Jump to content

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

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
General Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
Level 5 Subpages

People History and geography Society STEM

Introduction

[edit]

The purpose of this discussion page is to select 50,000 topics for which Wikipedia should have high-quality articles.

Any article currently on this list may be challenged. The discussion is open to the following rules:

Voting count table (>60%)
P = passes
F = fails 		opposing votes
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
0
supporting votes
 – – – – F F F F F F
1 – – – F F F F F F F
2 – – F F F F F F F F
3 – F F F F F F F F F
4 P P P F F F F F F F
5 P P P P F F F F F F
6 P P P P F F F F F F
7 P P P P P F F F F F
8 P P P P P P F F F F
9 P P P P P P F F F F
  1. Before being closed, a Level 5 proposal must:
    1. Run for at least 15 days; AND
    2. Allow at least 7 days after the most recent vote; AND
    3. Have at least 4 participants.
  2. For a proposal to be implemented on the Level 5 list:
    1. It must have over 60% support (see table); AND
    2. It must have at least 4 support votes !votes.
  3. For proposed additions from August 2024 onwards, the nominator should list (and possibly link to) at least one potential section in the level 5 vital articles list for the article to be added to. Supporters can also help in this regard.

For reference, the following times apply for today:

  • 15 days ago is: 02:42, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
  • 7 days ago is: 02:42, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

If you're interested in regularly participating as a closer, the following browser tools may also be helpful:


The following link represent all current Level 5 Vital articles that are classified as History and Geography subjects:

Further information: Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History
Further information: Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Geography/Physical
Further information: Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Geography/Countries
Further information: Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Geography/Cities

Add Auxiliary_sciences_of_history topics

[edit]

Since Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/History is under quota at 3266/3300, I nominate Fleur-de-lis, Trident and Star (heraldry) for their importance in Heraldry  4 and Vexillology  5 for listing in Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/History#Auxiliary_sciences_of_history.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I belatedly added Trident after first placing it in Technology for its military and farming/hunting history. However, its symbolism for deities, superheros, corporations, athletic institutions, and military forces is probably even more vital.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak support, we have the room for now. Long run, if we list them primarily as symbols, I wonder if they belong somewhere with Culture. But let's not worry about that just yet. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Weak support. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 19:01, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Mixed
  1. Support first two; oppose Star. J947 ‡ edits 00:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

Add Operation Paperclip

[edit]

Operation paperclip was a program at the end of WWII where the United States brought NAZI scientists to the United States. Wernher von Braun  4 was one individual brought to the U.S. through this program. Check the "Advancements in aeronautics" of the article if you need to see why this was vital to the history of the technology.

Support
  1. As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 23:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sure, after some thought, we're still filling in the section. We can worry about over-representation of WWII later. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really think of this as WWII, this is a major part of the history of the United States space program. It is a Swords to ploughshares situation, coming out of the ashes of WWII, but I think of it more as part of the post war period then the war itself. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Makkool (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. J947 ‡ edits 00:24, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discuss

GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 23:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Add Jallianwala Bagh massacre

[edit]
PASSED
Added 4–0. J947 ‡ edits 00:28, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Added in earlier, but it is a significant event in which hundreds of Indians were killed by British Indian soldiers to crush the pro-independence movements, leading to massive backlash that fueled Indian resentment towards the United Kingdom and may have been a factor leading to eventual Indian independence. PrimalMustelid (talk) 23:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. As nominator. PrimalMustelid (talk) 23:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Definitely. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Makkool (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:15, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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 Burning of Washington  5

[edit]
PASSED
Added 4–0. J947 ‡ edits 00:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 historic event came to mind after reading several other disaster proposals. This event was part of the War of 1812  4 when the British took and burned Washington D.C.. Related to the Kamikaze and Spanish Armada link in terms of weather, per the articles lede "Less than four days after the attack began, a heavy thunderstorm, possibly a hurricane and a tornado, extinguished the fires and caused further destruction."

Support
  1. As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 18:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sure, this is another good one to fill out the "forces of nature" theme. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Makkool (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. per nom --EleniXDD※Talk 08:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discuss

GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 18:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 some notable land routes -> phys geo

[edit]

I originally had this idea from the proposal to add the Badakhshan  5 region of Central Asia. Would presumably go under Physical Geography. Also, for precedent, we do already list the Darién Gap  5. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Add the Safed Koh mountains

[edit]

AKA the White Mountains, not a pass, but the specific mountain subrange the Khyber Pass traverses. We actually don't list it though so may as well toss it out there now.

Support
  1. As nom. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 19:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 14:20, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Weakly: less than 1,000 monthly pageviews. J947 ‡ edits 00:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral

Add the Wakhan Corridor

[edit]

Technically a region of Afghanistan, and apparently never a primary link in the Silk Road  3, but this contains the only feasible direct link between modern-day Afghanistan and China.

Support
  1. As nom. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 19:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Easily. J947 ‡ edits 00:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral

Add the Fulda Gap

[edit]

Leaving Central Asia and moving to Central Europe, this may not have been as notable until more recently, but it has historical importance particularly related to Cold War military planning.

Support
  1. As nom. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 19:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 15:40, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral

Add the Suwałki Gap

[edit]
PASSED
Added 4-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 19:48, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Another land pass between modern-day Poland and Lithuania, relevant to contemporary geopolitics. Also historically a common route for military maneuvers in the area.

Support
  1. As nom. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 19:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:54, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
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 Kurashiki  5

[edit]

Suburb of Okayama  5. Compare Remove Wolverhampton or Remove Gelsenkirchen and Oberhausen.

Support
  1. As nominator. feminist🩸 (talk) 04:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'm not a big fan of having sub-regions of cities included. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 05:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Makkool (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per nom. J947 ‡ edits 00:39, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Remove Funabashi  5

[edit]

Suburb of Tokyo  3 well-integrated with the capital via public transport.

Support
  1. As nominator. feminist🩸 (talk) 04:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'm not a big fan of having sub-regions of cities included. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 05:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Makkool (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Has 640,000 people pbp 10:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weakly, per pbp. J947 ‡ edits 00:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

Besides pbp's point about population, I'll have to think a bit more about how these relate to other suburbs, or non-suburbs in general. I'm guessing we'll want to trim the Cities section more; that probably means being a little systematic though. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Same question as Espoo near by.... At level 4 we list both Rotterdam and The Hague which are kind of in the same metro area, and Google says they are around 24 km apart, closer than this to Tokyo, which Google says they are 36 km apart. We also list London at level 3, then City of London and City of Westminster at level 5. If we are to discus whether these suburb/close-by-cities of other cities are vital or not, I think the discussion needs to be more thorough than "close to, or within, another city" as some almost identical cases exist and are not brought up and are almost given a free pass. Especially if we list all of New York Boroughs... Also we list Wall Street at level 5 which is about an individual street as well as New York Stock Exchange, which is about the financial topics at level 4, Central Park at level 4 and Manhattan at 5.  Carlwev  19:21, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Add several cartography concepts

[edit]

Digital elevation model

[edit]

These are 3D computer graphics representation of elevation data to represent terrain or overlaying objects, commonly of a planet, moon, or asteroid. Widely used in cartography and spatial analysis. They are often generated with Radar, LiDAR, or photogrammetry.

Support
  1. As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 05:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sure, adds depth and Cartography still has the room. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Makkool (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 12:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discuss

Shuttle Radar Topography Mission

[edit]

From the lede "The Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) is an international research effort that obtained digital elevation models on a near-global scale from 56°S to 60°N, to generate the most complete high-resolution digital topographic database of Earth prior to the release of the ASTER GDEM in 2009." The space shuttle basically took a Radar photo of large sections of the planet. We still use these products widely today. Could also go under STEM but I thought I'd propose it here first.

Support
  1. As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 05:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sure, adds depth and Cartography still has the room. Let's keep it with Geography even if it has a highly-technical back-story. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Makkool (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 21:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discuss

ArcGIS

[edit]

Most commonly used GIS software in the United States. Widely used in the creation of maps.

Support
  1. As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 05:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sure, adds depth and Cartography still has the room. Let's keep it with Geography even if it's a technical product. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Changing to oppose, I think Geographic information system  5 is enough. I'd rather list all computer software on the Technology page. Makkool (talk) 09:37, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Don't think this is quite on the same level as others at Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Technology#Specific_software. J947 ‡ edits 00:46, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discuss

QGIS

[edit]

Widely used open source GIS software.

Support
  1. As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 05:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sure, adds depth and Cartography still has the room. Let's keep it with Geography even if it's a technical product. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Changing to oppose, I think Geographic information system  5 is enough. I'd rather list all computer software on the Technology page. Makkool (talk) 09:37, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. J947 ‡ edits 00:46, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discuss

Choropleth map

[edit]

One of the most common types of Thematic map  5. They show statistical data aggregated over predefined regions, such as countries or states, by coloring or shading these regions.

Support
  1. As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 05:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sure, adds depth and Cartography still has the room. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Makkool (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. This kind of map is used everywhere; good for a vital article. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per nom. J947 ‡ edits 00:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discuss

Proportional symbol map

[edit]

One of the most common types of Thematic map  5. They use point symbols of different sizes (height, length, area, or volume) to represent quantitative statistical values associated with different areas or locations within the map.

Support
  1. As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 05:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sure, adds depth and Cartography still has the room. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Makkool (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. We list a grand total of 5 types of charts at Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Mathematics#Statistics_and_probability. There's already 5 types of maps listed. These are a step below those, and I can't see how they're anything other than VA6. J947 ‡ edits 00:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discuss

Dot distribution map

[edit]

One of the most common types of Thematic map  5. They place small point symbols over a given space to indicate the distribution of a given phenomenon.

Support
  1. As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 05:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sure, adds depth and Cartography still has the room. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Makkool (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. J947 ‡ edits 00:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discuss

Flow map

[edit]

One of the most common types of Thematic map  5. They use line symbols to portray movement or relationship between two or more places, such as air travel, monetary aid, or economic trade.

Support
  1. As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 05:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sure, adds depth and Cartography still has the room. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Makkool (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. J947 ‡ edits 00:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discuss

GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 05:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Add Islamist insurgency in Burkina Faso

[edit]

Coming up to ten years since this began. According to the article around 40% of the country is controlled by Jihadist forces leading to the displacement of over 2 million people and the deaths of at least 10,000 civilians and combatants. See also Template:Campaignbox Jihadist insurgency in Burkina Faso for the long list of related articles.

Support
  1. As nom. Sahaib (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Makkool (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sure, history still has the room / cushion. We can revisit for recency issues more systematically later. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    r/historymemes has a "20 year rule" for what is allowed. Perhaps some similar guideline could be suggested to avoid recency debates. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 17:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discuss

Also I would add that for two years it has been the "world's most neglected crisis" according to the NRC. Sahaib (talk) 17:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Swap Yemeni unification with North Yemen civil war

[edit]

The North Yemen civil war has more language links and is more impactful as it led to the abolition of the monarchy and the country becoming a republic. It is also likely the deadliest civil war in the last 100 years that is not already listed as vital on Wikipedia with a death toll of 100,000–200,000. Per the article, it is also described as Egypt's Vietnam war. Yemeni unification did not last very long as Yemen has been de-facto divided since the Yemeni civil war (2014–present).

Support
  1. As nom. Sahaib (talk) 15:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Makkool (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Mixed
  1. Strong support add, oppose removal. The civil war is definitely a huge event, but History has the cushion, and we arguably don't include enough diplomatic events, especially one's that form states like this. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Zar. Kevinishere15 (talk) 21:20, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discuss

Add Jebel Akhdar War and Dhofar War

[edit]

After Sahaib noticed we don't include the North Yemen civil war, that got me wondering about Oman next door. Sure enough, we're missing both the Jebel Akhdar War and Dhofar War  5.

Both during the Cold War, these 2 wars are arguably what created the modern state of Oman and also demonstrate a lot of foreign skullduggery. Prior to these wars, the Sultanate of Oman was largely a colonial and coastal affair, with the Oman interior controlled for over a millennium by an effectively independent, elected imamate.

As for space, History is just about at the quota, but we have a 2% cushion so I'm just going to propose these as straight additions.

Support
  1. As nom. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sure. I'll go through history a bit and see if anything jumps out for a removal proposal as well. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 17:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Dhofar only. The other one doesn't have enough interwikis. The JA War also resulted in less than 1,000 killed; less than loads of battles and offensives we DON'T have pbp 05:54, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, though TBF we list a lot of things that killed way fewer people too. Not trying to change your mind, but like I said above, it's more notable for the level of Cold War intrigue and how completely it reshaped the political map of Oman, which is a country with some pull. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Makkool (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

I've added the Dhofar war to the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lophotrochozoa (talk • contribs) 19:24, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two River additions

[edit]

Add Churchill River (Atlantic)

[edit]

Different from Churchill River (Hudson Bay)  5. Largest river in Atlantic Canada  5 and likely of importance to the region.

Support
  1. As nom. B3251(talk) 20:45, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sure, Phys Geo is still under quota so no need to overthink it. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Makkool (talk) 19:13, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Lerma River

[edit]

Large river in Mexico that seems to be of pretty good importance. Empties into Lake Chapala  5. Would maybe make a good addition to a subsection which currently only has one article (Rivers > Mexico and Central America).

Support
  1. As nom. B3251(talk) 20:45, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sure, Phys Geo is still under quota so no need to overthink it. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Makkool (talk) 19:13, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Labrador

[edit]

1/2 of Newfoundland and Labrador  5, along with Newfoundland (island)  4. Though sparsely populated, the region of Labrador is of importance and should be recognized as VA. Part of the Labrador Peninsula  5.

Support
  1. As nom. B3251(talk) 20:45, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sure, Countries/Regions are under-quota (and should still be if our lists + quota cut works). No need to overthink it. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Makkool (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. I think there's already sufficient coverage of this area – the human geo stuff is covered in Newfoundland and Labrador, and the physical geo stuff is covered in Labrador Peninsula. With a population of only 27,000, Labrador doesn't command its own article at VA5 in my opinion. J947 ‡ edits 22:09, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @J947 just a suggestion to at least make some additions to the under-quota category. There is more specific history related to Labrador that isn't covered in the NL&L and peninsula articles. B3251(talk) 13:19, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion

Add Isthmus of Chignecto

[edit]

Connects Nova Scotia  5, a peninsula province, to the mainland New Brunswick  5. Lots of history from back during the Acadia  5 days (see Raid on Chignecto (1696) & Battle at Chignecto, as well as the Battle of Fort Beauséjour for example), and is extremely vital for transportation between the two provinces. This has been highlighted more recently due to the largely low elevated land on the isthmus which has been prone to flooding.

Support
  1. As nom. B3251(talk) 20:45, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sure, Phys Geo is still under quota so no need to overthink it. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Makkool (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Hadhramaut

[edit]

Region in Oman, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. Related articles include Kingdom of Hadhramaut, Hadhramaut Governorate, Hadramautic language, Hadhrami Arabic and Hadharem.

Support
  1. As nom. Sahaib (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sure, important plus Countries/Regions are under-quota (and should still be if our lists + quota cut works). No need to overthink it. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Makkool (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Deir ez-Zor

[edit]

Because this city is the largest in Eastern Syria, and was the final destination of the deportees of the Armenian genocide, it is no doubt vital at this level. RekishiEJ (talk) 15:30, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:31, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sure, I get the feeling we'll try to trim Cities more soon, but this is a decent singular addition. Also larger than Manbij  5, which we already list, and notable as a frontline during the civil war. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:06, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Swap Guernsey for Bailiwick of Guernsey

[edit]

Bailiwick of Guernsey is more broader as it includes Alderney and Sark which are not listed.

Support
  1. As nom. Sahaib (talk) 07:56, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Mixed
  1. Oppose removal, support addition. No need to overcomplicate it. I think we're still under quota in Phys Geo where the island is listed, and should have room for the polity in Countries/Regions, regardless of whether the bulk list-removal goes through. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:38, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support addition: we should keep Guernsey in Islands and add Bailiwick of Guernsey to Regions and country subdivisions Makkool (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

Add Windscale fire

[edit]

I would nominate Windscale fire it was a Nuclear Accident in the United Kingdom.

Support
  1. 1keyhole (talk) 04:36, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sure, we're just about at quota now and trying to represent disasters a bit more came up recently. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:51, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Makkool (talk) 18:00, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Errr... so what? Not famous, just a local industrial accident. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:55, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion

Add International Jewish conspiracy

[edit]

This conspiracy theory is bullshit and repulsive, but influential enough to be listed at VA5 pbp 17:48, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. pbp 17:48, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Arguably the precursor/underlier of all modern conspiracy theories. Iostn (talk) 23:15, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Iostn. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. But under culture, per comments below. And I'd suggest moving conspiracy theory from history to culture too. Indeed, sociology is a good fit. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:09, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose

Oppose here, neutral if we can fit it under Culture somewhere. The idea has real effects, but since (I hope we'll all agree) it's a mythical meme, I don't really think History is the right place for it. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:13, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I nominated it under history is because Conspiracy theory  4 itself is currently listed under history. pbp 23:33, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, interesting, and it's there on Lv4 so we probably can't just move it boldly yet. Personally, I would think the general Conspiracy theory article makes way more sense with something like Sociology. Tell you what, I'll change my vote to neutral here, but keep a note we should probably move this with the general article. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 12:48, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Per above GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 01:21, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral

It is obviously important but the article's relatively small number of language links (13) compared to other conspiracy pages that are not listed such as COVID-19 misinformation (42), Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory (26), Great Replacement conspiracy theory (29), John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories (14), White genocide conspiracy theory (21), etc, makes me a little skeptical (no pun intended). Sahaib (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since we already apparently list the parent Conspiracy theory  4 article in History for now, I won't get in the way of adding it. I've proposed moving that to Sociology on Lv4 though so my understanding is we'd move this one too, either before or after it passes. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 14:10, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add New World Order conspiracy theory (aka globalist conspiracy)

[edit]

Not as old or influential as the Jewish conspiracy above (and, indeed, derivative of same), but influential enough to contempoary politics and media (i.e. Alex Jones  5) to justify inclusion at this level. Again, bullshit, but influential bullshit.

Support
  1. pbp 18:07, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Seems vital enough based on language links (41). Sahaib (talk) 18:11, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sigh. I even know a person who belives in it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:10, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose

Oppose here, neutral if we can fit it under Culture somewhere. The idea has real effects, but since (I hope we'll all agree) it's a mythical meme, I don't really think History is the right place for it. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:13, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Per above. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 01:22, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

I don't know how many conspiracy theories we list, but I think there are extremely few that are actually vital. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 01:22, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since we already apparently list the parent Conspiracy theory  4 article in History for now, I won't get in the way of adding it. I've proposed moving that to Sociology on Lv4 though so my understanding is we'd move this one too, either before or after it passes. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 14:10, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Add Vilcabamba, Peru

[edit]

The so called "lost city of the Incas". Served as the capital of the Neo-Inca State from 1539 to 1572, the last refuge of the Inca Empire after the Spanish Conquest. Add to Historical cities.

Support
  1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 17:11, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong support, especially since listing major historical cities seems less arbitrary to me than filtering contemporary ones. Also, for anyone swinging by, I just want to draw their attention again to the proposals up top, including one to add Pataliputra  5, the capital of the Maurya Empire  4. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:51, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discuss

Add it where? Historical cities? pbp 22:14, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Samoan crisis

[edit]
Last comment a month ago. Removed 4-0. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not a vital incident, can be covered at VA5 by Samoan Civil War  5.

Support
  1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:06, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. λ NegativeMP1 19:18, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per nom. J947 ‡ edits 22:55, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sure, especially with existing coverage. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 21:31, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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 Death of Michael Jackson

[edit]
FAILED
Not added, 1-4 pbp 14:40, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 untimely death of Michael Jackson  3 in 2009 was an extremely impactful event. Several websites crashed, it dominated the news for weeks, and it was the second-most covered event in all of human history on social media at the time, second only to Obama's election. It also made the historical top 10 for most news media coverage. This event is certainly vital.

Support
  1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:15, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. So, to a certain extent, I get the idea behind wanting to list this. Being the article about the death of the most famous pop culture figure to ever live, who is also V3. But that's exactly the issue that I feel comes with listing this. If this makes any sense, articles on the deaths of pop culture figures, in the context that is just their death + public shock and reactions, and not an event with global repercussions like the Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand  4, which started World War I  3, do not feel like traditional encyclopedic topics. It's similar to why we don't list specific television episodes as vital, even if you can definitely think of some like Ozymandias (Breaking Bad) that are debatably more important than entire TV shows, including some that we list or have listed in the past. Furthermore, people still discuss the death of Franz Ferdinand. I doubt that the death of Michael Jackson specifically is actively discussed independently of M.J. himself these days. Also, in general I just don't like the idea of listing the death of a pop culture figure as vital, and if articles like that are already listed that I'm unaware of, there's a good chance they should be reconsidered. λ NegativeMP1 19:12, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'd prefer not. I'd also prefer MJ not be Lv 3 pbp 21:40, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. No.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:27, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Recentism, something like Death of Adolf Hitler would have more long-term relevance.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:31, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
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.
Discuss

Off topic but...I was thinking about articles about "death of" and similar in general. Level 3 people, like Lincoln and Caesar have their deaths/assassinations at level 5. Franz Ferdinand is level 5 but his assassination is at level 4, due to triggering WW1. Other level 3 people have a death article but they're not listed anywhere in VA like Alexander the Great, Cleopatra and Hitler. There are also lev 4 and 5 people who's death was a significant media event, like Lennon and Diana which we don't list, then ones which we do like JFK. Other Level 3 people like Gengis Khan, their death was probably significant to history but their death does not even exist as an article. Just thinking out loud, I am wondering if Franz Ferdinand assassination is one level more important than himself and his assassin, Gavrilo Princip, but... we list Mark David Chapman the guy who killed Lennon. The only notable thing he did was to murder Lennon, would the Murder of John Lennon not be notable than the murderer, or should the murderer be removed? or am I wrong??  Carlwev  11:25, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are correct that a) political deaths/assassinations are more notable than celebrity deaths/assassinations, and b) Chapman should be removed pbp 21:03, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've went ahead and opened a discussion to remove Chapman. λ NegativeMP1 17:48, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unilateral quota change: cut 100 from Countries and Regions

[edit]
PASSED
Changed the quota as proposed 4–0, one neutral. Makkool (talk) 15:06, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Hi everyone, so the plan to trim particularly list-y articles from Countries & Regions is going well. I think the section should already be under 1,300 now (Cewbot will update totals tonight), and I'll probably be trimming more in a last pass.

Part of the proposal though was an understanding that we would shave the quota for that section to free up space elsewhere. We don't need to decide where now; we can just add it to the unallocated pile. I'm hoping this will be pretty uncontroversial, especially since we struggled to fill this category anyways. By comparison, most of the Society categories could probably use more slack.

For anyone that may be reluctant, I'd also point out this definitely isn't permanent. If the other sections are able to stabilize, and we do decide more country subdivisions really are vital, we can pull back in some slots and expand the category again.

Support
  1. As nom. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 21:28, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per nom. It is a difficult section to populate and make decisions, so it's quite difficult to tell where the quota should be, but I think this makes sense for now. J947 ‡ edits 22:39, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:19, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Yeah, this seems fair for the time being. We can always reconsider this later. λ NegativeMP1 18:22, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
  1. While I understand where this is coming from, support trimming regions, and know we need quota for other sections, I struggle to support quota shifts coming from sections outside of biographies until that section is brought under control. Won't outright oppose, but think that quota could be used within the history/geography category for non-regional topics before being sent to a section like society, which could likely stand to be trimmed. Math, health, and technology are all very lean comparatively. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 21:13, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

I finished my last pass on removing the list-ish subdivision articles from the category, using U.S. State as a benchmark. The results definitely won't be perfect or balanced globally, but things were even more scatter-shot than I expected, leading to even bigger cuts. After Cewbot updated things, it looks like the category is now at 1,264 articles, significantly below even 1,300. I have some observations from skimming the list too:

  • We can probably list transnational regions pretty exhaustively, even if they're often fuzzy and overlapping
    • They're large enough that there aren't a ton, plus balance issues are pretty intuitive to spot
  • For the "<subdivision> of <country>" articles I just trimmed, we probably can fit all 1st-level ones
    • Since I doubt there's much appetite to cut U.S. State, that means we arguably should for balance in the long-run
  • For specific subdivisions, even 1st-level, I don't see any way to fit them all in for every country
    • I doubt anyone wants to cut them entirely though so we probably need benchmarks for inclusion

I don't think we want to worry about any of these things right now. Anyone that likes to focus on this list though may just want to check these points and keep them in mind. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 regions in the Arabian Peninsula

[edit]

Historically the Arabian Peninsula has been divided into four regions. Currently we list three of them: Hejaz  4, Najd  4 and Eastern Arabia  4. I propose we add the remaining one, and a couple of other articles.

Add South Arabia

[edit]

Historical region located in the southern part of the peninsula, consisting of mainly modern day Yemen and parts of Oman and Saudi-Arabia. The only of the four main historical regions in the area we don't list.

Support
  1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 17:55, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sure, and we definitely have the room now. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:57, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per nom. J947 ‡ edits 06:13, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discuss

Add Al-Yamama

[edit]

Historical subregion, located in south-eastern Najd.

Support
  1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 17:55, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sure, and we definitely have the room now. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:57, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. J947 ‡ edits 06:13, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discuss

Add Tihamah

[edit]

Historical subregion, consisting of the western coast of Arabian Peninsula by the Red Sea. Located in the Hejaz region.

Support
  1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 17:55, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sure, and we definitely have the room now. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:57, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Thanks for these proposals. J947 ‡ edits 06:13, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discuss

Add Al-Ahsa Oasis

[edit]

A historical subregion, an oasis and a Unesco World Heritage Site, located in the Eastern Arabian region. Two of the largest cities of Saudi-Arabia are found within it. Not sure where to list this one, should it be in regions, oases in physical geography or World Heritage Sites? I'd suggest regions, but I can be open to other places as well.

Support
  1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 17:55, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sure, and personally, I'd probably put it with oases in Phys Geo. In the narrow sense, I think the historical region is still confined to the oasis and not that large (article says ~33 sq. mi.) In the wider sense, the corresponding article is probably the modern Al-Ahsa Governorate. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:57, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Probably oases. J947 ‡ edits 06:13, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discuss

Add Frisia

[edit]

Frisia; Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Geography/Countries#Germany. Good example of the sort of article we lack.

Support
  1. As nom. J947 ‡ edits 06:21, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

I don't dislike the idea, but would Frisians be better? Both/either would be OK, but Frisians is in more languages, has refs, more page views, looks like it gets more attention. (I am not opposing this, in fact I am considering supporting.)  Carlwev  01:26, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Frisians would belong to Culture/Ethnology. We have many pairs of a nation and their homeland, like Bengalis  5 and Bengal  5 for example. Makkool (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Add German Bight

[edit]

German Bight; oceanic seas is an area where many (most?) of the articles at VA5 are also VA4. I think adding this sea is a decent idea looking towards making the VA5 makeup more balanced.

Support
  1. As nom. J947 ‡ edits 06:23, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Open proposals at top

[edit]

Hi everyone, we're doing a really good job of participating and moving things along on this page. Up at the top though, we still have several open proposals just shy of a clear margin. Whether you're swinging by regularly or once in a while, please consider voting if you aren't completely ambivalent. It's not just about keeping things flowing either, but also a matter of fairness to your fellow participants. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:06, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've bumped this notice to the bottom just to tap the sign once more. I think this section is at a manageable pace with new proposals, but there are still many near the top waiting on a 4th or 5th vote to decide things. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Swap the Central Lowlands and Southern Uplands with Fife

[edit]
The 32 Scottish council areas in order of population are:

The terms "Central Lowlands" and "Southern Uplands" are historical/geographical terms that are rarely used in everyday conversations which can be seen by the pageviews in which the terms "Central Belt" and "Greater Glasgow" get more pageviews. However, I believe it makes sense to swap them with Fife as it also includes the city of Dunfermline which is somewhat close to being vital as the de facto capital of the Kingdom of Scotland, as well as the important but not vital towns of Kirkcaldy, Glenrothes and St Andrews (the location of the University of St Andrews which is at level 5). All Ceremonial counties of England are already listed at level 5 with five of them having lower populations than that of Fife (Northumberland, Herefordshire, Isle of Wight, Rutland and the City of London), so population shouldn't be an issue. Fife also gets more pageviews than two of the English ceremonial counties previously mentioned (Herefordshire and Rutland) and so that also shouldn't be an issue.

Support
  1. As nom. Sahaib (talk) 18:49, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Add Prussia (region)

[edit]

Another surprising omission. We have been having gaps in significant historical regions. East Prussia has more interwikis, but it seems to be more about the former province of Germany. That should better belong in History then? I think this article is the best one to include in Geography.

Support
  1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 10:07, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. We list Prussia  4 and Kingdom of Prussia  5 but I think it's fine to be redundant here. Aurangzebra (talk) 19:13, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Remove Ras ben Sakka

[edit]

Northern most point of Africa - but only been designated in 2014 before which is was said to be another location? There is a monument the article is only a stub and only in 22 other languages, most of them are also stub, or few start class, There doesn't seem to be much there, there is not much to say about it. Not as significant as Africa's most southern point Cape Agulhas which is more significant to navigation as is sticks out more. Ras ben Sakka does not project that much out into the sea compared to the southern cape. Also for context - we do not list Africa's eastern or western most points Pointe des Almadies, or Ras Hafun. Also none of the four Extreme points of Asia are listed either.

Support
  1. As nom.  Carlwev  15:27, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'm having trouble understanding why Ras ben Sakka and Cape Angela are separate articles. One is the cape and the other is the tip of the cape? But they show the same landscape and monuments? Anyway, I agree with the reasoning above that this is not vital. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:13, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 09:54, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Solid rationale. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Remove 2007 Greensburg tornado or swap with 2011 Joplin tornado

[edit]

This is not to understate the impact that the 2007 Greensburg tornado had on the residents of Kiowa County, but it is a little odd that this is the only tornado listed in the entire Level 5 history section when it doesn't even rank among the 25 deadliest tornadoes in American history. It is notable in that it was the first tornado to be designated an EF5, but I think if we are going to include a tornado in this list--particularly in Contemporary section--then the 2011 Joplin tornado would be a better candidate given that it is currently the deadliest tornado of the 21st century and the second deadliest tornado of the contemporary (post WW2) period. As far as loss of life and financial damage inflicted, the 2011 Joplin tornado was more destructive than the 2007 Greensburg tornado by an order of magnitude. Or maybe the 1925 tri-state tornado or Daulatpur-Saturia tornado would be better candidates for elsewhere in Level 5, given that they were much deadlier than either Greensburg or Joplin. Bcbroughton (talk) 00:02, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Add archaelogical cultures

[edit]

One thing I've noticed is that we have omitted archaelogical cultures from the vital articles list, and many topics of Archaeology in general. For starters, I'll propose a couple of cultures that seem most important to a non-expert.

Add Bell Beaker culture

[edit]

A Western and Central European Bronze Age culture with a wide influence which shaped the continent for several centuries.

Support
  1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 19:47, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per nom. We should have more of these. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Carlwev  10:53, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Add Yamnaya culture

[edit]

An archaelogical culture related to the expansion of the Indoeuropean languages around Eurasia. One of the most important Neolithic cultures, and the focus of several lines of research.

Support
  1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 19:47, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Significant Copper and Bronze Age culture lasted seven centuries, spread over what is now several nations,  Carlwev  10:59, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Add Corded Ware culture (Not OP)

[edit]

Another archaeological culture. Known for its cord-impressed pottery, early pastoralist economy, use of wheeled vehicles, and role in spreading Indo-European languages into Europe.

Support
  1. As nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Carlwev  11:03, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Makkool (talk) 12:05, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Add Andronovo culture (Not OP)

[edit]

Associated with early Indo-Iranian migrations, known for its metallurgy, horse domestication, and the spread of chariot warfare and steppe traditions.

Support
  1. As nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Carlwev  11:03, 14 March 2025 (UTC)~[reply]
  3. Makkool (talk) 12:05, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Add regions of ancient Israel

[edit]

I propose we add some of the other regions of (ancient) Israel that we are currently missing. We already list Galilee  5 and Golan Heights  5 at least. These regions are important historically and are also the area where the Bible takes place.

Add Samaria

[edit]

The historical central region of the land of Israel.

Support
  1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 20:07, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. pbp 20:25, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Add Decapolis

[edit]

A region consisting of ten Hellenistic cities in the land of Israel, and was the center Hellenistic and Roman culture in the area.

Support
  1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 20:07, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Add Judea

[edit]

The mountaneous region of Levant, centered around the city of Jerusalem.

Support
  1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 20:07, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. pbp 20:24, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Carlwev  11:04, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Most famous of the ones proposed here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:12, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Add Perea

[edit]

A region of Transjordan, east of Judea and Samaria.

Support
  1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 20:07, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Add Enugu (city)  4 and Sokoto (city)  5

[edit]
PASSED
Passed 4–0. The duplicates can finally be removed. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 16:52, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 going through the VA database to remove any duplicated articles, I noticed that Enugu State  5 and Sokoto State  5 were duplicated under Nigerian counties and Nigerian cities. I believe that the cities were meant to be listed under the Nigerian cities page, especially since just linking Enugu and Sokoto redirect to the state pages. Both cities are also quite populated, with Enugu being one of the 10 largest in Nigeria.

Support
  1. As nom. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 20:05, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. J947 ‡ edits 00:31, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. 🍋‍🟩 OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 01:12, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Large cities, they belong here. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove or move Electrification

[edit]

JpTheNotSoSuperior recently removed the article Electrification  5 from the contemporary history list, saying that it shouldn't be listed there. I agree; energy technology seems to be a better place.

Remove
Move to Technology
  1. As nom. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 19:46, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. As the person who made the move. Of note, electrification was listed in both history and technology, so that's why I removed it from history. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 19:48, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. pbp 20:24, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Restore to History
Discussion

Lophotrochozoa (talk) 19:46, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Add Cross of Gold speech

[edit]
FAILED
Not added 5-1. Kevinishere15 (talk) 02:04, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is regarded as one of the most important political speeches of all time.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:35, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. As nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:35, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. The article states that it is one of the most important political speeches in American history. I would rather go for something with more global influence and impact. Makkool (talk) 11:14, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per above. Also, only six interwikis. λ NegativeMP1 16:07, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. We have William Jennings Bryan  5 but not Cross of Gold speech; we have Enoch Powell  5 (who survived a removal vote in late 2023) but not Rivers of Blood speech. In almost every instance, the speech isn't as notable as the speaker. One of the few speeches we have is Gettysburg Address  5, given by Abraham Lincoln  3
  4. Per comment directly above me. Kevinishere15 (talk) 03:29, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. While it is considered one of the greatest speeches in American history, it did not stop the gold standard from being adopted. Also, to expand on the points given above, we list Ronald Reagan  4 but not A Time for Choosing or Tear down this wall!, and we list Barack Obama  4 but not A More Perfect Union (speech). Very rarely do we list individual speeches, and I don't believe that this one was impactful enough to be an exception. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:05, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove more country flags

[edit]

History is getting crowded, and months ago, a discussion showed sympathy towards removing almost every country's flag. This should cut about a third of the current list (28). Most of these have only existed for a few decades in their current versions, or their adoption is closely tied to events we currently list (the Spanish transition to democracy  5, the end of Apartheid, etc).

  1. Flag of South Africa
  2. Flag of Kenya
  3. Flag of Bangladesh
  4. Flag of the Philippines
  5. Flag of South Korea
  6. Flag of Thailand
  7. Flag of Vietnam
  8. Flag of Poland
  9. Flag of Spain
Support
  1. As nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 00:37, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support all Makkool (talk) 16:51, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Very few flags belong at this level. None of the above seem to have cultural significance outside their own countries. Trivia, really. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:14, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. J947 ‡ edits 22:30, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. The form of this joint nomination is a bit misleading. Each flag has a different set of considerations. The flags themselves may not in their current forms be long-tenured. However, each article is a bit of a History of the flag article. Thus the importance of the current version of the flag is not so relevant. If a VA5 person were to get married, we would not suddenly reasses that person's importance based on their current newfound relationship status. Vitality would continue to be assessed based on the history of that person. I would suggest splitting this nomination and stating the date of the original creation as well as its current form in the split nomination. If properly split, I might support some.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:21, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

Remove countries entering World War I

[edit]

It seems worth bringing these up, as we don't have similar articles about other conflicts.

  1. American entry into World War I
  2. Austro-Hungarian entry into World War I
  3. French entry into World War I
  4. German entry into World War I
  5. Ottoman entry into World War I
  6. Russian entry into World War I
Support
  1. As nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 00:37, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support removal, but I would also be willing to support pbp's swap if consensus goes that way. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:06, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support removal but also pbp's swap Makkool (talk) 16:51, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support swap. Kevinishere15 (talk) 18:05, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support swap, after thinking about it a bit - yes, those are significant (vital) history of major countries segments in their own right, at this level. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:16, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Seems disengenuous to have American entry into World War I  5 but not United States in World War I, Russian entry into World War I  5 but not Russia in World War I. Suggest swap. pbp 01:04, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little bit confused what this swap is all about.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:10, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I.e. Remove American entry into World War I, add United States in World War I, repeat with other countries. pbp 12:07, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remove History of the British Virgin Islands  5 and History of the United States Virgin Islands  5

[edit]

Small from a world-historic perspective. 30,000 and 87,000 people, respectively.

Support
  1. As nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 15:14, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support both Makkool (talk) 16:51, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kevinishere15 (talk) 02:03, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Piling on - trivial at this level. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:37, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Remove Sinking of the Rainbow Warrior  5

[edit]

Small from a world-historic perspective. Temporarily embarrassed France. 1 dead.

Support
  1. As nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 15:14, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 16:51, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kevinishere15 (talk) 18:09, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Remove Jiangxi Soviet  5

[edit]

Short-lived Soviet during the Chinese Civil War. Part of the larger Chinese Soviet Republic

Support
  1. As nom. Weak support for a swap with the CSR. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 15:29, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 16:51, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Swap: Remove Shanghai International Settlement  5, Kiautschou Bay Leased Territory  5, Kwantung Leased Territory  5 and Leased Territory of Guangzhouwan, add Treaty port

[edit]

All of these are former portions of other cities that are already listed at VA5. In comparison to other geographical features (particularly their parent cities), they have relatively few interwikis. These were rented out (at gunpoint) to foreign powers, in some cases not for very long. The concept of Treaty port is more important than any one treaty port. pbp 01:31, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. pbp 01:31, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 00:26, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Swap Príncipe with the Cameroon line

[edit]

Bioko is about 40x more populated than Príncipe but it is not listed. Both of them, along with São Tomé Island  5 and Annobón make up the broader Cameroon line.

Support
  1. As nom. Sahaib (talk) 16:21, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 05:45, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Remove Beatlemania  5

[edit]

So, on paper, I kind of get why this is listed. It was a big part of that eras counter-culture. But it is not a topic that would be in a traditional encyclopedia and articles about pop-culture crazes are things we should not be listing here. Really, what does this article truly provide to a project trying to assemble the most important topics for an encyclopedia. More proof that The Beatles  3 were extremely popular? Something that that article covers extensively to begin with? I don't see it.

This article is something good for extended reading about the Beatles by Wikipedia standards, where space is infinite and anything can have an article given that it meets our guidelines. But the vital articles project only has a limited selection of articles, with V5 having 50,000. And across those 50,000 slots, we list the Beatles themselves, all four members (John Lennon  4, Ringo Starr  5, Paul McCartney  5, George Harrison  5), the albums Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band  4, Revolver (Beatles album)  5, The Beatles (album)  5, and Abbey Road  5, plus the individual songs I Want to Hold Your Hand  5, Hey Jude  5, Yesterday (song)  5 and A Day in the Life  5 and Lennon's solo work Imagine (song)  5. This is 15 articles dedicated to the Beatles, not counting Beatlemania. I'm not campaigning for the removal of any of these right now because they are all important but my point is: when we list all of this, do we seriously need to give another slot to the Beatles. And if we do, would you rather give that slot to something like Let It Be (album) or Here Comes the Sun, or an article that just reiterates a fact that all of the above articles make very clear: the Beatles were important and popular. The most important and popular music act of all time, yes, but that's still something that can be made very clear without giving the Beatles a 16th article. That's just overkill. Honestly, the amount of representation the Beatles have right now on its own could be labeled as overkill. But that's a story for a different time.

Also, we list Beatlemania under History. I don't know where else it would go, but it being here raises another question and way to look at things: can you think of something like a historical event, a treaty, a battle, a natural disaster, or anything like that which you would rather list over Beatlemania? There's a good chance that you can.

Support
  1. As nom. λ NegativeMP1 19:41, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Unprecedented fan worship, showed that bands/musicians could be brands too and has inspired the commercialization and corporatization of pop music as we know it today. Cultural history is still history and I would go so far to say that Beatlemania is more significant than some of the treaties, battles, and natural disasters we already list. It's easy to discount the importance of cultural history because it doesn't feel as grand as a battle but we can directly point to large aspects of our society, culture, and economy that have changed because of Beatlemania in a way that we can't for some of these other events. Aurangzebra (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Idiosincrático (talk) 07:17, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discuss

Remove Isthmus of Korea

[edit]

The Isthmus of Korea is barely a recognizable geographical feature, just a slightly narrower part of the Korean Peninsula. It's a 1-2 paragraph stub in every language, and doesn't even exist in Korean.

Support
  1. As nominator. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:39, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. per nom Aurangzebra (talk) 15:19, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support  Carlwev  15:51, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remove or move Diosso and Tafraout

[edit]

Diosso  5 and Tafraout  5 are towns, so I don't understand why they are listed on physical geography.

Diosso

[edit]
Remove
  1. As nom; I'm unsure if it should be listed with cities. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:47, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. support  Carlwev  16:06, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move
Keep
Discussion

Tafraout

[edit]
Remove
  1. As nom. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:47, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. support  Carlwev  16:06, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move
Keep
Discussion

Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:47, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Add Casamance

[edit]

Casamance is a geographical region that includes 3 of the 14 administrative Regions of Senegal (Kolda region, Sédhiou region, Ziguinchor region). It is unique in that it is one of the few geographic regions that is not itself an administrative region (the others are much more obscure like Petite Côte). Whilst its main city Ziguinchor  5 is listed, the region itself should also be listed due to it being ethnically/culturally/historically different from the rest of the country as it is separated by the Gambia (see also Casamance conflict).

Support
  1. As nominator. Sahaib (talk) 22:04, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Sanmenxia

[edit]

Sanmenxia  5 is an administrative division, so I don't see why it is listed as physical geography. None of the other prefecture-level cities (second-level administrative divisions) of China are listed on the countries and regions subpage. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 19:32, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. As nom. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 19:32, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

There are two million people in this Prefecture, including 800,000 urban. For the United States, doesn't every county of 2 mill or more contain a VA5 city, or one adjacent? pbp 15:02, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Purplebackpack89: Good point. Which article should we list to represent the urban area? Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:07, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Purplebackpack89: The lack of an article about the urban area in question is regrettable, but this article does not belong on the physical geography list and keeping the misplaced entry does not serve any purpose. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 14:19, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Lophotrochozoa That's like saying an article on Los Angeles County would be misplaced because LA County includes the sparsely-populated Antelope Valley and Angeles National Forest as well as the City of Los Angeles and the other 80-odd cities surrounding it. pbp 14:38, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If Los Angeles County were listed as physical geography, it would be misplaced since it isn't a physical feature, just like Sanmenxia isn't a physical feature. Did you miss that Sanmenxia is currently listed as physical geography? If you're desperate to compensate for the lack of an article about the urban area in the Hubin and Shanzhou districts, the right place to do so would be cities.

Swap Scotland in the Middle Ages with Kingdom of Strathclyde

[edit]

Kingdom of Strathclyde gets more pageviews and has more language links. Not sure why Scotland in the Middle Ages is even listed, since England in the Middle Ages is not listed.

Support
  1. As nominator. Sahaib (talk) 12:58, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Add History of cities

[edit]

Cities are a very important topic across history, and City  2 is a Level 2 vital article. When we list the histories of several individual cities, I think we have room to list the history of cities as a whole. Rated Top-Importance by WikiProject History.

Support
  1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:18, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per nom. Kevinishere15 (talk) 02:24, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per nom. --EleniXDD※Talk 08:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discuss

Add Eldoret

[edit]

Major city in Kenya, which is currently underrepresented with only 4 cities and over 50 million in poopulation.

Support
  1. Nom Iostn (talk) 22:41, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Remove Animation in the United States during the silent era  5

[edit]

Not even a general article on animation in the silent era, but even narrower in focus. This covers a time before animation became widely popularized, leaving a very niche topic.

Support
  1. Nom Iostn (talk) 16:41, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Too narrow a topic to warrant level 5 indeed. PrimalMustelid (talk) 17:15, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support  Carlwev  18:25, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Moderate support; while much of animation innovation apparently happened in the US, this era is covered likely well enough by the 1910s & 1920s sections of History of animation  5, is overshadowed by Golden age of American animation  5, and is from an overall film history perspective less suitable an era to include than German expressionist cinema which we don't list.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 07:24, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I could see it making Level 6 if that ever gets created, but it doesn't quite reach VA5. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:05, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Iostn (talk) 16:41, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Add Hallasan

[edit]

A UNESCO WHS, part of Jeju Volcanic Island and Lava Tubes. Considered a sacred mountain to Jeju and Korean people. Major tourist attraction. Add to Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Geography/Physical#Mountain peaks. Article has 43 language versions and more views than Mount Asama, Mount Hotakadake, and Mount Kita, for starters. More language editions than some of those pages too. More views than other pages like Avachinsky, Ismoil Somoni Peak, Klyuchevskaya Sopka, Koryaksky, Sahand, Peak Pobeda (Sakha), and more.

Support
  1. As nominator seefooddiet (talk) 00:45, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Add Burmese–Siamese War (1765–1767)

[edit]

A brief war with high casualty estimates that ended the Ayutthaya Kingdom  4.

Support
  1. As nominator. Sahaib (talk) 18:46, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Add Hekla

[edit]

Iceland is one of the most geologically active places on Earth, but we don't list any Icelandic volcanoes - I'd argue this is the most vital, note its Europe-wide reputation as the "Gateway to Hell", everything listed under the pop culture section and also "Cumulatively, the volcano has produced one of the largest volumes of lava of any in the world in the last millennium, around 8 km3 (1.9 cu mi)."

Support
  1. As nom Iostn (talk) 22:28, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Surprising omission. Physical Geography has room with quota at 1886/1900.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 10:11, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Remove San Francisco Peninsula

[edit]

San Francisco Peninsula  5 is already covered by San Francisco Bay Area  5 and San Francisco Bay  5. Its geography makes it stand out on maps, but I think this is over coverage, as it's one part of a metropolitan area which is already covered (also by San Francisco  4 and Silicon Valley  4) and which has a strong regional identity.

Support
  1. As nominator. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:47, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Remove Republic of Artsakh

[edit]

Republic of Artsakh  5 was dissolved in 2023. It is covered by Nagorno-Karabakh  4 and Nagorno-Karabakh conflict  5. It was also not large, as its population was listed at 145,053 in 2015.

Support
  1. As nominator. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Remove Metropolitan municipality (South Africa)

[edit]

This is a form of municipality in South Africa. These municipalities are within a province like any other municipality The article is mostly a short list, and I'm not seeing why this needs special coverage. It also doesn't have an article on any of the non-English languages of South Africa.

Support
  1. As nominator. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 20:01, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

General coverage of country subdivisions

[edit]

The coverage in Africa on Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Geography/Countries seems random. Why do a few countries (Egypt, Ethiopia, Nigeria, South Africa, Somalia) get coverage of all their subdivisions while others get almost nothing or nothing? If it's supposed to be based on population, it's not proportional. For example, Tanzania (which gets none) is more populous than South Africa (which gets 9) and over three times as populous as Somalia (which gets 5/6). If it's based on something else, we should decide on what that is, to avoid systemic bias.

Here is a table of the contents of "Regions and country subdivisions". This is just for reference, I'm not saying coverage should necessarily be based directly on population or area.

Continent Entries % Entries % Population % Area
Africa 104 10.0% 17.6% 20.3%
Antarctica 11 1.1% 0.0% 9.5%
Asia 343 33.0% 59.4% 21.2%
Europe/Russia 330 31.7% 9.4% 15.4%
North America 149 14.3% 7.5% 16.2%
Oceania 25 2.4% 0.6% 5.7%
South America 78 7.5% 5.5% 11.9%
World 1040 100% 100% 100%

EchoVanguardZ (talk) 20:30, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/History_and_geography&oldid=1288465608"