. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 09:03, 27 January 2024 (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.

1992 Los Angeles riots  5: either swap with Watts Riots or remove outright

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 removal

1. pbp 17:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Support swap

Oppose

1. Why? Totalibe (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

   @Totalibe: I struggle to believe that the 92 riots had much significance outside of LA pbp 17:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

2. It is so notable to the cultural zeitgeist that it has its own pop culture page: 1992 Los Angeles riots in popular culture. This was a watershed moment with regards to police brutality, race relations, and media representation in the US with widespread cultural impact (35 interwikis is pretty high for an event that does not have significance outside of LA). Aurangzebra (talk) 02:41, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
3. Agree with above.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
4. Roof Koreans. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 15:27, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
5. Not convinced the Watts Riots were more impactful than the 1992 ones. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:55, 25 January 2024 (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.

Swap: Remove United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement, add North American Free Trade Agreement  4

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

---

The USMCA was an updating of the NAFA pbp 17:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

NAFTA is already V4. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 23:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 17:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Totalibe (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
3. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
4. per nom Aurangzebra (talk) 02:45, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
5. per nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

• @OhnoitsvileplumeXD: North American Free Trade Agreement  4 is listed under "Politics and economics." Are you suggesting a move? - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

  Oops. Meant to tag User:Purplebackpack89 here. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:38, 28 January 2024 (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 Chappaquiddick_incident

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 already have the Kennedy family pbp 17:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 17:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
2. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
3. Not historically important. J947 ‡ ^edits 20:04, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
4. I suspect this was added because the 2017 movie may have overinflated the incident's importance. Agree with nom Aurangzebra (talk) 02:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
5. per nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:54, 19 January 2024 (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 Ferguson unrest

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 already have the related topic Black Lives Matter pbp 17:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 17:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
2. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
3. We sufficiently cover this topic between Black Lives Matter  5, George Floyd protests  5, and Trayvon Martin  5. The Ferguson unrest was important but, with the benefit of hindsight, I do not think it directly led to any societal, political, or cultural impact at the same level that these other three topics did. Aurangzebra (talk) 03:03, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
4. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 01:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
5. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. As I recall Ferguson helped coalesce a lot of liberal vigilance.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:00, 20 February 2024 (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 Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum theft  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.

---

Seriously, WHAT? I don’t see how this has any impact on the greater history of the world. Only 7 interwikis. pbp 17:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 17:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
2. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. This is the one of the most famous and biggest (in terms of the value of the art) art theft in history, it led to a major culture loss, paintings such as The Storm on the Sea of Galilee  5 were never seen again. It impacted security measures for art institutions and attracted fascination with art theft, with numerous books, documentaries, etc being made. The Blue Rider 01:06, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Strong oppose. This is the most culturally significant and devastating unsolved art theft in history. It also may be the most expensive unsolved robbery in history in general. As Blue Rider mentions, Rembrandt's only seascape was stolen as well as one of Vermeer's 34 paintings. That painting is the most valuable unrecovered painting in the world. The FBI has devoted millions of dollars to this investigation and there is international cooperation and task forces dedicated to solving this to this very day. Aurangzebra (talk) 02:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
3. Per above.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:54, 19 January 2024 (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 Killing of JonBenét Ramsey

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.

---

Sensationalist crime. No greater impact on American or world history and wouldn’t be included if it happened elsewhere. 17 interwikis ain’t that much for something that hinges on popularity to get on this list. pbp 17:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 17:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Totalibe (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
3. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
4. Support per pbp. J947 ‡ ^edits 23:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose unless we swap with Disappearance of Madeleine McCann as per The Blue Rider. This was an internationally known case that gripped the entire world as it happened. I do think we need at least one of these worldwide "sensationalist" cases but I do think Madeleine McCann is a better example as the "the most heavily reported missing-person case in modern history" according to the Daily Telegraph. Also 29 interwikis vs 17. Aurangzebra (talk) 02:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

   If it really were that well known, it would have more than 17 interwikis though (Disappearance of Madeleine McCann has 29). And would this be considered vital if it hadn't happened in the U.S. or Western Europe? We ask that question about cities and we ask it about bios. And, TBH, I don't think we need any of these sensationalist cases. None. pbp 05:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

• Would support it as a swap with Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. The Blue Rider 01:09, 18 January 2024 (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 Killing of Vincent Chin

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.

---

Sensationalist crime. No greater impact on American or world history and wouldn’t be included if it happened elsewhere. FOUR interwikis. FOUR. pbp 17:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 17:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
2. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
3. Weak support. It did spur increased engagement among the Asian American civil rights movement and a push for federal hate crime legislation but these movements are too niche and USA-based to warrant this inclusion. Aurangzebra (talk) 02:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I would not be calling a hate crime sensationalist.

Discussion

1. Unlike Killing of JonBenét Ramsey this had more of a greater significance for race relations. Not sure if this should be included but they are kind of different. Totalibe (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

   OTOH, the JonBenet killing has more interwikis. For those of y'all who value interwikis, this is in a gots-to-go situation pbp 17:22, 16 January 2024 (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 Tate–LaBianca murders

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 every sensationalist crime. For being a sensationalist crime, it only has 14 interwikis. We already have Charles Manson at VA5 pbp 17:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 17:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
2. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
3. Probably another case of recency bias with the release of Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. Sufficiently covered by the Manson article as per pbp Aurangzebra (talk) 02:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2024 (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 Waco siege  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 just not a fan of stuff like this being considered vital, tbh. How did this impact anybody other than the Davidians and the ATF guys who were killed? pbp 17:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 17:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. J947 ‡ ^edits 21:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Had a big impact on the American militia movement, included being cited as a motive for the Oklahoma City bombing. Totalibe (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
2. It is famous enough to have some popculture impact, a bunch of interwikis, etc. I wonder if American militia movement should be vital? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
3. per totalibe/piotrus Aurangzebra (talk) 02:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
4. per above.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Related to this topic, I have proposed that Neo-Nazism be vital at VA5 pbp 16:21, 18 January 2024 (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.

WW2 Balkans proposals

Add Chetniks  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 part of modern/WW2 Balkan history. 41 interwikis, ~700 daily views. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Totalibe (talk) 17:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
3. SailorGardevoir (talk) 01:06, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
4. Pretty important. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:39, 22 February 2024 (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 Yugoslav Partisans  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.

---

Similar to the above. We list Soviet partisans  5. 40 interwikis, ~500 daily views. "he Partisans are considered to be Europe's most effective anti-Axis resistance movement during World War II", also AFAIK contenders for the largest resistance force (different soruces name them, Soviets, Chinese or Poles as such). Note that proposal to add Resistance during World War II  5 is still ongoing somewhere elsewhere on this page, sigh - please consider commenting there. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Totalibe (talk) 17:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
4. SailorGardevoir (talk) 01:06, 22 February 2024 (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 Battle of Diu

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.

---

Battle fought between the Portuguese Empire  4 versus Mamluk Sultanate  5 and other Muslim kingdoms and empires with support of the Ottoman Empire and the Republic of Venice as well. The Portuguese victory was crucial, allowing a shift of power in the Indian Ocean to the Portuguese that led them to control several other important posts such as Goa  5, Malacca  5, Ormus, etc. This was important for the increase of trade between Europe and Asia, both gastronomically, culturally and techonologically. The Blue Rider 21:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. As nominator. The Blue Rider 21:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Important. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
3. Seems very important to history. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
5. Support Gizza (talk) 09:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
6. Vileplume (talk) 02:32, 6 March 2024 (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 Home Army  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.

---

Similar to the above. We list Soviet partisans  5, I suggestsed Yugoslav above. Better choice then parent Polish resistance movement in World War II since HA represented ~90% of that umbrella concept. HA has 46 interwikis and 250 daily views, Polish resistance just 19 and 200. From the HA artcile (that, disclaimer, I was a major contributor to): "along with Soviet and Yugoslav partisans, one of Europe's largest World War II underground movements". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Totalibe (talk) 17:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
3. Support-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
4. SailorGardevoir (talk) 01:06, 22 February 2024 (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 Union (American Civil War)  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 Confederate States at level 4, but not this article at level 3. It is of top importance when it comes to American Civil War stuff and on par of importance with the Confederacy. Interstellarity (talk) 02:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 02:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Would support at V5. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
3. Support to have both sides listed as vital. --Makkool (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

   @Makkool: We already have both sides listed. Confederate States of America  5, United States  3. Per Presidentman, historians are even shifting to call the US what it was: the US. The Union is just a nickname. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

4. Support.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Literally just another name for the United States. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:12, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

   I would also like to mention that the U.S. Civil War has too many articles on the list as is. 20 articles for a civil war in a country that hadn't even become that influential yet, and that's after we already made a pass through the listings for the war. We definitely do not need to add another one. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

2. Per QJR. I could go on about this for some length, but many historians are shifting away from the "Union" terminology to better emphasize the fact the Civil War was really a rebellion rather than a conflict between two countries. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:32, 3 March 2024 (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 Narva

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.

---

While this one does have historical importance, Estonia is massively overrepresented for a country of 1.3 million. It has three cities, which is equal to that of Uganda, one of over 49 million. Even OECD-speaking, the commonly-discussed United States only has one city/2.27m residents and many missing emerging cities. Vileplume (talk) 22:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. Weak support as nom. Vileplume (talk) 22:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
2. Hmm, a border town. That said, there are hundreds if not thousands of border towns around the world, and I don't see how this is particularly notable. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 13:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
3. Weak support. Historically important but I'm not sure if it is important enough to justify a third city for Estonia. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
4. Weak support per above. Gizza (talk) 09:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
5. I love Estonia and J947 has made a convincing point, but I wonder how many more important cities we are leaving out. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 22:16, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

   All urban areas of over a million should be covered, and most of over half a million. The U.S. urban areas of over half a million that are not represented are McAllen, Texas, Sarasota, Florida, Allentown, Pennsylvania, Ogden, Utah, Cape Coral, Florida, Provo, Utah, and Palm Bay, Florida. Vileplume (talk) 13:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

1. I held off nominating this one in my previous look at Northern Europe for its history – nearly destroyed in WWII, then with the Soviet era had its inhabitants switched for a new set with ramifications to this day. I'm not normally enamoured to listing cities of this size, but this is an fairly exceptional case. Neutral for now. J947 ‡ ^edits 07:23, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

1. If the United States was represented like Estonia, it would have over 800 cities, and I think that’s too many for even V6. Vileplume (talk) 15:42, 23 February 2024 (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 Nadi

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.

---

Reproposing this after my original proposal got deleted. Especially when Aussie only has 14 cities and NZ only has 3, I'm not convinced Fiji needs two, with its population of under a million. Other than it having the largest Hindu temple in the Southern Hemisphere, its importance is mostly regional. Vileplume (talk) 23:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. Vileplume (talk) 23:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
2. Not sure why the previous proposal was deleted. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 05:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
3. per nom Aurangzebra (talk) 06:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
4. My usual support for removing places few have heard about. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Pinging @Feminist: and @J947: as participants in the original discussion. Vileplume (talk) 23:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

As I said in the old discussion, Nadi should probably be removed but I feel like I should go for bat for it here. Fiji is big for a Pacific nation – having almost a million inhabitants – and is better represented by cities than islands. As for Nadi in particular, it has Fiji's main airport and is thus the tourist centre and is apparently also a cultural centre for Fiji Hindi / Indo-Fijians. Decently important. J947 ‡ ^edits 07:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Nadi also has significance due to its international airport. It's the only entry point for tourists into the country and it's a common stopover destination in the South Pacific region. Quite well known. I'm neutral for now. Gizza (talk) 09:46, 19 February 2024 (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 Varadero

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.

---

It's primarily known as a beach resort for Canadians, with a small population. Not vital imo.

Support

1. As nominator. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 09:52, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Would rather list Holguin. Vileplume (talk) 13:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
3. pbp 14:58, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
4. It's primarily not known to anybody who is not a local. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:22, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. It is imperative for us to have quality articles for our readers. Although 200 daily pageviews is not a lot, an important destination is the type of article that readers probably want to see.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:50, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
2. I feel like we are too quick to judge resort and vacationing towns in these discussions. Yes, they have small populations but they are vital in the sense that they are important within the spheres of travel and culture. Cities and towns can be vital for reasons outside of population. For example, in the last year, Varadero had more daily pageviews (190) than Xuzhou  5 (130) despite having 74x less people. There are even more egregious examples: we don't list Martha's Vineyard despite it being a summering haven for the global elite for a century and a half now, presumably because it has a population of 20,000 even though it has 1650 daily pageviews on average. Aurangzebra (talk) 05:43, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

   Martha's Vineyard got removed last month based on peculiar logic if you ask me.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:29, 11 February 2024 (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 History of the Incas  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.

---

Inca Empire  3 is VA3 and History of Peru  4 is VA4, although the latter should arguably be VA5. The Incas were very important for a lot of modern history, and at one point their empire was the biggest country in the world. Should at least be VA5.

Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
2. Weakly, but given the other articles mentioned at V4 and V3, this seems fine for V5. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
3. Iostn (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
4. Support-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Inca Empire  3 already covers the history pretty well plus a broader range of topics. I'm not seeing the added value here. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

   @Presidentman: This article covers the history of the Incas before and after the Inca Empire, which the article on the Empire does not. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:28, 15 February 2024 (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 House of Bourbon

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 has been previously suggested for addition. It seems significant not just for Europe but for world history. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
2. Oui. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
3. pbp 01:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
4. per nom Aurangzebra (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
5. Easy support; more dynastic houses should be added. The Blue Rider 21:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
6. Iostn (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
7. Je soutiens la proposition selon la justification du proposant. Vileplume (talk) 02:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

• Is there a link for prior discussions?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:35, 20 February 2024 (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.

Swap: Remove regions of Singapore, add Jurong Island  5, Sentosa  5, and Singapore Island  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 currently list the five regions of Singapore at VA5. However, according to our Administrative divisions of Singapore article, Singapore is governed as a unitary state without provinces or states. Per our Regions of Singapore article, The regions of Singapore are urban planning subdivisions demarcated by the Urban Redevelopment Authority of Singapore to aid in its planning efforts. ... While used by some governmental organizations, these regions are not administrative subdivisions. I'm not convinced that these regions are that important.

If we are to list parts of Singapore at VA5 (which is reasonable for a country with 5.9M population), it would be islands. Singapore Island is the main part of the country; Jurong Island is the largest island after the mainland; and Sentosa is a major tourist resort (for comparison, we don't currently list any Asian locations under Recreation and tourism).

Support

1. As nominator. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 07:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
2. Support. Should they be listed in Physical geography / Islands? --Makkool (talk) 15:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

   They should be under Physical. I’ve updated my proposal to reflect that. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 17:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

3. Support removal pbp 16:03, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
4. Support removal, neutral on addition. Vileplume (talk) 18:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
5. Support swap per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 14:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
6. Support as an improvement. Gizza (talk) 09:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose add Singapore the country and Singapore the city is enough pbp 16:03, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

   We don’t have a separate article on Singapore the city. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 17:19, 11 February 2024 (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.

Remove Longyearbyen  5 or Spitsbergen  5

In this discussion, there was a clear consensus that either Longyearbyen  5 or Spitsbergen  5 should be removed, but no consensus between the two. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 06:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Remove Longyearbyen

Remove Spitsbergen

1. Longyearbyen consistently has more page views than Spitsbergen. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 06:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Remove both

1. Vileplume (talk) 12:51, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Keep both

Discuss

Add Northern Virginia

Notable features of the region include the Pentagon, headquarters of the United States Department of Defense, the Central Intelligence Agency, the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and the many companies, including several major aerospace manufacturing, defense industry, and consulting firms, which serve them and the rest of the U.S. federal government. One of the most economically productive areas of the US, with a population of more than 3 million people. I would support the removal of several US cities for the addition of major conurbations.

Support

1. As nominator. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 03:33, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
3. good nom, distinct in a myriad of ways from Washington DC Aurangzebra (talk) 03:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

1. I agree with the nominator's preference for conurbations rather than cities. That being said, I'm not sure if this article is best to represent the Washington metropolitan area, which has an article of its own. I am willing to be swayed though. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

   Considering that Northern Virginia has more than half the population of the DC metropolitan area, it almost feels and functions more like a distinct city than the typical bedroom community suburb. Think Fort Worth, Texas  5 or Oakland, California  5. I guess Washington metropolitan area is more vital, on balance, than Northern Virginia, but we don't typically list "metropolitan area" articles, including larger ones such as New York metropolitan area or Greater Los Angeles, and I don't want this nomination to set a precedent (somewhat convoluted reasoning I'm afraid). Plus, I think DC is uniquely weak as the center of its metropolitan area, due to its small municipal size and building height restrictions which limit growth. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 15:53, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

   That makes sense. Thanks for expanding on your reasoning. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Discuss

Remove Wilmington, Delaware

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.

---

Wilmington is a suburb of Philadelphia in the Delaware Valley. There doesn't seem to be a lot that makes the city vital in its own right other than being the largest city in Delaware, and since Delaware is the sixth least populous state, I think it is fine to have Delaware with no cities on the list. Interstellarity (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
2. I'd remove Wilmington but keep Dover, Delaware. There's a bit of novelty about POTUS living there for quite awhile but not a whole helluvalot else. pbp 19:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
3. Not very famous, US sysbias. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
4. Per above --Makkool (talk) 12:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. There are many states' largest cities that I would cut first, and Philly has a metro area of over 6 million, so a satellite city for it is fine imho. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

   @OhnoitsvileplumeXD: Do you have any ideas on what cities you think should go before this one? I’d be fine not listing at least city in every state especially with small populations. Obviously, the states with larger populations like California, Texas, Florida, and New York have more cities on the list. Ones I have in mind that could be cut would be Cheyenne, WY, Burlington, VT, Portland, ME, Charleston, WV, Trenton, NJ, Bismarck, ND, Carson City, NV, Olympia, WA. I feel like a lot of these were listed just because they were the capital or largest city of their respective state. I’m interested in your thoughts. What do you think? Interstellarity (talk) 01:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

   The U.S. is significant enough to have at least one city per state, similarly to Indian states (aside from AP and Meghalaya), Chinese province-level divisions, Brazilian federative units, etc. The first U.S. city changes I'd make would be to remove Bismarck, Carson City, and possibly Santa Fe, to add Allentown, Augusta, and Greenville, to swap the Chicago Loop with Aurora, and to swap Brownsville with McAllen. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 01:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

2. I am not in favor of removing all cities from any state.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

1. We are 22 below quota in Cities, and it's not blatantly obvious that this shouldn't be here. I would probably vote neutral on the following, but if we're nominating this, we might as well also nominate Cheyenne, Wyoming  5 and Burlington, Vermont  5. Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 01:46, 22 March 2024 (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 Ajdabiya and Bayda, Libya

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.

---

Libya is horrendously overrepresented and these are its two smallest cities that are on the list. Vileplume (talk) 19:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. Vileplume (talk) 19:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
2. Support Bayda since it does not seem to have much importance. Neutral on Ajdabiya, since it has a good amount of historical importance but it is also not very populated and is very close to the two largest cities in the country. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

   Benghazi  4 is generally regarded as Libya’s second largest city, not Misrata  5. Vileplume (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

   Where did you get that from? The article says it is close to Tripoli, Libya  4 (the capital) and Benghazi. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

   Tripoli and Benghazi are on opposite sides of the country, so I just assumed you used a different metric where Misrata was larger. Ajdabiya is much closer to Benghazi than to Tripoli. Vileplume (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

   Also, the article never stated that. Vileplume (talk) 23:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

   Hm, maybe 580 miles is a bit more than I thought. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

3. Support Ajdabiya, neutral on Bayda as it's the 4th largest city. --Makkool (talk) 12:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

   According to [1]https://citypopulation.de, Bayda is the 11th largest city. Has Libya had any censuses since 2006? Vileplume (talk) 13:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

4. Support both. Ajdabiya reads like a satellite city of Benghazi, while Bayda appears to be smaller? feminist🩸 (talk) 14:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
5. Per nominator. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
6. 9 cities for a country with 7 million people is a stretch. Gizza (talk) 00:43, 21 March 2024 (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 Colonia del Sacramento

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 oldest Uruguayan city, founded by the Portuguese, stands as a testament to a rich history. Throughout the years, it was controlled by Portugal, Spain, the Federal League, Brazil, and ultimately, Uruguay, due to its strategic placement near the Rio de la Plata, becoming an important international trade post. Its old town was recognized as a UNESCO World Heritage site. The Blue Rider 23:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. Most certainly more vital than Salto, Uruguay  5. The Blue Rider 23:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Has a significant amount of historical importance and is a UNESCO World Heritage Site. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
3. Relevant pick from Uruguay. SnowFire (talk) 14:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
4. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 08:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. With Uruguay's low population, I don't see it being on par with e.g. Goiânia  5 unless we drastically increase the quota of Level 5. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 02:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Per above --Makkool (talk) 12:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Almost on par with Salto, Uruguay  5 and above the larger Ciudad de la Costa in terms of vitality, but maybe a little bit short.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:35, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Discuss

• Oh well, hopefully people won't be hyperfixated on demographics. The Blue Rider 02:27, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
• @QuicoleJR: This was opened after the fifth of January and requires four support votes to pass. Vileplume (talk) 18:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry about that, I forgot about that rule change. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:36, 4 March 2024 (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 Hachinohe  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.

---

Relatively low population compared to other Japanese cities (never exceeded 250k) and is neither the capital nor the largest city of its prefecture.

Support

1. As nominator. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 08:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Just a minor town in Japan. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Seems to have a decent amount of historical and economic importance. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:04, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Per QuicoleJR --Makkool (talk) 12:34, 6 March 2024 (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 La Défense

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.

---

Europe's largest purpose-built business district, and a major part of Paris  3.

Support

1. As nominator. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 14:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:26, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
3. If we list suburbs and boroughs of US cities then La Défense definitely deserves a place in this list. The Blue Rider 23:05, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Besides being the largest CBD in Europe, not much here that makes it vital. Run-of-the-mill CBD with none of the historical relevance of other candidates. We are already way over-quota on the Cities section so if we want to start listing districts/neighborhoods/areas, it really needs to stand out (like Wall Street  5). Anecdotally, I've been here twice before and there's not much going on: people come in to work and then leave for other neighborhoods after the work day is over. Compare this to the Chicago Loop  5 which also serves as the iconic downtown area for Chicago. Aurangzebra (talk) 02:57, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

   I would prefer to remove some cities, actually. The question is less "does this non-city place really stand out" and more "is this non-city place more important than [insert city currently listed at VA5]" - if the latter is true, we should remove the city and add the non-city place. We list 43 cities from Metropolitan France, an area with 65.8M population, and I think we can trim some cities from that list. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 08:48, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

   I think that's a fair viewpoint and in general, I don't think I would mind replacing cities with more iconic districts/neighborhoods etc. But in this case, I just don't think La Défense, a CBD that's only about 45 years old and doesn't really have anything particularly special about it, is a good replacement for any of these French cities, literally all of whom have centuries of history and culture behind them. Aurangzebra (talk) 10:39, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

2. Oppose per Aurangzebra. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 16:58, 28 February 2024 (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 Greenwich

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 people of this town picked where the Prime Meridian went and what Universal Time is pbp 14:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. nom pbp 14:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Although I don't really understand what the meaning of a town is in this sense.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:18, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Prime meridian  4 and Greenwich Mean Time  5 are both listed, and I'm not seeing much notability for this place beyond that. Also worth noting that Greenwich is technically a part of London  3. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:15, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Trivial otherwise, per above. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:22, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
3. per presidentman Aurangzebra (talk) 05:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Greenwich (technically the borough Royal Borough of Greenwich not the town) has applied to have city status more than once, but has never received it, most recently locations such as Wrexham and Milton Keynes did get city status meaning whoever makes that decision didn't think Greenwich was important enough, I believe it being a suburb of London and not being independent as such was a factor. Population and economically wise, Greenwich is less significant than other London suburbs. The London Plan for example highlights towns/suburbs Bromley and Croydon as the most important in southeast London. Other places smaller than Bromley like Lewisham, Catford, Eltham, Bexleyheath and Orpington are rated more significant than Greenwich according to the London Plan which only places it among places like Sidcup, Lee Green and Welling. Might be a bit harsh, culturally it feels more important having World Heritage Sites contained within it. Without The Prime Meridian and GMT already listed, there's a few museums linked to time or maritime, but perhaps not really much in the way of international vitalness separate from London.  Carlwev  15:42, 29 January 2024 (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 Whitehorse and Yellowknife

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.

---

If we’re cutting U.S. state capitals, we can certainly cut these as well. Metro populations of 31.9k and 20.3k respectively. The removal of Anadyr (town) passed 5-0, so I think these can pass as well. Vileplume (talk) 18:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. Vileplume (talk) 18:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Sure. More places with very regional importance again. But really, we just need to cut quota by a lot. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
3. Support Yellowknife Aurangzebra (talk) 21:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
4. Support Yellowknife, oppose Whitehorse. feminist🚰 (talk) 01:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
5. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
6. Support Yellowknife as a city with little importance outside of being a capital, oppose Whitehorse as the largest city in Northern Canada and containing nearly 3/4 of the entire population of Yukon. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
7. Support both --Makkool (talk) 12:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Whitehorse the largest city in Northern Canada. I would rather remove the much smaller Iqaluit.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:30, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

   @TonyTheTiger: Iqaluit has been nominated separately above pbp 19:26, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

2. Oppose Whitehorse. We should have at least one representative from Northern Canada. The Arctic portions of Canada will obviously have low populations due to the extreme weather conditions but it is still a significant region in the history of Canada (think Klondike Gold Rush  5). Of the two choices, Whitehorse is more populated and has more relevance to vital events in Canadian history. Aurangzebra (talk) 21:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral on Yellowknife-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:30, 27 January 2024 (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 Guadalupe, Nuevo León, Ciudad López Mateos and Tonalá, Jalisco. Add Oaxaca 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.

---

The Mexican cities list overrepresents localities within its largest three metro areas. These cities have grown rapidly in the past few decades, but I hardly see what makes them vital. On the other hand, Oaxaca is a city of 700,000 with a pretty rich indigenous and colonial history and has become a major tourist hub in recent years.

Support

1. Support as nom. :Tabu Makiadi (talk) 22:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. The cities nominated for removal are suburbs, while Oaxaca is an important city in its own right. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 10:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
3. good nom Aurangzebra (talk) 05:49, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
4. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 14:29, 4 March 2024 (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 St. Moritz

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 other two cities (Innsbruck  5 and Lake Placid, New York  5 ) that have twice hosted the Winter Olympics are listed.

Support

1. Support as nom. -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
2. per nom Aurangzebra (talk) 10:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Many cities that have hosted the Winter Olympics are relatively minor, even nationally or subnationally in the case of LP. Vileplume (talk) 00:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
2. What's the obssession to include cities just because they hosted the Winter Olympics? The Blue Rider 22:00, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
3. Seems to be the only important reason to list it, which isn't enough --Makkool (talk) 12:34, 6 March 2024 (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.

Add Galveston, Texas

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.

---

City where Juneteenth was founded and struck by a major hurricane are reasons for its historical importance. Interstellarity (talk) 02:02, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 02:02, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Weak support; in addition to this, I think it would be reasonable to list a satellite city of the five largest metropolitan areas of the United States (all over 7mil). Vileplume (talk) 02:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

1. Support add. Maybe consider a swap with Brownsville, Texas  5? Aurangzebra (talk) 06:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

   I already proposed a swap with McAllen. Vileplume (talk) 15:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

   Yea but I voted Oppose on that one because I do not believe McAllen warrants a VA5. I don't think McAllen is notable to anyone outside Texas. But I agree with you that Brownsville is a pretty tenuous VA5 so if we are looking to replace it with another Texas city, Galveston is a better candidate. More VA5-worthy historical events, in the global news every decade or so when a major hurricane hits, and has a fairly significant port. More interwikis than McAllen as well. Also, speaking anecdotally, I live in the US and consider myself pretty well-versed in geography and I had not heard of McAllen before that discussion above whereas I am familiar with Galveston. Aurangzebra (talk) 10:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

2. Support per nom. Very historically important. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
3. Support per nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Pop 50k, regional importance for US only. "Historically important" is not a very serious argument for anything related to modern US history compared to other cities worldwide which have 5-20x as much history. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
2. Doesn't ring important enough for me --Makkool (talk) 12:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
3. Weak oppose per above. Vileplume (talk) 13:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

1. The city is definitely historically important. Texas is already well-represented though. I think I need more than just "historical importance" to convince me to support. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

   Eh, Texas has a population over 30 million and is significantly underrepresented compared to California. One city I was considering adding was Lubbock. Vileplume (talk) 19:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

   I would probably support Lubbock over Galveston FWIW. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:45, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

   I know Lubbock is more populated than Galveston but besides that, why do you both consider Lubbock more vital? All I can think is that it is the home of Texas Tech, which is only significant if you're a fan of American college sports. Aurangzebra (talk) 10:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

   For one, there's geographic diversity. Lubbock is the largest city in northern Texas. All of our current listings are from southern or eastern Texas. Second, Texas Tech is a major school within the state. Finally, Galveston is today really a suburb of Houston. We typically don't list suburbs of major cities. (See, for example, the recent removal of Arlington, Texas). Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:17, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

   I think it's fine to list suburbs if they have some impact or legacy independent of their parent city. This seems to be our implicit policy: off the top of my head, I know we list suburbs Mesa, Arizona  5 and Virginia Beach, Virginia  5. Second, just having a major school in the state isn't a sufficient criteria. We don't list places like Palo Alto, California (home of Stanford University and focal point of Silicon Valley) or Ann Arbor, Michigan (home of University of Michigan) which are arguably more notable as evidenced by their history, interwiki count, and pageviews. I do agree that northern Texas is a region significant enough to warrant one representative but I'm not even sure Lubbock is the best option; Amarillo, Texas has a similarly sized MSA while having more impact on national affairs and more interwikis. Aurangzebra (talk) 22:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

   Arizona's population accounts for 3-4 cities and Hampton Roads does not have a singular core city. Adding Palo Alto might actually be a good idea, with its status as a global city, albeit at the sufficiency tier. As someone who lived in Washtenaw County for much of my life, Ann Arbor is vital, but not as vital as Flint, which would solve the state's underrepresentation. Vileplume (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

   Yea that makes sense. I think there was recently a discussion about Flint? I forgot what the verdict was. Aurangzebra (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

   Flint water crisis was removed 3-2. Vileplume (talk) 23:50, 11 February 2024 (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.

Move Galicia (Eastern Europe)  5, Pomerania  5, and Silesia  5 from History to Geography

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 not sure why these are all classified as history. These were all traditionally areas that had some form of political independence, yet they are now divided between multiple countries. All 3 articles also discuss these regions as being relevant today rather than purely historical geographic features.

Support

1. As nom Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
2. Support, as the historical region of Banat  5 is already listed in Geography, so these three could be as well. --Makkool (talk) 20:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
3. I believe I suggested this (without a vote) in my review of history section a few weeks (months?) ago already, pointing out inconsistency. See also proposals to add history of those regions instead; see #History additions (here, ping User:Presidentman and User:Makkool as I don't believe you voted on those still open but older proposals - just follow the link above if you have time). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:53, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
4. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 09:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
5. Vileplume (talk) 02:20, 6 March 2024 (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.

Swap Mesa, Arizona  5 with Flagstaff, Arizona

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.

---

Why is Mesa on here? I know it’s the third largest city in Arizona, but it’s just a suburb of Phoenix. If we need another city for Arizona, I would suggest switching it out for Flagstaff. It’s a major tourist stop due to its proximity to the Grand Canyon and its history involving Route 66. Granted, its population is less than 100,000, so I understand if you guys just want to drop Mesa.

Swap

1. As nom. SailorGardevoir (talk) 23:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Remove only

Add only

Oppose

1. Arizona should probably have 3 cities, Mesa is the country’s largest satellite city, and Flagstaff is not Arizona’s third largest metropolitan area, that title going to Prescott, which is below 250k. Vileplume (talk) 00:25, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
2. Definitely notable as America's largest suburb. Asterisk on this but it may also be the world's largest suburb (suburb being roughly defined as a satellite city with minimal urban elements and characterized by low-density urban sprawl) so for that reason, it is also notable for urban planning. Aurangzebra (talk) 02:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
3. Per above --Makkool (talk) 12:34, 6 March 2024 (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 Flint, Michigan or Ann Arbor, Michigan

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.

---

My home state of Michigan could use another city. Although not quite to the degree of Georgia or Pennsylvania, Michigan is one of the most underrepresented states. It has a population of around 10 million, a tad bit smaller than NC, which has 6. Both cities I nominated have comparable urban and metro area populations. Ann Arbor is a university city (University of Michigan  5) and high tech hub, and Flint had a significant automobile industry, had some of the highest crime rates in the country, and faced the water crisis. I don't feel that one is more significant over the other. Count me neutral here. Vileplume (talk) 22:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Flint as nom. Vileplume (talk) 22:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
2. Support Flint per nom and considering UMich is already listed. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. No real reason has been provided for why Michigan needs another city. feminist🩸 (talk) 03:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

   Although not quite to the degree of Georgia or Pennsylvania, Michigan is one of the most underrepresented states. It has a population of around 10 million, a tad bit smaller than NC, which has 6. Vileplume (talk) 03:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

2. Per feminist --Makkool (talk) 12:38, 7 March 2024 (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 History of medicine in the United States with History of cancer  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 U.S. medicine article being listed seems very US-centric. None of the similar articles for other countries are listed. Meanwhile, Cancer  3 is VA3, and its history is rated High-Importance by WikiProject Medicine and Top-Importance by one of their taskforces.

Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
2. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 13:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
3. Corrects for systemic bias. starship.paint (RUN) 13:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
4. Three intersections is excessive. feminist🩸 (talk) 14:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
5. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
6. One interwiki versus two. Vileplume (talk) 16:23, 7 March 2024 (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 Irish Republican Army (1922–1969)  5 for Provisional Irish Republican Army

So, under The Troubles  4, Irish Republican Army (1922–1969)  5 is listed alongside Ulster Volunteer Force  5, presumably to represent the largest Republican and Loyalist paramilitaries respectively. However, IRA (1922-1969) is actually the wrong one to list here, as the Troubles began in the late 1960s, shortly before the IRA split into the Provisional Irish Republican Army (which is what most people today think of when you use the term "IRA" in a modern context, and remained active until the end of the Troubles in the late 1990s) and the Official IRA, which went on indefinite ceasefire only around two and a half years after the split. The 1922-69 IRA is only really relevant as far as the Irish Civil War  5 is concerned (i.e. the early 1920s), and in between those two periods of time its activity was more sporadic.

Support

1. As nom. Iostn (talk) 20:28, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Swap Spectrum Range with Mount Edziza volcanic complex

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 notice the Spectrum Range is listed as a level-5 vital article. Would it make sense to replace it with the Mount Edziza volcanic complex since that is a more important subject the Spectrum Range is a part of? I don't think the Spectrum Range has more significance than the other major volcanoes of this complex, although I do think it should have a high-quality article along with Mount Edziza. Volcanoguy 03:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominator. Volcanoguy 17:06, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Support removal only, I don't see either as particuarly vital (<10 interwikis each). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

   An article having less than 10 interwiki links doesn't necessarily mean they're not vital. That just means the article subject is not particularly well-known. Something vital doesn't have to be well-known. Volcanoguy 18:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

3. Support swap - makes sense Totalibe (talk) 23:51, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
4. Support swap Aurangzebra (talk) 00:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
5. Support add, not swap. Don't see why Spectrum Range couldn't stay along the other article. We are still under quota in Physical geography. --Makkool (talk) 20:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

• @Volcanoguy: - you forgot to add the customary at vital "support as nominator" vote. Also, please consider reviewing and voting at other proposals here :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

  Done. Volcanoguy 17:06, 28 January 2024 (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 History of Manitoba, History of New Brunswick, History of Newfoundland and Labrador  5, History of Nova Scotia, and History of Saskatchewan

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.

---

These provinces all have populations of under 2 million. More Canadian bias to be cut. Vileplume (talk) 15:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Support all

1. As nom. Vileplume (talk) 15:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
2. Support. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Mixed

1. Oppose History of Newfoundland because it was a seperate entity pbp 23:49, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
2. Oppose History of Newfoundland per pbp. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:10, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
3. Support all except History of Newfoundland, which I oppose per pbp. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
4. Oppose history of Newfoundland, support the rest. Iostn (talk) 17:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
5. Oppose history of Newfoundland, support the rest. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 04:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose all

Neutral on all

Discussion

• @Purplebackpack89 and Presidentman: Your vote supports all of the removals except Newfoundland, correct? QuicoleJR (talk) 13:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  No, my vote is neutral on the ones I didn't vote on pbp 14:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  You were the nominator of the removals of the histories of U.S. states of under 2 million. What’s the difference? Canada is not significantly more historically important. Vileplume (talk) 14:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  Neutral for me as well. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:54, 26 February 2024 (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 Alameda (island)

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 island is only listed because it contains the city of Alameda, California, which we don't list, and it doesn't even contain the entire city! The article only has 1 interwiki.

Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
2. This article has no place near the vital list. Vileplume (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
3. J947 ‡ ^edits 06:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
4. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 10:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
5. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:10, 29 February 2024 (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 Upper Silesian metropolitan area

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.

---

Recently mentioned at VA4 by OhnoitsvileplumeXD as "of one of the largest agglomerations in the European Union." --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:39, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom (disclaimer: it is my home region). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:39, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
2. Vileplume (talk) 03:51, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. We already have Katowice  5 and Ostrava  5. Is there anything about this metropolitan area that's noteworthy besides these two cities? We don't even list more notable agglomerations in Europe (Øresund Region has 4 times the number of interwikis and nearly double the daily pageviews) and in the world (Great Lakes megalopolis has a population more than 6x larger than Upper Silesia). The only urban agglomeration that we list that I can think of at all is Silicon Valley  4 but this is more so because of its fame and notability in tech as opposed to geographic features. Aurangzebra (talk) 04:31, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
2. Per Aurangzebra. We don’t even have Greater Tokyo on here. SailorGardevoir (talk) 00:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

   Which, aside from Yamanashi Prefecture  5, is synonymous with the Kantō region  5. Vileplume (talk) 01:18, 5 March 2024 (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 2000s in science and technology

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.

---

No clue why this specific decade is singled out.

Support

1. As nominator. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
2. Random non-vital niche topic, sigh. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
3. This type of article can open up the floodgates. Gizza (talk) 00:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
4. I don't think this was a particularly noteworthy decade for science. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
5. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 06:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
6. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 02:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
7. Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 23:04, 27 March 2024 (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.

Russian cities: swap Biysk and Kyzyl for Tula, Russia  5 and Kursk  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.

---

Siberia is massively overrepresented and Central Russia is massively underrepresented. The Siberian cities I’ve proposed for removal are significantly smaller than the Central Russian cities I’ve proposed for addition. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 00:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Support all

1. As nom. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 00:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Support per statement above. I'd also support a replacement of Bratsk with either Salekhard or Novy Urengoy, with a slight preference for Salekhard, relatively to its importance as a logistic and administrative hub for the Ob-Ienissei delta. Larrayal (talk) 13:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

   I think the top five Ural cities should do, with Yekaterinburg  4 and Chelyabinsk  4 at V4 and Tyumen  5, Magnitogorsk  5, and Surgut  5 at V5. As for the population, NU is hardly over 100k, and Salekhard has approximately half its population. I’d rather add the Gulf of Ob, as this is a sparsely populated area of Russia and there are only three Russian arctic cities of over 50k (Murmansk  5, Norilsk  5, and Vorkuta). OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 15:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

   Personally, I'd swap Bratsk  5 out for Novokuznetsk, as I see the latter as more vital than Kemerovo  5. Vileplume (talk) 22:50, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

3. Weak support based on the fact that I've heard of the latter two but not the former. Shrug. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
4. Support all. 27 daily page views for Biysk is really low. Makkool (talk) 12:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose all

Neutral on all

Mixed

• Support removing Kyzyl, and the additions of Tula and Kursk. Biysk seems vital enough, so I wouldn't be removing it (especially as we are under quota in cities) --Makkool (talk) 12:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  The pageviews disagree. Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 23:04, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

• A lot of Siberian cities are important because they are the hubs of oil and natural production and the goods are exported through their ports. The Blue Rider 00:34, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

  They are not as major oil and natural gas hubs as say, Surgut  5. Vileplume (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2024 (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.

Contemporary history additions

I know there's a disproportionate amount of Eastern European topics, but I think these still warrant an addition. Feel free to balance these by suggesting something to add for Western Europe.

Add Orange Revolution  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 Orange Revolution was a major point in modern Ukraine's history distancing them further from Russia.

Support

1. As nom. --Makkool (talk) 20:41, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
2. Seems quite important. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:43, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
3. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 17:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
4. Iostn (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
5. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
6. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
7. Vileplume (talk) 02:20, 6 March 2024 (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 Greek government-debt crisis  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 event affecting the whole economy of Europe.

Support

1. As nom. --Makkool (talk) 20:41, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
2. Strong support over the country's politics. Vileplume (talk) 21:53, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
3. Very important. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
4. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 17:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
5. Iostn (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
6. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

1. Is it that important? I am not sure. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:23, 2 March 2024 (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 major Polish uprisings from Polish-Russian-German history

Countering sys bias a bit. Major Eastern Europe history stuff and key events in Polish history. The concept of uprisings in Polish history is an important part of the modern Polish historical identity because of the following four key events. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Add Kościuszko Uprising  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.

---

41 interwikis, 186 daily page views. The first of the series of Polish uprising against Russia/Germany that defined the period of Polish history for 123 years (period of Partitions of Poland  4. Stuff that all people in Poland know about, basic element of modern patriotic education and therefore Polish historical identity. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:10, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Seems important to European and Polish history. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
3. Polish uprisings are crucial for the entire region.Marcelus (talk) 19:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
4. SailorGardevoir (talk) 19:54, 31 March 2024 (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 November Uprising

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.

---

43 interwikis, 307 daily page views. The second major uprising (see above). Stuff that all people in Poland know about, yadda yadda. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:10, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Polish uprisings are crucial for the entire region.Marcelus (talk) 19:57, 14 February 2024 (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 January Uprising

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.

---

42 interwikis, 329 daily page views. The third major uprising (see above). Stuff that all people in Poland know about, yadda yadda. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:10, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Polish uprisings are crucial for the entire region. Especially 1863 Marcelus (talk) 19:57, 14 February 2024 (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 Warsaw Uprising  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.

---

52 interwikis, 1215 daily page views. The fourth major uprising (see above); this one is from WW2. Stuff that all people in Poland know about, yadda yadda. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:10, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Polish uprisings are crucial for the entire region. One of the biggest battles by the underground army during WW2. Marcelus (talk) 19:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
3. Not sure about the others, but this should definitely be on here. SailorGardevoir (talk) 00:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
4. Per nominator. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 21:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
5. Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 21:29, 18 March 2024 (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 Warsaw Ghetto Uprising  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.

---

49 interwikis, ~850 daily page views. While this one is somewhat less famous in Poland, it is perhaps more famous internationally (although pageviews don't support this) and also is an important part of the modern Jewish history as well as the Holocaust history. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:10, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Polish uprisings are crucial for the entire region. Biggest Jewish act of resistance during the Holocaust. Marcelus (talk) 19:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
3. Biggest Jewish uprising against the Holocaust. SailorGardevoir (talk) 00:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
4. Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 12:36, 13 April 2024 (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.