![]() | 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 15 | ← | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |
I have decided to split the discussion as people in the discussion doesn't seems interested in dealing with the addition and the removal of this two topics together. C933103 ( talk) 22:02, 13 April 2022 (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.
With Infants being another state of life, being cover under child, I think it can probably be replaced for a more significant unit of human settlement which reflect how human live together and organize together to build up the scale of human civilization, which is still a prominent part of human society nowadays.
C933103 (
talk)
15:16, 7 February 2022 (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.
Currently the list have 20 cities and an article on the concept of "city" itself, which represent half of the world's population living in cities, but the world still have another half of the population not living in some form of cities, aka they would be living in villages/rural area and such, yet the list lack representation of them. C933103 ( talk) 16:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Edit: Replaced "Village" with "Rural area", as the article on Rural area appears to cover a boarder concept and more organized than the article of Village. C933103 ( talk) 22:02, 13 April 2022 (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.
If human history is already included in being human, why not take it out and deposit it in level 1 or 2 just with the social sciences? All is ideology and human history is concern about social science. Luizpuodzius Sisiphu ( talk) 18:58, 28 February 2022 (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.
With all the scandals and disappointment over arrangement of multiple Olympic Games over the past decade, with incidence like corruption and collaboration on human right abuse, and its choice of sports being unable to reflect a global audience demand hence facing a decline in viewership, I think the Olympic Games have lost its symbolic value as "the" sports event to attend and to watch, that can warrant its inclusion as the top 1000 most vital English Wikipedia article. As thus I propose the Olympic Games be removed from the Level 3 list, instead let it stay at Level 4.
It was previously proposed as a swap, but due to trouble over swap target, the amount of votes it attracted was low. Thus, I am relisting the Olympic Games for discussion in itself, without proposing any addition for the time being (That would be for another vote). C933103 ( talk) 02:14, 13 March 2022 (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.
Currently, the list is now a bit short of 1000, after removal of a few international organizations.
Meanwhile, in the past few months, there were some discussions about aspects of the list that are currently not comprehensive, as well as some addition proposals that were rejected on the ground of being not sufficiently vital enough against other articles proposed for removal or that quota have already been filled.
Here, I would like to propose filling in the list back to 1000 through a ranked choice system (specifically Dowdall system according to characteristic of this voting), where the most preferred articles that most people feel are vital in Level 3, can get to fill in the list.
In doing so, it's more likely to reach a result that most people would consider appropriate to be part of the list.
Let nominate articles that are to be included in the voting first. C933103 ( talk) 18:03, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Nomination
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.
People here may be interested to know that this year will see another Core Contest, starting on April 15 and drawing heavily from the list of vital articles :). Signups are open. Femke ( talk) 08:29, 20 March 2022 (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 Bhagavad Gita is one of the greatest literary outputs that human civilization has ever known, ranking well with Homer's Illiad, Dante's Divine Comedy, One Thousand and One Nights, etc. But at present we list two works of Hindu liturgy, the Gita along with the Vedas, and I'm not sure why we have both. Of the two, the Vedas are more historically, culturally, and religiously important. I am also not sure why we list the Gita alone and not the entire Mahabharata, and if we did list the Mahabharata, we should be asking ourselves why we list it and not the Ramayana, a work of like stature, as well. In order to avoid this awkwardness, I propose the Gita be removed.
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.
Currently there's no guideline for which countries are added as level 3 articles opposed to level 4. We have countries that are not very significant at the present international sphere nor are historically important, they were added merely for numerical reasons (population), such as Myanmar, the Democratic Republic of the Congo or Colombia.
So in order to make it more fair and have a concrete criteria, I proposed the removal of all the countries that are not considered a regional power. The definition of a regional power is, according to the European Consortium for Political Research, the following:
Personally I find this a good basis as to which countries should be level 3 articles because it encopasses economical, demographic, military and geopolitical factors, though it neglects historical but this seems to be case in the current list anyways. SadAttorney613 ( talk)
If we follow this through it would result in the removal of the following countries:
North America
South America
|
Africa
|
Europe
|
Asia
|
I'm reserving my opinion for now but can we please make it a practice not to entertain bulk proposals like these? Our policy has always been to evaluate individual proposals on a case by case basis. If you want a mass roll-back of countries, that's fine, but propose individual countries for removal first. Doing it that way allows us to debate the merits of each proposal. Bulk proposals like these just invite contention. What if I agree with some of the removals? I'd be forced to oppose the proposal even if I were to agree with the majority of the removals. It's silly. Zelkia1101 ( talk) 23:14, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Using power status as a criterion is an interesting idea, but I think it gets complicated in the details. For example, I'd strongly disagree with removing Poland (as a historical great power & a rep for Eastern Europe) and I honestly would consider the UAE a regional power too (it wields significant influence in several forms, despite its small size). It gets even fuzzier based on how you interpret power. Like in the Americas, the largest populations & economies don't really compete as powers with the US much, while Venezuela and Cuba (which has even sent expeditionary forces overseas) act more like independent powers despite being outsized by many others in the hemisphere. Zar2gar1 ( talk) 19:26, 27 March 2022 (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 currently do not list anything related to homeostasis and excretion, 2 processes which are crucial to pretty much all life. Since the kidney is involved in both of these processes, I think it's inclusion is merited. I would also support adding either or both of the processes mentioned, but I think that that is unlikely to pass. INDT ( talk) 11:15, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose because we are close to the 1000-article limit. But I would support swapping
hormone for
homeostasis. Excretion is sufficiently covered by metabolism at this level. And the stomach is not a vital organ.
Cobblet (
talk)
17:33, 5 December 2021 (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 list of 1000 articles currently includes a few different examples of social movements, including Environmentalism, Feminism, Secularism, and such.
However, there are still many different types of social movements around the world, and this list failed to cover them.
Given such situation, I propose adding the article on social movement to the list that cover all these different types of social movement and also other social movement with different goals and for different purposes that are not covered by the list now, including social movement for democracy, equality, liberty, anticorruption, and so on.
To make room for the addition, I suggest removing Women's suffrage, as it is much narrower in scope and too specific to say it have the degree of vitality to make it into the most vital 1000 articles list. C933103 ( talk) 05:18, 17 February 2022 (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 Arabic alphabet article specifically focus on the characters themselves that are used in Arabic language. Unlike Arabic script which cover it as used in all languages that use the same writing system. Information like writing styles and its global use is also only found in the Arabic script page. Hence I think it is an article that better represent the writing system as one of the 1000 most vital articles on English Wikipedia. C933103 ( talk) 05:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Arabic script is not listed at level 4. Do we have a consensus to add it there as well? Cobblet ( talk) 16:46, 10 April 2022 (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, the inclusion of "social class" in top 1000 most vital article is an undue representation to the idea of classism. Most society nowadays aren't organized into classes. The explanation in the article, "Class society or class-based society is an organizing principle society in which ownership of property, means of production, and wealth is the determining factor of the distribution of power, in which those with more property and wealth are stratified higher in the society and those without access to the means of production and without wealth are stratified lower in the society.", is a Marxist view of society classification and is far from mainstream. The article claim the most common classification are upper class, middle class, and working class, yet "upper class" isn't a commonly used term in English nowadays, and "Middle class" often overlap with "working class" in developed countries nowadays, and represent the general public who are not in the state of poverty, an article already included in the vital article list. Hence I believe the article social class should be removed from the vital article list level 3, to avoid undue representation of fringe idea. C933103 ( talk) 11:01, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Edit: @ Zelkia1101 and Thi: I have changed the proposal to include a replacement target in order to cover the important social phenomenon of social stratification more appropriately, instead of the current vague social class article which lack focus and is open for interpretation by different schools of thoughts. C933103 ( talk) 10:37, 11 April 2022 (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.
Now that the moratorium has been lifted, I reckon it’s time we cleaned up this biography section. Starting with one of the most egregious inclusions. There is simply no reason to have Henry VIII on this list. At best he is a well-known figure in pop history (dur hur six wives). But what does Henry have to show for himself? His one great achievement, the English Reformation, is important to the Anglophone world, though it’s far less of a notable event in itself than the defeat of the Spanish Armada, which established Britain as a colonial power, or the English Civil War, which enshrined the power of the legislature and planted the seeds of parliamentary democracy. Cromwell, Charles I, Edward I, Marlborough, Wellington, are all leaders of equal stature to Henry, and yet they are not listed. Cromwell and Edward I are arguably far more influential. Why on a list of the 100 most important people must there be two Tudors? And why one to represent a Protestant reformation in a country when we already have Martin Luther?
On the introduction section of the main page, there is a sentence which said:
This list is tailored to the English-language Wikipedia. There is also a list of one thousand articles considered vital to Wikipedias of all languages, as well as Vital Article lists tailored to different Wikipedia languages accessible via the languages sidebar.
However, the "language sitebar" now link to wikidata item d:Q43375360, where the linked Chinese entry is "Wikipedia:Vital Articles/English Wikipedia Level 3 List", thus making the introduction doesn't match the reality.
Is the situation the same for other linked Wikipedia pages, that the Introduction section need to be fixed, or is this unique to Chinese Wikipedia, that its entry in Wikidata should be changed? C933103 ( talk) 05:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Ocean, covering 70% of the earth, are essential to humanity to trade and exchange via and extract resource from for the growth of our civilization. The history of human utilizing and exploring it allowed faraway people to reach each others, and obtained resources that wouldn't be otherwise obtainable, and also caused numerous conflicts throughout the world along the history. Thus, I believe Maritime history as a history of human use of ocean, is at least as important as the History of Antarctica. Thus I propose adding the article "Maritime History" into this list at Level 3. C933103 ( talk) 01:39, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Currently Musician is on the level 5 list, but I think it might deserve to be included higher? I'm not familiar with the vital articles process, so I'll leave it up to the project to decide what's best. — PerfectSoundWhatever ( t; c) 17:24, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Five of the six generally accepted cradles of civilization are represented on the list: Mesopotamia, Ancient Egypt, Indus Valley Civilisation, Mesoamerica, and Andean civilizations. Representation of Ancient China (a redirect to History of China) is conspicuously missing. I suggest adding the Zhou dynasty, China's longest dynasty, when among other technological advances, China first saw the introduction of iron, coinage, and horseback riding. Even more importantly, the Zhou dynasty also marks the first great flowering of Chinese intellectual culture, witnessing the development of Confucianism, Taoism, and Legalism; the Mandate of Heaven; Classical Chinese; and the writing of the Four Books and Five Classics (including the Analects and the I Ching) and The Art of War. The political and military intrigues that characterized the Spring and Autumn period and Warring States period at the end of the dynasty have been endlessly referenced in Chinese culture to this day. Cobblet ( talk) 00:22, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
#Oppose
Spring and Autumn period and
Warring States period are the periods when these different schools of thought being developed, and that is the time which see the central government authority, aka the ruling Zhou dynasty, being extremely weakened. Hence, an article on Zhou dynasty will not be able to represent the social and cultural development in China during this period of time. Many social reforms are conducted independently by each kingdoms which are in no way possible to be mentioned in an article for the Zhou dynasty, and different schools of thought are only allowed to flourish because academics are welcomed by different rulers in different kingdoms independently. And, per sources like
[1], Mandate of Heaven as a concept already existed in Shang dynasty or before. (Contrary to what the Wikipedia article currently claim.) Hence both the Spring and Autumn period and Warring States period are much more important articles than an article on Zhou dynasty.
C933103 (
talk)
04:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)changed vote as of 12:35, 23 March 2022 (UTC),
C933103 (
talk)
I think when considering which people to include for levels 3 and 4, there is a lot to consider when deciding who to include and not to include. I wouldn't do this for level 5 just yet due to its size. I think adding reasons shows readers why we selected some people over others. Sometimes it's obvious, other times, it's not. I think including a reason why those people are listed at a particular level would help alleviate confusion on why we include them. Please let me know what your thoughts are on this. Interstellarity ( talk) 20:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
See here, I'm offering $1000 USD to the first editor(s) to get one of the level 1 articles to GA. Have fun! -- Cerebellum ( talk) 13:07, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm currently trying to improve the level 1 vital article to GA and it's been an interesting start so far. What do you think about the article so far? What parts of it need a lot of improvement? I'd love to hear your comments! CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 11:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Suffrage is a much broader topic than women’s suffrage. Interstellarity ( talk) 18:15, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
So I guess this PASSED. How do we add it?
EDIT: I made the swap here, and listed Suffrage as vital-3 on its talk page, and listed Women's Suffrage as vital-4 on its talk page. This needs one more vote to pass.
EDIT: Hey @ Cobblet, I see you undid my edits to swap Woman's Suffrage and Suffrage. I was going to go to the vital-4 list to swap them as well when I saw you undid my edits in vital-3. Is this because you want to ignore Interstellarity's rule change, so it needs one more vote? LightProof1995 ( talk) 19:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
That makes sense, I just want to add I only saw the conversation about Interstellity’s edit/rule change after I made the Suffrage edits, because I actually was going by the Introduction section’s statement about if 15 days pass and there is 67% consensus, then it passes LightProof1995 ( talk) 21:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
This has now officially PASSED. I edited the Vital-3 page, Vital-4 page, Suffrage talk page, and Women's suffrage talk page accordingly. LightProof1995 ( talk) 21:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't understand this addition; I find no discussion in archives, and it is hard to imagine how this obscure artist is "vital". SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 04:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
User:Interstellarity has recently altered the consensus rules on the Vital Articles Project at all levels so that instead of needing a minimum of 5 supports, a proposal can pass with only one support (i.e. only the nomination) and then applied this change of rule to every existing proposal retrospectively. With all due respect, I found this to be a ridiculous change when 1. It wasn't discussed at all 2. Many proposals would've been opposed in greater numbers had people known about this change (I could not be bothered opposing many proposals which only had the nominator supporting because it didn't look like they were going to be successful and I imagine many others were in the same boat) and 3. A nomination with no further comments or agreement doesn't signify "consensus" in any shape or form.
It's one thing to change things slightly in order to make the project active (although even then it's good to discuss and ping all major long-term editors of the page) and another to go to such extreme lengths. You might as well make it a free-for-all and take away the requirement to discuss any changes if one support is enough for a proposal to pass. Gizza ( talk • voy) 02:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I have made a page on Wikipedia:WikiProject Vital Articles/Compare to Encyclopædia Britannica to compare articles from both encyclopedia together. Spoiler: Britannica is much closer to our Vital article quality than you might think. CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 04:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
There's new barnstars at the WikiProject Vital Articles for those bold enough to improve a Vital article towards GA and FA. Here it is:
![]() |
The Good Article Barnstar | |
Make 1, get 1 for free! |
![]() |
The Featured Article Barnstar | |
The course of FA never did run smooth... |
CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 13:55, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm currently going through the vital article list to update the assessment. If you see the article goes from B-Class to C-Class, it is most likely for the following reasons, of decreasing importance:
If you have any concerns or questions, feel free to message me here or at my talk page. CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 02:40, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
User:Z1720 Done, and to sum up the situation: "Hell is the truth seen too late". CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 03:39, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Article | URFA comment | Last action date |
---|---|---|
Amphibian |
![]() |
2012-12-16 |
Ancient Egypt |
![]() |
2008-03-30 |
Antarctica |
![]() |
2022-06-25 |
Archaea |
![]() |
2008-07-02 |
Archimedes |
![]() |
2007-10-23 |
Atheism |
![]() |
2007-04-28 |
Augustus |
![]() |
2007-08-31 |
Australia |
![]() |
2010-06-29 |
Bacteria |
![]() |
2006-12-03 |
The Beatles |
![]() |
2009-11-03 |
Bird |
![]() |
2007-12-20 |
Byzantine Empire |
![]() |
2012-06-27 |
Canada |
![]() |
2010-04-20 |
Charlie Chaplin |
![]() |
2014-01-14 |
Climate change |
![]() |
2021-01-21 |
Charles Darwin |
![]() |
2006-12-19 |
Dinosaur |
![]() |
2005-12-17 |
Walt Disney |
![]() |
2016-05-21 |
DNA |
![]() |
2007-04-25 |
Earth |
![]() |
2020-11-14 |
Electron |
![]() |
2009-08-30 |
Elizabeth I |
![]() |
2007-12-10 |
Evolution |
![]() |
2007-06-10 |
Leonhard Euler |
![]() |
2021-09-04 |
Fungus |
![]() |
2009-08-22 |
Galaxy |
![]() |
2007-02-10 |
Genetics |
![]() |
2008-03-25 |
Germany |
![]() |
2011-06-13 |
Han dynasty |
![]() |
2009-04-21 |
Hydrogen |
![]() |
2008-04-20 |
Immune system | ![]() |
2007-01-09 |
India |
![]() |
2011-07-28 |
Influenza |
![]() |
2006-11-02 |
Michael Jackson |
![]() |
2008-07-28 |
Japan |
![]() |
2011-04-14 |
Jesus |
![]() |
2013-08-15 |
Joan of Arc |
![]() |
2006-08-31 |
Logarithm |
![]() |
2011-06-01 |
Nelson Mandela |
![]() |
2017-02-10 |
Mars |
![]() |
2022-06-25 |
Maya civilization | ![]() |
2015-07-24 |
Mercury (planet) |
![]() |
2008-06-06 |
Metabolism |
![]() |
2007-03-30 |
Middle Ages |
![]() |
2013-05-26 |
Moon |
![]() |
2010-05-18 |
Murasaki Shikibu |
![]() |
2011-09-16 |
Neptune |
![]() |
2008-03-14 |
Emmy Noether |
![]() |
2008-06-22 |
Olympic Games |
![]() |
2009-05-12 |
Oxygen |
![]() |
2008-02-06 |
Periodic table |
![]() |
2012-11-07 |
Pi |
![]() |
2012-06-04 |
Planet |
![]() |
2008-02-08 |
Primate |
![]() |
2008-12-03 |
Rodent |
![]() |
2014-10-22 |
Saturn |
![]() |
2007-08-02 |
Sea |
![]() |
2013-10-05 |
Solar System |
![]() |
2022-07-09 |
Sun |
![]() |
2009-07-30 |
William Shakespeare |
![]() |
2007-08-14 |
Sheep |
![]() |
2008-02-13 |
Shen Kuo |
![]() |
2007-06-01 |
Speed of light |
![]() |
2022-03-19 |
Star |
![]() |
2006-10-13 |
Supernova |
![]() |
2007-02-10 |
Tang dynasty |
![]() |
2007-08-03 |
Uranus |
![]() |
2007-09-29 |
Venus |
![]() |
2016-06-26 |
Virus |
![]() |
2008-09-23 |
Wind |
![]() |
2009-06-27 |
Mary Wollstonecraft |
![]() |
2007-01-20 |
I have nominated Wind for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 ( talk) 13:35, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Since this is currently at 997, I propose we add these articles as Vital-3: Protist, Elephant, and Whale.
Both species of African elephant were listed as endangered in 2021 because of habitat loss and the ivory trade. Elephants have also been important in warfare historically. Currently Elephant is a featured article.
The blue whale is the largest animal known to have ever existed. Many species of whale are also endangered because of their importance humans ( whaling).
Protist seems so vital I'm surprised it isn't listed yet.
Replacement Ideas:
Under weapons, I vote we replace Knife with the article Blade, which is more general, referring not only to knives but also swords, axes, spears, etc. I feel the Blade article needs more work.
If we are going to have a business-person, I vote John D. Rockefeller takes the place of Henry Ford. Not only is Rockefeller the richest person of modern history, he only became so wealthy because the government broke up his business into 34 companies over anti-trust concerns after he had already retired, and for some reason this made him even wealthier than he already was. He then became one of the greatest philanthropists of all time. Ford, on the other hand, was antisemitic, and not as successful as Rockefeller.
Furthermore, I vote Reincarnation takes the place of Greek mythology. I feel Egyptian mythology, Celtic mythology, and more are just as cool, and the Myth page doesn't even mention them, so other cultures' mythologies besides the Greeks deserve more love. Reincarnation, on the other hand, is an idea seen across many cultures and religions, notably being a tenet of all four major Indian religions (all are vital-3 articles: Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism, and Jainism), but also seen in faiths such as the Druze, Jewish Kabbalah, and Wicca. LightProof1995 ( talk) 06:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I want to add, it was a coincidence all of the topics I want to add are organisms. I truly went up and down the list and decided these three were most important, and should be added. LightProof1995 ( talk) 08:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
We should add Protists. I'm surprised they haven't been added yet. LightProof1995 ( talk) 08:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
EDIT: Apparently some algae are sometimes considered plants, and sometimes considered protists. Green algae seems to be considered a plant. LightProof1995 ( talk) 13:43, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
We should add Elephants. It is currently a Featured Article which points to their importance. Elephants are the largest living land creatures and have been vital to humanity for millennia. First domesticated by the Indus Valley civilization, they were historically important in warfare, such as when Hannibal crossed the Alps on elephants. Both species of African elephant were listed as endangered in 2021 due to the illegal ivory trade and habitat loss.
It's not just the importance of elephants and whales historically to humans, it is also the fact they are such majestic and fascinating creatures. Just think about what elephants look like. They have distinctive ears, trunks, and tusks. The hippocampus of the elephant is larger relative to its size compared to humans which is why elephants are known to be such emotionally intelligent animals and is why you've heard the phrase "An elephant never forgets". LightProof1995 ( talk) 08:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Beaver (A type of Rodent, which we have) This is the "Fur" resource
Clam (A type of Mollusca, which we have)
Crab (A type of Crustacean, which we have)
Deer We don't have this.
Elephant We don't have this. In the game, it is called the Ivory resource and shows elephants, but you also need this resource to make War Elephants.
Whale We don't have this.
Camel We don't have this. Represented as Camel archers, but only if you play as the Arabian civilization as Saladin. Comparatively, you can have War elephants playing as any civilization. In Civilization III, war elephants were unique to the Indian civilization. In Civilization V, war elephants are unique to the Indian civilization as a unit called "War elephant" and the Carthaginian civilization as a unit called "African forest elephant", replacing chariot archer and horseman units, respectively. The ivory resource is still present, but isn't required by the Indian and Carthaginian civilizations to make their elephant units. There is also a Bison resource in Civ 5. LightProof1995 ( talk) 04:47, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
I didn't think about deer until I made this list, but I'm not recommending we add them. I do think we should have both elephant and whale, however. Additionally, when zooming in on a town in the game, you can hear dogs barking and chickens clucking, which we both have. LightProof1995 ( talk) 15:17, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
We should add Whales. Like elephants, whales have also almost been driven to extinction due to their importance to humans. The whaling industry was important from the 1600s to the 1900s for products such as oil for lamps and ambergris. The blue whale is the largest animal known to have ever existed. Whale watching is a popular form of tourism worldwide.
Imagine you were an extraterrestrial looking at this list of vital articles. You might say "Ah, yes, humans arose from abiogenesis and evolution, first they were single-cell organisms, then fish, then they moved on land and evolved into primates, then humans, and that was the peak of evolution. So surely no animal went back into the ocean after having evolved on land right? Because that would make like no sense??? And they would see dinosaur and say "Ah yes, these were the largest animals to have ever existed on Earth for sure. Because how could these humans not include the largest one on this list?" LightProof1995 ( talk) 09:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Under weapons, I vote we replace Knife with the article Blade, which is more general, referring not only to knives but also swords, axes, spears, etc. I feel the Blade article needs more work. LightProof1995 ( talk) 09:03, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
If we are going to have a business-person, I vote the oil tycoon John D. Rockefeller takes the place of Henry Ford. Not only is Rockefeller the richest person of modern history, he only became so wealthy because the government broke up his business into 34 companies over anti-trust concerns after he had already retired, and for some reason this made him even wealthier than he already was. He then became one of the greatest philanthropists of all time. Ford, on the other hand, was antisemitic, and not as successful as Rockefeller. LightProof1995 ( talk) 09:03, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Also, I looked into that list more -- Rockefeller *is* only at #4 on that list because he gave his wealth away -- The numbers on it were extrapolated from his net wealth when he had died. Not his total wealth. Check out this page: /info/en/?search=List_of_richest_Americans_in_history Rockefeller is consistently ranked #1. So I am not being subjective when I say "Rockefeller was more successful", if you equate success with wealth, which I was in the sentence. LightProof1995 ( talk) 19:03, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I vote Reincarnation takes the place of Greek mythology. I feel Egyptian mythology, Celtic mythology, and more are just as cool, and the Myth page doesn't even mention them, so other cultures' mythologies besides the Greeks deserve more love. Reincarnation, on the other hand, is an idea seen across many cultures and religions, notably being a tenet of all four major Indian religions (all are vital-3 articles: Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism, and Jainism), but also seen in faiths such as the Druze, Jewish Kabbalah, and Wicca. LightProof1995 ( talk) 09:06, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I think we should replace Ramesses II with Saladin because then Saladin would fulfill a Middle East/Arab/Islam niche, and we already have Hatshepsut, who is cooler than Ramesses, to fulfill the Ancient Egyptian ruler niche. Not only was Hatshepsut one of the four female leaders on the list of 26, but also her tomb, the Mortuary temple of Hatshepsut is one of the most-studied structures in Egyptian archeology. Ramesses was known mostly for his war campaigns and territorial conquests, but he mostly just reconquered lands lost previously, and looking at maps, Egypt's borders under Hatshepsut in the Eighteenth dynasty were roughly the same as in the Nineteenth dynasty under Ramesses.
As for Saladin, his empire was larger than any Ancient Egyptian empire, as he was the sultan of not only Egypt, but he also conquered Syria, Palestine, and large portions of Arabia. Saladin was one of the few Muslim crusaders who was actually respected by his Christian enemies. I think for Ancient Egyptian topics, as long as we have Ancient Egypt, the Pyramid of Giza, and Hatshepsut we cover it pretty well, especially since we can't add Egyptian mythology which I also feel would be better than having Ramesses. LightProof1995 ( talk) 09:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I just realized I had been reading Martin Luther as Martin Luther King Jr. I would also vote for replacing Ramesses II with Martin Luther King Jr. In fact, I think MLK Jr is a more important addition than Saladin. LightProof1995 ( talk) 08:52, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
This replacement, unlike my other suggestions, is not a swap between related subjects.
I feel pianos, while cool, are not more vital than a number of other musical instruments such as the drum, the guitar, the flute, the trumpet, the harp, etc.
Wetlands are an extremely critical part of Earth's ecosystem. The term wetland includes swamps, marshes, bogs, fens, and mangrove forests. The fact that water constantly inundates the soils of wetlands gives rise to anaerobic conditions that provide unique and important functions for the environment, such as giving rise to a wide range of plant and animal diversity, and protecting the soil integrity of the area. They are found worldwide, from the taiga in Siberia, to Florida. LightProof1995 ( talk) 09:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Please see the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/4#Change_the_!voting_rule regarding changing the voting rule on the level 4 talk page. Interstellarity ( talk) 17:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Another superfluous addition (my fault, sorry) that we could do without. Mansa Musa is not renowned for anything besides his enormous wealth, and he has no great achievements to his name that put him beside Qin Shi Huang or George Washington. We have four African leaders as it stands, only two of which are actually vital at this level, and along with math history is probably our most bloated section, so someone needs to go if we are to get to 100.
I vote Oppose and I agree with Cobblet. Mansa fulfills both a niche for both sub-Saharan African leaders and Islamic leaders pretty well. I thought about proposing we switch Saladin for Mansa Musa, but we have Islamic Golden Age and Crusades already, which both cover Saladin, but not the vast wealth of Mansa Musa nor the great scholarship he inspired by founding the University of Sankoré in Timbuktu. Maybe we can replace Ramesses II with Saladin because then Saladin would fulfill a Middle East/Arab/Islam niche, and we already have Hatshepsut, who is cooler than Ramesses, to fulfill the Ancient Egyptian ruler niche. Not only was Hatshepsut one of the four female leaders on the list of 26, but also her tomb, the Mortuary temple of Hatshepsut is one of the most-studied structures in Egyptian archeology. Ramesses was known mostly for his war campaigns and territorial conquests, but he mostly just reconquered lands lost previously, and looking at maps, Egypt's borders under Hatshepsut in the Eighteenth dynasty were roughly the same as in the Nineteenth dynasty under Ramesses. LightProof1995 ( talk) 05:01, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Right, so I think everyone knows this by now, but if you don't, the WikiProject Vital Articles is now revamped with a goal of, well, 1000 Vital GA/FA by 2032. The reason for that specific goal is to stimulate the editors and to have a real sense of hurry (so no WP:Majestic Titan that lingers on Phase I for 14 years). I have outlined a vague direction about how this could be done, but I think that ultimately the plan should come from the group's consensus. What do you think is the best way to start on achieving the goal? CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 15:34, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Mass nominations by a single user at once, such as by LightProof1995 above, are not helpful or productive, and merely flood up the page with one person's opinion. This often happens when a new user finds the lists and proposes multiple nominations at once to 'fix the list'—when in reality they are merely oblivious of past consensus and most of their suggestions are ignored anyways.
I propose that no user should be allowed to have such mass nominations—this would be broadly constructed, as I think limiting to a specific amount would be unnecessary and too arbitrary. Aza24 (talk) 02:40, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Support rule change with stated "no more than 3 recommendations at once" lol
Please go through all my suggestions anyway I tried really hard LightProof1995 ( talk) 06:28, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Suggedtion: If "FA review", user can report one time per one week ( [2] - No more than one nomination per week by the same nominator.) then I think it is fine for VA to one(the same) user could do just three nominations per week (for example one swap, one removal and one addition) but it would be reffered only to level 1, level 2 and level 3, not level 4 and the level 5. By all that mean, user could do about 12-15 nominations per month, what probably is reasonable given fact how slow process we have and how long we were waiting after "mass nominations" by the same user (inluding mine one time, I admit/remember). Dawid2009 ( talk) 11:07, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
I noticed someone added a banner to an activity encouraging editors adding as many bytes as possible to vital articles, with goal of 30KB and award at 50KB. But it should be noted that, article above 50KB is considered WP:TOOBIG and is deemed may need to be divided just because of its length. Note that 50KB is roughly 10000 words and take more than hallf an hour for most people to finish reading. Most people probably wouldn't spend this much time into reading a wikipedia article. Hence if an article is expanded beyond this length, then split should be considered for readability purpose. C933103 ( talk) 14:57, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Our definition of the article size is the number that you see in the edit history, not the readable prose size found in XTool.In practice most articles are still way too short when expanded to 30 kB, see Arabic numerals and Skeleton for reference. CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 17:17, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
I think that this is a long overdue, per Wikipedia is not a democracy. With our current voting procedure, an empty vote would have similar leverage to a well-formed argument, as well as being time-consuming, divisive, and potentially set precedent for bad practices. We should form consensus just as most processes on Wikipedia does – a good old discussion. CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 17:29, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Support for level 5 only. Oppose the rest Dawid2009 ( talk) 17:55, 7 August 2022 (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.
Would be a useful addition to fill up the quota. Interstellarity ( talk) 23:55, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Neither supporter has provided a rationale. Are we counting these !votes? Cobblet ( talk) 19:53, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
I think both of these votes should count LightProof1995 ( talk) 11:08, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
I hate voting to add/swap/remove articles from the list. However, I think this problem is serious enough for us to do, which is to balance out the gender bias a bit by promoting women articles from Level 4 or 5 to Level 3. See also: Women in Green's Hot 100 list and prior discussion at Ambitious goal proposal. CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 15:39, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Add suggestions below:
Having a look at Level 3 I have to admit that it's difficult to consider many of these as important as something like Mayan civilization or Adolf Hitler etc. The ones at the top I think are the strongest.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
I strongly Support adding Hypatia as Vital-3!!!!!!! I also support swapping her in and taking Ramesses II out. I've looked up more about him and think he may deserve to be on this list and his article just needs to be improved. So if we are having two pharaohs on here, I'm fine with him, but if we are trying to have less biographies and men, and we already have one Egyptian pharaoh, I see him being taken out once the list reaches 100 and we are trying to curtail it. I think trying to have an equal amount of men and women is just not going to work as there won't be enough votes per the discussion above. However, per the discussion above, there is consensus to not only have more women and less men on the list, but also to maybe have less biographies on the list in general. I Oppose adding Queen Victoria simply because we already have a female English monarch, and as others have stated, less biographies, not more. Hypatia, on the other hand, I feel would be a great addition, whether she is added on her own or swapped in. LightProof1995 ( talk) 05:23, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
First, gender basis exists in world's history. It is not Wikipedia's ground to correct the history, but rather history should be created in reality for Wikipedia to record them. It is simply misleading if Wikipedia include as much women as men in the vital article list as if they were of the same vitality in history and cover up the gender gap that do exists in history. Second, closing the gender gap can be done both ways. Aka it can also be done by removing less vital articles of the dominant gender instead. C933103 ( talk) 10:51, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
This could be a subjective list, but there are some here I have never even heard of, and there are others who I would not include in, say, a list of the 100 or so most important women in history, doing so may represent American or British bias: Princess Diana, Boudica, Jackie Onassis, Oprah Winfrey, the Queen of Sheba, Enid Blyton. PatGallacher ( talk) 17:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Adding these back because they were only archived after 10 days. I'll bring up the other topics only 2-3 at a time per consensus. LightProof1995 ( talk) 03:16, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
I think we should add Elephants. It is currently a Featured Article which points to their importance. Elephants are the largest living land creatures and have been vital to humanity for millennia. First domesticated by the Indus Valley civilization, they were historically important in warfare, such as when Hannibal crossed the Alps on elephants. Both species of African elephant were listed as endangered in 2021 due to the illegal ivory trade and habitat loss.
It's not just the importance of elephants and whales historically to humans, it is also the fact they are such majestic and fascinating creatures. Just think about what elephants look like. They have distinctive ears, trunks, and tusks. The hippocampus of the elephant is larger relative to its size compared to humans which is why elephants are known to be such emotionally intelligent animals and is why you've heard the phrase "An elephant never forgets". LightProof1995 ( talk) 08:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Beaver (A type of Rodent, which we have) This is the "Fur" resource
Clam (A type of Mollusca, which we have)
Crab (A type of Crustacean, which we have)
Deer We don't have this.
Elephant We don't have this. In the game, it is called the Ivory resource and shows elephants, but you also need this resource to make War Elephants.
Whale We don't have this.
Camel We don't have this. Represented as Camel archers, but only if you play as the Arabian civilization as Saladin. Comparatively, you can have War elephants playing as any civilization. In Civilization III, war elephants were unique to the Indian civilization. In Civilization V, war elephants are unique to the Indian civilization as a unit called "War elephant" and the Carthaginian civilization as a unit called "African forest elephant", replacing chariot archer and horseman units, respectively. The ivory resource is still present, but isn't required by the Indian and Carthaginian civilizations to make their elephant units. There is also a Bison resource in Civ 5. LightProof1995 ( talk) 04:47, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
I didn't think about deer until I made this list, but I'm not recommending we add them. I do think we should have both elephant and whale, however. Additionally, when zooming in on a town in the game, you can hear dogs barking and chickens clucking, which we both have. LightProof1995 ( talk) 15:17, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
I think we should add Whales. Like elephants, whales have also almost been driven to extinction due to their importance to humans. The whaling industry was important from the 1600s to the 1900s for products such as oil for lamps and ambergris. The blue whale is the largest animal known to have ever existed. Whale watching is a popular form of tourism worldwide.
Imagine you were an extraterrestrial looking at this list of vital articles. You might say "Ah, yes, humans arose from abiogenesis and evolution, first they were single-cell organisms, then fish, then they moved on land and evolved into primates, then humans, and that was the peak of evolution. So surely no animal went back into the ocean after having evolved on land right? Because that would make like no sense??? And they would see dinosaur and say "Ah yes, these were the largest animals to have ever existed on Earth for sure. Because how could these humans not include the largest one on this list?" LightProof1995 ( talk) 09:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Just a note to let you know that I opened up a discussion on Level 2 for swapping country with state. Interstellarity ( talk) 18:08, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Per my argument at
§ Add 3 39 more women: why Queen Victoria isn't on the list, when she is the second-longest monarch of the UK and has ruled the British India for 25 years since its founding? How about Hypatia, which her writing and murder have influenced generations of philosophers (which her life become obscured over time)? It would be an easy ask to add these two to our list given that we are under quota.
If these articles are added, Queen Victoria should be in "Leaders and politicians" section and Hypatia to "Philosophers and social scientists".
We already have Stalin, Mao and Marx at this level, we are slightly below the target number, he should surely be added. PatGallacher ( talk) 15:34, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
This simply mean we have too much socialist people on the list. No way socialist worth 4% of the world's most notable individuals of all fields. C933103 ( talk) 16:19, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Please note that Lenin was removed last year. You can read the arguments here. :-) (Also, following the discussion above, if we add another person, it ought to be a woman.) -- Telepanda ( talk) 18:48, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Myth is already a level 3 article, and Greek mythology is the only mythology above level 4. The Olmecs were the first major civilization in Mesoamerica and were influential in the development of subsequent Mesoamerican civilization. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 05:05, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
I am now neutral about the Olmecs on this list per the discussion below. LightProof1995 ( talk) 03:57, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm not at all convinced that a third Mesoamerican civilization is a more significant omission than a pre-Inca Andean civilization; something related to Ancient China; or civilizations from areas such as West Africa or Southeast Asia which are wholly neglected by the current list, e.g., Songhai Empire or Khmer Empire. Cobblet ( talk) 13:33, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Vital Article page group. {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk
02:24, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes. The WP:WikiProject Vital Articles is in business. So, what two articles should we choose for the Vital GA Drive? CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 15:47, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vital Articles § Is Coffee and Land go for GA?.
CactiStaccingCrane (
talk)
15:01, 30 August 2022 (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 hate voting to add/swap/remove articles from the list. However, I think this problem is serious enough for us to do, which is to balance out the gender bias a bit by promoting women articles from Level 4 or 5 to Level 3. See also: Women in Green's Hot 100 list and prior discussion at Ambitious goal proposal. CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 15:39, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Add suggestions below:
Having a look at Level 3 I have to admit that it's difficult to consider many of these as important as something like Mayan civilization or Adolf Hitler etc. The ones at the top I think are the strongest.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
I strongly Support adding Hypatia as Vital-3!!!!!!! I also support swapping her in and taking Ramesses II out. I've looked up more about him and think he may deserve to be on this list and his article just needs to be improved. So if we are having two pharaohs on here, I'm fine with him, but if we are trying to have less biographies and men, and we already have one Egyptian pharaoh, I see him being taken out once the list reaches 100 and we are trying to curtail it. I think trying to have an equal amount of men and women is just not going to work as there won't be enough votes per the discussion above. However, per the discussion above, there is consensus to not only have more women and less men on the list, but also to maybe have less biographies on the list in general. I Oppose adding Queen Victoria simply because we already have a female English monarch, and as others have stated, less biographies, not more. Hypatia, on the other hand, I feel would be a great addition, whether she is added on her own or swapped in. LightProof1995 ( talk) 05:23, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
First, gender basis exists in world's history. It is not Wikipedia's ground to correct the history, but rather history should be created in reality for Wikipedia to record them. It is simply misleading if Wikipedia include as much women as men in the vital article list as if they were of the same vitality in history and cover up the gender gap that do exists in history. Second, closing the gender gap can be done both ways. Aka it can also be done by removing less vital articles of the dominant gender instead. C933103 ( talk) 10:51, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
This could be a subjective list, but there are some here I have never even heard of, and there are others who I would not include in, say, a list of the 100 or so most important women in history, doing so may represent American or British bias: Princess Diana, Boudica, Jackie Onassis, Oprah Winfrey, the Queen of Sheba, Enid Blyton. PatGallacher ( talk) 17:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I'm finding it difficult to find a single woman listed above that is more historically significant than any of the men currently listed at Level 3. Is it sexist that the vast majority of the most historically significant people throughout human history have been male? I suppose you could argue that it is, but we can't change the last 10,000 years of human history. The fact is that most monarchs have been men, most military leaders have been men, all U.S. Presidents have been men, etc. so of course a list of biographies such as this will be composed of mostly men. That's just the way it is, and to try to force this list to have an equal number of female biographies on it would just turn this list into a farce. Rreagan007 ( talk) 01:01, 29 September 2022 (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.
Earlier on the talk page, someone have raised the concern that there're relatively few women among the VA list. It was proposed to add more women to the list, but it received a number of opposition, as this would mean skewing the vitality metric of the list.
Facing such situation, I think we can create domain-specific VA sub-lists. On Chinese Wikipedia where they cloned English Wikipedia VA list, they found the globalized list from English Wikipedia do not accurately cover vital knowledge in the Chinese-speaking worlds, and thus created w:zh:WP:CBA, "Chinese Basic Articles". It then subdivided into fields of biography, history, geography, culture, and women, to cover aspects that are not included in the English Wikipedia VA list.
The advantage of domain-specific sub-list would be it can help pick and list out vital articles in a specific domain and let editors with interest in it improve on it. It would be different from importance rating in relevant wikiprojects in the sense that wikiprojects importance rating determine how important an article is to the theme of the project itself, while such domain specific vital article list would list out topics within domain that is vital in the overall sense to the collection of knowledge in Wikipedia. Also sone wikiprojects like wikiprojects women do not have importance rating. Therefore I think creating such a domain specific vital article list could be helpful. C933103 ( talk) 05:41, 31 August 2022 (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 think that this should be codified into our rules. I don't expect this proposal would gain traction nor receiving support here but I would try it anyways: Having an edit limit would encourage editors to actually go out to the field and get a better feel on what topic is vital or not. For instance, at § Swap: remove Abstract algebra, add Algebraic structure, if not for Mathnerd314159 editing the article they would not be able to make such a sound argument. Having an edit limit would also make editors to actually improve these Vital articles, which is a primary goal of making such a list in the first place. CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 02:48, 4 September 2022 (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.
Level 4 has the page Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Removed, but using that same URL on say, level 3 for instance, there aren't any other lists: Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/3/Removed and Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Writers and journalists/Removed aren't valid links. Cadevo86 ( talk) 14:44, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
I propose we add Reincarnation as Vital-3. This article is the one I was working on that made me discover the "Vitals" link in the Talk page.
Reasoning: Reincarnation is a central tenet and important concept across many religions and cultures, including Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism (the four Indian religions), Gnosticism, Jewish Kabbalah, Druze, Scientology, Wicca, Spiritism, Ancient Celtic religion, and the Metempsychosis belief of the ancient Greeks including Plato and Pythagoras. This list includes more specific articles under the "Specific religions" section than the widely-seen idea of reincarnation. Vote below, thanks :)
Support:
Oppose:
Discussion:
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 was at first considering swapping American Revolution for American Civil War, but since we are under quota, I thought it would be best for a straight addition rather than a swap. I understand that both of these events were very important in American history, but this one is more represented in art and media and it is one of the documented parts in American history. Interstellarity ( talk) 22:29, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Because this metal has been used extensively in manufacturing, despite being neurotoxic, it is no doubt as vital as copper, which is currently 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.
These two articles should be enough to fill the two articles missing to make it to 1000. Interstellarity ( talk) 15:36, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
@ Interstellarity: Please go do something more productive than start discussions you have no intention of contributing to. This pattern of behaviour has gotten extremely tiresome. Cobblet ( talk) 14:47, 19 September 2022 (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.
Yes, they are absolutely vital, yet no more vital than, say Euclidean geometry or non-Euclidean one, and there are still some vital articles worthy of being included here, yet currently excluded (e.g. sweet potato and goat). Removing there ensures that more of such can be added.
I Support replacing Abstract algebra with the already-proposed Algebraic structure, but my vote is only for such a swap -- Abstract algebra should not be removed if Algebraic structure does not take its place. LightProof1995 ( talk) 03:58, 2 October 2022 (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 see in the index the key indicates that some of the Vital articles have the grey broken disk icon to indicate it was a Good article but it is now delisted.
Does this mean that these articles while fairly good, have had to be removed from the official 1000 due to quality reasons?
Simply put, are they in or out? 2404:4408:8739:B900:6C67:7FB2:34FA:963D ( talk) 01:31, 8 October 2022 (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 15 | ← | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |
I have decided to split the discussion as people in the discussion doesn't seems interested in dealing with the addition and the removal of this two topics together. C933103 ( talk) 22:02, 13 April 2022 (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.
With Infants being another state of life, being cover under child, I think it can probably be replaced for a more significant unit of human settlement which reflect how human live together and organize together to build up the scale of human civilization, which is still a prominent part of human society nowadays.
C933103 (
talk)
15:16, 7 February 2022 (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.
Currently the list have 20 cities and an article on the concept of "city" itself, which represent half of the world's population living in cities, but the world still have another half of the population not living in some form of cities, aka they would be living in villages/rural area and such, yet the list lack representation of them. C933103 ( talk) 16:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Edit: Replaced "Village" with "Rural area", as the article on Rural area appears to cover a boarder concept and more organized than the article of Village. C933103 ( talk) 22:02, 13 April 2022 (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.
If human history is already included in being human, why not take it out and deposit it in level 1 or 2 just with the social sciences? All is ideology and human history is concern about social science. Luizpuodzius Sisiphu ( talk) 18:58, 28 February 2022 (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.
With all the scandals and disappointment over arrangement of multiple Olympic Games over the past decade, with incidence like corruption and collaboration on human right abuse, and its choice of sports being unable to reflect a global audience demand hence facing a decline in viewership, I think the Olympic Games have lost its symbolic value as "the" sports event to attend and to watch, that can warrant its inclusion as the top 1000 most vital English Wikipedia article. As thus I propose the Olympic Games be removed from the Level 3 list, instead let it stay at Level 4.
It was previously proposed as a swap, but due to trouble over swap target, the amount of votes it attracted was low. Thus, I am relisting the Olympic Games for discussion in itself, without proposing any addition for the time being (That would be for another vote). C933103 ( talk) 02:14, 13 March 2022 (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.
Currently, the list is now a bit short of 1000, after removal of a few international organizations.
Meanwhile, in the past few months, there were some discussions about aspects of the list that are currently not comprehensive, as well as some addition proposals that were rejected on the ground of being not sufficiently vital enough against other articles proposed for removal or that quota have already been filled.
Here, I would like to propose filling in the list back to 1000 through a ranked choice system (specifically Dowdall system according to characteristic of this voting), where the most preferred articles that most people feel are vital in Level 3, can get to fill in the list.
In doing so, it's more likely to reach a result that most people would consider appropriate to be part of the list.
Let nominate articles that are to be included in the voting first. C933103 ( talk) 18:03, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Nomination
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.
People here may be interested to know that this year will see another Core Contest, starting on April 15 and drawing heavily from the list of vital articles :). Signups are open. Femke ( talk) 08:29, 20 March 2022 (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 Bhagavad Gita is one of the greatest literary outputs that human civilization has ever known, ranking well with Homer's Illiad, Dante's Divine Comedy, One Thousand and One Nights, etc. But at present we list two works of Hindu liturgy, the Gita along with the Vedas, and I'm not sure why we have both. Of the two, the Vedas are more historically, culturally, and religiously important. I am also not sure why we list the Gita alone and not the entire Mahabharata, and if we did list the Mahabharata, we should be asking ourselves why we list it and not the Ramayana, a work of like stature, as well. In order to avoid this awkwardness, I propose the Gita be removed.
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.
Currently there's no guideline for which countries are added as level 3 articles opposed to level 4. We have countries that are not very significant at the present international sphere nor are historically important, they were added merely for numerical reasons (population), such as Myanmar, the Democratic Republic of the Congo or Colombia.
So in order to make it more fair and have a concrete criteria, I proposed the removal of all the countries that are not considered a regional power. The definition of a regional power is, according to the European Consortium for Political Research, the following:
Personally I find this a good basis as to which countries should be level 3 articles because it encopasses economical, demographic, military and geopolitical factors, though it neglects historical but this seems to be case in the current list anyways. SadAttorney613 ( talk)
If we follow this through it would result in the removal of the following countries:
North America
South America
|
Africa
|
Europe
|
Asia
|
I'm reserving my opinion for now but can we please make it a practice not to entertain bulk proposals like these? Our policy has always been to evaluate individual proposals on a case by case basis. If you want a mass roll-back of countries, that's fine, but propose individual countries for removal first. Doing it that way allows us to debate the merits of each proposal. Bulk proposals like these just invite contention. What if I agree with some of the removals? I'd be forced to oppose the proposal even if I were to agree with the majority of the removals. It's silly. Zelkia1101 ( talk) 23:14, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Using power status as a criterion is an interesting idea, but I think it gets complicated in the details. For example, I'd strongly disagree with removing Poland (as a historical great power & a rep for Eastern Europe) and I honestly would consider the UAE a regional power too (it wields significant influence in several forms, despite its small size). It gets even fuzzier based on how you interpret power. Like in the Americas, the largest populations & economies don't really compete as powers with the US much, while Venezuela and Cuba (which has even sent expeditionary forces overseas) act more like independent powers despite being outsized by many others in the hemisphere. Zar2gar1 ( talk) 19:26, 27 March 2022 (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 currently do not list anything related to homeostasis and excretion, 2 processes which are crucial to pretty much all life. Since the kidney is involved in both of these processes, I think it's inclusion is merited. I would also support adding either or both of the processes mentioned, but I think that that is unlikely to pass. INDT ( talk) 11:15, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose because we are close to the 1000-article limit. But I would support swapping
hormone for
homeostasis. Excretion is sufficiently covered by metabolism at this level. And the stomach is not a vital organ.
Cobblet (
talk)
17:33, 5 December 2021 (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 list of 1000 articles currently includes a few different examples of social movements, including Environmentalism, Feminism, Secularism, and such.
However, there are still many different types of social movements around the world, and this list failed to cover them.
Given such situation, I propose adding the article on social movement to the list that cover all these different types of social movement and also other social movement with different goals and for different purposes that are not covered by the list now, including social movement for democracy, equality, liberty, anticorruption, and so on.
To make room for the addition, I suggest removing Women's suffrage, as it is much narrower in scope and too specific to say it have the degree of vitality to make it into the most vital 1000 articles list. C933103 ( talk) 05:18, 17 February 2022 (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 Arabic alphabet article specifically focus on the characters themselves that are used in Arabic language. Unlike Arabic script which cover it as used in all languages that use the same writing system. Information like writing styles and its global use is also only found in the Arabic script page. Hence I think it is an article that better represent the writing system as one of the 1000 most vital articles on English Wikipedia. C933103 ( talk) 05:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Arabic script is not listed at level 4. Do we have a consensus to add it there as well? Cobblet ( talk) 16:46, 10 April 2022 (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, the inclusion of "social class" in top 1000 most vital article is an undue representation to the idea of classism. Most society nowadays aren't organized into classes. The explanation in the article, "Class society or class-based society is an organizing principle society in which ownership of property, means of production, and wealth is the determining factor of the distribution of power, in which those with more property and wealth are stratified higher in the society and those without access to the means of production and without wealth are stratified lower in the society.", is a Marxist view of society classification and is far from mainstream. The article claim the most common classification are upper class, middle class, and working class, yet "upper class" isn't a commonly used term in English nowadays, and "Middle class" often overlap with "working class" in developed countries nowadays, and represent the general public who are not in the state of poverty, an article already included in the vital article list. Hence I believe the article social class should be removed from the vital article list level 3, to avoid undue representation of fringe idea. C933103 ( talk) 11:01, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Edit: @ Zelkia1101 and Thi: I have changed the proposal to include a replacement target in order to cover the important social phenomenon of social stratification more appropriately, instead of the current vague social class article which lack focus and is open for interpretation by different schools of thoughts. C933103 ( talk) 10:37, 11 April 2022 (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.
Now that the moratorium has been lifted, I reckon it’s time we cleaned up this biography section. Starting with one of the most egregious inclusions. There is simply no reason to have Henry VIII on this list. At best he is a well-known figure in pop history (dur hur six wives). But what does Henry have to show for himself? His one great achievement, the English Reformation, is important to the Anglophone world, though it’s far less of a notable event in itself than the defeat of the Spanish Armada, which established Britain as a colonial power, or the English Civil War, which enshrined the power of the legislature and planted the seeds of parliamentary democracy. Cromwell, Charles I, Edward I, Marlborough, Wellington, are all leaders of equal stature to Henry, and yet they are not listed. Cromwell and Edward I are arguably far more influential. Why on a list of the 100 most important people must there be two Tudors? And why one to represent a Protestant reformation in a country when we already have Martin Luther?
On the introduction section of the main page, there is a sentence which said:
This list is tailored to the English-language Wikipedia. There is also a list of one thousand articles considered vital to Wikipedias of all languages, as well as Vital Article lists tailored to different Wikipedia languages accessible via the languages sidebar.
However, the "language sitebar" now link to wikidata item d:Q43375360, where the linked Chinese entry is "Wikipedia:Vital Articles/English Wikipedia Level 3 List", thus making the introduction doesn't match the reality.
Is the situation the same for other linked Wikipedia pages, that the Introduction section need to be fixed, or is this unique to Chinese Wikipedia, that its entry in Wikidata should be changed? C933103 ( talk) 05:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Ocean, covering 70% of the earth, are essential to humanity to trade and exchange via and extract resource from for the growth of our civilization. The history of human utilizing and exploring it allowed faraway people to reach each others, and obtained resources that wouldn't be otherwise obtainable, and also caused numerous conflicts throughout the world along the history. Thus, I believe Maritime history as a history of human use of ocean, is at least as important as the History of Antarctica. Thus I propose adding the article "Maritime History" into this list at Level 3. C933103 ( talk) 01:39, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Currently Musician is on the level 5 list, but I think it might deserve to be included higher? I'm not familiar with the vital articles process, so I'll leave it up to the project to decide what's best. — PerfectSoundWhatever ( t; c) 17:24, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Five of the six generally accepted cradles of civilization are represented on the list: Mesopotamia, Ancient Egypt, Indus Valley Civilisation, Mesoamerica, and Andean civilizations. Representation of Ancient China (a redirect to History of China) is conspicuously missing. I suggest adding the Zhou dynasty, China's longest dynasty, when among other technological advances, China first saw the introduction of iron, coinage, and horseback riding. Even more importantly, the Zhou dynasty also marks the first great flowering of Chinese intellectual culture, witnessing the development of Confucianism, Taoism, and Legalism; the Mandate of Heaven; Classical Chinese; and the writing of the Four Books and Five Classics (including the Analects and the I Ching) and The Art of War. The political and military intrigues that characterized the Spring and Autumn period and Warring States period at the end of the dynasty have been endlessly referenced in Chinese culture to this day. Cobblet ( talk) 00:22, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
#Oppose
Spring and Autumn period and
Warring States period are the periods when these different schools of thought being developed, and that is the time which see the central government authority, aka the ruling Zhou dynasty, being extremely weakened. Hence, an article on Zhou dynasty will not be able to represent the social and cultural development in China during this period of time. Many social reforms are conducted independently by each kingdoms which are in no way possible to be mentioned in an article for the Zhou dynasty, and different schools of thought are only allowed to flourish because academics are welcomed by different rulers in different kingdoms independently. And, per sources like
[1], Mandate of Heaven as a concept already existed in Shang dynasty or before. (Contrary to what the Wikipedia article currently claim.) Hence both the Spring and Autumn period and Warring States period are much more important articles than an article on Zhou dynasty.
C933103 (
talk)
04:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)changed vote as of 12:35, 23 March 2022 (UTC),
C933103 (
talk)
I think when considering which people to include for levels 3 and 4, there is a lot to consider when deciding who to include and not to include. I wouldn't do this for level 5 just yet due to its size. I think adding reasons shows readers why we selected some people over others. Sometimes it's obvious, other times, it's not. I think including a reason why those people are listed at a particular level would help alleviate confusion on why we include them. Please let me know what your thoughts are on this. Interstellarity ( talk) 20:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
See here, I'm offering $1000 USD to the first editor(s) to get one of the level 1 articles to GA. Have fun! -- Cerebellum ( talk) 13:07, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm currently trying to improve the level 1 vital article to GA and it's been an interesting start so far. What do you think about the article so far? What parts of it need a lot of improvement? I'd love to hear your comments! CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 11:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Suffrage is a much broader topic than women’s suffrage. Interstellarity ( talk) 18:15, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
So I guess this PASSED. How do we add it?
EDIT: I made the swap here, and listed Suffrage as vital-3 on its talk page, and listed Women's Suffrage as vital-4 on its talk page. This needs one more vote to pass.
EDIT: Hey @ Cobblet, I see you undid my edits to swap Woman's Suffrage and Suffrage. I was going to go to the vital-4 list to swap them as well when I saw you undid my edits in vital-3. Is this because you want to ignore Interstellarity's rule change, so it needs one more vote? LightProof1995 ( talk) 19:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
That makes sense, I just want to add I only saw the conversation about Interstellity’s edit/rule change after I made the Suffrage edits, because I actually was going by the Introduction section’s statement about if 15 days pass and there is 67% consensus, then it passes LightProof1995 ( talk) 21:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
This has now officially PASSED. I edited the Vital-3 page, Vital-4 page, Suffrage talk page, and Women's suffrage talk page accordingly. LightProof1995 ( talk) 21:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't understand this addition; I find no discussion in archives, and it is hard to imagine how this obscure artist is "vital". SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 04:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
User:Interstellarity has recently altered the consensus rules on the Vital Articles Project at all levels so that instead of needing a minimum of 5 supports, a proposal can pass with only one support (i.e. only the nomination) and then applied this change of rule to every existing proposal retrospectively. With all due respect, I found this to be a ridiculous change when 1. It wasn't discussed at all 2. Many proposals would've been opposed in greater numbers had people known about this change (I could not be bothered opposing many proposals which only had the nominator supporting because it didn't look like they were going to be successful and I imagine many others were in the same boat) and 3. A nomination with no further comments or agreement doesn't signify "consensus" in any shape or form.
It's one thing to change things slightly in order to make the project active (although even then it's good to discuss and ping all major long-term editors of the page) and another to go to such extreme lengths. You might as well make it a free-for-all and take away the requirement to discuss any changes if one support is enough for a proposal to pass. Gizza ( talk • voy) 02:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I have made a page on Wikipedia:WikiProject Vital Articles/Compare to Encyclopædia Britannica to compare articles from both encyclopedia together. Spoiler: Britannica is much closer to our Vital article quality than you might think. CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 04:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
There's new barnstars at the WikiProject Vital Articles for those bold enough to improve a Vital article towards GA and FA. Here it is:
![]() |
The Good Article Barnstar | |
Make 1, get 1 for free! |
![]() |
The Featured Article Barnstar | |
The course of FA never did run smooth... |
CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 13:55, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm currently going through the vital article list to update the assessment. If you see the article goes from B-Class to C-Class, it is most likely for the following reasons, of decreasing importance:
If you have any concerns or questions, feel free to message me here or at my talk page. CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 02:40, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
User:Z1720 Done, and to sum up the situation: "Hell is the truth seen too late". CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 03:39, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Article | URFA comment | Last action date |
---|---|---|
Amphibian |
![]() |
2012-12-16 |
Ancient Egypt |
![]() |
2008-03-30 |
Antarctica |
![]() |
2022-06-25 |
Archaea |
![]() |
2008-07-02 |
Archimedes |
![]() |
2007-10-23 |
Atheism |
![]() |
2007-04-28 |
Augustus |
![]() |
2007-08-31 |
Australia |
![]() |
2010-06-29 |
Bacteria |
![]() |
2006-12-03 |
The Beatles |
![]() |
2009-11-03 |
Bird |
![]() |
2007-12-20 |
Byzantine Empire |
![]() |
2012-06-27 |
Canada |
![]() |
2010-04-20 |
Charlie Chaplin |
![]() |
2014-01-14 |
Climate change |
![]() |
2021-01-21 |
Charles Darwin |
![]() |
2006-12-19 |
Dinosaur |
![]() |
2005-12-17 |
Walt Disney |
![]() |
2016-05-21 |
DNA |
![]() |
2007-04-25 |
Earth |
![]() |
2020-11-14 |
Electron |
![]() |
2009-08-30 |
Elizabeth I |
![]() |
2007-12-10 |
Evolution |
![]() |
2007-06-10 |
Leonhard Euler |
![]() |
2021-09-04 |
Fungus |
![]() |
2009-08-22 |
Galaxy |
![]() |
2007-02-10 |
Genetics |
![]() |
2008-03-25 |
Germany |
![]() |
2011-06-13 |
Han dynasty |
![]() |
2009-04-21 |
Hydrogen |
![]() |
2008-04-20 |
Immune system | ![]() |
2007-01-09 |
India |
![]() |
2011-07-28 |
Influenza |
![]() |
2006-11-02 |
Michael Jackson |
![]() |
2008-07-28 |
Japan |
![]() |
2011-04-14 |
Jesus |
![]() |
2013-08-15 |
Joan of Arc |
![]() |
2006-08-31 |
Logarithm |
![]() |
2011-06-01 |
Nelson Mandela |
![]() |
2017-02-10 |
Mars |
![]() |
2022-06-25 |
Maya civilization | ![]() |
2015-07-24 |
Mercury (planet) |
![]() |
2008-06-06 |
Metabolism |
![]() |
2007-03-30 |
Middle Ages |
![]() |
2013-05-26 |
Moon |
![]() |
2010-05-18 |
Murasaki Shikibu |
![]() |
2011-09-16 |
Neptune |
![]() |
2008-03-14 |
Emmy Noether |
![]() |
2008-06-22 |
Olympic Games |
![]() |
2009-05-12 |
Oxygen |
![]() |
2008-02-06 |
Periodic table |
![]() |
2012-11-07 |
Pi |
![]() |
2012-06-04 |
Planet |
![]() |
2008-02-08 |
Primate |
![]() |
2008-12-03 |
Rodent |
![]() |
2014-10-22 |
Saturn |
![]() |
2007-08-02 |
Sea |
![]() |
2013-10-05 |
Solar System |
![]() |
2022-07-09 |
Sun |
![]() |
2009-07-30 |
William Shakespeare |
![]() |
2007-08-14 |
Sheep |
![]() |
2008-02-13 |
Shen Kuo |
![]() |
2007-06-01 |
Speed of light |
![]() |
2022-03-19 |
Star |
![]() |
2006-10-13 |
Supernova |
![]() |
2007-02-10 |
Tang dynasty |
![]() |
2007-08-03 |
Uranus |
![]() |
2007-09-29 |
Venus |
![]() |
2016-06-26 |
Virus |
![]() |
2008-09-23 |
Wind |
![]() |
2009-06-27 |
Mary Wollstonecraft |
![]() |
2007-01-20 |
I have nominated Wind for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 ( talk) 13:35, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Since this is currently at 997, I propose we add these articles as Vital-3: Protist, Elephant, and Whale.
Both species of African elephant were listed as endangered in 2021 because of habitat loss and the ivory trade. Elephants have also been important in warfare historically. Currently Elephant is a featured article.
The blue whale is the largest animal known to have ever existed. Many species of whale are also endangered because of their importance humans ( whaling).
Protist seems so vital I'm surprised it isn't listed yet.
Replacement Ideas:
Under weapons, I vote we replace Knife with the article Blade, which is more general, referring not only to knives but also swords, axes, spears, etc. I feel the Blade article needs more work.
If we are going to have a business-person, I vote John D. Rockefeller takes the place of Henry Ford. Not only is Rockefeller the richest person of modern history, he only became so wealthy because the government broke up his business into 34 companies over anti-trust concerns after he had already retired, and for some reason this made him even wealthier than he already was. He then became one of the greatest philanthropists of all time. Ford, on the other hand, was antisemitic, and not as successful as Rockefeller.
Furthermore, I vote Reincarnation takes the place of Greek mythology. I feel Egyptian mythology, Celtic mythology, and more are just as cool, and the Myth page doesn't even mention them, so other cultures' mythologies besides the Greeks deserve more love. Reincarnation, on the other hand, is an idea seen across many cultures and religions, notably being a tenet of all four major Indian religions (all are vital-3 articles: Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism, and Jainism), but also seen in faiths such as the Druze, Jewish Kabbalah, and Wicca. LightProof1995 ( talk) 06:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I want to add, it was a coincidence all of the topics I want to add are organisms. I truly went up and down the list and decided these three were most important, and should be added. LightProof1995 ( talk) 08:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
We should add Protists. I'm surprised they haven't been added yet. LightProof1995 ( talk) 08:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
EDIT: Apparently some algae are sometimes considered plants, and sometimes considered protists. Green algae seems to be considered a plant. LightProof1995 ( talk) 13:43, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
We should add Elephants. It is currently a Featured Article which points to their importance. Elephants are the largest living land creatures and have been vital to humanity for millennia. First domesticated by the Indus Valley civilization, they were historically important in warfare, such as when Hannibal crossed the Alps on elephants. Both species of African elephant were listed as endangered in 2021 due to the illegal ivory trade and habitat loss.
It's not just the importance of elephants and whales historically to humans, it is also the fact they are such majestic and fascinating creatures. Just think about what elephants look like. They have distinctive ears, trunks, and tusks. The hippocampus of the elephant is larger relative to its size compared to humans which is why elephants are known to be such emotionally intelligent animals and is why you've heard the phrase "An elephant never forgets". LightProof1995 ( talk) 08:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Beaver (A type of Rodent, which we have) This is the "Fur" resource
Clam (A type of Mollusca, which we have)
Crab (A type of Crustacean, which we have)
Deer We don't have this.
Elephant We don't have this. In the game, it is called the Ivory resource and shows elephants, but you also need this resource to make War Elephants.
Whale We don't have this.
Camel We don't have this. Represented as Camel archers, but only if you play as the Arabian civilization as Saladin. Comparatively, you can have War elephants playing as any civilization. In Civilization III, war elephants were unique to the Indian civilization. In Civilization V, war elephants are unique to the Indian civilization as a unit called "War elephant" and the Carthaginian civilization as a unit called "African forest elephant", replacing chariot archer and horseman units, respectively. The ivory resource is still present, but isn't required by the Indian and Carthaginian civilizations to make their elephant units. There is also a Bison resource in Civ 5. LightProof1995 ( talk) 04:47, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
I didn't think about deer until I made this list, but I'm not recommending we add them. I do think we should have both elephant and whale, however. Additionally, when zooming in on a town in the game, you can hear dogs barking and chickens clucking, which we both have. LightProof1995 ( talk) 15:17, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
We should add Whales. Like elephants, whales have also almost been driven to extinction due to their importance to humans. The whaling industry was important from the 1600s to the 1900s for products such as oil for lamps and ambergris. The blue whale is the largest animal known to have ever existed. Whale watching is a popular form of tourism worldwide.
Imagine you were an extraterrestrial looking at this list of vital articles. You might say "Ah, yes, humans arose from abiogenesis and evolution, first they were single-cell organisms, then fish, then they moved on land and evolved into primates, then humans, and that was the peak of evolution. So surely no animal went back into the ocean after having evolved on land right? Because that would make like no sense??? And they would see dinosaur and say "Ah yes, these were the largest animals to have ever existed on Earth for sure. Because how could these humans not include the largest one on this list?" LightProof1995 ( talk) 09:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Under weapons, I vote we replace Knife with the article Blade, which is more general, referring not only to knives but also swords, axes, spears, etc. I feel the Blade article needs more work. LightProof1995 ( talk) 09:03, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
If we are going to have a business-person, I vote the oil tycoon John D. Rockefeller takes the place of Henry Ford. Not only is Rockefeller the richest person of modern history, he only became so wealthy because the government broke up his business into 34 companies over anti-trust concerns after he had already retired, and for some reason this made him even wealthier than he already was. He then became one of the greatest philanthropists of all time. Ford, on the other hand, was antisemitic, and not as successful as Rockefeller. LightProof1995 ( talk) 09:03, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Also, I looked into that list more -- Rockefeller *is* only at #4 on that list because he gave his wealth away -- The numbers on it were extrapolated from his net wealth when he had died. Not his total wealth. Check out this page: /info/en/?search=List_of_richest_Americans_in_history Rockefeller is consistently ranked #1. So I am not being subjective when I say "Rockefeller was more successful", if you equate success with wealth, which I was in the sentence. LightProof1995 ( talk) 19:03, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I vote Reincarnation takes the place of Greek mythology. I feel Egyptian mythology, Celtic mythology, and more are just as cool, and the Myth page doesn't even mention them, so other cultures' mythologies besides the Greeks deserve more love. Reincarnation, on the other hand, is an idea seen across many cultures and religions, notably being a tenet of all four major Indian religions (all are vital-3 articles: Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism, and Jainism), but also seen in faiths such as the Druze, Jewish Kabbalah, and Wicca. LightProof1995 ( talk) 09:06, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I think we should replace Ramesses II with Saladin because then Saladin would fulfill a Middle East/Arab/Islam niche, and we already have Hatshepsut, who is cooler than Ramesses, to fulfill the Ancient Egyptian ruler niche. Not only was Hatshepsut one of the four female leaders on the list of 26, but also her tomb, the Mortuary temple of Hatshepsut is one of the most-studied structures in Egyptian archeology. Ramesses was known mostly for his war campaigns and territorial conquests, but he mostly just reconquered lands lost previously, and looking at maps, Egypt's borders under Hatshepsut in the Eighteenth dynasty were roughly the same as in the Nineteenth dynasty under Ramesses.
As for Saladin, his empire was larger than any Ancient Egyptian empire, as he was the sultan of not only Egypt, but he also conquered Syria, Palestine, and large portions of Arabia. Saladin was one of the few Muslim crusaders who was actually respected by his Christian enemies. I think for Ancient Egyptian topics, as long as we have Ancient Egypt, the Pyramid of Giza, and Hatshepsut we cover it pretty well, especially since we can't add Egyptian mythology which I also feel would be better than having Ramesses. LightProof1995 ( talk) 09:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I just realized I had been reading Martin Luther as Martin Luther King Jr. I would also vote for replacing Ramesses II with Martin Luther King Jr. In fact, I think MLK Jr is a more important addition than Saladin. LightProof1995 ( talk) 08:52, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
This replacement, unlike my other suggestions, is not a swap between related subjects.
I feel pianos, while cool, are not more vital than a number of other musical instruments such as the drum, the guitar, the flute, the trumpet, the harp, etc.
Wetlands are an extremely critical part of Earth's ecosystem. The term wetland includes swamps, marshes, bogs, fens, and mangrove forests. The fact that water constantly inundates the soils of wetlands gives rise to anaerobic conditions that provide unique and important functions for the environment, such as giving rise to a wide range of plant and animal diversity, and protecting the soil integrity of the area. They are found worldwide, from the taiga in Siberia, to Florida. LightProof1995 ( talk) 09:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Please see the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/4#Change_the_!voting_rule regarding changing the voting rule on the level 4 talk page. Interstellarity ( talk) 17:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Another superfluous addition (my fault, sorry) that we could do without. Mansa Musa is not renowned for anything besides his enormous wealth, and he has no great achievements to his name that put him beside Qin Shi Huang or George Washington. We have four African leaders as it stands, only two of which are actually vital at this level, and along with math history is probably our most bloated section, so someone needs to go if we are to get to 100.
I vote Oppose and I agree with Cobblet. Mansa fulfills both a niche for both sub-Saharan African leaders and Islamic leaders pretty well. I thought about proposing we switch Saladin for Mansa Musa, but we have Islamic Golden Age and Crusades already, which both cover Saladin, but not the vast wealth of Mansa Musa nor the great scholarship he inspired by founding the University of Sankoré in Timbuktu. Maybe we can replace Ramesses II with Saladin because then Saladin would fulfill a Middle East/Arab/Islam niche, and we already have Hatshepsut, who is cooler than Ramesses, to fulfill the Ancient Egyptian ruler niche. Not only was Hatshepsut one of the four female leaders on the list of 26, but also her tomb, the Mortuary temple of Hatshepsut is one of the most-studied structures in Egyptian archeology. Ramesses was known mostly for his war campaigns and territorial conquests, but he mostly just reconquered lands lost previously, and looking at maps, Egypt's borders under Hatshepsut in the Eighteenth dynasty were roughly the same as in the Nineteenth dynasty under Ramesses. LightProof1995 ( talk) 05:01, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Right, so I think everyone knows this by now, but if you don't, the WikiProject Vital Articles is now revamped with a goal of, well, 1000 Vital GA/FA by 2032. The reason for that specific goal is to stimulate the editors and to have a real sense of hurry (so no WP:Majestic Titan that lingers on Phase I for 14 years). I have outlined a vague direction about how this could be done, but I think that ultimately the plan should come from the group's consensus. What do you think is the best way to start on achieving the goal? CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 15:34, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Mass nominations by a single user at once, such as by LightProof1995 above, are not helpful or productive, and merely flood up the page with one person's opinion. This often happens when a new user finds the lists and proposes multiple nominations at once to 'fix the list'—when in reality they are merely oblivious of past consensus and most of their suggestions are ignored anyways.
I propose that no user should be allowed to have such mass nominations—this would be broadly constructed, as I think limiting to a specific amount would be unnecessary and too arbitrary. Aza24 (talk) 02:40, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Support rule change with stated "no more than 3 recommendations at once" lol
Please go through all my suggestions anyway I tried really hard LightProof1995 ( talk) 06:28, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Suggedtion: If "FA review", user can report one time per one week ( [2] - No more than one nomination per week by the same nominator.) then I think it is fine for VA to one(the same) user could do just three nominations per week (for example one swap, one removal and one addition) but it would be reffered only to level 1, level 2 and level 3, not level 4 and the level 5. By all that mean, user could do about 12-15 nominations per month, what probably is reasonable given fact how slow process we have and how long we were waiting after "mass nominations" by the same user (inluding mine one time, I admit/remember). Dawid2009 ( talk) 11:07, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
I noticed someone added a banner to an activity encouraging editors adding as many bytes as possible to vital articles, with goal of 30KB and award at 50KB. But it should be noted that, article above 50KB is considered WP:TOOBIG and is deemed may need to be divided just because of its length. Note that 50KB is roughly 10000 words and take more than hallf an hour for most people to finish reading. Most people probably wouldn't spend this much time into reading a wikipedia article. Hence if an article is expanded beyond this length, then split should be considered for readability purpose. C933103 ( talk) 14:57, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Our definition of the article size is the number that you see in the edit history, not the readable prose size found in XTool.In practice most articles are still way too short when expanded to 30 kB, see Arabic numerals and Skeleton for reference. CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 17:17, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
I think that this is a long overdue, per Wikipedia is not a democracy. With our current voting procedure, an empty vote would have similar leverage to a well-formed argument, as well as being time-consuming, divisive, and potentially set precedent for bad practices. We should form consensus just as most processes on Wikipedia does – a good old discussion. CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 17:29, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Support for level 5 only. Oppose the rest Dawid2009 ( talk) 17:55, 7 August 2022 (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.
Would be a useful addition to fill up the quota. Interstellarity ( talk) 23:55, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Neither supporter has provided a rationale. Are we counting these !votes? Cobblet ( talk) 19:53, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
I think both of these votes should count LightProof1995 ( talk) 11:08, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
I hate voting to add/swap/remove articles from the list. However, I think this problem is serious enough for us to do, which is to balance out the gender bias a bit by promoting women articles from Level 4 or 5 to Level 3. See also: Women in Green's Hot 100 list and prior discussion at Ambitious goal proposal. CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 15:39, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Add suggestions below:
Having a look at Level 3 I have to admit that it's difficult to consider many of these as important as something like Mayan civilization or Adolf Hitler etc. The ones at the top I think are the strongest.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
I strongly Support adding Hypatia as Vital-3!!!!!!! I also support swapping her in and taking Ramesses II out. I've looked up more about him and think he may deserve to be on this list and his article just needs to be improved. So if we are having two pharaohs on here, I'm fine with him, but if we are trying to have less biographies and men, and we already have one Egyptian pharaoh, I see him being taken out once the list reaches 100 and we are trying to curtail it. I think trying to have an equal amount of men and women is just not going to work as there won't be enough votes per the discussion above. However, per the discussion above, there is consensus to not only have more women and less men on the list, but also to maybe have less biographies on the list in general. I Oppose adding Queen Victoria simply because we already have a female English monarch, and as others have stated, less biographies, not more. Hypatia, on the other hand, I feel would be a great addition, whether she is added on her own or swapped in. LightProof1995 ( talk) 05:23, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
First, gender basis exists in world's history. It is not Wikipedia's ground to correct the history, but rather history should be created in reality for Wikipedia to record them. It is simply misleading if Wikipedia include as much women as men in the vital article list as if they were of the same vitality in history and cover up the gender gap that do exists in history. Second, closing the gender gap can be done both ways. Aka it can also be done by removing less vital articles of the dominant gender instead. C933103 ( talk) 10:51, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
This could be a subjective list, but there are some here I have never even heard of, and there are others who I would not include in, say, a list of the 100 or so most important women in history, doing so may represent American or British bias: Princess Diana, Boudica, Jackie Onassis, Oprah Winfrey, the Queen of Sheba, Enid Blyton. PatGallacher ( talk) 17:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Adding these back because they were only archived after 10 days. I'll bring up the other topics only 2-3 at a time per consensus. LightProof1995 ( talk) 03:16, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
I think we should add Elephants. It is currently a Featured Article which points to their importance. Elephants are the largest living land creatures and have been vital to humanity for millennia. First domesticated by the Indus Valley civilization, they were historically important in warfare, such as when Hannibal crossed the Alps on elephants. Both species of African elephant were listed as endangered in 2021 due to the illegal ivory trade and habitat loss.
It's not just the importance of elephants and whales historically to humans, it is also the fact they are such majestic and fascinating creatures. Just think about what elephants look like. They have distinctive ears, trunks, and tusks. The hippocampus of the elephant is larger relative to its size compared to humans which is why elephants are known to be such emotionally intelligent animals and is why you've heard the phrase "An elephant never forgets". LightProof1995 ( talk) 08:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Beaver (A type of Rodent, which we have) This is the "Fur" resource
Clam (A type of Mollusca, which we have)
Crab (A type of Crustacean, which we have)
Deer We don't have this.
Elephant We don't have this. In the game, it is called the Ivory resource and shows elephants, but you also need this resource to make War Elephants.
Whale We don't have this.
Camel We don't have this. Represented as Camel archers, but only if you play as the Arabian civilization as Saladin. Comparatively, you can have War elephants playing as any civilization. In Civilization III, war elephants were unique to the Indian civilization. In Civilization V, war elephants are unique to the Indian civilization as a unit called "War elephant" and the Carthaginian civilization as a unit called "African forest elephant", replacing chariot archer and horseman units, respectively. The ivory resource is still present, but isn't required by the Indian and Carthaginian civilizations to make their elephant units. There is also a Bison resource in Civ 5. LightProof1995 ( talk) 04:47, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
I didn't think about deer until I made this list, but I'm not recommending we add them. I do think we should have both elephant and whale, however. Additionally, when zooming in on a town in the game, you can hear dogs barking and chickens clucking, which we both have. LightProof1995 ( talk) 15:17, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
I think we should add Whales. Like elephants, whales have also almost been driven to extinction due to their importance to humans. The whaling industry was important from the 1600s to the 1900s for products such as oil for lamps and ambergris. The blue whale is the largest animal known to have ever existed. Whale watching is a popular form of tourism worldwide.
Imagine you were an extraterrestrial looking at this list of vital articles. You might say "Ah, yes, humans arose from abiogenesis and evolution, first they were single-cell organisms, then fish, then they moved on land and evolved into primates, then humans, and that was the peak of evolution. So surely no animal went back into the ocean after having evolved on land right? Because that would make like no sense??? And they would see dinosaur and say "Ah yes, these were the largest animals to have ever existed on Earth for sure. Because how could these humans not include the largest one on this list?" LightProof1995 ( talk) 09:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Just a note to let you know that I opened up a discussion on Level 2 for swapping country with state. Interstellarity ( talk) 18:08, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Per my argument at
§ Add 3 39 more women: why Queen Victoria isn't on the list, when she is the second-longest monarch of the UK and has ruled the British India for 25 years since its founding? How about Hypatia, which her writing and murder have influenced generations of philosophers (which her life become obscured over time)? It would be an easy ask to add these two to our list given that we are under quota.
If these articles are added, Queen Victoria should be in "Leaders and politicians" section and Hypatia to "Philosophers and social scientists".
We already have Stalin, Mao and Marx at this level, we are slightly below the target number, he should surely be added. PatGallacher ( talk) 15:34, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
This simply mean we have too much socialist people on the list. No way socialist worth 4% of the world's most notable individuals of all fields. C933103 ( talk) 16:19, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Please note that Lenin was removed last year. You can read the arguments here. :-) (Also, following the discussion above, if we add another person, it ought to be a woman.) -- Telepanda ( talk) 18:48, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Myth is already a level 3 article, and Greek mythology is the only mythology above level 4. The Olmecs were the first major civilization in Mesoamerica and were influential in the development of subsequent Mesoamerican civilization. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 05:05, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
I am now neutral about the Olmecs on this list per the discussion below. LightProof1995 ( talk) 03:57, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm not at all convinced that a third Mesoamerican civilization is a more significant omission than a pre-Inca Andean civilization; something related to Ancient China; or civilizations from areas such as West Africa or Southeast Asia which are wholly neglected by the current list, e.g., Songhai Empire or Khmer Empire. Cobblet ( talk) 13:33, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Vital Article page group. {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk
02:24, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes. The WP:WikiProject Vital Articles is in business. So, what two articles should we choose for the Vital GA Drive? CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 15:47, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vital Articles § Is Coffee and Land go for GA?.
CactiStaccingCrane (
talk)
15:01, 30 August 2022 (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 hate voting to add/swap/remove articles from the list. However, I think this problem is serious enough for us to do, which is to balance out the gender bias a bit by promoting women articles from Level 4 or 5 to Level 3. See also: Women in Green's Hot 100 list and prior discussion at Ambitious goal proposal. CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 15:39, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Add suggestions below:
Having a look at Level 3 I have to admit that it's difficult to consider many of these as important as something like Mayan civilization or Adolf Hitler etc. The ones at the top I think are the strongest.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
I strongly Support adding Hypatia as Vital-3!!!!!!! I also support swapping her in and taking Ramesses II out. I've looked up more about him and think he may deserve to be on this list and his article just needs to be improved. So if we are having two pharaohs on here, I'm fine with him, but if we are trying to have less biographies and men, and we already have one Egyptian pharaoh, I see him being taken out once the list reaches 100 and we are trying to curtail it. I think trying to have an equal amount of men and women is just not going to work as there won't be enough votes per the discussion above. However, per the discussion above, there is consensus to not only have more women and less men on the list, but also to maybe have less biographies on the list in general. I Oppose adding Queen Victoria simply because we already have a female English monarch, and as others have stated, less biographies, not more. Hypatia, on the other hand, I feel would be a great addition, whether she is added on her own or swapped in. LightProof1995 ( talk) 05:23, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
First, gender basis exists in world's history. It is not Wikipedia's ground to correct the history, but rather history should be created in reality for Wikipedia to record them. It is simply misleading if Wikipedia include as much women as men in the vital article list as if they were of the same vitality in history and cover up the gender gap that do exists in history. Second, closing the gender gap can be done both ways. Aka it can also be done by removing less vital articles of the dominant gender instead. C933103 ( talk) 10:51, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
This could be a subjective list, but there are some here I have never even heard of, and there are others who I would not include in, say, a list of the 100 or so most important women in history, doing so may represent American or British bias: Princess Diana, Boudica, Jackie Onassis, Oprah Winfrey, the Queen of Sheba, Enid Blyton. PatGallacher ( talk) 17:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I'm finding it difficult to find a single woman listed above that is more historically significant than any of the men currently listed at Level 3. Is it sexist that the vast majority of the most historically significant people throughout human history have been male? I suppose you could argue that it is, but we can't change the last 10,000 years of human history. The fact is that most monarchs have been men, most military leaders have been men, all U.S. Presidents have been men, etc. so of course a list of biographies such as this will be composed of mostly men. That's just the way it is, and to try to force this list to have an equal number of female biographies on it would just turn this list into a farce. Rreagan007 ( talk) 01:01, 29 September 2022 (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.
Earlier on the talk page, someone have raised the concern that there're relatively few women among the VA list. It was proposed to add more women to the list, but it received a number of opposition, as this would mean skewing the vitality metric of the list.
Facing such situation, I think we can create domain-specific VA sub-lists. On Chinese Wikipedia where they cloned English Wikipedia VA list, they found the globalized list from English Wikipedia do not accurately cover vital knowledge in the Chinese-speaking worlds, and thus created w:zh:WP:CBA, "Chinese Basic Articles". It then subdivided into fields of biography, history, geography, culture, and women, to cover aspects that are not included in the English Wikipedia VA list.
The advantage of domain-specific sub-list would be it can help pick and list out vital articles in a specific domain and let editors with interest in it improve on it. It would be different from importance rating in relevant wikiprojects in the sense that wikiprojects importance rating determine how important an article is to the theme of the project itself, while such domain specific vital article list would list out topics within domain that is vital in the overall sense to the collection of knowledge in Wikipedia. Also sone wikiprojects like wikiprojects women do not have importance rating. Therefore I think creating such a domain specific vital article list could be helpful. C933103 ( talk) 05:41, 31 August 2022 (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 think that this should be codified into our rules. I don't expect this proposal would gain traction nor receiving support here but I would try it anyways: Having an edit limit would encourage editors to actually go out to the field and get a better feel on what topic is vital or not. For instance, at § Swap: remove Abstract algebra, add Algebraic structure, if not for Mathnerd314159 editing the article they would not be able to make such a sound argument. Having an edit limit would also make editors to actually improve these Vital articles, which is a primary goal of making such a list in the first place. CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 02:48, 4 September 2022 (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.
Level 4 has the page Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Removed, but using that same URL on say, level 3 for instance, there aren't any other lists: Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/3/Removed and Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Writers and journalists/Removed aren't valid links. Cadevo86 ( talk) 14:44, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
I propose we add Reincarnation as Vital-3. This article is the one I was working on that made me discover the "Vitals" link in the Talk page.
Reasoning: Reincarnation is a central tenet and important concept across many religions and cultures, including Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism (the four Indian religions), Gnosticism, Jewish Kabbalah, Druze, Scientology, Wicca, Spiritism, Ancient Celtic religion, and the Metempsychosis belief of the ancient Greeks including Plato and Pythagoras. This list includes more specific articles under the "Specific religions" section than the widely-seen idea of reincarnation. Vote below, thanks :)
Support:
Oppose:
Discussion:
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 was at first considering swapping American Revolution for American Civil War, but since we are under quota, I thought it would be best for a straight addition rather than a swap. I understand that both of these events were very important in American history, but this one is more represented in art and media and it is one of the documented parts in American history. Interstellarity ( talk) 22:29, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Because this metal has been used extensively in manufacturing, despite being neurotoxic, it is no doubt as vital as copper, which is currently 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.
These two articles should be enough to fill the two articles missing to make it to 1000. Interstellarity ( talk) 15:36, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
@ Interstellarity: Please go do something more productive than start discussions you have no intention of contributing to. This pattern of behaviour has gotten extremely tiresome. Cobblet ( talk) 14:47, 19 September 2022 (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.
Yes, they are absolutely vital, yet no more vital than, say Euclidean geometry or non-Euclidean one, and there are still some vital articles worthy of being included here, yet currently excluded (e.g. sweet potato and goat). Removing there ensures that more of such can be added.
I Support replacing Abstract algebra with the already-proposed Algebraic structure, but my vote is only for such a swap -- Abstract algebra should not be removed if Algebraic structure does not take its place. LightProof1995 ( talk) 03:58, 2 October 2022 (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 see in the index the key indicates that some of the Vital articles have the grey broken disk icon to indicate it was a Good article but it is now delisted.
Does this mean that these articles while fairly good, have had to be removed from the official 1000 due to quality reasons?
Simply put, are they in or out? 2404:4408:8739:B900:6C67:7FB2:34FA:963D ( talk) 01:31, 8 October 2022 (UTC)