![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Per discussion on Wikipedia talk:Vital articles, have added Gilbert and/or Sullivan to the expanded list. Adam Cuerden talk 12:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Gilbert is probably a little more important than Sullivan, due to his influence in other fields - The Bab Ballads, say, or his preparing the way for George Bernard Shaw and so on, but Sullivan's enduring popularity and constant performance - few cities in the Western world don't have G&S performed at least every couple years, and also being one of the fathers of modern musicals - do make at least as good of a case for him as The Beatles or Aretha Franklin, in my opinion. However, if you disagree, how about just putting a note about "See also Gilbert and Sullivan next to W. S. Gilbert? Adam Cuerden talk 13:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I have added Dhaka, a featured article. It's the capital of Bangladesh and home to over 10 million people, making it one of the mega cities of the world. -- Ragib 08:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Should we also add featured stars and GA symbol to the expanded lists' articles that have already reached those qualities? OhanaUnited Talk page 09:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Biography : 409 History : 172 Geography : 162 Arts : 84 Religions : 117 … Alexander Doria ( talk) 17:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
20-Oct-2008: I have added subheaders above as "Topics from 2007" (etc.) to emphasize the dates of topics in the talk-page. Older topics might still apply, but using the year headers helps to focus on more current issues as well. - Wikid77 ( talk) 06:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
20-Oct-2008: I have been editing Wikipedia for 3 years, and I am changing the list to remove mere grouping articles (such as "Shape") and to add a few highly-important articles, as follows:
As a computer scientist, I am troubled by the September-2008 coverage about computer technology, which I believe needs more analysis. - Wikid77 ( talk) 06:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
20-Oct-2008: Expanding to 2,000 articles does not seem a significant increase. The expansion should be an order of magnitude, multiply by 10. Expanding to only double would be like expanding 2 talk-show hosts (Carson, Letterman) to become 4 (+ Leno, Conan O'Brien) but leave out recent or daytime hosts such as Dick Cavett, Oprah, Tyra Banks, Geraldo, Phil Donahue, Ricki Lake, and Sally Jesse Raphael. Instead, expand to at least 10,000 articles, so a group of 2 would become 20, from 2 talk-show hosts to 20. Also, leave room to expand groups/hosts to others from outside the USA. Whereas Oprah has been broadcast daily in Africa, other English-speaking hosts not well-known in the USA could be included (in the analogy of hosts as an article group).
Housing-price analogy: Another analogy would be housing prices in the USA: consider a survey of homes priced below US$200,000 then doubled to include houses < $400G; at that doubled price, many famous celebrities would be omitted from the survey. However, when expanding price by an order of magnitude (x10), homes up to $2 million would include many movie stars (at least their prior homes). Celebrity homes have such magnitude-higher prices (not just double); similarly, vital ("celebrity") topics are 10 times more rare than the typical famous names in the area of study. In a sense, the 1,000 "vital articles" represent a celebrity status, and are not representative of "famous" but rather the "uber-famous" of topics.
Ranking by magnitude: Thus, the relative ranks are: about 20 celebrity scientists would be recognized on the street; about 200 are quite famous (for any encyclopedia); over 2,000 would be highly notable (but not listed in every encyclopedia); and even 20,000 scientists should rank for Wikipedia.
The expansion applies to all vital articles: a group of 10 notable actors would become 100 actors, just as 20 scientists becomes 200. In the sciences, 5 major sciences would expand to 50 sciences, including: archaeology, geology, meteorology, mineralogy, paleontology, etc. and pseudo-sciences as " astrology" & " phrenology". Otherwise, a group of 2,000 articles would be almost as limited as 1,000, hence not a significant expansion, not worth the effort of maintaining the list. Another obvious advantage: larger lists avoid the arguments of squeezing large groups of 100 major topics into just 20 each. - Wikid77 ( talk) 06:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
21-Oct-2008: Up until October 2008, the expanded list omitted large groups of topics, such as sports figures, dancers & opera. While adding a new section "Olympic/sports figures" (for perhaps 150 athletes), I also added a new section as "Performing artists" for a list of dancers/ballet, opera singers, and such. Evidently, there had been some kind of bias against sports & the performing arts: there was no place for Michael Jordan, Mark Spitz, Mickey Mantle, Margot Fonteyn or Luciano Pavarotti or anyone similar. Perhaps the artificial limit of 1,000 total articles had produced an impossible situation, like cooking vegetable soup in a tablespoon: beyond peas and corn kernels, not many vegetables fit in a tablespoon. For that reason, I have recommended the expanded view as 10,000 vital articles, to allow including the "top 100" articles in numerous categories, such as 100 actors, 100 composers, 100 Nobel winners, 100 major battles, etc. Attempting a list ten-times smaller (1,000 articles) had led to try shrinking the world view into the top 10 battles in history, top 10 composers, top 10 transport vehicles (etc.), while omitting athletes and others entirely. - Wikid77 ( talk) 22:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
21-Oct-2008: I have begun adding several hundred highly-notable article links to the list:
Formerly, the list of "1,000 Vital Articles" focused at more of a dictionary level, where animals were: bird, horse, dog, snake, etc. Now, those include: Ostrich, Appaloosa, Dalmatian, Cobra (etc.) as more likely to need an encyclopedia to give details. As a result, the expanded list not only includes new groups, such as athletes and opera, but also pinpoints specific other articles that are more likely found in an encyclopedia rather than a dictionary. Overall, I strongly believe that an expanded list of 10,000 articles will be more useful, and easier to decide, than debating which ultra-simple topics can squeeze into the 1,000. - Wikid77 ( talk) 22:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
21-Oct-2008: For years, I have been studying the core list of 1000 Wikipedia articles, but expanding to 10,000 has revealed the true problem of a 1000-article limit: it was hopelessly small, like limiting anatomy to 3 body parts (the eye/hand/toe). Consequently, people burned many hours/weeks debating the core 1000, somewhat like debating whether "liver" or "finger" should be a core body part (rather than list 50 parts). When the list was expanded to 10,000, the problem was reversed: it was hard to find enough items to fill the list, as for example, most people know only about 40 flowers total. To widen the scope, expert lists of the Top 100 (in each area) have been combined to cover a broad range that almost no single person could have known. The challenge has been to seek more diversity rather than slash & ax entries to stuff the universe into 1,000 forced slots. Contrary to the myth that "any size list would be too small", the 10,000 limit has generated a breathtaking scope of information for the general reader. None the less, the true scope of articles is endlessly vast (as Wikipedia already has 2.6 million articles), so the 10,000 list is still a tiny sample of the whole. The difference is that the 10,000 list acts like a magnifying glass of 10x power, revealing sufficient detail to see a much clearer view of reality. At that expanded level, the anatomy is no longer "eye/hand/toe" but about 40-50 parts, where both "liver" & "finger" could be listed. - Wikid77 ( talk) 20:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
21-Oct-2008: Despite the scope provided by increasing the limit to 10,000 articles, there is still a need to prioritize: there is ample space to list 100 composers, 100 singers, 100 rock bands, but not enough to list all songs performed by The Beatles, ABBA, and the Boston Pops Orchestra. It cannot be a "book of lists" showing 50 items in 3,000 different lists (or such). However, such capability is provided by Wikipedia's revised policy to keep lists in articles, such as with the English Wikipedia Wikipedia:Featured lists. Each of those hundreds of listing-articles can be seen as a more detailed focus into various sub-branches of the 10,000-article list. Also, many lists are totally outside a general view of the entire encyclopedia. - Wikid77 ( talk) 20:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Is this just a spelling mistake? Is Aristophanes meant? He is listed under Authors, while Aristophenes is listed under Directors, producers & screenwriters. Wikijens ( talk) 13:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Ho Chi Minh is listed twice Wikijens ( talk) 19:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
The header for the project page states "This page is a list of important subjects for which Wikipedia should have a corresponding high-quality article, and ideally a featured article.", and I am sure many visitors here would love to be able to use the list to quickly find an article in need of some work and devote some time to improving it and bringing it up to GA/FA status. Currently, however, articles are simply listed by name, and it is left to the reader to investigate the article quality. Marking article quality would be an impossible task by hand, given the goal of listing 10,000 articles. On the other hand, it would be trivial for a bot to check the articles (and their talk pages) and mark entries. A bot would also allow this to be kept up-to-date, and could even warn of various issues with any articles. What do people think? LinaMishima ( talk) 18:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Split this site into subpages and include them, so when editing happens, only the subpage gets edited. -- 84.44.179.252 ( talk) 05:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we should be looking at creating lists of the 1000 most critical pages per subject: The 1000 most critical pages in sports, the 1000 most critical pages in automotives, the 1000 most critical pages in American history, the 1000 most critical pages in cooking, et multiple cetera. Overlap would be permissible, of course. The different wikiprojects could create the actual lists. Almafeta ( talk) 18:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
You don't seem to have anyone working from the comics field on the list. I appreciate it is a small field, but I'd like to ask you to consider Herge, Alan Moore and Charles Schulz. Hiding T 20:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
It seems 10'000 is now the accepted goal... is there a process for nominating an article? Almafeta ( talk) 04:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I found it odd that Samuel Johnson was not listed, but found it very odd that John Milton wasn't. Milton has been called the greatest English Epic poet, and the greatest English poet by thousands of scholars. I also found it odd how John Keats is missing and yet is more anthologized than Lord Byron, who is on the list. Ottava Rima ( talk) 18:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I have added John Milton and John Keats, I think they are quite important.-- Icesea( talk) 10:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone think that this could use Bede, Thucydides, and Xenophon? I think Thucydides should definitely be added, as the list has Plutarch, Herodotus, and Sima Qian. Bede is also important for his history of the church in England. Anyone else support this? -- 15lsoucy ( talk) 21:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest that anyone listed here either:
That doesn't mean that everyone meeting either criteria should be listed. But it should help ensure historical perspective. Maurreen ( talk) 12:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
For potential fodder, see Category:Top-importance articles. Maurreen ( talk) 22:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
As a raving Egyptomaniac I would like to suggest some changes—not necessarily additions—in my area of expertise. There are ancient Egyptian subjects I would like to see here eventually (like art and religion), but they belong in areas that still need a lot of populating with subjects from other parts of the world, and I'm not comfortable pushing my area of expertise ahead of all others. Instead, I'm suggesting changes to the ancient Egyptian articles already listed. In "Politicians and leaders", I don't believe that Seti I belongs; his rule was fairly prosperous and stable but doesn't particularly stand out in Egyptian history. I can think of several pharaohs who I believe were more important ( Amenhotep III, Thutmose I, Thutmose III, Khufu), but I favor Akhenaten to replace Seti. Not only is he still well-known and controversial today, but his religious revolution, though short-lived, did significantly affect the traditional religion and severely weaken the pharaoh's prestige and religious importance.
In "Religious figures", Osiris and Ra are at least as important as Horus and Hathor, and much more important than Anubis. A. Parrot ( talk) 01:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I would recommend an image of Laozi be used as a symbol for this list. He wrote of the "10,000 things" that make up reality. i will suggest or add some articles here as well. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 08:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Umm.. History of radio? Why is this not on the list? -- œ ™ 05:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I just noticed that, under Musicians and Composers, several members of the level 3 list (1,000 articles), were also listed here. (e.g. Bach, Beethoven, Beatles in the B's - but not Louis Armstrong) I'd have assumed that the level 3 members should not be in level 4 as well. Random thoughts:
Smallbones ( talk) 18:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Current count of articles is not correctly indicated. If you want to know correct count, I can do it by program ( Errare humanum est). -- Igrek ( talk) 14:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't Statue of Liberty be on the list?-- Wehwalt ( talk) 02:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Igrek ( talk • contribs) 12:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I am, if no-one complains, going to delete these on July 1st.
Wwm101 19:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
At this moment I agree with removing these articles:
In the future I can support removal of other articles. -- Igrek ( talk) 13:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
There are duplicates in the list:
-- Igrek ( talk) 14:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Can I suggest that the Rosetta Stone article (recently promoted to FA status) be added to this list under the ancient Egypt section? It's certainly one of the most significant objects to come out of that civilization, largely due to the significant role it played in the decipherment of the ancient Egyptian language. Cheers! Captmondo ( talk) 02:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
(this comment was left on the subpage version vital article/expanded/people by another editor, and i think it should have been placed here. I do agree with the deletions, though). Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 07:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
i just added a number of writers, mostly US. here are some more than im not sure should be added, either for notability reasons or the quality of the articles: Willa Cather, Ralph Ellisons invisible man, Robert Anton Wilson, Tennessee Williams, John Irving, Christopher Isherwood, Derek Walcott(Omeros), Ursula LeGuin, H. P. Lovecraft, Sinclair Lewis, Richard Matheson, Peter Matthiessen, James Michener, Herman Melville, Anais Nin, Henry Miller, Sylvia Plath, Ayn Rand (personally, i would say no, but thats pure POV), Ann Rice, Philip Roth, Dan Simmons, Isaac Bashevis Singer, Upton Sinclair, Wallace Stegner. i used the list List of novelists from the United States as a memory aide. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 08:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
OK, im putting my foot in it now: ive removed matt damon, leonardo di caprio, halle berry, marg helgenberger (who the heck thinks shes that notable?), ellen degeneris, kim basinger, and tim mcgraw. Nothing in their articles shows that they are either critically acclaimed enough, or popular enough. This list will inevitably suffer from recentism, and i think thats the case here. i left names that i suspect are not notable enough, but are debatable, such as the Bollywood actors. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 05:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I dont think we should list names in the "people" section that are not considered people by most authorities. god, satan, adam, lilith, and many other mythological figures are here. also, in mythology, is the baal shem tov, who did live. If i dont see any objections, i may be bold and regroup mythological religious beings with their respective religions, and keep actual people here. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 06:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I'll be going through the list to ensure every entry is numbered separately. It makes counting more straightforward and the list look more like an IT Thesaurus, which is clearly the model we're following. Circéus ( talk) 21:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Categories I intend to add:
Other stuff to do:
Circéus ( talk) 21:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
There is now some dispute or debate on where to list various fictional characters and people. my preference is to split out fictional, but demonstrably human, characters, and have them in the "people" list, and have fictional, nonhuman, characters in the mythology section. However, this is in some ways arbitrary, and i will not revert recent changes. Does this matter? where will people look for either? examples: don quixote=person, mickey mouse=nonhuman, hercules=human, grendel=nonhuman. superman is humanoid? i guess there is, as in many categorizations, a spectrum. Plus, they could both probably be expanded. i had trimmed out some regional american folk heroes with minor notability. It would be nice to have a more international list. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 23:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
This may seem like a petty concern in comparison with all that must be done to this page, but perhaps the "actors" section could use some heavy reforming. Though there may be good arguments for all the persons listed, I find it unlikely that such actors as Samuel L. Jackson and Johnny Depp, however good they may be, should be included in the top 100 or top 50. These examples aside, it is interesting to note that while Laurence Olivier and Michael Redgrave are listed, their well acknowledged counterparts John Gielgud and Ralph Richardson are not. Paul Scofield is also a name not to be found, and where are stage actors? Henry Irving, Ellen Terry, Edmund Kean, and David Garrick were considered unparalleled in their times, and where are they now? Thanks for all consideration. -- 15lsoucy salve. opus. nomen 23:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
It cannot be that there are more than double as many important baseballers than footballers. Globally, football has much more players and spectators. -- Ettrig ( talk) 12:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Here are some mathematicians who are often ranked among the most important in history. I think they could be merged into the "Mathematicians and computer scientists" list to balance it up with the much longer Astronomers and Physicists list.
Is there an approval process I have to go through, or should I just insert these? Thank you. Regards, RJH ( talk) 22:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
The Astronomy section of this article has included all of the constellations, but it is not so clear to me why those would be considered vital. There's a perhaps a few constellations that are notable (Orion, Ursa Major, Sagittarius, Taurus, &c.), but many others are obscure. Perhaps a better list of important topics may be found at " Category:Top-importance Astronomy articles". That category includes important missing topics such as Brown dwarf, Cepheid variable, Molecular cloud, Orion Nebula, Quasar and Stellar kinematics. Thank you. Regards, RJH ( talk) 20:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Here's a list of the delta's for your convenience:
Specific examples of object types:
Regards, RJH ( talk) 21:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I added an "Architectural type" section with words like house, building, etc. I am not so sure how to organize it or what should be included. There should also be an urban planning section with words like Street, Road, Highway, Park. I will let people who know more about this area than me fill these in.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 16:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Here's a few suggested fundamental topics for "War and military":
and for "Weapons":
Thank you. Regards, RJH ( talk) 21:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Here's a few suggestions for the empty physics topics:
Atomic physics:
Molecular physics: Much of this topic is covered by the 'Chemical bond' and its sub-sections
Optics: Much of this topic is covered by 'Optical' and 'Waves'.
Physics related:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by RJHall ( talk • contribs) 30 June 2011 19:58
Current count of articles is not correctly indicates. If you want to know correct count, I can do it with help of program. In any case, thanks for your help. -- Igrek ( talk) 07:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Here are some suggestions for topics under Everyday life/Household items:
Houses,
See also "Architectural elements"
Furniture and decoration,
Clothing,
Other items,
Thank you. Regards, RJH ( talk) 19:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
This section is a little slim (compared to its neighbors), so here's a few suggestions:
These may belong under Geography, Basics:
Thank you. Regards, RJH ( talk) 16:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I thought it might be interesting to make a side-by-side comparison of the VA lists by percentage:
Category | VA Level | 01/12 | 04/12 | 4:3 Ratio | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | ||
Arts and Culture | 8 | 6.4 | 5.26 | 5.90 | 5.96 | 93% |
Language, Everyday Life | 19 | 8.3 | 6.20 | 6.47 | 6.83 | 82% |
Geography | 12 | 8.4 | 12.15 | 14.34 | 13.73 | 163% |
History | 4 | 6.3 | 4.84 | 5.61 | 5.66 | 90% |
Mathematics, Measurement | 6 | 6.2 | 1.96 | 3.62 | 3.65 | 59% |
People | 0 | 12.3 | 21.43 | 23.27 | 22.37 | 182% |
Philosophy, Religion | 7 | 7.2 | 1.95 | 3.21 | 3.65 | 51% |
Science, Health, Medicine, Biology | 18 | 23.4 | 22.11 | 27.16 | 26.49 | 113% |
Industry, Society, Social Sciences | 17 | 9.3 | 3.84 | 4.78 | 4.95 | 53% |
Technology | 9 | 10.8 | 4.68 | 5.63 | 6.70 | 62% |
Totals (%) | 100 | 98.6 | 84.42 | 92.22 | 97.31 | 100% |
If one were assume that the ratio of topics stays roughly constant as the list branches further, then it appears that some topics are seriously underrepresented. Likewise it is interesting how the People category has ramped steadily upward. Regards, RJH ( talk) 22:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
In the spirit of attempting to address one of the above mentioned trends, I've put together a list of the top-rated articles from the mathematics wikiprojects' that appear to be missing from this VA list. Nearly all of these appear to be appropriate for a vital articles list. I'm not sure why Imaginary unit wasn't rated among these (as a constant), but I think it should be included.
Some of the topics in Mathematics are duplicated in measurement:
Regards, RJH ( talk) 15:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I have created a template to illustrate this project. I had thought of using an image of lao tzu, but decided on the character for 10k things and a quote from the taoteching. "10,000 things" is a buddhist/taoist phrase to mean "innumerable things" or simply "everything", which i feel is an apt companion to this project. I doubt anyone will take it to the next level and create a list of 100k vital articles:) Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 03:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I think having some markers on the articles, a bot to check status, and then having the stuff sortable in topic etc. would be helpful. Logistically, it would make sense to do the whole thing in Excel offline (or Google docs) and have a pivot table and the like. Could have some outputs to display here, or inputs to upload periodically. This whole project seems pretty dead by the way...which says some really bad things about Wiki. But suggestion here would help fix it.
71.246.147.40 ( talk) 03:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to add the "top" turtle articles, with the exception of a subcategory that has low notability. It's eight or so articles and comparable to what we have for snakes. The articles have high hit count and are popular with school children. As of now, we don't even have an article on turtle itself!
Will also, try to read the entire list and see if there are any major categories unpopulated like that. From there, just picking the relevant project's "top" articles is a good way to help. Of course some projects are micro focus and I would leave out something that just seemed infamilair or obsucre. Given we have 1300 free spots, this seems reasonable. Plus it will educate me with the list. Plus, I think we overdid it on "people" and this will at least allow filling the other areas.
71.246.147.40 ( talk) 03:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I’ve recently been globalizing the Meta 10,000 Vitals and I made some edits, primarily in sports and cars, in an attempt to globalize this as well. For my diffs, see here for cars and here for sports. In sports, I’ve added most Olympic Sports and a variety of sports played worldwide; since sports hasn’t been expanded much compared to the Meta 1000 we had the room. I know in cars that means that there are a lot of tiny cars in and sporty cars out; sorry, that’s what the world drives. Tell me what you think. I also switched out indigo for gray in the colors; when there are seven colors in the rainbow the one called "blue" is really cyan and "indigo" is really blue (more on that there; plus gray's a web color (two, actually, if you count silver), indigo isn't. Zero problem with having both gray and indigo if feathers are ruffled by loss of indigo; this list isn't full and we certainly have room for 14 colors. Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 01:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Found duplicates:
-- Abiyoyo ( talk) 17:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
There's quite a mess in theese two sections with a lot of duplicates and intersecting subsections. They have to be organized properly.
-- Abiyoyo ( talk) 12:22, 30 October 2011 (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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Per discussion on Wikipedia talk:Vital articles, have added Gilbert and/or Sullivan to the expanded list. Adam Cuerden talk 12:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Gilbert is probably a little more important than Sullivan, due to his influence in other fields - The Bab Ballads, say, or his preparing the way for George Bernard Shaw and so on, but Sullivan's enduring popularity and constant performance - few cities in the Western world don't have G&S performed at least every couple years, and also being one of the fathers of modern musicals - do make at least as good of a case for him as The Beatles or Aretha Franklin, in my opinion. However, if you disagree, how about just putting a note about "See also Gilbert and Sullivan next to W. S. Gilbert? Adam Cuerden talk 13:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I have added Dhaka, a featured article. It's the capital of Bangladesh and home to over 10 million people, making it one of the mega cities of the world. -- Ragib 08:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Should we also add featured stars and GA symbol to the expanded lists' articles that have already reached those qualities? OhanaUnited Talk page 09:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Biography : 409 History : 172 Geography : 162 Arts : 84 Religions : 117 … Alexander Doria ( talk) 17:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
20-Oct-2008: I have added subheaders above as "Topics from 2007" (etc.) to emphasize the dates of topics in the talk-page. Older topics might still apply, but using the year headers helps to focus on more current issues as well. - Wikid77 ( talk) 06:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
20-Oct-2008: I have been editing Wikipedia for 3 years, and I am changing the list to remove mere grouping articles (such as "Shape") and to add a few highly-important articles, as follows:
As a computer scientist, I am troubled by the September-2008 coverage about computer technology, which I believe needs more analysis. - Wikid77 ( talk) 06:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
20-Oct-2008: Expanding to 2,000 articles does not seem a significant increase. The expansion should be an order of magnitude, multiply by 10. Expanding to only double would be like expanding 2 talk-show hosts (Carson, Letterman) to become 4 (+ Leno, Conan O'Brien) but leave out recent or daytime hosts such as Dick Cavett, Oprah, Tyra Banks, Geraldo, Phil Donahue, Ricki Lake, and Sally Jesse Raphael. Instead, expand to at least 10,000 articles, so a group of 2 would become 20, from 2 talk-show hosts to 20. Also, leave room to expand groups/hosts to others from outside the USA. Whereas Oprah has been broadcast daily in Africa, other English-speaking hosts not well-known in the USA could be included (in the analogy of hosts as an article group).
Housing-price analogy: Another analogy would be housing prices in the USA: consider a survey of homes priced below US$200,000 then doubled to include houses < $400G; at that doubled price, many famous celebrities would be omitted from the survey. However, when expanding price by an order of magnitude (x10), homes up to $2 million would include many movie stars (at least their prior homes). Celebrity homes have such magnitude-higher prices (not just double); similarly, vital ("celebrity") topics are 10 times more rare than the typical famous names in the area of study. In a sense, the 1,000 "vital articles" represent a celebrity status, and are not representative of "famous" but rather the "uber-famous" of topics.
Ranking by magnitude: Thus, the relative ranks are: about 20 celebrity scientists would be recognized on the street; about 200 are quite famous (for any encyclopedia); over 2,000 would be highly notable (but not listed in every encyclopedia); and even 20,000 scientists should rank for Wikipedia.
The expansion applies to all vital articles: a group of 10 notable actors would become 100 actors, just as 20 scientists becomes 200. In the sciences, 5 major sciences would expand to 50 sciences, including: archaeology, geology, meteorology, mineralogy, paleontology, etc. and pseudo-sciences as " astrology" & " phrenology". Otherwise, a group of 2,000 articles would be almost as limited as 1,000, hence not a significant expansion, not worth the effort of maintaining the list. Another obvious advantage: larger lists avoid the arguments of squeezing large groups of 100 major topics into just 20 each. - Wikid77 ( talk) 06:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
21-Oct-2008: Up until October 2008, the expanded list omitted large groups of topics, such as sports figures, dancers & opera. While adding a new section "Olympic/sports figures" (for perhaps 150 athletes), I also added a new section as "Performing artists" for a list of dancers/ballet, opera singers, and such. Evidently, there had been some kind of bias against sports & the performing arts: there was no place for Michael Jordan, Mark Spitz, Mickey Mantle, Margot Fonteyn or Luciano Pavarotti or anyone similar. Perhaps the artificial limit of 1,000 total articles had produced an impossible situation, like cooking vegetable soup in a tablespoon: beyond peas and corn kernels, not many vegetables fit in a tablespoon. For that reason, I have recommended the expanded view as 10,000 vital articles, to allow including the "top 100" articles in numerous categories, such as 100 actors, 100 composers, 100 Nobel winners, 100 major battles, etc. Attempting a list ten-times smaller (1,000 articles) had led to try shrinking the world view into the top 10 battles in history, top 10 composers, top 10 transport vehicles (etc.), while omitting athletes and others entirely. - Wikid77 ( talk) 22:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
21-Oct-2008: I have begun adding several hundred highly-notable article links to the list:
Formerly, the list of "1,000 Vital Articles" focused at more of a dictionary level, where animals were: bird, horse, dog, snake, etc. Now, those include: Ostrich, Appaloosa, Dalmatian, Cobra (etc.) as more likely to need an encyclopedia to give details. As a result, the expanded list not only includes new groups, such as athletes and opera, but also pinpoints specific other articles that are more likely found in an encyclopedia rather than a dictionary. Overall, I strongly believe that an expanded list of 10,000 articles will be more useful, and easier to decide, than debating which ultra-simple topics can squeeze into the 1,000. - Wikid77 ( talk) 22:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
21-Oct-2008: For years, I have been studying the core list of 1000 Wikipedia articles, but expanding to 10,000 has revealed the true problem of a 1000-article limit: it was hopelessly small, like limiting anatomy to 3 body parts (the eye/hand/toe). Consequently, people burned many hours/weeks debating the core 1000, somewhat like debating whether "liver" or "finger" should be a core body part (rather than list 50 parts). When the list was expanded to 10,000, the problem was reversed: it was hard to find enough items to fill the list, as for example, most people know only about 40 flowers total. To widen the scope, expert lists of the Top 100 (in each area) have been combined to cover a broad range that almost no single person could have known. The challenge has been to seek more diversity rather than slash & ax entries to stuff the universe into 1,000 forced slots. Contrary to the myth that "any size list would be too small", the 10,000 limit has generated a breathtaking scope of information for the general reader. None the less, the true scope of articles is endlessly vast (as Wikipedia already has 2.6 million articles), so the 10,000 list is still a tiny sample of the whole. The difference is that the 10,000 list acts like a magnifying glass of 10x power, revealing sufficient detail to see a much clearer view of reality. At that expanded level, the anatomy is no longer "eye/hand/toe" but about 40-50 parts, where both "liver" & "finger" could be listed. - Wikid77 ( talk) 20:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
21-Oct-2008: Despite the scope provided by increasing the limit to 10,000 articles, there is still a need to prioritize: there is ample space to list 100 composers, 100 singers, 100 rock bands, but not enough to list all songs performed by The Beatles, ABBA, and the Boston Pops Orchestra. It cannot be a "book of lists" showing 50 items in 3,000 different lists (or such). However, such capability is provided by Wikipedia's revised policy to keep lists in articles, such as with the English Wikipedia Wikipedia:Featured lists. Each of those hundreds of listing-articles can be seen as a more detailed focus into various sub-branches of the 10,000-article list. Also, many lists are totally outside a general view of the entire encyclopedia. - Wikid77 ( talk) 20:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Is this just a spelling mistake? Is Aristophanes meant? He is listed under Authors, while Aristophenes is listed under Directors, producers & screenwriters. Wikijens ( talk) 13:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Ho Chi Minh is listed twice Wikijens ( talk) 19:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
The header for the project page states "This page is a list of important subjects for which Wikipedia should have a corresponding high-quality article, and ideally a featured article.", and I am sure many visitors here would love to be able to use the list to quickly find an article in need of some work and devote some time to improving it and bringing it up to GA/FA status. Currently, however, articles are simply listed by name, and it is left to the reader to investigate the article quality. Marking article quality would be an impossible task by hand, given the goal of listing 10,000 articles. On the other hand, it would be trivial for a bot to check the articles (and their talk pages) and mark entries. A bot would also allow this to be kept up-to-date, and could even warn of various issues with any articles. What do people think? LinaMishima ( talk) 18:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Split this site into subpages and include them, so when editing happens, only the subpage gets edited. -- 84.44.179.252 ( talk) 05:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we should be looking at creating lists of the 1000 most critical pages per subject: The 1000 most critical pages in sports, the 1000 most critical pages in automotives, the 1000 most critical pages in American history, the 1000 most critical pages in cooking, et multiple cetera. Overlap would be permissible, of course. The different wikiprojects could create the actual lists. Almafeta ( talk) 18:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
You don't seem to have anyone working from the comics field on the list. I appreciate it is a small field, but I'd like to ask you to consider Herge, Alan Moore and Charles Schulz. Hiding T 20:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
It seems 10'000 is now the accepted goal... is there a process for nominating an article? Almafeta ( talk) 04:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I found it odd that Samuel Johnson was not listed, but found it very odd that John Milton wasn't. Milton has been called the greatest English Epic poet, and the greatest English poet by thousands of scholars. I also found it odd how John Keats is missing and yet is more anthologized than Lord Byron, who is on the list. Ottava Rima ( talk) 18:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I have added John Milton and John Keats, I think they are quite important.-- Icesea( talk) 10:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone think that this could use Bede, Thucydides, and Xenophon? I think Thucydides should definitely be added, as the list has Plutarch, Herodotus, and Sima Qian. Bede is also important for his history of the church in England. Anyone else support this? -- 15lsoucy ( talk) 21:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest that anyone listed here either:
That doesn't mean that everyone meeting either criteria should be listed. But it should help ensure historical perspective. Maurreen ( talk) 12:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
For potential fodder, see Category:Top-importance articles. Maurreen ( talk) 22:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
As a raving Egyptomaniac I would like to suggest some changes—not necessarily additions—in my area of expertise. There are ancient Egyptian subjects I would like to see here eventually (like art and religion), but they belong in areas that still need a lot of populating with subjects from other parts of the world, and I'm not comfortable pushing my area of expertise ahead of all others. Instead, I'm suggesting changes to the ancient Egyptian articles already listed. In "Politicians and leaders", I don't believe that Seti I belongs; his rule was fairly prosperous and stable but doesn't particularly stand out in Egyptian history. I can think of several pharaohs who I believe were more important ( Amenhotep III, Thutmose I, Thutmose III, Khufu), but I favor Akhenaten to replace Seti. Not only is he still well-known and controversial today, but his religious revolution, though short-lived, did significantly affect the traditional religion and severely weaken the pharaoh's prestige and religious importance.
In "Religious figures", Osiris and Ra are at least as important as Horus and Hathor, and much more important than Anubis. A. Parrot ( talk) 01:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I would recommend an image of Laozi be used as a symbol for this list. He wrote of the "10,000 things" that make up reality. i will suggest or add some articles here as well. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 08:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Umm.. History of radio? Why is this not on the list? -- œ ™ 05:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I just noticed that, under Musicians and Composers, several members of the level 3 list (1,000 articles), were also listed here. (e.g. Bach, Beethoven, Beatles in the B's - but not Louis Armstrong) I'd have assumed that the level 3 members should not be in level 4 as well. Random thoughts:
Smallbones ( talk) 18:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Current count of articles is not correctly indicated. If you want to know correct count, I can do it by program ( Errare humanum est). -- Igrek ( talk) 14:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't Statue of Liberty be on the list?-- Wehwalt ( talk) 02:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Igrek ( talk • contribs) 12:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I am, if no-one complains, going to delete these on July 1st.
Wwm101 19:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
At this moment I agree with removing these articles:
In the future I can support removal of other articles. -- Igrek ( talk) 13:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
There are duplicates in the list:
-- Igrek ( talk) 14:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Can I suggest that the Rosetta Stone article (recently promoted to FA status) be added to this list under the ancient Egypt section? It's certainly one of the most significant objects to come out of that civilization, largely due to the significant role it played in the decipherment of the ancient Egyptian language. Cheers! Captmondo ( talk) 02:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
(this comment was left on the subpage version vital article/expanded/people by another editor, and i think it should have been placed here. I do agree with the deletions, though). Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 07:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
i just added a number of writers, mostly US. here are some more than im not sure should be added, either for notability reasons or the quality of the articles: Willa Cather, Ralph Ellisons invisible man, Robert Anton Wilson, Tennessee Williams, John Irving, Christopher Isherwood, Derek Walcott(Omeros), Ursula LeGuin, H. P. Lovecraft, Sinclair Lewis, Richard Matheson, Peter Matthiessen, James Michener, Herman Melville, Anais Nin, Henry Miller, Sylvia Plath, Ayn Rand (personally, i would say no, but thats pure POV), Ann Rice, Philip Roth, Dan Simmons, Isaac Bashevis Singer, Upton Sinclair, Wallace Stegner. i used the list List of novelists from the United States as a memory aide. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 08:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
OK, im putting my foot in it now: ive removed matt damon, leonardo di caprio, halle berry, marg helgenberger (who the heck thinks shes that notable?), ellen degeneris, kim basinger, and tim mcgraw. Nothing in their articles shows that they are either critically acclaimed enough, or popular enough. This list will inevitably suffer from recentism, and i think thats the case here. i left names that i suspect are not notable enough, but are debatable, such as the Bollywood actors. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 05:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I dont think we should list names in the "people" section that are not considered people by most authorities. god, satan, adam, lilith, and many other mythological figures are here. also, in mythology, is the baal shem tov, who did live. If i dont see any objections, i may be bold and regroup mythological religious beings with their respective religions, and keep actual people here. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 06:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I'll be going through the list to ensure every entry is numbered separately. It makes counting more straightforward and the list look more like an IT Thesaurus, which is clearly the model we're following. Circéus ( talk) 21:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Categories I intend to add:
Other stuff to do:
Circéus ( talk) 21:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
There is now some dispute or debate on where to list various fictional characters and people. my preference is to split out fictional, but demonstrably human, characters, and have them in the "people" list, and have fictional, nonhuman, characters in the mythology section. However, this is in some ways arbitrary, and i will not revert recent changes. Does this matter? where will people look for either? examples: don quixote=person, mickey mouse=nonhuman, hercules=human, grendel=nonhuman. superman is humanoid? i guess there is, as in many categorizations, a spectrum. Plus, they could both probably be expanded. i had trimmed out some regional american folk heroes with minor notability. It would be nice to have a more international list. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 23:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
This may seem like a petty concern in comparison with all that must be done to this page, but perhaps the "actors" section could use some heavy reforming. Though there may be good arguments for all the persons listed, I find it unlikely that such actors as Samuel L. Jackson and Johnny Depp, however good they may be, should be included in the top 100 or top 50. These examples aside, it is interesting to note that while Laurence Olivier and Michael Redgrave are listed, their well acknowledged counterparts John Gielgud and Ralph Richardson are not. Paul Scofield is also a name not to be found, and where are stage actors? Henry Irving, Ellen Terry, Edmund Kean, and David Garrick were considered unparalleled in their times, and where are they now? Thanks for all consideration. -- 15lsoucy salve. opus. nomen 23:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
It cannot be that there are more than double as many important baseballers than footballers. Globally, football has much more players and spectators. -- Ettrig ( talk) 12:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Here are some mathematicians who are often ranked among the most important in history. I think they could be merged into the "Mathematicians and computer scientists" list to balance it up with the much longer Astronomers and Physicists list.
Is there an approval process I have to go through, or should I just insert these? Thank you. Regards, RJH ( talk) 22:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
The Astronomy section of this article has included all of the constellations, but it is not so clear to me why those would be considered vital. There's a perhaps a few constellations that are notable (Orion, Ursa Major, Sagittarius, Taurus, &c.), but many others are obscure. Perhaps a better list of important topics may be found at " Category:Top-importance Astronomy articles". That category includes important missing topics such as Brown dwarf, Cepheid variable, Molecular cloud, Orion Nebula, Quasar and Stellar kinematics. Thank you. Regards, RJH ( talk) 20:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Here's a list of the delta's for your convenience:
Specific examples of object types:
Regards, RJH ( talk) 21:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I added an "Architectural type" section with words like house, building, etc. I am not so sure how to organize it or what should be included. There should also be an urban planning section with words like Street, Road, Highway, Park. I will let people who know more about this area than me fill these in.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 16:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Here's a few suggested fundamental topics for "War and military":
and for "Weapons":
Thank you. Regards, RJH ( talk) 21:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Here's a few suggestions for the empty physics topics:
Atomic physics:
Molecular physics: Much of this topic is covered by the 'Chemical bond' and its sub-sections
Optics: Much of this topic is covered by 'Optical' and 'Waves'.
Physics related:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by RJHall ( talk • contribs) 30 June 2011 19:58
Current count of articles is not correctly indicates. If you want to know correct count, I can do it with help of program. In any case, thanks for your help. -- Igrek ( talk) 07:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Here are some suggestions for topics under Everyday life/Household items:
Houses,
See also "Architectural elements"
Furniture and decoration,
Clothing,
Other items,
Thank you. Regards, RJH ( talk) 19:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
This section is a little slim (compared to its neighbors), so here's a few suggestions:
These may belong under Geography, Basics:
Thank you. Regards, RJH ( talk) 16:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I thought it might be interesting to make a side-by-side comparison of the VA lists by percentage:
Category | VA Level | 01/12 | 04/12 | 4:3 Ratio | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | ||
Arts and Culture | 8 | 6.4 | 5.26 | 5.90 | 5.96 | 93% |
Language, Everyday Life | 19 | 8.3 | 6.20 | 6.47 | 6.83 | 82% |
Geography | 12 | 8.4 | 12.15 | 14.34 | 13.73 | 163% |
History | 4 | 6.3 | 4.84 | 5.61 | 5.66 | 90% |
Mathematics, Measurement | 6 | 6.2 | 1.96 | 3.62 | 3.65 | 59% |
People | 0 | 12.3 | 21.43 | 23.27 | 22.37 | 182% |
Philosophy, Religion | 7 | 7.2 | 1.95 | 3.21 | 3.65 | 51% |
Science, Health, Medicine, Biology | 18 | 23.4 | 22.11 | 27.16 | 26.49 | 113% |
Industry, Society, Social Sciences | 17 | 9.3 | 3.84 | 4.78 | 4.95 | 53% |
Technology | 9 | 10.8 | 4.68 | 5.63 | 6.70 | 62% |
Totals (%) | 100 | 98.6 | 84.42 | 92.22 | 97.31 | 100% |
If one were assume that the ratio of topics stays roughly constant as the list branches further, then it appears that some topics are seriously underrepresented. Likewise it is interesting how the People category has ramped steadily upward. Regards, RJH ( talk) 22:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
In the spirit of attempting to address one of the above mentioned trends, I've put together a list of the top-rated articles from the mathematics wikiprojects' that appear to be missing from this VA list. Nearly all of these appear to be appropriate for a vital articles list. I'm not sure why Imaginary unit wasn't rated among these (as a constant), but I think it should be included.
Some of the topics in Mathematics are duplicated in measurement:
Regards, RJH ( talk) 15:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I have created a template to illustrate this project. I had thought of using an image of lao tzu, but decided on the character for 10k things and a quote from the taoteching. "10,000 things" is a buddhist/taoist phrase to mean "innumerable things" or simply "everything", which i feel is an apt companion to this project. I doubt anyone will take it to the next level and create a list of 100k vital articles:) Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 03:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I think having some markers on the articles, a bot to check status, and then having the stuff sortable in topic etc. would be helpful. Logistically, it would make sense to do the whole thing in Excel offline (or Google docs) and have a pivot table and the like. Could have some outputs to display here, or inputs to upload periodically. This whole project seems pretty dead by the way...which says some really bad things about Wiki. But suggestion here would help fix it.
71.246.147.40 ( talk) 03:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to add the "top" turtle articles, with the exception of a subcategory that has low notability. It's eight or so articles and comparable to what we have for snakes. The articles have high hit count and are popular with school children. As of now, we don't even have an article on turtle itself!
Will also, try to read the entire list and see if there are any major categories unpopulated like that. From there, just picking the relevant project's "top" articles is a good way to help. Of course some projects are micro focus and I would leave out something that just seemed infamilair or obsucre. Given we have 1300 free spots, this seems reasonable. Plus it will educate me with the list. Plus, I think we overdid it on "people" and this will at least allow filling the other areas.
71.246.147.40 ( talk) 03:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I’ve recently been globalizing the Meta 10,000 Vitals and I made some edits, primarily in sports and cars, in an attempt to globalize this as well. For my diffs, see here for cars and here for sports. In sports, I’ve added most Olympic Sports and a variety of sports played worldwide; since sports hasn’t been expanded much compared to the Meta 1000 we had the room. I know in cars that means that there are a lot of tiny cars in and sporty cars out; sorry, that’s what the world drives. Tell me what you think. I also switched out indigo for gray in the colors; when there are seven colors in the rainbow the one called "blue" is really cyan and "indigo" is really blue (more on that there; plus gray's a web color (two, actually, if you count silver), indigo isn't. Zero problem with having both gray and indigo if feathers are ruffled by loss of indigo; this list isn't full and we certainly have room for 14 colors. Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 01:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Found duplicates:
-- Abiyoyo ( talk) 17:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
There's quite a mess in theese two sections with a lot of duplicates and intersecting subsections. They have to be organized properly.
-- Abiyoyo ( talk) 12:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)