Wikipedia talk:Vital articles

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconVital Articles
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Vital Articles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of vital articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and work together to increase the quality of Wikipedia's essential articles.Vital ArticlesWikipedia:WikiProject Vital ArticlesTemplate:WikiProject Vital ArticlesVital Articles articles
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
Level 5 Subpages

People History and geography Society STEM

Introduction[edit]

FA FA GA GA A – Total
December 1, 2007 83 45 90 139 25 690 1022
June 1, 2008 88 46 79 140 25 670 999
December 1, 2008 88 50 72 145 24 682 1014
FA A GA B C – Total
December 1, 2009 82 7 49 586 146 129 999
January 1, 2011 78 8 60 472 255 113 986
January 1, 2012 76 1 76 454 275 109 991
June 29, 2013 88 3 88 450 289 82 1000
October 13, 2013 90 4 92 446 284 83 999
January 13, 2015 90 2 96 417 333 60 998
December 23, 2016 94 2 107 425 355 17 1000
December 10, 2017 91 3 115 392 376 17 994
January 22, 2019 92 4 122 389 380 12 999
December 20, 2019 88 2 121 390 383 17 1001
November 25, 2020 83 1 127 373 402 15 1001
March 19, 2022 73 2 127 387 406 5 1000
January 11, 2023 71 2 128 299 471 27 998
February 5, 2024 71 0 131 403 395 0 1,000

The purpose of this discussion page is to select 1000 topics for which Wikipedia should have high-quality articles. All Wikipedia editors are welcome to participate. Individual topics are proposed for addition or removal, followed by discussion and !voting. When the list is full, it is highly recommended that a nomination of a new topic be accompanied by a proposal to remove a lower-priority topic already on the list. Please see the table to the right (on desktop) or above (on mobile) describing the percentage of articles as FA, GA, etc. for a history of the list.

All level 3 nominations must be of an article already listed at level 4.

All discussions will remain open for a minimum of 15 days.

  1. After 15 days any proposal may be closed as PASSED if a) at least five !votes have been cast in support, and b) at least two-thirds of the total !votes support the proposal.
  2. After 30 days any proposal may be closed as FAILED if it has a) earned at least 3 opposes, and b) failed to earn two-thirds support.
  3. After 30 days any proposal may be closed as NO CONSENSUS if the proposal hasn't received any !votes for 30 or more days regardless of the !vote tally.
  4. After 60 days any proposal may be closed as NO CONSENSUS if it has a) failed to earn at least 5 support !votes, and b) earned less than two-thirds support.

Nominations should generally be left open beyond the above-listed minimums if they have a reasonable chance of passing. Please be patient with our process. We believe that an informed discussion with more editors is likely to produce an improved and more stable final list. When proposing to add or remove a particular topic from the vital articles list, we strongly recommend that you review and compare the other topics in the same category in order to get a better sense of what is considered vital in that area.

  • 15 days ago: 12:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC) (Purge)
  • 30 days ago: 12:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
  • 60 days ago: 12:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Vital article landing page[edit]

I know that there have been RfMs on moving this page to Vital Article Level 3 (which have failed), but I think the issue is that in the absence of a proper Vital Article landing page, this was the best fit, which makes sense.

However, I do find the Vital Article Project at times confusing to engage with and navigate, and the RfC above on the top icon shows that wider members of the Wikipedia community have chequered views of the VA Project.

I think there should be a proper VA landing page that explains the project, it's guidelines (e.g. can a redlink be nominated, must an article start at Level 5 before going higher etc.). There is a lot of good work being done here (and as the academic paper above highlights), but it is very easy to miss it (and even dismiss it, per above). Aszx5000 (talk) 16:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even this WikiProject Vital Articles page is not right. It is all about how to bring VA to GA/FA status. Instead, it should be about the policies and guidelines about how Vital articles are chosen and how to participate productively in those discussions. It is unusual that some editors from GA/FA (per the top icon RfC above) are dismissive of VA, but according to the VA main page, the sole focus is how to bring VA articles to GA/FA status? Instead, the VA main page should be about the process of adding/removing VAs imho. Aszx5000 (talk) 12:29, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that an improved landing page is needed. Separating from level 3 might be the best idea. If you could mock up a proposed page then it might help — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:55, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would be willing to try. Can you give me some pointers about how I would do that? I have never done such a thing outside of article creation? Should we set up a sandbox version that we could all have a go at? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 12:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you could create a page in your userspace (e.g. User:Aszx5000/Vital articles) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Final question, I am going to try an draft a page that focuses on the policies/guidelines etc for adding/removing VAs. I thought that the Wikipedia:New pages patrol front page would be a good template as it lists in detail the policies/guidelines/tools for NPP. Obviously, NPP is a more complex process, however, would such a template/approach work? Aszx5000 (talk) 20:02, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will reserve judgement until I have seen your proposed page :) Then I will comment constructively — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aszx5000 you could incorporate some of Wikipedia:Vital articles/Frequently Asked Questions into the landing page — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:05, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is very helpful and what I would like the landing page to feature prominently. thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) Aszx5000 (talk) 15:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any progress with this @Aszx5000? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have been away for a few weeks but going to give this a go in March and see where I get to. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aszx5000: Any updates on the landing page? Interstellarity (talk) 13:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't forgotten but have been time constrained lately and trying to finish the overhaul of major climbing articles. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: six-month no-revisit rule[edit]

I'd like to propose, at all five levels of VA, that if a proposal reaches consensus, you can't make a counterproposal against that for at least six months. For example, if consensus resulted in an article being added, you can't propose to remove that article for six months. If consensus resulted in an article being added, you can't propose to remove that article for six months. Etc. etc. swaps are a little more complicated though pbp 01:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. pbp 01:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this makes sense, and we should have a page of general guidelines for VA on a VA "homepage" (which I am going to try an construct when I have time). Aszx5000 (talk) 13:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. When I see a nomination that has recently been discussed, I usually ask if they would close the discussion so that we can focus on other stuff rather than rehashing what we have recently resolved. This makes complete sense.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. per Aurangzebra. It would just be an unnecessary bureaucratic hindrance for new members to engage in the project. Links or results of a previous disscusions can always be mentioned in the proposals and hopefully reflected, but mandating this as a rule feels needless. Respublik (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to illustrate the point, I would only support this if the period for auto and manual archiving in all the relevant levels would be extended to six months after a closure. Respublik (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Respublik. We need fewer rules, not more. feminist🩸 (talk) 06:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Having re-considered, it will be too cumbersome to police and probably not needed. Aszx5000 (talk) 17:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
  1. good idea in theory but in my experience (aka when I do this), it's primarily an accident and it's infeasible to expect that people search through the archives any time they want to post a proposal. Aurangzebra (talk) 19:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move Abraham  3 and Moses  3 to Mythology or Abrahamic religions[edit]

This is self-explanatory, these articles are listed in this section on all other levels. Vileplume (talk) 20:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. As nom. Vileplume (talk) 20:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 22:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support if you mean under 'Abrahamic religions'. If you specifically mean Mythology, oppose. Aurangzebra (talk) 06:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support moving under Abrahamic religions. Cobblet (talk) 03:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support, this makes a lot of sense. I would suggest treating other non-historical figures similarly, because they too are in fact not people. Off the top of my head, this would mean Homer could go under Literature, and Laozi could go under Philosophy, perhaps under Eastern philosophy next to Confucianism. There are probably a couple of others that I'm forgetting, so if there are any more I would support moving those too. Ladtrack (talk) 15:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support per above. starship.paint (RUN) 14:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support moving to Abrahamic religions (as they are not at the same level of Jesus  3, The Buddha  3, or Muhammad  3); however, I would question whether they are really at Level 3? Aszx5000 (talk) 17:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Hm? They are religious figures, clearly. The Blue Rider 00:27, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think OP means under Religion which is where Abraham and Moses are slotted at every other level. Aurangzebra (talk) 06:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They are already under Religious figures. The Blue Rider 00:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And they aren't under that in all subsequent levels is the issue. Don't really mind either category but I do support consistency. I lean towards keeping them under Abrahamic religions since their existence is disputed (there is no unequivocal guarantee that they were real people). Aurangzebra (talk) 05:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Moses is more hitorical than Homer for example. See also PBP's comment below and Rregan007 comment here. We reached usance to list Abraham and Moses along with all other religous figures and I do not see reason why change it. Dawid2009 (talk) 12:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. I don't see why? They belong to 'Religious figures'. The current placement makes more sense than the proposed ones, which contain no biographical articles at all. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion

Looking at Ladtrack's list, we're talking semi-legendary figures here. Neither biographies nor mythology is a perfect fit. pbp 15:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the need to clarify that my list was based on what the apparent rationale for placing them in that area in levels 4 and 5 to begin with. I was not actually involved in placing them there and cannot confirm that that is why they are there, but it seems overwhelmingly likely considering the other figures that are similarly placed in level 4. As for perfectly fitting, while it seems somewhat oddly placed on face value, I think the lower levels have it right in this case. There are several biographical articles placed in the mythology section in level 4, and they are placed there because they are considered mythical figures due to lack of historicity. Achilles, for example, falls into the same vein of maybe-possibly based on something. The sacking of Troy is generally regarded as a real thing and the Iliad's Achilles could conceivably have been based on someone. This is more or less the same level of historicity that is attributed to Moses, for example. The historicity section in the Moses article discusses potential Moses-like figures, and the strongest evidence of his historicity is that some version of the Exodus is generally regarded to have happened and that there may have been a central figure in it resembling his depiction in the Torah. But if Achilles was brought into this level, he surely would not be in the people section. This leaves us with the view that the only reason that Moses and Abraham are listed as people and Achilles would not be is simply because large groups of people currently believe in the former two figures, as opposed to the ancient Greek religion which is functionally dead. This does not strike me as a particularly good reason to leave them in the people section. I do think that placing them in mythology, as level 4 does, seems a bit harsh for figures in living religions, so religion feels like a reasonable compromise. After all, they are undoubtedly religious figures, real or not. Ladtrack (talk) 17:07, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Mobile phone  3[edit]

We already list Telephone at this level which should cover all phones. Interstellarity (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Interstellarity (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. The Blue Rider 13:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)][reply]
  3. Support per nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 20:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose Important in economy and culture. Telephone is more like history topic. --Thi (talk) 09:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - mobile phone covers smartphone, but telephone does not. We need to have either mobile phone or smartphone here. starship.paint (RUN) 09:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose, at least one of Mobile phone  3 or Smartphone  4 should be Level 3. Aszx5000 (talk) 15:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. I would support swap with Smartphone  4-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have an opinion on the swap just yet, But I would fine with it if other people think it would be OK. Interstellarity (talk) 01:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also support Smartphone at V3, which has had a massive global impact. Aszx5000 (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

Swap Catherine the Great for Peter the Great[edit]

Not removed 1-3, not added 2-1. Perhaps an individual nomination of Peter the Great, or another swap, can be proposed because two of the opposers seemed open to it. starship.paint (RUN) 08:01, 18 May 2024 (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.

Peter is one of the key rulers that changed Russia totally. There is even such expression "pre-Petrine Russia", there is no such expression as "pre-Catherinian Russia". Russian history is clearly divided into before (with the boyars, without any schools, without navy) and after Peter (with Governing Senate, with Academy of Sciences, with a big navy). His importance cannot be overstated. Interstellarity (talk) 13:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Interstellarity (talk) 13:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support addition Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 22:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose We don't list key rulers of all sorts of countries, but we do need some significant historical women on the list. Cobblet (talk) 15:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per Cobblet (although Russia is a huge country and at times a huge Empire, so perhaps we could have them both)? Aszx5000 (talk) 10:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I strongly oppose the removal of Catherine the Great, but I'm very much open to the addition of Peter the Great. Catherine II was a pivotal figure during the European Age of Enlightenment and served during the height of Russia's imperial evolution. Peter the Great would be a very good inclusion as he played an enormous role in Russian history, but that would mean a third Russian/Soviet leader in the list alongside Stalin and Catherine II (Egypt has three so I guess it wouldn't be unprecedented). Idiosincrático (talk) 16:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion
  1. Going to reserve judgment on Peter the Great because I'm not a huge expert on Russian history but it is worth nothing that a proposal to remove Catherine the Great recently lost 6-2 and I think Grnrchst's reasoning on that thread is pretty compelling. I would vote again to reject any proposal that wants to remove Catherine the Great. Aurangzebra (talk) 05:17, 28 March 2024 (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.

Remove Anarchism  3[edit]

Its influence on mainstream politics is limited. --Thi (talk) 12:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. As nom. --Thi (talk) 12:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. It might be limited now but it certaintly wasn't in the 19th and 20th century. The Blue Rider 16:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I wouldn't base removals/additions from V1-V3, or even V4, off of RECENTism. This is still a significant ideology, even if its influence today is limited. λ NegativeMP1 16:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. TOOSOON to remove this given its importance in the last two centuries, actually seems to be making a comeback imho. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

Swap: Remove Hunting  3 Bow and arrow  3, add Service (economics)  4[edit]

Under Economy  3, we currently list four industries within the Primary sector of the economy: Agriculture  2, Fishing  3, Hunting  3, and Mining  3; and two industries within the Secondary sector of the economy: Manufacturing  2 and Construction  3. We do not list any industry within the Tertiary sector of the economy at Level 3 or above.

Such a distribution between the three sectors is imbalanced, and within the primary sector, hunting is arguably the least important: most animals produced for human consumption (either for meat or animal products) are farmed (i.e., agriculture), not hunted. A case can be made for removing fishing instead, given that it is a subtopic of agriculture and seafood comprises a minority of meat consumed in most countries around the world, however it is probably a more widespread practice than hunting, so my preference is for the removal of hunting. Given that the tertiary sector is mostly about the provision of services, adding Service (economics)  4 makes sense.

Support
  1. As nominator. feminist🩸 (talk) 08:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    UPDATE: agreed, definitely remove Bow and arrow  3 first. At best it's a subtopic of Hunting or Archery  4. feminist🩸 (talk) 02:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support swap with Bow and arrow  3. Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 12:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support per nom. Gizza (talk) 04:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC) Support the original proposal of removing hunting and adding service. Oppose the new swap of removing Bow and arrow (which is both a significant hunting tool and military weapon) and adding service. Gizza (talk) 01:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support removal --Thi (talk) 12:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Both removal and swap. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose Bow and arrow should be removed first. --Thi (talk) 09:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose, Hunting was the only way all of humanity fed itself for over 90% of its existence, before agriculture was common. Food and Agriculture are at level 2, at level 3 we start listing several animals and food and drink types and crops, I would prefer to keep hunting, seems more vital in the long run than soybean, cheese, tea, chicken, egg. I also agree hunting may be more vital than bow and arrow.  Carlwev  12:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

Remove Piano  3[edit]

We are over quota at 1,003. Piano is the only musical instrument listed at V3. I am really not sure why, is it more significant than wind instruments like the flute, string instruments like the violin, or percussion? Something has got to go here. starship.paint (RUN) 09:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 09:49, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. support. I made a separate post suggesting this before reading this. Piano makes no sense to be included if drums and flute are not included, and really none are necessary in level 3. The Piano is an extremely modern instrument and not super universal in terms of culture. The cost of maintenance means until recently, they were limited to a limited group.GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 19:08, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. feminist🩸 (talk) 02:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SailorGardevoir (talk) 19:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose Too important. --Thi (talk) 11:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thi: - care to explain what's so important about the piano? starship.paint (RUN) 14:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The piano's tonal range covers most orchestral instruments. You can play classical music, pop, rock or jazz. The list needs something you can do with your hands, for example Handicraft is not listed. --Thi (talk) 18:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

Remove Abstract algebra  3[edit]

We are over quota at 1,003, and we already list Algebra  3 which includes abstract algebra. Something has got to go here. starship.paint (RUN) 09:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. as nom. starship.paint (RUN) 09:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 11:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SailorGardevoir (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per nom. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Remove Jainism  3[edit]

We are over quota at 1,003. Jainism has only around 5 million followers. Compare to Judaism  3 (15+ million), Sikhism  3 (25+ million), Buddhism  3 (500+ million).... starship.paint (RUN) 14:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. as nom. starship.paint (RUN) 14:54, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 18:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support per nom. It's importance has waned sufficiently to downgrade. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose as strongly as possible. While Jainism may have fewer followers today then other major religions, it has major historical significance. It is one of the worlds oldest religions, and had impacts on Alexander the Greats campaign. There are many other articles that could be moved down.GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 18:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per above. All of the world's major religions are key topics that are covered in traditional encyclopedias. Gizza (talk) 01:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

Swap Nuclear weapon  3 with Bomb  4[edit]

In weapons, we have Armour, Bow and arrow, Firearm, and Knife. The one that sticks out is Nuclear weapon. I suggest swapping this for Bomb, as nuclear weapons are a type of bomb. While nuclear weapons have had a tremendous impact on modern geopolitics, they have only been used twice. Bombs have been used since the 11th century.GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 19:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. as nom.GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 19:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 09:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Bomb is the more vital topic. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Without the bomb, there would have been no nuclear weapon. λ NegativeMP1 16:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SailorGardevoir (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per nom. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose Military history is a level 3 article. Nuclear weapon is one of the most important scientific discoveries of all time. It is a key concept for existential threats for the whole Earth, anti-war movement and geopolitics. --Thi (talk) 11:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

Proposal: Create AI generated summaries of each entity on the vital articles page explaining the importance of each individual.[edit]

I think it would be helpful for our readers that may question why a particular article is listed. I understand that AI has the potential to make mistakes so I would suggest doing it for a few articles and correct any errors it makes. Rather than directing to the article to figure it out themselves, it would be helpful to have a sentence or two explaining the importance of each one. Interstellarity (talk) 21:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And how is AI supposed to know why something is considered vital, or why X2 is more vital than X1 in talk page consensus? Don't get me wrong, I see the viewpoint here, but it just sounds flawed. I think manual descriptions for V1-V4 listings are feasible, though V5 would certainly be a whole other beast. λ NegativeMP1 16:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since the selection of the articles were all made by users, it seems feasible for users to personally write a summation of the reasoning to annotate the vital articles list. isaacl (talk) 18:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would love to see an 'AI-sense check' on some of our Level 3 sub-sections. For example for Wikipedia:Vital Articles#Leaders and politicians, where I am sure that the AI would rank Constantine the Great  4 on a Level 3-type list of most influential leaders in history, and not some of our existing entries (per below). Aszx5000 (talk) 16:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add Building  4[edit]

Extremely common structure, most of us live in them, many of us work in them, also used for shopping, schooling, airports etc. starship.paint (RUN) 02:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. as nom. starship.paint (RUN) 02:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SailorGardevoir (talk) 19:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Per nom. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Remove Calligraphy  3[edit]

I think Building  4 is more important to humanity than calligraphy, which has overlaps with Painting  3 and Drawing  3. starship.paint (RUN) 03:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. as nom. starship.paint (RUN) 03:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per nom.GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 04:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SailorGardevoir (talk) 19:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Interstellarity (talk) 09:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support per nom. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Calligraphy was mntioned in the academic paper article about VA and meta's list: [1], they quoted one editor who said something this way: For example, for two of the most important cultural worlds, the Chinese (China, Japan, Corea) and the Muslim (Arab and Persian cultures) the most important art is not painting or even music, (arguably) it’s calligraphy. There is not a single calligrapher in the list. Dawid2009 (talk) 13:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add Ali  4[edit]

Since we have Martin Luther  3 on here, I think we should have Ali on here as well. The whole issue on whether he should have succeeded Muhammad immediately is the reason why Islam is mostly split into Sunni and Shia, and unlike the relationship between Catholicism and Protestantism, tensions between the two branches still flare up from time to time.

Support
  1. SailorGardevoir (talk) 10:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per nom. Ali is definitely second to Muhammad in Islam. Aszx5000 (talk) 16:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss
  • @SailorGardevoir: - can you propose to remove something? We are already over quota. I firmly believe that nominators and supporters should do the work to keep us within the quota, instead of having other editors have to put in the effort to find more articles to remove. starship.paint (RUN) 07:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do I have to pick a religious figure? SailorGardevoir (talk) 10:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @SailorGardevoir: - no, there aren't quotas here. starship.paint (RUN) 12:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Combinatorics  3[edit]

Seems more suited for V4 when you compare the other V3 Math articles in that section (e.g. 0  3, Complex number  3, Integer  3, Fraction  3). Yes, it's Top-importance for Math, but so are another 200+ articles. starship.paint (RUN) 09:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. as nom. starship.paint (RUN) 09:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SailorGardevoir (talk) 19:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support per nom. Aszx5000 (talk)
Oppose
Discuss

Remove Henry Ford  3[edit]

He is probably the most important businessperson we have on here, but I'm not sure if he's that important to warrant being a Level 3.

Support
  1. SailorGardevoir (talk) 19:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. It's about the representation, same reason we have two obscure speed skaters at V4. Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 21:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @OhnoitsvileplumeXD: - representation of what? Business? American cars? Why him and not say, Bill Gates  4 or Steve Jobs  4, given the ubiquity of Microsoft computers and iPhones? starship.paint (RUN) 02:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    BLPs do not belong at V3, even if they are as notable as Gates, but I am not as opposed to Jobs and would support his addition if Ford must be removed. Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 02:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I just want to make this clear, I'm really just doing this so I can get my Ali proposal passed. SailorGardevoir (talk) 10:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose there are some business people whose companies changed the course of human history, Henry Ford  3 is definitely one, as is Steve Jobs  4 (who should be at level 3). In contrast, Bill Gates  4 got very rich on an over-priced OS system and is not at the same level. Aszx5000 (talk) 16:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

Add Peter the Great  4 (no swap with Catherine)[edit]

There are plenty of editors that suggested a straight addition rather than a swap with Catherine. My reasoning is in the above discussion. Interstellarity (talk) 11:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Interstellarity (talk) 11:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Meh, weak support; while he is probably fit for this level, we are over quota at V3 and I'm afraid it'd overrepresent Russia in that regard (Peter, Catherine, and Stalin) since we don't have key rulers of all sorts of countries, such as Mustafa Kemal Atatürk  4. Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 12:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose. When I look at the names on Wikipedia:Vital Articles#Leaders and politicians, I can't see Peter the Great as being as influential. I also think that Cleopatra  3, Nelson Mandela  3, and possibly Joan of Arc  3 should also not be on this list (i.e. they are more celebrity-notable than as politically influential as the others on this list). Aszx5000 (talk) 16:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    i.e. Constantine the Great  4, would easily rank well ahead of these three (and Peter). Aszx5000 (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    i.e. Franklin D. Roosevelt  4 should be ranked alongside Adolf Hitler  3 and Joseph Stalin  3 as the biggest leaders of the 20th century (and Roosevelt took American out of the Great Depression). Aszx5000 (talk) 16:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Joan of Arc would probably come to mind if I was asked for the ten most vital women to world history. She should be kept, especially since we removed Frida Kahlo  4. Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes sense to me. Aszx5000 (talk) 18:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion
  • @Interstellarity: - any other article you would like to propose to remove, or any support for any removals listed above? starship.paint (RUN) 03:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we should remove an article since we are over quota. Calligraphy seems to make the most sense being removed since there are other topics more important. Interstellarity (talk) 09:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Green Revolution  3[edit]

This article does not compare in scale with WWII, the Industrial Revolution, and the Information Age. Interstellarity (talk) 00:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Interstellarity (talk) 00:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neolithic Revolution  3 should already cover the topic of agriculture revolutions. The Blue Rider 11:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. per above. starship.paint (RUN) 14:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per nom. Aszx5000 (talk) 17:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles&oldid=1225092819"