The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:
You can sign up to receive a user talk page invitation to participate in discussions of interest to you, see Wikipedia:Feedback request service
Should a globally visible RfC be required to make changes to the list of Level 3 Vital articles?
RfC discussion
Require RfC – to be blunt, I'm a bit concerned by the potential for counterproductive changes resulting from restless tinkering based on particularized interpretations of what the VA system is for and basic misreadings of its guidelines. This list has been fairly stable over the years, and while mere longevity is usually weak consensus, for a system whose results are so widely visible to editors it is distinctly less so. I think there is far more likelihood with the present system for a weak consensus localized here to do damage than to make efficient improvements to the list of what we consider the 1000 most vital articles, meant to stably guide the work of editors. At present, the overwhelming majority of proposals are not approved. Even though a supermajority is required for approval, the low turnout puts a considerable onus on individual editors to keep noticing and opposing clearly defective or lazy proposals, which is a waste of time. Remsense ‥ 论04:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Add the tag {{rfc|xxx}} at the top of a talk page section, where "xxx" is the category abbreviation. The different category abbreviations that should be used with {{rfc}} are listed above in parenthesis. Multiple categories are separated by a vertical pipe. For example, {{rfc|xxx|yyy}}, where "xxx" is the first category and "yyy" is the second category.
