This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
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.
"He is traditionally regarded as the inventor of paper and the papermaking process" which is in his lead and which says it all. If we have Johannes Gutenberg then we should have him. If someone has to be removed i'd support a swap depending on who it is (weakest is Dali, in my opinion.)
I'm sorry but paper is more important then most of the things our listed inventors have invented. If Cai Lun never did what he did, Gutenberg wouldn't be known. How can Benjamin Franklin be in inventors but not the inventor of paper? GuzzyG ( talk) 13:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
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.
Since inventors seem to be less vital then their inventions as per the Cai Lun discussion. Yes, you may have heard about Johannes in a western textbook unlike Cai but it's exactly the same situation. Except Johannes invention is a derivative of Cai's. The printing press is "more significant" then it's inventor, without it we would not have the modern world.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I feel that the Hebrew Language had a greater impact upon the formation of history and theology than the Portuguese Language. Not trying to pick on Portugal, but I believe that all the other languages on the list had enough of an impact to keep them. Portuguese, while important in trading and South American culture, hasn't had as much of an impact (imo) as Hebrew, which is the language of an entire religion and, while not directly impacting it, has a role in the current conflict on the Gaza Strip. Portuguese is a sister language of the Spanish Language, which is already on the list, while Hebrew is the only surviving language of the Canaanite languages. I realize that if Hebrew were to be placed on the list it would have to be taken off the Indo-European languages list, but it's not my understanding that there is a set number of Indo-European languages.
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 house vs. home debate made me think of this. Farming redirects to Agriculture, which we have. Is there room on the list for both the process of farming and its physical manifestation in the form of land use? While the two concepts are obviously related, there is a clear enough distinction between them, and both are of such fundamental importance, that I think both should be listed.
</endrant>
; this probably isn't the place to raise this point.
AdA&D ★ 21:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)We list Manufacturing at level 2 then factory here at level 3, that would be a similar position to having agriculture at level 2 which we do then farm at level 3. Carl wev 21:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
@ Anne drew Andrew and Drew:: Presumably for the same reasons we do not include gift economy or barter alongside money, or stateless society alongside state, etc. That Homo sapiens existed for a very long time without certain things does not in itself make the lack of those things a vital topic. Cobblet ( talk) 21:54, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
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.
Derivative of theatre and classical music, i don't think it fits on this level. Not a top 50 article that you'd cover for arts.
I think it's right around number 50, and I'd like to keep the quota for "The arts" at 50. If there's no addition that can gain consensus, I'd support keeping this. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 22:54, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
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.
Derivative of theatre and has not really had worldwide impact, i don't think it fits on this level. Not a top 50 article that you'd cover for arts. Only in 64 different language articles which is low for a artform.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We already list Computer and Computer science. There's too much overlap to also list computing at this level.
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 seems to me to be on the same level as the other terrestrial features we list at this level like the Sahara desert and Grand Canyon. Per the article, "The Amazon represents over half of the planet's remaining rainforests, and comprises the largest and most biodiverse tract of tropical rainforest in the world, with an estimated 390 billion individual trees divided into 16,000 species." Seems vital to me.
The Amazon represents over half of the planet's remaining rainforestsit's reasonable to include the specific example. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 22:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
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.
During the 50s and 60s, rock largely overlapped with pop music, which is also listed. I don't think modern rock is important enough to justify two separate entries here. The rock music article is better, but pop music is a more general term.
We have Orchestra and History of music (and Opera for now) categorized elsewhere. I do agree that something musical should be added if this is removed; String instrument is redundant to musical instrument; there's no way to add Piano or Guitar, and we clearly won't add Beethoven's ninth. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 21:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
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.
There will be space in the arts section if proposed removals happen, and this is a plausible addition. Calligraphy is prominent in countries such as China, where it has a 2000 year history.
@ Rreagan007:: That's like saying we don't need literature (the art form) because writing and book (the intangible and tangible media of literature) are on the list. There's more overlap between Amazon River and your proposal of the Amazon rainforest, which simply refers to the dominant biome in the Amazon basin, than there is between calligraphy and writing. Cobblet ( talk) 17:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
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.
Metal is already listed, so I think Nonmetal and Metalloid should also be listed.
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.
He is considered as one of the most prominent figure in the history of Eastern religions.
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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.
Ancient and followed by huge portion of population.
The mathematics section doesn't have the same layout (or format if you prefer) than the other sections. This doesn't help to process that page by a computer program (in that case wikimark). The other section have an h2 for the category and then h3 for subcategories. Instead math category is a list of list. It would also help the reader to easily spot the main aspect of mathematics that are covered by the vital articles. It's not an easy fix to do for me because it requires creating subcategory labels for that section. i⋅am⋅amz3 ( talk) 22:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
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 broader subject matter should be used for this list. The article on alcoholic drinks covers beer, wine, and many other alcoholic drinks.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We list mechanical engineering at this level, and I think civil engineering is of equal vitality.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We already list Semiconductor device, which is what a transistor is. I don't think we need to list both at this level.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We currently list 8 types of weaponry, but they are all offensive. I think we need to list at least one article on defensive weaponry at this level.
I am surprised the article does not appear in that many languages only 23 other wikis. I thought maybe another article like defense may be better, but there is no article there at all. I got fortification added a while back, but that is obviously about buildings and structures defense rather than defensive stuff for people animals and vehicles. shield is another alternative, that is quite important but armour is a wider article, I think it is important enough for this level. I think spear is important enough too, being one of the most widespread weapons geographically and chronologically, perhaps the most widespread, used across more time and land than bows, swords and firearms. Carl wev 08:04, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure why Armour and Body armor are separate articles; I do know why they disagree on the spelling but am not happy about it. The article located at Armour should be preferred here as the most generic term. Armour is a more general topic than shield, and there isn't room for both. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 04:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Major trauma is a type of injury. As in previous nominations, the broader subject-matter article should be the one used at this level.
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 looking through the archives, I noticed that the article on the Aztec Empire was nominated to be added at level 3 and passed here; however, the article that was ultimately added to the list was the article on Aztec culture, the reason being that the article on Aztec culture was the one then listed at Level 4. I think this was a mistake. When a nomination passes to include an article at a higher level, it should automatically be added at the lower level. Regardless, the article on Aztec was never properly nominated and passed, so it can't currently be included in this list. I also think that the article on the Aztec Empire is a better article to include at level 3 than the article on the Aztec culture, since we already include the article on Mesoamerica, which has a significant overlap with the article on the Aztec culture, since Aztec culture is a Mesoamerican culture. Rreagan007 ( talk) 01:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
I think there is some effort and logic to keep the different level lists consistent with each other, I'm not sure if we ever agreed it to be proper official procedure or not, but common sense and discussion has done us OK so far. I would prefer the article Aztec in the 1000 list. In the 10'000 list I think we should list Aztec, and possibly Aztec Empire as well at that level. I agree with the comments comparing Aztec choice of articles and terminology compared to others like Egyptian, Greek, Roman, eg the general article about the culture/civilization seems to be the better choice most of the time. Also if it matters or not Aztec is in 110 languages, Aztec Empire in 21 languages. Aztec has 2987 average daily page views compared with 1271 for Aztec Empire. Aztec article is 125'000 kb in size compared to 56'000 kb for Aztec Empire. [1] [2] Carl wev 16:08, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Given the discussion above I think it is appropriate to vote on whether to keep the article Aztec on the list. I may have added it originally myself without a vote back before I understood how the vital system worked. I think this is clearly the right article to include, because Azted empire describes a much narrower topic, since the article Aztec deals with "The Aztecs", meaning their entire culture, history and society - what could also be called a civilization, but which is generally not (probably because of the short time period in which the Aztec flourished). The Aztecs do not overlap significantly with Mesoamerica (an area with 3000 years of civilization and hundreds of ethnic group of which the Aztecs are only one and only covers a small geographic area and some 300 years) - and if the list were to have only one of them Aztec would perhaps be the more notable chocice, because of how well known the Aztecs are in the western culture. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:06, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
The discussion of Aztec vc Aztec Empire has made me think of this again, it's been on my mind for ages. The topic of the Vikings appears in several encyclopedias other books I have, and it is nearly always referred to as the Vikings, not Viking Age. Again the article on Vikings is wider and more consistent with other choice of articles. Vikings appears in 128 languages compared to 44 for Viking Age. Vikings gets 5812 average daily page views and is 126'000 kb in size, compared with 1737 average daily page views and 75'600 kb size for Viking Age. Vikings is much more than double in all those aspects. My instincts say it is Vikings we should be listing? But then could the argument be if we list Vikings why not Celts, or Goths. But is it as simple as the Vikings are generally seen as more vital than them? Thoughts? should we swap out Viking Age for Vikings? (both are listed at level 4 by the way) [3] [4]. Also on Google Vikings has 56 million matches compared with 1.8 million matches for Viking Age. But that might not be that relevant. Carl wev 16:08, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Vikings literally refers to Norse pirates, raiders, and seafarers. As a misnomer, it has been applied to the entire Scandinavian population, culture, and colonies of the era, and our article seems to attempt to cover them all.
Viking Age is a historical period, lasting from the late 8th century to the 11th century, when most of Europe faced Viking raids and attempts at Norse settlement. Besides the Norse themselves, the article attempts to cover the impact on various European regions. The scope is wider, but the article seems to receive less attention by editors. Dimadick ( talk) 13:50, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Someone added vital article tags to the articles Dave Meltzer and Ric Flair (among others), but I can find no evidence that there had been any discussion to add them to the vital article list. ★Trekker ( talk) 15:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
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.
Entertainment is more essential article than Recreation at this level. "Recreation is difficult to separate from the general concept of play, which is usually the term for children's recreational activity." Play is crucial for children’s development and the concept of play also describes other activities ( Homo Ludens).
Should this be formatted as a swap with play? RJFJR ( talk) 16:08, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It is as equally important as other vital articles such as Architecture. 2601:183:101:58D0:1817:A6CE:1070:6D03 ( talk) 01:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
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.
Marketing is the broader subject matter, so that's what we should include at this level instead. Advertising is merely one type of marketing, other types of which include publicity and public relations, among others.
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.
Watercraft is a broader subject matter than ship.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We recently removed 2 articles from the religious section ( Theism and Agnosticism). I think this would be a good article to add back in. Most of the specific religions we list are obviously the older religions for good reason, but I think newer religious movements deserve to be covered on the list too. Rreagan007 ( talk) 22:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm concerned about how this term is used as a catch-all for Mormons, Baha'i, Rastafari, Scientology, and Falun Gong (among others). However I don't see a better option; History of religions is basically a stub. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 23:09, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
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.
Ritual is a human universal and an aspect of all religions. And there is a major body of theory and literature about it. Clearly a vital topic in religion.
Oppose There is overlap with
worship and
prayer. And I would rather have
Tradition listed at this level, as it encompasses rituals, which are religious traditions.
Rreagan007 (
talk) 18:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Oppose 1. Neutral. Support for swap with Worship or Prayer. --
Thi (
talk) 18:33, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
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 emotion is on par in terms of vitality with the other emotions that we list (i.e. love, anger, fear, happiness), and is increasingly important in terms of things such as hate crimes and hate speech, which the article on hatred covers.
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.
An important class of molecules that I think should be listed at this level.
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.
From the article's lede, "generally credited with inventing, building, and flying the world's first successful airplane". One of the last truly important biographies not on this list. They had more impact on the world then someone like Ford. Without them the 20th century would be completely different. Needs no other explanation.
I don't think they're more important than Ford, but that's not necessarily the requirement. The only swap I think I would support would be for Werner Heisenberg. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 03:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
We list aircraft, but we don't list aviation or airplane the most important aircraft. Also, we list ship but we don't list sailing either. Carl wev 19:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Then why was van Leeuwenhoek removed ages ago? We kept Microscope so there'd be a significant overlap with van Leeuwenhoek. Aviation nor airplane is on this list and they would overlap with aircraft so the brothers are the better pick. If the Wright brothers do not make a list like this but people like Hemingway, Amundsen, Kurosawa or Noether do then i think it makes this list silly. No serious encyclopedia would skip the Wright brothers even on a shoestring budget. Just seems preposterous a area we don't cover (aviation/airplane) gets skipped over because we don't list both the invention and it's inventor, for yet we denied the inventor of paper for the exact same thing. GuzzyG ( talk) 04:49, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A formal request to merge Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/1 and Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/2 into Wikipedia:Vital articles has been received at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers, with the rationale that Wikipedia:Vital articles also lists Level 1 and Level 2 vital articles and therefore separate pages are unnecessary for the latter two articles. However, as this affects changes to key Wikipedia pages and the nomination was made by an IP (the same one that recently changed the order of the articles on the vital articles pages without consensus), I am holding off on placing merger tags on the pages and letting the community know about the merger request, so that it can be discussed here. Richard3120 ( talk) 01:23, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It is as important as food. It is a level-4 vital article, and a lot of drinks are Level-3 vital articles.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I don't think we need to list both Water and Drinking water at this level, especially with the inclusion of the general article on Drinks looking likely. The article on water includes a section on drinking water under uses as does the article on drink.
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.
Historical calculating tool. In my opinion not vital at this level.
One of the sections of the FAQ mentions that vital articles try to avoid recentism, but I noticed that Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Politicians and leaders has 52 articles in a "21st century" section. Of course, most of the people in there are still living and still politically active (and some of them, still sitting heads of government). Does level 5 have a more relaxed criteria, or should that whole section be removed? Cambalachero ( talk) 15:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
I've proposed some changes to the quotas for the "Level 5" list at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5#Quota change proposal. It increases the People quota from 10000 (20%) to 12000 (24%), decreases the Geography quota from 6000 (12%) to 5000 (10%), and removes 1000 quota from other areas. Please comment and "vote" on that page, if you are interested in the proceedings of that project. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 04:53, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
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 was brought up in the recent Armour nomination. Spear does seem to be on par with other weapons listed in terms of its historical significance. Rreagan007 ( talk) 16:54, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
References
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.
All that needs to be said is we have 4 English language writers from the 20th century but not the "father of English literature" himself. Hemingway is the weakest on the list. I think this has been suggested before. It makes no sense whatsoever not to have Chaucer on this list when writers like Hemingway or Poe are on it. Chaucer easily has a more secure and longer lasting contribution to literature.
There seems to be two supporting votes by Robinvp11 above. -- Thi ( talk) 16:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
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 [6] says more then i ever could. I think for the purposes of this list Debussy is a much better add then Chopin.
References
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 was brought up in the recent farm nomination that failed due to its overlap with agriculture. We already list Manufacturing, and a factory is just a place where manufacturing takes place, so I don't think we need to list it separately at this level.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It's part of the Vedas, which is also listed. There is no need to list them both at this level.
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.
According to the articles, Buddhism can be viewed as having 2 main branches, Theravada and Mahayana (with Vajrayana being a part of Mahayana), or Vajrayana can be viewed separately as a third branch. Since we can only list 1,000 articles here, I think we should just list the 2 main branches of Buddhism here. This is in keeping with our attempts to remove articles at this level that are unnecessary due to significant overlap with another article.
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 event impacted many people all over the globe. 192.107.120.90 ( talk) 17:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree it may too recent and perhaps not sufficiently vital to include. But it might in the long run turn out to be a relevant addition under war on terror at level 4, just like the Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand is for WWI. Arnoutf ( talk) 07:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
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.
Obesity may be a vital article, but overweight should be added because more people are overweight than obese. -- 75.67.58.188 ( talk) 22:45, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We list the French Revolution in the modern history section, and I think the American Revolution is just as vital to the English Wikipedia, perhaps even more so since it directly involved the two largest English-speaking nations, the United States and Great Britain.
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.
There seem to be quite a lot of red-linked Vital article categories finding their way onto the WantedCategories report at the moment, for instance at the moment there's Category:Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in Life and Category:All Wikipedia vital articles in Physics. I tend to assume that the editors responsible know what they're doing, but someone more familiar with the Vital process might want to have a scan through that report, to confirm what's going on. Le Deluge ( talk) 16:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
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.
In my opinion, space exploration is more vital than Moon landing. -- 192.107.120.90 ( talk) 17:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A major turning-point in English history. This list is supposed to be tailored to the English-language Wikipedia, and I think this article is vital at this level for the English Wikipedia.
#Support --
Thi (
talk) 06:20, 22 June 2018 (UTC) Only if
American revolution is added. --
Thi (
talk) 19:43, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
I am English, I think this i an important event, and it is of personal interest to me. But that aside, is the Norman conquest of England singularly more vital than England, or the Normans or even perhaps William the Conqueror? Carl wev 17:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm abstaining for now; I had considered suggesting William the Conqueror but I'd rather avoid increasing the proportion of biographies. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 21:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I really don't see the need to list this article at this level. The pendulum's main historical usage has been in clocks and it is covered adequately in the clock article that is already listed at this level.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We have recently removed several religion articles, so there is some room on the list now. Our current coverage of religions leans heavily towards organized religions. Adding this article would give us a little more balance in that area.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm renominating this because I think the previous nomination was closed too early. While it had been open for just over 30 days, it has been a norm to leave open nominations longer than 30 days that have a reasonable chance of success, which it clearly did have. I still believe that this article deserves to be listed at this level for all the reasons stated in the previous nomination. The American Revolution was a profound historical turning point. It was the first European colony to break away from their mother country and arguably was the inspiration for all others to do so. It was also a source of inspiration for the French Revolution, which is also listed at this level.
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.
Since it is vital in both geochemistry and toxicology, is one of the four major sub-disciplines of chemistry, and listed in meta's equivalent page, this article should definitely be added.
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.
Oceania is the only place that does not have at least 2 level 3 vital article countries. I think another country should be added as well. -- 107.0.6.250 ( talk) 12:43, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
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.
What actual impact does adding an article to these lists have? It gets a message on the talk page and that's about it. It doesn't get more traffic or more attention. The lists themselves don't get a huge amount of views either. Level 5 history for instance gets 35 views a day, which is pretty much nothing. The stated goal of VA project is to identify the most important articles for where editors can put their focus. Yet, level 1-2 only has a combined total of 3 FA, and a few former FA. Levels 3,4,5, are pretty much the same.
If this project was working as intended, nearly all of the vital articles would be GA or FA status.
So what can be done? Harizotoh9 ( talk) 18:32, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Ideas: 1. Create a "WikiProject Vital Articles", where people can join. Organizing the list , and improving the articles would be the main goals.
2. Make the Vital Articles accessable from the front page. They could be accessed from the left hand side and the top of the main page, near portals.
3. A collaboration project to improve the articles.
Harizotoh9 ( talk) 00:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
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.
Vital articles! Looks interesting. Level 1, 2, 3, it is a little confusing, and it took me a while to work it out. Not long, but a bit. Level n means the top 10n most vital articles, excluding the articles already contained in the more vital levels. Level 1 are the most vital. Level 5 are the least vital of the vital system. A backward logarithmic ranking, like Magnitude (astronomy). For non-astronomers, higher numbers usually mean higher. I suggest adding "Top 10 most vital", Top 100 most vital", etc, to the introductory explanations for each level.
I find the system begs for identifying the Level 0 single most vital article. I suggest Philosophy, per Wikipedia:Getting to Philosophy, philosophy is the mother of all science.
The explanations are located at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/n, eg Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/1. That is an unexpected titling format. I suggest changing to Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level n, for n = 1,2,3,4,5. Or just go straight to Wikipedia:Vital articles/Top 10^n, eg Wikipedia:Vital articles/Top 10, Wikipedia:Vital articles/Top 100.
-- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 07:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
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.
Maybe i am missing something but in my opinion the activity is more vital then the industry of that activity. The pageviews and different wikidata languages back that up. I understand it's listed under "Industry" but i just don't believe something that is just a certain aspect of the larger topic should be listed before the larger topic itself; especially considering the fact we didn't add farm because of agriculture being listed and we removed factory because we listed manufacturing.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am not convinced that it is vital at Level 3. Seventeen interwikis are not much at this level and it is covered by Ritual.
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.
Africa is underrepresented in the countries list.
Yair Rand is right...but... China and India account for 2.7 billion people and have two representatives on this list, while the other 33 representatives are divided among the world's other 4.9 billion people. That's roughly 150 million people per representative, which comes out to:
p b p 20:56, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
In my opinion Swahili language should be added [7] before Tanzania Dawid2009 ( talk) 05:32, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We don't list any disputed states on the list. Taiwan is the largest non-UN state in terms of both population and economy. It's a political hotbed, similar to Israel, another relatively small country that we list, which adds to reader interest: Taiwan is one of the top viewed articles on Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries/Popular pages. Also, Taiwan has contributed a lot of technology to our world: TSMC for example is the largest semiconductor foundry in the world, without whom most smartphones and computers would have been impossible.
@ Thi: To clarify: Do you think that every country on Earth (~200 articles) should be on the list? That countries should make up 20% of the list? I just want to make sure I didn't misunderstand your statement. -- Yair rand ( talk) 18:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We need a better method to handle requests to reopen something closed as undecided. Folk Religion sat at 4-2 for thirty days with out a change but now it is reopened. Some people who voted previously won't bother to vote again so there will be even fewer votes and if it is decided this time it will be on a less comprehensive base.
Can we just agree that if someone thinks a just closed item could have been decided with more time they can request it be reopened instead of opening a new vote for the same item? RJFJR ( talk) 15:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I already posted this on the Level 4 talk page, but it hasn't seemed to spark any interest over there. An editor has taken it upon himself to merge Mythology into Myth. I have had a bit of a discussion with him about it on the Myth talk page. "Mythology" was a Level 2 article, but "Myth" isn't even currently listed at Level 5. Should we simply swap out mythology for myth at all levels, or should we remove mythology from one or more levels? For some reason, "Myth" doesn't seem as worthy of an article for Level 2 to me as "Mythology" did. Rreagan007 ( talk) 04:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
One of the biggest countries not listed.
I think we should add more nations. Malaysia just over 30 mil. Tanzania is the highest missing nation at about 55 mil pop. There are 10 missing nations with higher populations. (see here). Morocco, Algeria, Ukraine, Iraq, Kenya and Myanmar (Burma) and 4 more. Many of these had under 10 million in 1950 and doubled in population every 20 something years to being between 30 and 55 mil today, recent boomers. Not that that makes them any more or less vitl alone. Malaysia is quite important I still support, I just think other nations I listed are worthy of consideration also. We also list smaller pop nations, like Israel, and Singapore (in cities I think) and Australia. Carl wev 07:20, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
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.
An article about planned spaces for plants just doesn't seem like a Level 3 article to me.
Garden was added 2 years ago, the discussion is here [10]. I know consensus can change, just wanted users to be aware of the previous discussion. Carl wev 19:04, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A move proposal is open regarding the correct title/spelling for the article on the prophet Muhammad's journey to Medina. Participants in this project may be interested in participating at Talk:Hegira. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 04:35, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
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.
Second largest city in the world's largest english speaking country, and in the top 20 urban and metropolitan areas of the world by population.
I live near Los Angeles, but b) I think there's probably already too many cities and too few countries. p b p 01:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
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.
First: a move discussion at Talk:East Timor may be of interest to participants in this project.
Second, regarding this diff: how did nobody (myself included) notice this crap for 4 months? Is there any better way to monitor articles of interest to this project for such ridiculous changes? power~enwiki ( π, ν) 22:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
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.
"He is traditionally regarded as the inventor of paper and the papermaking process" which is in his lead and which says it all. If we have Johannes Gutenberg then we should have him. If someone has to be removed i'd support a swap depending on who it is (weakest is Dali, in my opinion.)
I'm sorry but paper is more important then most of the things our listed inventors have invented. If Cai Lun never did what he did, Gutenberg wouldn't be known. How can Benjamin Franklin be in inventors but not the inventor of paper? GuzzyG ( talk) 13:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
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.
Since inventors seem to be less vital then their inventions as per the Cai Lun discussion. Yes, you may have heard about Johannes in a western textbook unlike Cai but it's exactly the same situation. Except Johannes invention is a derivative of Cai's. The printing press is "more significant" then it's inventor, without it we would not have the modern world.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I feel that the Hebrew Language had a greater impact upon the formation of history and theology than the Portuguese Language. Not trying to pick on Portugal, but I believe that all the other languages on the list had enough of an impact to keep them. Portuguese, while important in trading and South American culture, hasn't had as much of an impact (imo) as Hebrew, which is the language of an entire religion and, while not directly impacting it, has a role in the current conflict on the Gaza Strip. Portuguese is a sister language of the Spanish Language, which is already on the list, while Hebrew is the only surviving language of the Canaanite languages. I realize that if Hebrew were to be placed on the list it would have to be taken off the Indo-European languages list, but it's not my understanding that there is a set number of Indo-European languages.
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 house vs. home debate made me think of this. Farming redirects to Agriculture, which we have. Is there room on the list for both the process of farming and its physical manifestation in the form of land use? While the two concepts are obviously related, there is a clear enough distinction between them, and both are of such fundamental importance, that I think both should be listed.
</endrant>
; this probably isn't the place to raise this point.
AdA&D ★ 21:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)We list Manufacturing at level 2 then factory here at level 3, that would be a similar position to having agriculture at level 2 which we do then farm at level 3. Carl wev 21:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
@ Anne drew Andrew and Drew:: Presumably for the same reasons we do not include gift economy or barter alongside money, or stateless society alongside state, etc. That Homo sapiens existed for a very long time without certain things does not in itself make the lack of those things a vital topic. Cobblet ( talk) 21:54, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
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.
Derivative of theatre and classical music, i don't think it fits on this level. Not a top 50 article that you'd cover for arts.
I think it's right around number 50, and I'd like to keep the quota for "The arts" at 50. If there's no addition that can gain consensus, I'd support keeping this. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 22:54, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
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.
Derivative of theatre and has not really had worldwide impact, i don't think it fits on this level. Not a top 50 article that you'd cover for arts. Only in 64 different language articles which is low for a artform.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We already list Computer and Computer science. There's too much overlap to also list computing at this level.
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 seems to me to be on the same level as the other terrestrial features we list at this level like the Sahara desert and Grand Canyon. Per the article, "The Amazon represents over half of the planet's remaining rainforests, and comprises the largest and most biodiverse tract of tropical rainforest in the world, with an estimated 390 billion individual trees divided into 16,000 species." Seems vital to me.
The Amazon represents over half of the planet's remaining rainforestsit's reasonable to include the specific example. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 22:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
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.
During the 50s and 60s, rock largely overlapped with pop music, which is also listed. I don't think modern rock is important enough to justify two separate entries here. The rock music article is better, but pop music is a more general term.
We have Orchestra and History of music (and Opera for now) categorized elsewhere. I do agree that something musical should be added if this is removed; String instrument is redundant to musical instrument; there's no way to add Piano or Guitar, and we clearly won't add Beethoven's ninth. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 21:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
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.
There will be space in the arts section if proposed removals happen, and this is a plausible addition. Calligraphy is prominent in countries such as China, where it has a 2000 year history.
@ Rreagan007:: That's like saying we don't need literature (the art form) because writing and book (the intangible and tangible media of literature) are on the list. There's more overlap between Amazon River and your proposal of the Amazon rainforest, which simply refers to the dominant biome in the Amazon basin, than there is between calligraphy and writing. Cobblet ( talk) 17:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
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.
Metal is already listed, so I think Nonmetal and Metalloid should also be listed.
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.
He is considered as one of the most prominent figure in the history of Eastern religions.
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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.
Ancient and followed by huge portion of population.
The mathematics section doesn't have the same layout (or format if you prefer) than the other sections. This doesn't help to process that page by a computer program (in that case wikimark). The other section have an h2 for the category and then h3 for subcategories. Instead math category is a list of list. It would also help the reader to easily spot the main aspect of mathematics that are covered by the vital articles. It's not an easy fix to do for me because it requires creating subcategory labels for that section. i⋅am⋅amz3 ( talk) 22:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
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 broader subject matter should be used for this list. The article on alcoholic drinks covers beer, wine, and many other alcoholic drinks.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We list mechanical engineering at this level, and I think civil engineering is of equal vitality.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We already list Semiconductor device, which is what a transistor is. I don't think we need to list both at this level.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We currently list 8 types of weaponry, but they are all offensive. I think we need to list at least one article on defensive weaponry at this level.
I am surprised the article does not appear in that many languages only 23 other wikis. I thought maybe another article like defense may be better, but there is no article there at all. I got fortification added a while back, but that is obviously about buildings and structures defense rather than defensive stuff for people animals and vehicles. shield is another alternative, that is quite important but armour is a wider article, I think it is important enough for this level. I think spear is important enough too, being one of the most widespread weapons geographically and chronologically, perhaps the most widespread, used across more time and land than bows, swords and firearms. Carl wev 08:04, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure why Armour and Body armor are separate articles; I do know why they disagree on the spelling but am not happy about it. The article located at Armour should be preferred here as the most generic term. Armour is a more general topic than shield, and there isn't room for both. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 04:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Major trauma is a type of injury. As in previous nominations, the broader subject-matter article should be the one used at this level.
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 looking through the archives, I noticed that the article on the Aztec Empire was nominated to be added at level 3 and passed here; however, the article that was ultimately added to the list was the article on Aztec culture, the reason being that the article on Aztec culture was the one then listed at Level 4. I think this was a mistake. When a nomination passes to include an article at a higher level, it should automatically be added at the lower level. Regardless, the article on Aztec was never properly nominated and passed, so it can't currently be included in this list. I also think that the article on the Aztec Empire is a better article to include at level 3 than the article on the Aztec culture, since we already include the article on Mesoamerica, which has a significant overlap with the article on the Aztec culture, since Aztec culture is a Mesoamerican culture. Rreagan007 ( talk) 01:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
I think there is some effort and logic to keep the different level lists consistent with each other, I'm not sure if we ever agreed it to be proper official procedure or not, but common sense and discussion has done us OK so far. I would prefer the article Aztec in the 1000 list. In the 10'000 list I think we should list Aztec, and possibly Aztec Empire as well at that level. I agree with the comments comparing Aztec choice of articles and terminology compared to others like Egyptian, Greek, Roman, eg the general article about the culture/civilization seems to be the better choice most of the time. Also if it matters or not Aztec is in 110 languages, Aztec Empire in 21 languages. Aztec has 2987 average daily page views compared with 1271 for Aztec Empire. Aztec article is 125'000 kb in size compared to 56'000 kb for Aztec Empire. [1] [2] Carl wev 16:08, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Given the discussion above I think it is appropriate to vote on whether to keep the article Aztec on the list. I may have added it originally myself without a vote back before I understood how the vital system worked. I think this is clearly the right article to include, because Azted empire describes a much narrower topic, since the article Aztec deals with "The Aztecs", meaning their entire culture, history and society - what could also be called a civilization, but which is generally not (probably because of the short time period in which the Aztec flourished). The Aztecs do not overlap significantly with Mesoamerica (an area with 3000 years of civilization and hundreds of ethnic group of which the Aztecs are only one and only covers a small geographic area and some 300 years) - and if the list were to have only one of them Aztec would perhaps be the more notable chocice, because of how well known the Aztecs are in the western culture. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:06, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
The discussion of Aztec vc Aztec Empire has made me think of this again, it's been on my mind for ages. The topic of the Vikings appears in several encyclopedias other books I have, and it is nearly always referred to as the Vikings, not Viking Age. Again the article on Vikings is wider and more consistent with other choice of articles. Vikings appears in 128 languages compared to 44 for Viking Age. Vikings gets 5812 average daily page views and is 126'000 kb in size, compared with 1737 average daily page views and 75'600 kb size for Viking Age. Vikings is much more than double in all those aspects. My instincts say it is Vikings we should be listing? But then could the argument be if we list Vikings why not Celts, or Goths. But is it as simple as the Vikings are generally seen as more vital than them? Thoughts? should we swap out Viking Age for Vikings? (both are listed at level 4 by the way) [3] [4]. Also on Google Vikings has 56 million matches compared with 1.8 million matches for Viking Age. But that might not be that relevant. Carl wev 16:08, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Vikings literally refers to Norse pirates, raiders, and seafarers. As a misnomer, it has been applied to the entire Scandinavian population, culture, and colonies of the era, and our article seems to attempt to cover them all.
Viking Age is a historical period, lasting from the late 8th century to the 11th century, when most of Europe faced Viking raids and attempts at Norse settlement. Besides the Norse themselves, the article attempts to cover the impact on various European regions. The scope is wider, but the article seems to receive less attention by editors. Dimadick ( talk) 13:50, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Someone added vital article tags to the articles Dave Meltzer and Ric Flair (among others), but I can find no evidence that there had been any discussion to add them to the vital article list. ★Trekker ( talk) 15:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
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.
Entertainment is more essential article than Recreation at this level. "Recreation is difficult to separate from the general concept of play, which is usually the term for children's recreational activity." Play is crucial for children’s development and the concept of play also describes other activities ( Homo Ludens).
Should this be formatted as a swap with play? RJFJR ( talk) 16:08, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It is as equally important as other vital articles such as Architecture. 2601:183:101:58D0:1817:A6CE:1070:6D03 ( talk) 01:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
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.
Marketing is the broader subject matter, so that's what we should include at this level instead. Advertising is merely one type of marketing, other types of which include publicity and public relations, among others.
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.
Watercraft is a broader subject matter than ship.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We recently removed 2 articles from the religious section ( Theism and Agnosticism). I think this would be a good article to add back in. Most of the specific religions we list are obviously the older religions for good reason, but I think newer religious movements deserve to be covered on the list too. Rreagan007 ( talk) 22:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm concerned about how this term is used as a catch-all for Mormons, Baha'i, Rastafari, Scientology, and Falun Gong (among others). However I don't see a better option; History of religions is basically a stub. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 23:09, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
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.
Ritual is a human universal and an aspect of all religions. And there is a major body of theory and literature about it. Clearly a vital topic in religion.
Oppose There is overlap with
worship and
prayer. And I would rather have
Tradition listed at this level, as it encompasses rituals, which are religious traditions.
Rreagan007 (
talk) 18:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Oppose 1. Neutral. Support for swap with Worship or Prayer. --
Thi (
talk) 18:33, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
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 emotion is on par in terms of vitality with the other emotions that we list (i.e. love, anger, fear, happiness), and is increasingly important in terms of things such as hate crimes and hate speech, which the article on hatred covers.
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.
An important class of molecules that I think should be listed at this level.
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.
From the article's lede, "generally credited with inventing, building, and flying the world's first successful airplane". One of the last truly important biographies not on this list. They had more impact on the world then someone like Ford. Without them the 20th century would be completely different. Needs no other explanation.
I don't think they're more important than Ford, but that's not necessarily the requirement. The only swap I think I would support would be for Werner Heisenberg. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 03:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
We list aircraft, but we don't list aviation or airplane the most important aircraft. Also, we list ship but we don't list sailing either. Carl wev 19:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Then why was van Leeuwenhoek removed ages ago? We kept Microscope so there'd be a significant overlap with van Leeuwenhoek. Aviation nor airplane is on this list and they would overlap with aircraft so the brothers are the better pick. If the Wright brothers do not make a list like this but people like Hemingway, Amundsen, Kurosawa or Noether do then i think it makes this list silly. No serious encyclopedia would skip the Wright brothers even on a shoestring budget. Just seems preposterous a area we don't cover (aviation/airplane) gets skipped over because we don't list both the invention and it's inventor, for yet we denied the inventor of paper for the exact same thing. GuzzyG ( talk) 04:49, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A formal request to merge Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/1 and Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/2 into Wikipedia:Vital articles has been received at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers, with the rationale that Wikipedia:Vital articles also lists Level 1 and Level 2 vital articles and therefore separate pages are unnecessary for the latter two articles. However, as this affects changes to key Wikipedia pages and the nomination was made by an IP (the same one that recently changed the order of the articles on the vital articles pages without consensus), I am holding off on placing merger tags on the pages and letting the community know about the merger request, so that it can be discussed here. Richard3120 ( talk) 01:23, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It is as important as food. It is a level-4 vital article, and a lot of drinks are Level-3 vital articles.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I don't think we need to list both Water and Drinking water at this level, especially with the inclusion of the general article on Drinks looking likely. The article on water includes a section on drinking water under uses as does the article on drink.
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.
Historical calculating tool. In my opinion not vital at this level.
One of the sections of the FAQ mentions that vital articles try to avoid recentism, but I noticed that Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Politicians and leaders has 52 articles in a "21st century" section. Of course, most of the people in there are still living and still politically active (and some of them, still sitting heads of government). Does level 5 have a more relaxed criteria, or should that whole section be removed? Cambalachero ( talk) 15:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
I've proposed some changes to the quotas for the "Level 5" list at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5#Quota change proposal. It increases the People quota from 10000 (20%) to 12000 (24%), decreases the Geography quota from 6000 (12%) to 5000 (10%), and removes 1000 quota from other areas. Please comment and "vote" on that page, if you are interested in the proceedings of that project. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 04:53, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
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 was brought up in the recent Armour nomination. Spear does seem to be on par with other weapons listed in terms of its historical significance. Rreagan007 ( talk) 16:54, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
References
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.
All that needs to be said is we have 4 English language writers from the 20th century but not the "father of English literature" himself. Hemingway is the weakest on the list. I think this has been suggested before. It makes no sense whatsoever not to have Chaucer on this list when writers like Hemingway or Poe are on it. Chaucer easily has a more secure and longer lasting contribution to literature.
There seems to be two supporting votes by Robinvp11 above. -- Thi ( talk) 16:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
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 [6] says more then i ever could. I think for the purposes of this list Debussy is a much better add then Chopin.
References
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 was brought up in the recent farm nomination that failed due to its overlap with agriculture. We already list Manufacturing, and a factory is just a place where manufacturing takes place, so I don't think we need to list it separately at this level.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It's part of the Vedas, which is also listed. There is no need to list them both at this level.
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.
According to the articles, Buddhism can be viewed as having 2 main branches, Theravada and Mahayana (with Vajrayana being a part of Mahayana), or Vajrayana can be viewed separately as a third branch. Since we can only list 1,000 articles here, I think we should just list the 2 main branches of Buddhism here. This is in keeping with our attempts to remove articles at this level that are unnecessary due to significant overlap with another article.
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 event impacted many people all over the globe. 192.107.120.90 ( talk) 17:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree it may too recent and perhaps not sufficiently vital to include. But it might in the long run turn out to be a relevant addition under war on terror at level 4, just like the Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand is for WWI. Arnoutf ( talk) 07:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
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.
Obesity may be a vital article, but overweight should be added because more people are overweight than obese. -- 75.67.58.188 ( talk) 22:45, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We list the French Revolution in the modern history section, and I think the American Revolution is just as vital to the English Wikipedia, perhaps even more so since it directly involved the two largest English-speaking nations, the United States and Great Britain.
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.
There seem to be quite a lot of red-linked Vital article categories finding their way onto the WantedCategories report at the moment, for instance at the moment there's Category:Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in Life and Category:All Wikipedia vital articles in Physics. I tend to assume that the editors responsible know what they're doing, but someone more familiar with the Vital process might want to have a scan through that report, to confirm what's going on. Le Deluge ( talk) 16:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
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.
In my opinion, space exploration is more vital than Moon landing. -- 192.107.120.90 ( talk) 17:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A major turning-point in English history. This list is supposed to be tailored to the English-language Wikipedia, and I think this article is vital at this level for the English Wikipedia.
#Support --
Thi (
talk) 06:20, 22 June 2018 (UTC) Only if
American revolution is added. --
Thi (
talk) 19:43, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
I am English, I think this i an important event, and it is of personal interest to me. But that aside, is the Norman conquest of England singularly more vital than England, or the Normans or even perhaps William the Conqueror? Carl wev 17:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm abstaining for now; I had considered suggesting William the Conqueror but I'd rather avoid increasing the proportion of biographies. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 21:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I really don't see the need to list this article at this level. The pendulum's main historical usage has been in clocks and it is covered adequately in the clock article that is already listed at this level.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We have recently removed several religion articles, so there is some room on the list now. Our current coverage of religions leans heavily towards organized religions. Adding this article would give us a little more balance in that area.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm renominating this because I think the previous nomination was closed too early. While it had been open for just over 30 days, it has been a norm to leave open nominations longer than 30 days that have a reasonable chance of success, which it clearly did have. I still believe that this article deserves to be listed at this level for all the reasons stated in the previous nomination. The American Revolution was a profound historical turning point. It was the first European colony to break away from their mother country and arguably was the inspiration for all others to do so. It was also a source of inspiration for the French Revolution, which is also listed at this level.
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.
Since it is vital in both geochemistry and toxicology, is one of the four major sub-disciplines of chemistry, and listed in meta's equivalent page, this article should definitely be added.
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.
Oceania is the only place that does not have at least 2 level 3 vital article countries. I think another country should be added as well. -- 107.0.6.250 ( talk) 12:43, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
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.
What actual impact does adding an article to these lists have? It gets a message on the talk page and that's about it. It doesn't get more traffic or more attention. The lists themselves don't get a huge amount of views either. Level 5 history for instance gets 35 views a day, which is pretty much nothing. The stated goal of VA project is to identify the most important articles for where editors can put their focus. Yet, level 1-2 only has a combined total of 3 FA, and a few former FA. Levels 3,4,5, are pretty much the same.
If this project was working as intended, nearly all of the vital articles would be GA or FA status.
So what can be done? Harizotoh9 ( talk) 18:32, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Ideas: 1. Create a "WikiProject Vital Articles", where people can join. Organizing the list , and improving the articles would be the main goals.
2. Make the Vital Articles accessable from the front page. They could be accessed from the left hand side and the top of the main page, near portals.
3. A collaboration project to improve the articles.
Harizotoh9 ( talk) 00:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
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.
Vital articles! Looks interesting. Level 1, 2, 3, it is a little confusing, and it took me a while to work it out. Not long, but a bit. Level n means the top 10n most vital articles, excluding the articles already contained in the more vital levels. Level 1 are the most vital. Level 5 are the least vital of the vital system. A backward logarithmic ranking, like Magnitude (astronomy). For non-astronomers, higher numbers usually mean higher. I suggest adding "Top 10 most vital", Top 100 most vital", etc, to the introductory explanations for each level.
I find the system begs for identifying the Level 0 single most vital article. I suggest Philosophy, per Wikipedia:Getting to Philosophy, philosophy is the mother of all science.
The explanations are located at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/n, eg Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/1. That is an unexpected titling format. I suggest changing to Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level n, for n = 1,2,3,4,5. Or just go straight to Wikipedia:Vital articles/Top 10^n, eg Wikipedia:Vital articles/Top 10, Wikipedia:Vital articles/Top 100.
-- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 07:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
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.
Maybe i am missing something but in my opinion the activity is more vital then the industry of that activity. The pageviews and different wikidata languages back that up. I understand it's listed under "Industry" but i just don't believe something that is just a certain aspect of the larger topic should be listed before the larger topic itself; especially considering the fact we didn't add farm because of agriculture being listed and we removed factory because we listed manufacturing.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am not convinced that it is vital at Level 3. Seventeen interwikis are not much at this level and it is covered by Ritual.
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.
Africa is underrepresented in the countries list.
Yair Rand is right...but... China and India account for 2.7 billion people and have two representatives on this list, while the other 33 representatives are divided among the world's other 4.9 billion people. That's roughly 150 million people per representative, which comes out to:
p b p 20:56, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
In my opinion Swahili language should be added [7] before Tanzania Dawid2009 ( talk) 05:32, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We don't list any disputed states on the list. Taiwan is the largest non-UN state in terms of both population and economy. It's a political hotbed, similar to Israel, another relatively small country that we list, which adds to reader interest: Taiwan is one of the top viewed articles on Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries/Popular pages. Also, Taiwan has contributed a lot of technology to our world: TSMC for example is the largest semiconductor foundry in the world, without whom most smartphones and computers would have been impossible.
@ Thi: To clarify: Do you think that every country on Earth (~200 articles) should be on the list? That countries should make up 20% of the list? I just want to make sure I didn't misunderstand your statement. -- Yair rand ( talk) 18:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We need a better method to handle requests to reopen something closed as undecided. Folk Religion sat at 4-2 for thirty days with out a change but now it is reopened. Some people who voted previously won't bother to vote again so there will be even fewer votes and if it is decided this time it will be on a less comprehensive base.
Can we just agree that if someone thinks a just closed item could have been decided with more time they can request it be reopened instead of opening a new vote for the same item? RJFJR ( talk) 15:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I already posted this on the Level 4 talk page, but it hasn't seemed to spark any interest over there. An editor has taken it upon himself to merge Mythology into Myth. I have had a bit of a discussion with him about it on the Myth talk page. "Mythology" was a Level 2 article, but "Myth" isn't even currently listed at Level 5. Should we simply swap out mythology for myth at all levels, or should we remove mythology from one or more levels? For some reason, "Myth" doesn't seem as worthy of an article for Level 2 to me as "Mythology" did. Rreagan007 ( talk) 04:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
One of the biggest countries not listed.
I think we should add more nations. Malaysia just over 30 mil. Tanzania is the highest missing nation at about 55 mil pop. There are 10 missing nations with higher populations. (see here). Morocco, Algeria, Ukraine, Iraq, Kenya and Myanmar (Burma) and 4 more. Many of these had under 10 million in 1950 and doubled in population every 20 something years to being between 30 and 55 mil today, recent boomers. Not that that makes them any more or less vitl alone. Malaysia is quite important I still support, I just think other nations I listed are worthy of consideration also. We also list smaller pop nations, like Israel, and Singapore (in cities I think) and Australia. Carl wev 07:20, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
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.
An article about planned spaces for plants just doesn't seem like a Level 3 article to me.
Garden was added 2 years ago, the discussion is here [10]. I know consensus can change, just wanted users to be aware of the previous discussion. Carl wev 19:04, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A move proposal is open regarding the correct title/spelling for the article on the prophet Muhammad's journey to Medina. Participants in this project may be interested in participating at Talk:Hegira. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 04:35, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
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.
Second largest city in the world's largest english speaking country, and in the top 20 urban and metropolitan areas of the world by population.
I live near Los Angeles, but b) I think there's probably already too many cities and too few countries. p b p 01:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
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.
First: a move discussion at Talk:East Timor may be of interest to participants in this project.
Second, regarding this diff: how did nobody (myself included) notice this crap for 4 months? Is there any better way to monitor articles of interest to this project for such ridiculous changes? power~enwiki ( π, ν) 22:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)