Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 27

Auto archiving

Was there ever any discussion on using a bot to automatically archive discussions from the VA talk pages after 30 days? This seems to go against our longstanding practice of leaving nominations open longer than the minimums if they have some likelihood of passing. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:44, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

It seems that the people here is resistant to that idea. I tried to clean up the mess that is Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4 but to no avail. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Many nominations take months to pass, and many go dormant for longer than 30 days before they finally pass. If we are going to start cutting off all nominations automatically after 30 days, then very few nominations will ever pass again. And now there seem to be old nominations that have been auto archived by the bot that were never formally closed as having failed, which doesn't seem like a good idea to me. I am against the automatic archiving, and for just going back to the old system of manual archiving after a nomination has officially been passed or failed. Our old process around here may be slow, but I think it has worked pretty well for many years. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:28, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Swap: remove Abstract algebra, add Algebraic structure

I've been working on Abstract algebra for the 30 kB drive and it's become clear that abstract algebra isn't a particularly interesting subject these days. The basics on groups, rings, and fields have been taught essentially unchanged since the 1930's in courses and textbooks titled 'abstract algebra' or 'modern algebra', and all the recent sources on abstract algebra are either histories, textbooks for courses, or articles that discuss the teaching of these topics. I've been filling the article with the history of how abstract algebra came about, but I don't think it's vital information.

Per the nomination abstract algebra was nominated because "it's everywhere in contemporary math and the basics are pretty accessible", and "we could use another article on modern pure mathematics". I think Algebraic structure fits that description better. Abstract algebra is "the study of algebraic structures", but this area has split and evolved to more specific, modern disciplines like group theory, commutative algebra, representation theory, or category theory. In contemporary math, it is the algebraic structures that are everywhere, not discussions of their study. New, exotic, groundbreaking algebraic structures don't really fit under "abstract algebra" because nobody uses that term. But everyone can agree that whatever structure they are working with is an algebraic structure. Meanwhile summarizing the basic abstract algebra topics like groups, rings, and fields in the algebraic structure article is no problem. So algebraic structure has the potential to include both new and old information, as opposed to abstract algebra which is frozen in time.

Further evidence:

• Lattice theory redirects to lattice, and modules, fields, and algebras have no corresponding theory page, showing that the theory or study of an algebraic structure may not be notable at all.
• Template:Algebraic structures links to groups, rings, fields, etc. and appears on those pages. It uses Algebraic structure as an overall heading. It doesn't link to Abstract algebra.
• Looking at WikiNav, for abstract algebra the most common click is to algebraic structure. Contrariwise for algebraic structure the most common clicks are to individual structures, and Abstract algebra is only 5th.
• Arguing against, abstract algebra is a more popular term. Abstract algebra has 1,554 wikilinks, while algebraic structure has 728. Furthermore algebraic structure averages 260 views per day while abstract algebra averages 427 views per day.

Mathnerd314159 (talk) 21:10, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Support per nom. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 22:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Support addition, Neutral on removal so long as Algebraic structure is swapped in, otherwise I Oppose removal. LightProof1995 (talk) 05:46, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose removal; Neutral on addition. I would like to see a better rationale for removal. Your reasons for removing Abstract algebra are basically, it's "not an interesting subject", and "it's not a popular Wikipedia page". Neither are reasons for Vital addition / removal. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 17:19, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  I'll try again:

  • abstract algebra (AA) is "the study of" algebraic structures (AS). The structures themselves are more vital.
  • AA is a vaguely-defined, archaic term. It has become pigeonholed to the undergraduate course of the same name; even linear algebra is not considered AA anymore, because for reasons of course length it is not taught in AA courses. Many universities have done away with the name AA and teach courses such as "groups, rings, and fields" or AS.
  • Looking at N-grams you can see that 'modern algebra' is on life support, AA peaked in 1960, while AS peaked much later/higher in 2000. From the books links below, AA remains in use only because of university textbooks, while AS is also used in research monographs. If universities completely transition away from AA courses then AA will likely disappear as a term, while AS has become mathematical vocabulary.

  Mathnerd314159 (talk) 18:27, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Mathnerd314159 your initial reasoning is fantastic; don’t worry about trying to convince anyone who can’t see that. LightProof1995 (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• A technical note: algebraic structure is not on any of the vital article lists. If we were to make this swap here, algebraic structure should also be added to the lower-level lists. Cobblet (talk) 14:34, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

  I've listed it here but that doesn't necessarily mean we can't reach consensus here to move it immediately up to Vital-3 (it is possible we won't, and we'll have to move it up through the lower levels anyway) LightProof1995 (talk) 06:12, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

  I've now added Algebraic structure to Vital-5. I propose/support a direct Vital-5 for Vital-3 swap. LightProof1995 (talk) 08:09, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Support addition to Level 4. --Thi (talk) 10:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Reference drive proposal

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vital Articles. All comments and opinions are welcome. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:48, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Wiki99 - make your own list of ~100 topics

See example for LGBT+

• meta:Wiki99/LGBT+

The vital article list is supposed to cover all fields of human interest. More commonly, though, editors like to develop topics in a field. How can we list and present articles all on the same topic, keep the list manageable to about 100 items, and track progress in translating them to various languages?

Wiki99 is a concept for managing all this. Use meta:Module:Wiki99 as the technology, put Wikidata items into that module, and get in return a human readable table to put on a project page and organize article development. Change the language, and it renders in any language where there is Wikidata content.

I am presenting this here because the concept is like vital articles but for any field. Anyone is welcome to start their own list and post to Wiki99 on meta, or post the table anywhere else you want. Comment socially at meta:Talk:Wiki99, or comment on the technology at meta:Module talk:Wiki99. Thanks. Bluerasberry (talk) 19:08, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Vital articles categories

Is it normal that all vital article categories contain talk pages, rather than the articles themselves? It's made it a bit clunky to use Petscan. Is there a reason we don't use "proper" (hidden) article categories? DFlhb (talk) 15:22, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I’m not even sure what Petscan is. You seem like the new account of an experienced editor (whereas I am still probably the newest person here) — your suggestion comes across as something we should probably do even though I’m not quite sure what it means. LightProof1995 (talk) 04:18, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

This is the only Wikipedia account I ever had; I made around 70 edits 5 years ago, then logged out and never touched Wikipedia again, until I started editing seriously just one month ago. Everything I learned just stemmed from checking the help pages before I did anything and being very conscientious. "Experienced" is the last thing I am, and there are tons of things I consciously stay away from due to lacking experience. Also, Petscan is a tool used to generate lists of Wikipedia articles that match certain criteria, which gives useful data for some decisions (prioritization, etc.) DFlhb (talk) 04:42, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply :) I actually thought I had deleted my reply and it didn't post. Welcome back :) LightProof1995 (talk) 04:45, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! DFlhb (talk) 09:45, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Trimming long articles

I noticed that a lot of the Vital articles (especially those about countries) are way too long. For example, Italy is 151 kB in readable prose size, far longer than what WP:SIZE recommends. What is the general strategy to tackle these kind of articles? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:52, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Usually for an article this length, it seems the strategy would be to split off a section to its own article per WP:SPINOUT and WP:SPINOFF. But it looks like in this particular case, every section already has a dedicated sub-article, so the solution would just be to trim minor details from the article and make sure they can be found on the sub-articles. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:35, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

What I generally do is try to look at articles on similar topics, but of higher quality (for example, Featured-article Germany), and try to gauge what weight to allot to each section, then I do a "mini-outline" in my head of: "what would be most relevant here? how would the other featured article say it, if it were about my subject?" You quickly realize that a ton of stuff you initially thought was relevant, really isn't. DFlhb (talk) 19:18, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, I've never thought about this before. I usually just pick whatever the information is not cited and delete that instead. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:56, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Add a Magical or Spiritual Article as Vital-3

Several magical or spiritual articles have been mentioned as being good candidates for inclusion on this list. I've narrowed it down to what I think are the top five here. Vote below...

Support for Heaven to be added:

Support for Magic to be added:

Support for Pilgrimage to be added:

Support for Reincarnation to be added (Note this is a continuation of a previous/archived discussion and Reincarnation currently sits at (net minus) 2 oppose):

Support for Angkor Wat to be added (back) (World's largest temple, also would fill the Indochina/Southeast Asia void):

Oppose/Discussion:

Other magical or spiritual articles mentioned in recent discussions include alchemy, temple, worship, and hell. If there is enough support, these can be added to the above list too. Angkor Wat was listed as Vital-3 with some other wonders like Stonehenge for a while but eventually was replaced with History of Southeast Asia, which was eventually taken out and not added back to it no longer fitting within the "History of... geographical areas" section. I'm not voting or participating for this round, but anyone else is welcome to participate in this round, even if they voted/participated in the previous discussion. Thanks and have fun :) LightProof1995 (talk) 07:32, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose all. "Philosophy and religion" is the one section that I consider to basically be finished. There are currently 44 vital articles covering religion, religious figures, specific religions, and mythology. Afterlife, spirituality, and ritual are already level-3 articles. I have yet to see a convincing argument that there's any gap of coverage in this area. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 08:00, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think this is true... "Philosophy and religion" is the fourth-smallest section, out of 11 sections... technically Angkor Wat would go under Architecture/Art, which is tied for second-smallest... so that can be my Reasoning... the "gap" would be the articles I (and others) have identified above. I don't see how your argument makes sense, whatsoever, and I don't understand why anyone is agreeing with this. LightProof1995 (talk) 08:57, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Thebiguglyalien I agree. 2404:4408:8739:B900:6C67:7FB2:34FA:963D (talk) 01:33, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose all per above. --Thi (talk) 08:07, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose all except magic Magic is a maybe for me; the rest is clutter. Zelkia1101 (talk) 09:44, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand the opposals here when we are under quota. No one has suggested alternatives. LightProof1995 (talk) 04:38, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support Magic, neutral on Pilgrimage, oppose the rest. We do nt ist buildings at thi level other that Pyramid da Gizza and Great Wall of Chine, the other ones are already sufficently covered by afterlife. Dawid2009 (talk) 09:23, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose all Magic is a rather Eurocentric term. Supernatural is perhaps a better choice. Cobblet (talk) 16:45, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Lv 4 lists

What the hell has happened to the level four lists? All (except Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/People???) show 0 articles. Cewbot has been flooding watchlists in response trying to reclassify every level 4 article as a level 5. CMD (talk) 15:44, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Something convinced Cewbot that there were no articles in Level 1 or most of Level 4 at 8:02 UTC today. Then it did the logical thing and fixed the templates on pages that it didn't think were "actually" in those lists. Curiously, it gave a correct evaluation for Level 3 and some of Level 4. It doesn't seem there were any changes to any of these pages immediately before that, so I wonder if there are any changes on Cewbot's end at that time. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:36, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Add Queen Victoria

Support

1. As nom. Because she is the most famous historical bearer of the name, the Victorian era was marked by a great expansion of the British Empire, and a lot of popular culture works feature her, this article is definitely vital at this level. --RekishiEJ (talk) 09:03, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose too much overlap and therefore redundant to the British Empire at this level. It would be like including both Augustus and the Roman Empire. Gizza (talk • voy) 02:06, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
2. Oppose Covered by the British empire. --Thi (talk) 10:34, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

Not sure we can trust view counts of English monarchs due to recent events, although we can use relative view counts across English monarchs, and in this regard, Victoria does have twice the views of Elizabeth I, so I'd support that swap. I'd full on support if I hadn't made so many suggestions above I feel are more important than adding another person when we are at 112 people and it's been discussed if anything it should go down to an even 100. LightProof1995 (talk) 11:31, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Is American Football underrepresented

It has just come to my attention that the American football level 5 40 article quota is smaller than hockey, tennis, baseball and basketball despite having the highest television ratings in the United States. It has less than tennis, baseball and basketball at level 4 as well. What is the justification for this?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

• P.S. In the level 5 sports figures section it is also not clear why basketball has so many more than football.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:33, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

TV ratings in the US alone must never be our measure for this global encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 08:04, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I would guess the justification is that hockey, tennis, baseball and basketball all have significant followings across multiple continents (hockey, tennis and basketball in Europe, baseball in East Asia), but American football is really only significant in North America. Even just talking about American athletes, a tennis player like Serena Williams is going to have much more global recognition than an American football player like Tom Brady. OliveYouBean (talk) 10:14, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Can confirm: living in the UK, I know of one American football player (Tom Brady) but a fair few basketball players (LeBron, Michael Jordan, Kobe, that big Shaq quy, and a Greek guy who I think is currently playing). Baseball and hockey haven't really made it over here, which is why I don't know anyone. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:53, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Vital's an arbitrary distinction. All additions/removals should serve our need for focusing on important articles. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that "hockey" is being used here without clarification. When that word is used in the USA or Canada, it's often by someone unaware that field hockey, the real owner of that name, has far more fans around the world than ice hockey. This is particularly true in India, with 1.2 billion people. HiLo48 (talk) 16:24, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Add Cleopatra

Support

1. As nom. Because Blaise Pascal argued that if her nose had been shorter a bit, the world would be much more different (I'm not sure whether his counterfactual analysis is right), and plenty of popular culture works feature her quite significantly, this article is definitely vital at this level. --RekishiEJ (talk) 09:03, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
2. Support. I've felt before she has been important enough in history to be included on this list, even though we already have two Egyptian pharaohs listed. Her view count in the past 30 days: 5,832,953. Neither Ramesses not Hatshepsut hit 100,000, with Hatshepsut being the lowest of the three (and half of Ramesses' count) -- I feel a swap of Cleopatra for Hatshepsut would also make sense, if anyone wanted to vote Angkor Wat or Magic or Reincarnation or Encyclopedia get added as well... EDIT: I believe I read somewhere Cleopatra is actually one of the articles that gets automatic view counts (Here, under "Malware":https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Popular_pages), so never mind, we cannot trust this figure, but I'll still support although I highly encourage a swap for Hatshepsut. LightProof1995 (talk) 11:39, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
3. Support as per those above. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:08, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Nowhere near in any way. She even is not the most memorable not listed woman accordint to Pantheon.World Dawid2009 (talk) 09:21, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
2. Oppose This has already been rejected twice recently. Nothing new has been brought up in this discussion. Cobblet (talk) 16:54, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
3. Oppose Covered by Caesar and Augustus. --Thi (talk) 10:19, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

@RekishiEJ: Because Blaise Pascal argued that if her nose had been shorter a bit, the world would be much more different. Is this reason for inclusion her here? Could you please elaborate? I am not sure what you do mean. Dawid2009 (talk) 11:29, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I think Cicero should probably be removed for similar reasons. We already have another Roman writer in Virgil just as Cleopatra has to contend with Hatshepsut, and a significant part of Cicero's legacy is wrapped up in his feud with Julius Caesar, just like Cleopatra's legacy is also related to Caesar's. Cobblet (talk) 01:50, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Add Rousseau

Locke already appears, and Rousseau is probably the more influential figure in social contract theory, as well as political philosophy more generally. He was also relevant to the Enlightenment and the French Revolution. I see no reason he shouldn't be on here.

Support

1. Support as nom. LarstonMarston (talk) 14:47, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Art vs. The arts

I imagine there must be an archive somewhere where The arts was chosen over Art at level 1. Can someone point me to such an archive.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:52, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Archive 6#The arts. Cobblet (talk) 17:46, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:43, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Hey TonyTheTiger, please see this discussion as well: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/2/Archive_3#Swap_Film_with_Mass_Media_and/or_Art".

A proposal to swap The arts for Art and Human history for History at Level 1 would have my full support and I would explain why in such a proposal. The "longstanding consensus" to have The arts and Human history instead, if you look through all the comments and reasoning through the archives, actually falls apart in logic pretty easily. LightProof1995 (talk) 14:50, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Paul Kruger

I have nominated Paul Kruger for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 02:39, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Add Shanghai

Shanghai is the world's third largest city according to List of largest cities. We have other smaller cities like São Paulo, Mumbai, and Beijing listed, so we should list Shanghai too. Mucube (talk) 23:12, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Shanghai is a perennial proposal. There seems to be a reluctance to add a third Chinese city when India is the only other country with two cities listed, and no particular appetite to add more cities in general. Speaking for myself, I think the most vital China-related topics that are currently not listed are something related to Ancient China (I suggested Zhou dynasty earlier this year) and Yellow River. Cobblet (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for making this suggestion :) I agree with Cobblet we shouldn't have more than two Chinese cities when there is only one American city and this is English Wikipedia. Population of cities is not everything -- if it was, we'd have Guangzhou over Hong Kong.

I was thinking, as far as East Asian cities go, perhaps Seoul or Manila would be better options. I was also thinking even Los Angeles or Sydney could be better options to add than Shanghai, as English-speaking cities. I was also thinking Singapore maybe stood out as one we don't need, since it is a city-state.

Since I wasn't sure which city was best to add, I decided this is a great example of how view counts can help us determine which cities are more vital.

Beijing: 113,312

Shanghai: 114,145

Hong Kong: 312,481

Guangzhou: 76,131

New York City: 671,494

Los Angeles: 374,949

Seoul: 197,246

Manila: 99,931

Singapore: 557,812

Tokyo: 220,618

Sydney: 156,427

As you can see, I was completely wrong about Singapore. I am floored by its view counts -- obviously Singapore is much more connected to the global economy than I realized, and absolutely should stay on this list. You'll also notice Beijing and Shanghai are roughly equivalent in view counts, but Seoul beats them both. Sydney and Los Angeles also have more views than Shanghai, although Manila does not. If it is decided more cities could be added, I'd advocate for either Los Angeles, Seoul, and/or Sydney. LightProof1995 (talk) 22:20, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in here, but if we're going based on which cities are more important/connected to the global economy, surely we should go based on what reliable sources say not on view counts?

I do agree though that if we're going to add another East Asian city then it shouldn't be another city in PRC. I'm not convinced there needs to be another, but if there was then my pick would be Seoul (which is more significant historically than Shanghai anyway imo). OliveYouBean (talk) 07:25, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

LA is another perennial proposal. Seoul has been discussed as well. Cobblet (talk) 16:24, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I definitely agree with the points raised in the Seoul discussion. I think adding another country or region should take priority over adding another city (if something geography-related is going to be added at all). OliveYouBean (talk) 01:09, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I have no opinion on whether another city should be added. But if another were to be added, I think Dubai, Manila, or Seoul would be the strongest contenders. Population isn't everything, and view count isn't at all relevant when determining whether an article is vital. Alternatively, Indus River or Sweden would also be good additions as far as geography articles. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:31, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Agree historical importance is just as important, if not more important, than connection to the global economy, and Seoul beats Shanghai in this regard. View counts encompass both historical importance and economic importance. LightProof1995 (talk) 01:37, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'm still not clear on how view counts encompass historical or economic importance. Could you elaborate on how they do that? OliveYouBean (talk) 03:00, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Hey OliveYouBean, yes :)

View counts are tricky. Recent events and celebrities can have higher view counts than, say, these cities. However, this does not mean recent events and celebrity articles are more critical to Wikipedia's structure than these articles. View counts should only be compared across similar articles -- similar in both topic and quality. That is why we can compare view counts across the city articles above, but comparing view counts of Seoul to Cam Newton is futile in determining relative vitalness. Recent events and popular celebrities tend to receive views that aren't necessarily "critical to Wikipedia's structure views" as the popularity of these pages is temporary and often irrelevant to Wikipedia's other articles. However, this is not the case for the average Wikipedia article, like articles on cities. For such articles, view counts = general importance, and general importance encompasses historical importance, economic importance, cultural importance, etc. For example, some number of the viewers of the Seoul article clicked on it because the Gyeongbokgung, a historically-important palace, is located in Seoul. Some number of viewers clicked on Seoul because it was the capital of the Joseon dynasty, and they have been tasked with writing a paper on that dynastic kingdom. Some number of viewers clicked on Seoul because they are visiting that city soon for business reasons. Some number of those viewers clicked on Seoul because they are traveling there as tourists. Alternatively, similar ideas apply to the viewers of the Shanghai article (and all other city articles of comparative quality, for that matter). However, there are less viewers of the Shanghai article in the past 30 days than the Seoul article. Assuming there are no recent events that would cause more viewers to look at Seoul over Shanghai or vice-versa, we can compare the number of views across these two articles to gauge which city is more significant historically/economically/culturally. In this regard, view counts can be a way to determine vitalness, as vitalness = critical to Wikipedia's structure, and if two articles are similar in topic and quality, choosing which is more critical to Wikipedia's structure can easily be made an objective endeavor instead of a subjective endeavor by comparing their view counts. Since Seoul and Shanghai are similar articles in topic and quality, we can assume if one is receiving more views than the other, there are more reasons to view that article, with "reasons" = "number of people tasked with writing a historical paper on the city", "number of viewers planning on visiting", etc. Hope that makes sense :) LightProof1995 (talk) 17:13, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Eh – while VA is at times too academic, I'm don't think I agree with this approach. Visits to academic articles can often be motivated by celebrity reasons *pokes k-pop*. Moreover, it's a little off to compare pageviews in this specific case: Wikipedia is blocked in China after all! J947 † ^edits 19:49, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I specifically stated "celebrity" reasons aren't accurate for view counts. Perhaps if Wikipedia was unblocked in China, it would have more views... however I think the fact the PRC blocks Wikpedia, does make cities in the PRC less critical to the structure of Wikipedia. LightProof1995 (talk) 02:40, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I can't agree with that. WP:VAFAQ specifically says that a Western bias should be avoided, and even if people within PRC aren't able to access Wikipedia as easily, information about stuff within the PRC is still just as critical to Wikipedia as information about stuff within the United States or Europe. OliveYouBean (talk) 03:07, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree cities in the PRC are still critical and just because the PRC blocks Wikipedia doesn't mean we shouldn't have articles on those cities -- I just think they are (marginally) less critical compared to cities with populations that can access Wikipedia, simply because it's impossible for us Westerners to edit such articles to the extent a local would be able to. LightProof1995 (talk) 22:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think you're making a compelling enough case that page views does a good job of encompassing all of those things. There's two key points where I think page views don't work well:

1. We don't actually know that page views will correlate with how important a city is culturally/politically/historically/economically. For example, Los Angeles has twice as many recent page views as Rome, but I don't think anyone will argue that Los Angeles is more important than Rome on those counts. LA may be more economically significant as of the last 100 years, but for the rest of recorded history Rome has been way more significant on all those counts. This is why Rome is on the list, but Los Angeles is not.

2. It's not an objective measure if you have to take into account subjective questions like "Are these two topics similar enough to compare them?" or "Has their been a recent event that's affecting things?" When does a recent event stop being something that affects page views and start being something that makes the topic more vital to Wikipedia? I'm not saying there's no answer to these questions, but whatever answer you come up with will be subjective.

Personally I think it's better to look for reliable sources outside of Wikipedia to make a case for which articles Wikipedia should consider more critical. OliveYouBean (talk) 03:18, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies :) To counter your points:

1. It doesn't matter that we don't know which views correlate with what -- each view does mean something. Maybe LA is more culturally significant than Rome just because of Hollywood, nowadays at least. Not that I think that means LA should replace Rome, as you are correct in your assessment Rome has been more important historically, and if Wikipedia had been around the past 1000 years, I'm sure Rome would have received way more views then. But that's just getting into the "recent" argument again.

2. Our answers to these questions are no more subjective than any other method anyone else has proposed for determining vitalness. You say we should use reliable sources... but no one uses reliable sources when trying to argue for vitality here, and even if they did, we could throw reliable sources with counter-points just as easily, and in the end it still seems, to me at least, just as objective/subjective as simply comparing view counts. LightProof1995 (talk) 23:09, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

For the record I wasn't suggesting there was an alternative "objective" way to determine vital articles, I was just responding to your claim that "choosing which is more critical to Wikipedia's structure can easily be made an objective endeavor instead of a subjective endeavor by comparing their view counts." Seems we agree though that subjective judgments are needed regardless (since both of us agree that Rome should be in over Los Angeles). OliveYouBean (talk) 04:34, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Add building

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, architecture is level 2, and level 3 includes a few miscellaneous structures. Building is a major omission in this regard, and I propose it be added to the list. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I respectfully Oppose.

While not the only indicator of vitality, article views in the past 30 days are a strong indicator:

Architecture: 48,081 views.

Great Pyramid of Giza: 145,232 views.

Great Wall of China: 161,794 views.

Angkor Wat, which I've already suggested above, not only to fill the underrespresented Art/Architecture section, but also to fill the woeful Indochina/Southeast Asia gap: 125,915 views.

Cotton (last article added): 54,350 views.

Building only has 18,469 views in the past 30 days -- it's not Vital at this level. LightProof1995 (talk) 07:10, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Support as a fundamental building block of human civilization. The above comment is erroneous. Vitalness is not determined by view count, if so, it would be filled of only pop culture stuff. Being a fundamental concept inherently means less people need to know about it, but that doesn't take away from its importance.

Also, note how Land received only 13,783 views in the last 30 days. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 01:24, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you 100% on your assessment of view counts :) That is why I said, while not the only indicator, they are a strong indicator... From what I can tell, the other main indicator is less tangible, and I'm not sure anyone has a word for it yet, I'm calling it this: Encompassation. I don't think is is a word, lol, but I'm sure you understand what I'm talking about here... The term "Land" is hardly "encompassed" or "covered" by Earth or Geography and definitely warrants being Vital-2 despite its lower view counts. So I suppose I was trying to make that point above as well, but couldn't come up with the word exactly, so thanks for pointing out my error... Architecture is already Vital-2, with a view count of 40,000+, and also encompasses Building... to have Building here, with its lesser view counts, is redundant :) At least, in my opinion... Also please see my discussion above for "Add a Magical or Spiritual Article as Vital-3" to also understand more about why I would be opposed to this proposal here :) Thanks LightProof1995 (talk) 12:07, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

The word you're looking for is coverage. In regard to what makes a vital article, having an item at level 2 is generally an indicator that its sub-topics should be included in level 3. That's partly what the level stratification is for. In regard to page views, not only are page views not a significant indicator, but the whole point of this project is to counteract the trend of prioritizing "popular" pages over how vital the topic is. You're the only person in these discussions citing page views or arguing against a level 3 item because it has a corresponding level 2. It feels like you're trying to make the Vital Articles project into something that it's not, which is why your posts on this talk page might seem out of sync with the rest of the community. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:17, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply :) I just don't think Building is a better choice than Angkor Wat per the Indochina gap. I agree with you 100% I am trying to make the Vitals "something it is not". I feel it is necessary... Right now, what it is not, is complete and continuously improved. Together, me and you and Cobblet and Interstellarity and CactiStaccingCrane and Thi and RekishiEJ and DFlHB and DaGizza and whoever else reads this, we can make the Vitals list what it deserves to be. LightProof1995 (talk) 11:21, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Not convinced we absolutely need this when both construction and infrastructure are listed. Cobblet (talk) 16:46, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

  Agree with your analysis here Cobblet, thanks :) LightProof1995 (talk) 15:10, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per Cobblet. --Thi (talk) 10:49, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Encyclopedia

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.

---

"Is Encyclopedia a Vital article?", asked the Wikipedian.

"Am I Catholic?", asked the Pope.

View counts of encyclopedia in the past 30 days: 203,110.

Support:

1. As nom LightProof1995 (talk) 11:29, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
2. Support, pretty much king of the reference works. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:33, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
   • Or if not, then Reference work. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:37, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Strongly oppose: view count nor closeness to Wikipedia are factors for vitalness. The article is already a VIT4. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 14:49, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Respectfully and strongly disagree that view count is not a factor for vitalness.

What alternative do you suggest for determining vitalness?

I specifically linked to WP:VITAL in my proposal so the argument of "It is already Vital-4" would not work, as WP:VITAL refers to the original Vitals list of 1000, which is Vital-3. Also the "it's Vital-4" argument does not work per the fact we are under quota in Vital-3. LightProof1995 (talk) 15:18, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

1. Oppose Not central topic in culture. Printed encyclopedias are rare nowadays. People have heard about Wikipedia and maybe Britannica. Journalism is more important topic in communication, politics and education. Journalism means not just news (which is listed) but debate and criticism. --Thi (talk) 20:18, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
2. People have been much more likely to buy dictionaries than encyclopaedias, however dictionary is currently not listed, and although the list is currently under quota, only 2 articles can be added, if not removing any of existing ones.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:52, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

   Journalism view counts in the past 30 days: 16,573

   Dictionary view counts in the past 30 days: 22,124

   If we added Encyclopedia instead of both of those, and therefore edited encyclopedia with priority, 5x more people would see our work in a given time period. View counts may be inaccurate for determining vitalness for recent topics or celebrities, but for basic articles like this, it is a much better indicator of articles we should pay attention to. Paper encyclopedias may be more rare nowadays, and effectively defunct, but that's only because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and is commonly used by everyone. Other encyclopedias have simply switched to being online as well, that doesn't mean they are no longer encyclopedias. Also, encyclopedias are neither Journalism or dictionaries. LightProof1995 (talk) 10:52, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Supernatural

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.

---

Pretty much every culture has some conception of the supernatural, so I think it should be added as a vital article. Mucube (talk) 02:58, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Support

1. [nominator]
2. Support per your reasoning :) LightProof1995 (talk) 22:00, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. This topic is sufficiently covered by the articles currently listed under "Philosophy and religion". Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:50, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
2. Oppose per above. --Thi (talk) 09:39, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Being a cultural universal isn't sufficient to appear on level 3. LarstonMarston (talk) 18:49, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
4. Oppose as it is already covered. Gusfriend (talk) 09:28, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Using ChatGPT for Vital article stuff

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm currently researching on how to properly use ChatGPT - basically really really good chatbot - for improving Wikipedia at Wikipedia:Using neural network language models on Wikipedia. I found that as a writing advisor, i.e. how can I improve this paragraph, give example outline, brainstorming, etc. ChatGPT is an extremely valuable tool and can potentially help us achieving our goal much faster. How should we use and align the bot to our goals? What are the consequences of using such bot? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:06, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with using external tools to improve prose. I don't see that as really being any different from using a spell checker. However, I don't think you can rely on it always being right. At the end of the day the only way to ensure the factual accuracy and verifiability of content is to write it yourself, an AI can easily make mistakes, and the responsibility is on you to make sure anything you take from it is accurate.

Basically, I don't see this as a way to speed things up, just as another tool some people can use to improve the quality of their writing if they choose. Anything the AI suggests would need to be vetted before it's actually put into an article, and that will take up time. In my opinion there are much better ways to improve articles that would be faster/higher quality (e.g. asking another editor for help or asking a librarian for sources).

Of course this bot absolutely should not be used to create content as its factual accuracy is highly questionable. OliveYouBean (talk) 08:20, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

The bot effectively solves writer's block for me, which as a Wikipedia editor is a great help. As for asking editors/librarian, well... I don't think they are as effective as you might think. Getting a person that would actually guide you through the topic is insanely hard to come by, and even then they have their own lives, so you couldn't ask them a lot of questions and such. ChatGPT is really useful for giving fuzzy advice and inspiration/starting points, but it is not a tool that can do the researching for you. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:10, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Improve Lunar eclipse?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This level 4 article is so bad that there is only 20 references, less than 10 of which is sourced to academic journals, and the article's prose and image quality is all over the place. It is also way too short to provide useful information even to curious non-expert readers. Yet, the article's topic is extremely vital and popular (>2000 views per day). If there is a regular drive that takes in poor vital article for improvement (like WP:BVITAL), lunar eclipse is an ideal candidate. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:08, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Support addition of Solar eclipse, neutral on addition of Lunar eclipse. LightProof1995 (talk) 14:52, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Pipi Natural Bridge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It's a, frankly, barely notable natural bridge formation with little historical or geographical interest. Sourcing is extremely limited, 2 live links and one dead link, and most of its coverage in outside sources is WP:TRIVIAL. Currently listed as a Level 5 vital article despite not existing in any other Wikis. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 02:36, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

That must've been some sort of bot-related error. I've removed it from the list. Cobblet (talk) 05:05, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

This is a customary notification that about a dozen vital articles have been listed at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. I am not the person who initiated these but felt it appreciate to notify the project. There are a decent number that likely need to be rolled back, but reassessment is still early on. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 16:41, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Which article should we collectively improve on?

I think that with the amount of activity in this page, perhaps we should make an informal group for improving articles just for fun's sake. What do you think? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:24, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

@CactiStaccingCrane: we already have Wikipedia:Articles for improvement, which does just that and usually picks something from the Vital list. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh really? That's pretty neat then. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:28, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Remove James Cook and Roald Amundsen

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

While they're certainly notable figures with accomplishments of their own, these two have stuck out for a while, and I hardly consider them to be at the same level of the other explorers listed at Level 3. For reference this is the previous discussion to remove Amundsen, which had a weak consensus in favor of removal. There are plenty of level 4 articles that have a better claim as vital articles than these two.

Support

1. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:44, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
2. Support I have to agree, considering I don't even think Magellan is necessary to list. Why should Cook be more vital than Kupe? And listing Amundsen ahead of his Scandinavian contemporary Niels Bohr doesn't sit right with me at all when I compare the significance of their achievements. Cobblet (talk) 01:46, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
3. Support Essential explorers are covered. --Thi (talk) 09:24, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
4. Support Unreservedly support removing Cook. Amundsen I'm a bit more hesitant on, mostly because he represents something unique among the explorers listed (the only polar explorer), but even so I feel like the impact of polar exploration as a whole is much less significant than the activities of people like Columbus. OliveYouBean (talk) 08:26, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
5. Support both per my comments in previous discussions. Gizza (talk • voy) 01:41, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong oppose The list is already less than 1000 and we have all been battling excessivley trying to add any more articles to the list, and you want to take two out of it??? I see NO reason whatsoever these well-known explorers should be removed from this list. At least propose two swaps. Furthermore, these two men are impressive explorers in their own right, as evidenced by the Cook islands and the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station being named after them. LightProof1995 (talk) 14:27, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

   How do you expect anyone to take your seriously with a comment like that? Aza24 (talk) 22:26, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

   Fair point, I've adjusted my comment. Sorry I got so upset, Thebiguglyalien and Aza24 and everyone else. LightProof1995 (talk) 22:45, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

   You have been "battling excessively" to add more articles, and we have all been trying to politely ask you to stop. 1,000 articles was never a goal or a quota. It's a soft limit that we use to keep the list manageable. We've explained why we don't add articles for the sake of increasing the number of articles in the list, why we don't add articles because of their view counts, and why we don't add articles because we find their stories interesting or impressive. You've become increasingly rude toward users that try to explain these things to you, and it's becoming a WP:LISTEN problem. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:22, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

   No need to call me rude when I just apologized to you... where is it said 1000 is a soft goal? Where is it said to not pay attention to view counts, or content? Where did anyone ask me to "stop" suggesting articles? You're making all of this up. LightProof1995 (talk) 14:47, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

2. Oppose for Cook, neutral for Amundsen. As a general note, it is easier to discuss when it is presented as exchange A for B. Gusfriend (talk) 09:34, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
3. Oppose for Cook, also neutral for Amundsen. Columbus ”discovered” America for Europe; Cook did the same with Oceania. Even if America is of greater global importance than Oceania, I still think Cook’s discovery had a significant impact on the world. Telepanda (talk) 23:06, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
4. Oppose The proposal doesn't present any evidence to support its opinionated contention. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:16, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
5. Oppose for both. Two truly impactful and important figures. Jusdafax (talk) 05:01, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

1. Respectfully disagree Magellan doesn't deserve to be listed either. Magellan's voyage is one of the most inspirational stories for seeking adventure and not giving up when times are tough, that I've ever read. LightProof1995 (talk) 14:30, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
2. The reasoning to not have Amundsen because we don't have Bohr doesn't mean we should remove Amundsen, it means we should add Bohr. LightProof1995 (talk) 14:53, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

   Apparently Bohr is not vital enough either. Cobblet (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

3. James Cook explored an area much, much larger than Kupe did, and he is much more famous. James Cook's article has 77,183 view counts in the past 30 days compared to Kupe's 3,143 view counts. LightProof1995 (talk) 14:59, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

   Not only did Cook have the advantage of a 500-year lead in technology, he benefited directly from Tupaia's knowledge of Polynesia. The Austronesians are the original discoverers of Oceania and Kupe is the most famous one of them. If one explorer from Oceanian history is worth including, why should it be a European who relied on a Polynesian navigator's experience based on centuries of traditional knowledge, instead of somebody representative of the original Austronesian expansion? Even Europeans were exploring the Pacific 250 years before Cook: comparing Cook to Columbus doesn't make sense, and I'd compare Cook to Lewis and Clark instead. Page views should not preempt an honest discussion of what sort of achievements we regard as vital. Cobblet (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

   You make a great argument for us having Kupe over Cook :) Kupe should probably be proposed as a swap to Vital-5, as he's not currently listed while some lesser-known Post-Classical Western explorers are, e.g. Giovanni de' Marignolli and Giovanni da Pian del Carpine. View counts helped me determine they are less vital than Kupe. LightProof1995 (talk) 06:59, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

4. I think y'all missed my point. You say there are so many Vital-4 articles that deserve to be listed here over these two explorers. Which ones? By removing these gentleman when there is no consensus to add any new articles to the list when we're already under quota, it is bringing the list farther from its goal. We can't even get to 1000 anymore because all proposals get smacked down. I've spent months making proposals trying to get this to 1000 and none have passed because a lot of consensus is required to make changes. If we remove these two articles, it brings the list to 996. That's 996 instead of 1000. That's 4 articles we'd have to add back, but let's look at what's been rejected: Cleopatra, Reincarnation, Angkor Wat, Encyclopedia, Magic, Building... Y'all seriously think we'll be able to get the list to 1000 if it goes down to 996? LightProof1995 (talk) 11:34, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

   If you look at the table in the intro, you'll see we've had no trouble keeping the list full over the years. You're a bit unlucky with the articles you choose to nominate. If you hadn't buried your suggestion of Wetland at the end of a long list of less well thought-out proposals, it might have had a chance. Cobblet (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

   Thanks for suggesting one of my proposals was good :) and wow you're totally right, I can't believe I missed that table at the top, my bad... I've added green text that points it out so hopefully others will notice that more easily now. LightProof1995 (talk) 06:59, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Tin

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It should be added since we list Aluminium. It was used in the Bronze Age for many things like silverware. Interstellarity (talk) 15:44, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 15:44, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
2. Telepanda (talk) 22:57, 9 December 2022 (UTC) One of the two ingredients of bronze.
3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 17:44, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
4. Excellent proposal, thank you :) LightProof1995 (talk) 09:27, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong oppose In the first place, I don't see a need to add more elements. Second, tin's importance is primarily historical: modern-day production of tin is low. Zinc would be a better choice, having not only historical importance as a component of brass, but also modern industrial importance (e.g., galvanization) and biological importance (tin has no biological relevance whatsoever). Also, it's possible that we will one day see lithium as being vital. Cobblet (talk) 15:16, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
2. Oppose Not the best possible choice. --Thi (talk) 09:40, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
3. Oppose agree that lead and zinc are better choices if another metal was to be added. Gizza (talk • voy) 06:17, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
4. Oppose. As people have mentioned, there are other more important metals that would come ahead of tin, and there's no real need for new elements. OliveYouBean (talk) 02:50, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

Should we also consider adding Lead? LightProof1995 (talk) 09:27, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Lead is arguably a somewhat better choice than tin, but still not vital enough to put on this level. If we do not list the most fundamental classes of biological compounds like carbohydrates and lipids, no examples of compounds other than water and carbon dioxide (how about ammonia? or penicillin?), and no specific examples of polymers or other materials (polyethylene? porcelain?), it makes no sense to be adding metals of primarily historical importance. Even things like cooking oil and vinegar ought to be more vital. Cobblet (talk) 15:16, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

I opposed adding lipids because Science is the section with the highest number of articles, so I suppose it makes sense to oppose tin for the same reason. I just found Interstellarity's argument convincing seeing as lack of tin was the entire reason for the Bronze Age Collapse, and it really was used for silverware. We have Plastic so I don't think we need Polyethylene, but your suggestion of Penicillin would maybe earn my support if you proposed it... so perhaps adding to the Science section is okay. One thing we could do to help us decide is to add target counts to Vital-3, just like we have in Vital-4 and 5, and that would set Philosophy and Religion to 55 target counts, and Science to 210. But I highly doubt we'll be able to create consensus on what the target counts of the other sections should be. LightProof1995 (talk) 03:30, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Redesign

What do you think of the Vital page redesign? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:20, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

It breaks the page in Mobile :( LightProof1995 (talk) 07:05, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

LightProof1995, this shouldn't had happen. What happened? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:21, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Works fine for me. And looks great! DFlhb (talk) 07:40, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes CactiStaccingCrane fixed it, thanks @CactiStaccingCrane! :) LightProof1995 (talk) 09:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vital Articles § Drive about reliable references

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vital Articles § Drive about reliable references. As always, everybody is welcome to chip in suggestions. CactiStaccingCrane 15:29, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Add Chinese aircraft carrier Liaoning

Chinese aircraft carrier Liaoning Should also be added because it is a relatively important navy ship. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:22, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

This is level 3 the vital 1000 articles. We only have "ship" here. Even the article "aircraft carrier" itself is only in level 4 the vital 10,000 articles. I am not sure we list any individual ships even at level 4, except perhaps the Titanic (or the sinking of, technically). Even at level 4 there are types of ships missing such as frigate, destroyer, Ironclad warship, corvette and Galleon among others which only appear at level 5 the 50,000. In my opinion Level 5 is the only list I could imagine suggesting individual ships, but even that wouldn't be guaranteed.  Carlwev  10:25, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok Thehistorianisaac (talk) 14:30, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Add Muhajir (Pakistan)

Muhajir (Pakistan) should be added as it is a very distinctive ethnic group (multi-linguistic and multi-cultural), and a vital article for those attempting to research migration and assimilation. This article is very close to meeting GA criterea. Muhajir (talk) 16:22, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Add Dost Mohammad Khan

I am proposing Dost Mohammad Khan to be added to the vital articles.

My main reasons for this was due to the fact of how he affected Central/South Asian history for over 40 years (I go around revamping major pages on Afghan history in general, and nominate Dost Mohammad Khan in this position, including Dost Mohammad Khan's WP page.) He ruled Afghanistan for over 37+ years on a scope that led to the formation of Modern Afghanistan via reuniting it after it had collapsed under the Durrani Empire He also covers topics such as the First Anglo-Afghan War, The Great Game, and many other major topics. There is many other things to further press on why he should be added which can be discussed below. Noorullah21 (talk) 03:06, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Universe

Universe has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Artem.G (talk) 18:22, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Astronomy

Astronomy has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:42, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Add Vincent van Gogh

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This man definitely should be added, since its HPI 2022 and 2020 are higher than Pablo Picasso's, Pablo is listed, and Vincent is one of the most famous and influential figures in Western art history.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:40, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
2. Support Very well-known, inspirational artist. The only artist listed with more views in the past 30 days is Da Vinci, who has 251,074 views compared to Van Gogh's 237,647 views. LightProof1995 (talk) 07:12, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
3. Support - An artist of supreme renown world-wide. His article should be considered vital at this level. Jusdafax (talk) 04:57, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
4. Support. Per nom. His is the biggest figure of that period. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 12:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I stand by my comments in the last discussion. As I discussed with Dawid on my talk page, I'm very skeptical of HPI's methodology and don't think it should be relied on at all. I would take both Chanel and Monet before van Gogh. Cobblet (talk) 15:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose. While yes he's a very well-known and influential artist, I think there are others in his vein who should be considered more vital. Including Monet would be better imo, but I already think that having 4 out of 6 artists as European is skewed enough so there's no need to add another. OliveYouBean (talk) 02:57, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
3. Oppose per above. Gizza (talk • voy) 22:20, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

How did Frida Kahlo become a Level 3? 78.18.228.191 (talk) 12:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Swap out several artists for their major works

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 swaps I am specifically proposing are:

Swap out Miguel de Cervantes, swap in Don Quixote

Swap out Murasaki Shikibu, swap in The Tale of Genji

Swap out Dante Alighieri, swap in Divine Comedy

Support:

1. As nom LightProof1995 (talk) 06:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
2. Per nom. In those three specific cases, the work is far more notable than the creator. Best to be clear on why something is Level 3. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 13:01, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Oppose per previous consensus, as explained by Carlwev below. Cobblet (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose I would like to say that I sympathise with the argument being made here, namely that each of these three writers are famous for single works, as opposed to William Shakespeare, for instance, who is famous for 39 plays, 154 sonnets, and various other poems. The problem, as I see it, is that when we open the door to specific works of art, we will inevitably get into discussions about what other works of literature deserve a place here, because they are arguably equally as important, if not more important. For instance, if you're going to add The Divine Comedy, Don Quixote and The Tale of Genji, someone might well ask why you've left off The Iliad, One Thousand and One Nights or the First Folio. Those three works are equally as important, if not more important, to world history, culture, civilisation and so forth. Why do they get to be represented through their authors? With a mind to avoiding this kind of quandary, I'm going to have to oppose the inclusion of discrete works of art. The inclusion of religious texts is, I feel, a special case whose presence can be justified in part by religion's profound influence on human history, and in part by the fact that these are not per se works of "fiction" like the First Folio is. Zelkia1101 (talk) 14:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
3. Oppose per the previous consensus, as explained by Carlwev below. Aszx5000 (talk) 23:24, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Discuss:

Reasoning/Effects: This would: 1. Reduce the number of people on the list to 109. I don't think we should worry about target counts at this level, but if anything for people it would be an even 100. 2. Reduce the number of writers from 11 down to 8 -- the same number of Mathematicians and Religious figures currently listed. 3. Open the way for additional specific works of art to be added, e.g. The Mona Lisa (I wouldn't support per redundancy with Da Vinci, just an example), The Wizard of Oz (a good choice if we were to add a film but there are other contenders), and The Art of War (I'm surprised Sun Tzu isn't listed, but The Art of War itself is a better choice in my opinion anyway).

Additional Thoughts: I'd put the articles under a new header under Arts titled "Specific works". I picked artists that seemed to me to be known mostly for their one magnum opus. For example, I was also thinking of proposing we swap out Hokusai and swap in The Great Wave off Kanagawa, but then read that Hokusai was a big inspiration for Monet and Van Gogh, and after reading his article more decided he made plenty off art beyond The Great Wave off Kanagawa (over 30,000 pieces of art total) that he should be listed here, plus if we swap in The Tale of Genji we'll already have one Japanese work of art listed.

I also used view counts to determine the major works I propose swapping in are potentially more vital than their artists, i.e. the view counts in the past 30 days for all art proposals here are greater than their respective artists:

Miguel de Cervantes: 25,366 views. Don Quixote: 101,214 views.

Murasaki Shikibu: 8,301 views. The Tale of Genji: 20,885 views.

Dante Alighieri: 69,488 views. Divine Comedy: 74,942 views. LightProof1995 (talk) 06:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Consensus can change, and often does, but I want to link to some previous discussions to remind people of previous opinions. There may be more, but ones I remember off the top of my head are below, the discussions are quite old though. In the past, myself and several others have had the opinion that works of art are not vital enough for the 1000 most important topics ever, the current exceptions being works of religious literature, eg the Bible, Talmud, Quran, Vedas and Bhagavad Gita, some of which have been questioned, and now only two works of architecture, The Great Wall of China, and the Great Pyramid of Giza. We had more buildings/structures in the past, and more works of literature, and the Mona Lisa, they all went, usually but not always with strong consensus. I think I would still hold the opinion most of the time works are simply not important enough. I could not bring myself to believe the Wizard of Oz, Great Wave of Kanagawa or even the Mona Lisa were more important than missing topics, like countries/regions such as Morocco, Sweden or Scandinavia, Papua New Guinea, Afghanistan, or other topics like Palaeolithic, Neolithic, irrigation, artillery and many more, but that's just me.

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]

 Carlwev  18:42, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and sharing these links :) Summarizing these links for others -- First is a swap where unanimous consensus to replace Don Quixote with Miquel de Cervantes because all individual works were being swapped out. Second and third are removing Mona Lisa and Iliad. Reasoning for removals of the last two was primarily redundancy with Homer and da Vinci, which I agree with.

For the record, I'd potentially support swapping some "History of..." articles e.g. History of agriculture is already covered by History of technology and irrigation could replace that; History of film, architecture, literature, music could all be swapped out for being covered by History of art. I personally feel Old Stone Age/Neolithic is covered by Stone Age/Neolithic Revolution, but I'd support adds/swaps for Morocco or Scandinavia. LightProof1995 (talk) 07:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Name of the Level 3 talk page

Why is the Level 3 talk page titled "Wikipedia talk:Vital articles" and not "Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/3" like the others? Is there a general talk page for the Vital Articles project? 78.18.228.191 (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Question 1: Because Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/3 redirects to Wikipedia:Vital articles, as a result of this merge in 2010.

Question 2: Yes, if you mean Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vital Articles. --DB1729^talk 17:12, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for that - should this talk page be "moved" to the "Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/3" to be more consistent? thanks. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Well it would be if its associated main page is moved. You're focusing on the talk page which, in a way, is irrelevant to the point. All talk pages are directly associated with their main pages. At one time years ago, this talk page's title was Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/3 and its associated page was Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/3 which was turned into a redirect 13 years ago because of a merge, and so the talk page was automatically redirected along with it as usual.

The question then really becomes, should the main page Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/3 have been merged / redirected to Wikipedia:Vital articles? And I don't know the answer to that. Maybe someone else can chime in here and explain better why it is how it is.

Adding you're free to look through the archives as I have done, about the time of the merge Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Archive 3, but it seems the pages that contained the actual discussions about the merge Wikipedia:Vital articles/evaluate for merging and Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/evaluate for merging were deleted a couple years ago. --DB1729^talk 00:53, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

A little more digging and I found the discussions that led to the merge:

• [4] at the section "This is a fork of WP:VA"
• [5] at section "Merge with Wikipedia:Vital articles Level 3"

Make of all that whatever you will. DB1729^talk 01:54, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that, very helpful. I would guess that the original move/merge was not made by expediency (i.e it worked), then by someone with the technical skills to do it properly. I wonder if we should like this on the technical section of WP:MOVES (per WP:RM#TR) to get it done, and have consistency amongst the set of Talk Pages names amongst the levels? 78.18.228.191 (talk) 10:43, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to collapse the vital article tag into the project banner shell

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Talk page layout § Vital tags should be placed with WikiProjects. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:05, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 19 March 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus against the move as proposed. A future discussion could be held to determine whether a landing page at the base title would be ideal, but that is out of scope of this RM. (closed by non-admin page mover) Elli (talk | contribs) 06:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

---

• Wikipedia:Vital articles → Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/3
• Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/1 → Wikipedia:Vital articles

– It makes more sense for the level one page to be the main page rather than the level three page. Treetoes023 (talk) 20:10, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

• Partial support. Wikipedia:Vital articles should be a landing page, with all the levels as subpages. There was a past proposal to do this that failed, so I'm not holding out hope here, but it would be a marked improvement. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
• Moral support I agree with the landing page suggestion above. Jclemens (talk) 22:00, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. This has been brought up before. I think the Level 3 list is a better landing page than Level 1 or some other place. However, if someone wants to make a draft landing page that gives an overview of the Vital Articles Levels, I'm open to changing my mind in the future. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:29, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support I agree. However, it's better to move Wikipedia:Vital articles to Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/3, and create a new page called Wikipedia:Vital articles to summarize all Vital Article levels. The person who loves reading (talk) 22:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Current set-up is fine. The VA1 list is basically a curiosity, it certainly isn't very relevant or important. VA3 is the most important list (along with maybe VA5), so why not land there by default? I don't see the benefit in requiring an extra click by having a new top-level page that "forces" readers to click in to which VA level they want; an unfamiliar reader will have no idea what the difference is, and it's much easier to simply start with showing them a level and letting them click to a new level if desired. SnowFire (talk) 01:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose List of 1000 most vital articles is the most useful project page, it gives an overview. --Thi (talk) 18:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Contemporary history

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

We have five historical periods listed: Prehistory, ancient, post-classical, early modern, and late modern. This article, depending on the definition used, is either a part of late modern history, or comes after it. I think it is worth a discussion on whether this article should be included or not. It doesn't seem to have been discussed before in the archives, so I propsed it. Interstellarity (talk) 00:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 00:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
2. Support The article offers a look at contemporary world. Better choice than Information age. --Thi (talk) 10:52, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
3. Strong support great suggestion. This article could even be Vital-2. LightProof1995 (talk) 06:56, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
4. Support. Per nom. Yes. contemporary is always less stable/recentism, but it is also richer and more intensively edited and therefore vital at level 3. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 12:51, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
5. Support Good addition to cover the general eras consistently. Crazynas ^t 19:32, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
6. Support. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:14, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose as I don't feel this is distinct enough from Late modern period. We actually only have four historical periods (prehistory, ancient, post-classical, modern), we just split the modern period in two because there's a lot more content. I don't think there's enough of a distinction between the late modern and contemporary history to justify having both. OliveYouBean (talk) 02:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

For those saying this isn't distinct enough from Late modern period, I respectfully disagree. The two articles have almost nothing in common as the Late modern period article covers history from the 1700s, 1800s, up to WW2, while the Contemporary history article covers everything from 1945 to present, and also focuses on the "current" era, which in my opinion is the most important one. LightProof1995 (talk) 06:04, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

• I would conditionally support this if we decided to split things so that Late modern period covered 1800-1945 and Contemporary covered 1945-present. If Late modern covers 1800-present, this is harder to justify. (Also that article is... problematic, currently, but I get that it's tough.) SnowFire (talk) 01:56, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Zinc

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It's an important element since it is essential for plants and animals and one of the abundant elements on Earth. Interstellarity (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support per nom.--Treetoes023 (talk) 20:13, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose There is no reason to add a thirteenth chemical element when two fundamental classes of biomolecules (carbohydrate and lipid) are still not listed. Nor do we individually list fundamental states of matter which I also think are more vital. Cobblet (talk) 16:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Cobblet czar 02:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Need a stronger rationale. Aszx5000 (talk) 23:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
4. Oppose I think this has been discussed before. --Thi (talk) 11:53, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Carbohydrate and Lipid

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 are probably the two most vital articles currently not listed at this level. Important topics in biochemistry and nutrition.

Support

1. Support as nom. Thi (talk) 10:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
2. Support per my previous comments. These are fundamental building blocks of life, and are far more essential than the currently listed hormone. Cobblet (talk) 14:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
3. Support adding carbohydrate. I'm neutral on lipid, though. I feel like they should be separate proposals. OliveYouBean (talk) 02:41, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
4. Support Per nom. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 12:44, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
5. Support per nom. Interstellarity (talk) 20:44, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
6. Support. Definitely for carbohydrate, but lipid is probably correct too. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:27, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
7. Support per nom. Ilya O. Sarvar (talk) 18:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Respectfully Oppose -- Out of the 11 sections on the Vital-3 list, Science is the largest by far, at 209 articles. Other sections are lacking in comparison.

   EDIT: I'm now only opposing Lipid and I'm Neutral on Carbohydrate -- see discussion. LightProof1995 (talk) 17:16, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

2. VIT4 is sufficient czar 20:34, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

   @Czar: Why is level 4 not sufficient for Hormone then? Cobblet (talk) 17:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

   It might be. But "hormone" is also a concept more relevant to a late elementary school student and a broader population than either of these within this topic area. czar 02:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

   We're talking about the basic chemical building blocks for all living organisms – these topics are fundamental to everyone regardless of their education level or stage in life. We don't shy away from listing quantum mechanics or theory of relativity just because they are advanced concepts. Cobblet (talk) 22:51, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

Sugar is a carbohydrate, and possibly needs to be moved from under "Food and drink" in the "Everyday Life" section, to a sub-article of Molecular biology in the Biology section, to match its placement in the Vital-4 and Vital-5 lists. (We could also move its placement in Vital-4/5 to under Food and drink, but I'm not sure that fits as well, at least for Vital-4. For Vital-5 it would be fine, but we can discuss). LightProof1995 (talk) 18:01, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I changed my vote of Carbohydrate from Oppose to Neutral because I decided that while the fact the Science section is the largest and others are lacking definitely needs to be considered, that by itself isn't reason to promote an article, especially when we are under quota. I feel if a Science article is proposed and it stands out as Vital-3, e.g. has a view count in the past 30 days of 100,000+, it should be considered. Carbohydrate views in past 30 days: 71,052. Lipid views in past 30 days: 34,566. For Carbohydrate, I feel even though it would go under the Science section, it is important in Nutrition, which is under the Health, medicine, and disease section, which is the section with the lowest count. So, that plus its high-ish view count, is why I am changing my vote on it to Neutral. LightProof1995 (talk) 02:56, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Replace simple machine by machine

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, the former is vital, but not as vital as the latter, which is a much more frequently used word. Keeping the former while excluding the latter is illogical, and in order to make room for more articles vital at this level, removing some less important articles is absolutely needed.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:04, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
2. Excellent proposal, thank you. LightProof1995 (talk) 03:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 06:08, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
4. Support simple machine is covered by tool Dawid2009 (talk) 18:41, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
5. Support The fact that simple machines are also covered inside the machine article. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 12:59, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
6. Support. per nom. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:28, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Machine is completely redundant to mechanical engineering and is a less coherent topic than the latter. Simple machines are a basic topic in scientific education; amorphous subcategories of tools (which is already listed) like machines are not. Cobblet (talk) 07:25, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

   Comparing the two articles, I don't think Machine is redundant with Mechanical engineering... Headers for Machine include Simple machine (which only has subsections for three of the six simple machines, possibly pointing to how this article needs work), Mechanical systems, Mechanisms, Machine elements... Mechanical engineering has Headers like Education, Subdisciplines, Job duties... The Mechanical engineering page doesn't even have the words "Mechanization" or "Controller", both of which are headers on the Machine page. Similarly, Machine doesn't even have the words/phrases "Structural analysis" or "Mechatronics", which are both subheaders on the Mechanical engineering article.

   We also should consider that the Wheel and axle is one of the six Simple machines, and Wheel is on the list under Tool. The second paragraph on the Machine article suggests "Simple machines" are indeed types of "Machines". LightProof1995 (talk) 03:18, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

   Point taken, but I still do not think we should list both machine and mechanical engineering. Given the overlap in coverage between machine and both tool and simple machine, I prefer keeping the status quo. Cobblet (talk) 16:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

   Thank you for your response :) I'm not sure I understand your reasoning with the coverage. I feel the coverage is redundant across having both "simple machine" and "tool", or having both "simple machine" and "machine", but not "machine" and "tool", which is what RekishiEJ proposed. All simple machines are tools, and all simple machines are machines. However, not all machines are tools, and not all tools are machines. So isn't the only combination that allows maximum coverage having both "machine" and "tool", and not "simple machine"? LightProof1995 (talk) 17:49, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

   As far as I understand, all machines are in fact tools. Can you explain why you think "molecular machines" are not tools? I don't mind the redundancy between simple machine and tool any more than the redundancy between, say, book and printing. But adding a third redundant topic in machine seems unnecessary, particularly if the mechanical engineering article could be expanded to cover mechanical concepts. (I don't see why the mechanical engineering article has to be limited to coverage of the academic discipline. Other articles like chemistry or physics cover both the basic concepts underpinning the field and the academic study of that field.) Cobblet (talk) 18:04, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

   Molecules are not tools because they are not handheld devices used to accomplish a particular task :) While I see where you are coming from with "we can add whatever is in machine to mechanical engineering akin to the chemistry and physics articles", the same exact thing could be said for simple machine, and in fact, that would be a lot easier to accomplish. One of the headers for Machine is Simple Machine, because simple machines are a type of machines. If we moved everything from Machine to Mechanical engineering (a difficult task), then both Simple machine and Machine would be redundant with Mechanical engineering. So we might as well choose the broader article to list here... right? LightProof1995 (talk) 15:49, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

   Not all tools are hand tools. Tool#Types goes so far as to say that even spreadsheets are tools. As I said before, "Simple machines are a basic topic in scientific education" – they represent the basic principles from which more complex mechanical systems are derived, and warrant specific treatment. By your logic, every article on the list that is a subtopic of another article on the list should be removed. Cobblet (talk) 19:37, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

   The "handheld" part of the definition of "tool" refers less to it having to be held in the hand, and more with the tool being separate from the body. The "Hand tool" article states non-hand tools are powered with a motor, but they are still separate from the body, and are still operated with hands, even if hands don't provide them their power. Spreadsheets are tools because they are separate from the body; they are also used with hands. No, I did not say every article that is a subtopic of another should be removed; that's ridiculous. I simply said Machine is a more broad topic than the specific concept of a Simple Machine, so all importance placed on "Simple Machine" can be extended to "Machine". LightProof1995 (talk) 20:26, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

   A person without hands cannot operate a computer or a spreadsheet? I don't think so. Nor would I say that Stephen Hawking was incapable of tool use. By your logic, doesn't engine cover the four types of engines we list, so shouldn't we remove all four articles on specific engines? It's still a mystery to me as to why you think simple machines are specifically not vital. 02:42, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

   Again, you're putting emphasis on the "hand" part when obviously the "separate from body" is the important part. Yes, tools can also be operated with feet, or in Stephen Hawking's case, his mind? Once again, no, I am not saying we should remove all sub-topic articles. Simple machine, to me, is not as vital as Machine. You're saying I would want to remove the four types of engines, but if we were to use the Engines as an example, then the equivalent would be the four types of engines are listed, and not Engine itself, so I would advocate to add Engine along with the four types of engines. LightProof1995 (talk) 11:22, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

   But if "separate from body" rather than "handheld" is the key, aren't molecular machines also separate from the body of the user? So why aren't they also tools? I'm not following your explanation on the analogy with engines – it looks like we'll have to agree to disagree on simple machine vs. machine. Cobblet (talk) 15:24, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

2. Oppose. I agree with Cobblet. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Also agree with Cobblet. OliveYouBean (talk) 02:48, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
4. Oppose per Cobblet czar 02:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
5. Oppose. Also agree with Cobblet. Ilya O. Sarvar (talk) 18:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Archive_8#Machine? - Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Archive_10#Replace_simple_machine_by_machine - Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Archive_16#Add_Craft_and_Machine. Machine has been discussed several times before, including an identical proposal, it was never accepted. I used to think it was vital, many others did not, so I moved on. On one hand it seems vital universal umbrella term, covering many things across the globe and through history, but on the other hand, it seems too generic a word covered by other articles, and a fleshed out dictionary definition. Off topic but... Industry is a vaguely similar topic I thought was vital, that was in for years, then got removed from levels 2 and 3  Carlwev  08:26, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

It should be noted that Industry (manufacturing) redirects to Manufacturing, which is Vital-2. LightProof1995 (talk) 03:04, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Also, I don't think the three archive links you list here are enough to show Machine shouldn't be added. It seems like there was general support, but not enough for consensus on whether to add it or not vs other articles. LightProof1995 (talk) 06:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I found another discussion I previously missed Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/2/Archive_2#Add_Machine. At this time I have not voted yes or no. I didn't give this information as an argument in opposition to adding machine, just to make people aware of the previous discussion on this topic, to consider before voting/commenting. There are times in the past where I was sure something was a good idea, and sure I was right, but after seeing others comments, realised many thought differently and were unlikely to change, and sometimes my view was changed, sometimes it wasn't. In the past I was more sure of machine than I am now, due to others comments. I am more inclined to agree with adding machine than remove simple machine. I haven't made up my mind. But if I did, I would explain in detail, probably too much detail, my reasoning, especially on this one, due to the past and present dividing nature of this topic.  Carlwev  08:37, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

The only reason it was suggested to not vote for Machine in this proposal you link, was because it wasn't on the lower level of Vitality (3) yet. Also, note the vote you linked is for "Machine" to go up to Level 2, while this discussion is for getting it to Level 3. LightProof1995 (talk) 14:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Topicon for vital articles

Wouldn't it be more practical for vital articles to have a topicon? 〜 Festucalex • talk 08:51, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense to me - i.e. as per GA/FA? Aszx5000 (talk) 10:04, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

@Aszx5000: That's exactly what I had in mind. If I stumble upon a bad article and see a at the top, I'd be much more likely to try to improve it. I assume it would go similarly for other editors. 〜 Festucalex • talk 15:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

And maybe put a number on the "target" logo to discern the vital level of the article? Aszx5000 (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

@Aszx5000: I don't think the level is necessary. The topicon's job is to draw the attention of editors who care about this stuff. Once their attention is caught, they can go ahead and look up the details themselves. 〜 Festucalex • talk 16:51, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

The main problem is that there is not enough oversight and discussion on these lists (especially level 5) for them to be used so publicly. Cobblet (talk) 17:19, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Is there? Then people can show up and protest inclusions or exclusions. Wikipedia does not wait for perfection (hah!) before launching good ideas. However, maybe we should start with the topicon for levels 1-4 first, before rolling it out to all five levels? Jclemens (talk) 17:57, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

@Cobblet and Jclemens: I actually support an immediate rollout to all levels. As a matter of fact, I think this will invite more discussion that will better clean up level 5. More people will spot inappropriate inclusions and exclusions. 〜 Festucalex • talk 18:19, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Pinging Aszx5000 〜 Festucalex • talk 18:20, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

So would I. Using a number on the "target" logo might still be useful just in case we couldn't control it for level 5. Might be worth starting with 1-4 first (or level by level). However, the concept is a great idea, and having a number might get editors thinking more about the differences. Anyway, great idea. Aszx5000 (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

@Aszx5000: Don't you think topicons are too tiny for numbers? A legible number would render the bullseye unseeable. 〜 Festucalex • talk 18:56, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Maybe we would need to see it first, but I think it would work (and/or different colored bull-eyes). I think an important (and interesting part) of the vital exercise is also deciding between levels - that would be something of interest to every editor, imho (and drive more engagement). Aszx5000 (talk) 19:01, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

@Aszx5000: Actually, there's been a solution right in front of my nose. On one of my user subpages, I have used {{sup}} with a number in front of the icon as so: ³ to represent levels. Do you think that would work with topicons? 〜 Festucalex • talk 19:18, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Totally. Nice job. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Then other wikiprojects would want to use their own icons. Project templates are used on talk pages. --Thi (talk) 18:42, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

@Thi: WP:VITAL is a special project unlike the others. I mean, what other wikiproject has an icon in Template:Icon? I'm sure other wikiprojects would understand. 〜 Festucalex • talk 18:54, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, VITAL, is, by definition, designed to further the core purpose of Wikipedia, by drawing attentions to the most important articles in the encyclopedia, as assessed in consensus. Jclemens (talk) 00:53, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't equate this to a project template. Instead, it is an important classification of an article to Wikipedia, that is arrived at by considered debate and consensus formed over long-periods, as per the GA-type processes. Aszx5000 (talk) 01:05, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

@Cobblet, Aszx5000, and Jclemens: Looks like we agree. What now? Do we talk to an admin or something? 〜 Festucalex • talk 05:35, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I am clueless in this area. I think Czar, who is active on Vital, is an admin and might be able to assist? Aszx5000 (talk) 10:15, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

If the proposal is to add a topicon like the GA/FA icon atop an article in mainspace, this will require discussion in WP:VPR before making such a widespread, visible change, if it hasn't already been suggested there before. Realize too that this can unearth views from other editors about the Vital project (about authority and worthwhileness) that are not raised insofar as the Vital project keeps to itself. It'd be more immediately feasible to add the icon in the new collapsed {{WikiProject banner shell}}.

Anecdotally, I don't think readers have any idea what the GA/FA icons represent. This would just add more obscure symbols in that section without having any discernable effect on reader/editor behavior. In the recent GA solutions drive, I had suggested alternative treatments for the icon to inform readers and there was no consensus for that. czar 17:51, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 193#Add top icons for WP:Vital articles from last year czar 17:54, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

@Czar: How about this: maybe someone can write a widget that inserts the topicon. That way, members of this wikiproject can have this option available. 〜 Festucalex • talk 19:42, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any issues with that. If you're looking for a hand, you can ask Wikipedia:User scripts/Requests. czar 21:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. The previous discussion at the pump seemed not very informed. Go head a do this and I think it will be a net positive. It might encourage more editors to engage in Vital and see that there is more too it than they realize. The long-term future of Wikipedia is not tens of thousands of NOTNEWS articles (or marginal notability), but smaller number of quality articles on the most important topics available. Aszx5000 (talk) 22:38, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

@Aszx5000, Czar, Cobblet, and Jclemens: A user script has been written for this thanks to Nardog. Here's the link: User:Nardog/VitalTopicon.js.

In case you don't know how to install scripts, here's a guide.

Tagging people from the September 2022 discussion: @CactiStaccingCrane, Gusfriend, Terasail, CX Zoom, LumonRedacts, and DFlhb. 〜 Festucalex • talk 18:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Well done. I installed it! Aszx5000 (talk) 18:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Nice! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:35, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I did not and still do not agree with the creation of level 5. I would oppose labelling level 5 articles. Cobblet (talk) 23:18, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Tbf, it is okay if you did not want VIT5 in the first place, but now that it exists it is on the same foot as VIT1-4. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 20:17, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

That's obviously untrue. The criteria for adding and removing articles on level 5 is different from that on levels 1–4. Cobblet (talk) 21:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Why don't we make the criteria the same for level 5 as levels 1-4? (and why is Level 3 the unofficial "talk page" of the Vital project; shouldn't this be the Level 3 talk page)? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 21:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Because there's less participation at level 5, so you cannot demand the same quality and amount of discussion and consensus-building from the few participants there. Level 3 attracts the most interest: it is big enough to be relevant and interesting to a lot of people (discussions at level 1 and 2 are more abstract and small philosophical differences can result in wildly different opinions about what those lists should look like, so achieving consensus for any change is much harder), but not so big that people miss the forest for the trees. I have spent more time than anyone else working on the level 4 list, and it still took me years to get really familiar with the intricacies of that list. I think GuzzyG was the only person who really tried to invest the effort it would take to get to grips with the level 5 list, and even he gave up in the end. I think our time is much better spent actually improving the articles on levels 1–4 than on creating longer lists that nobody will bother to read in full. Cobblet (talk) 21:49, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

@Cobblet: So there appears to be a case for nuking level 5 from the wikiproject? I'm still new here. 〜 Festucalex • talk 04:04, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I would at least be in favour of not giving level 5 the same level of prominence as the other levels. For example, the project tags on level-5 vital article talk pages could be modified to indicate that level 5 is much more of a work in progress. The fundamental problem with the list is that all the work being done is incremental in nature, and nobody is looking at the list more holistically. Unless multiple people make an honest effort to do that (a difficult task, given the size of the list), it would be better for individual Wikiprojects to work on their own lists separately. Cobblet (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

• I would not support a topicon. The GA/FA assessments are presented to readers because they can help inform readers about the degree to which they should trust the content in an article, but a VA designation has no such value. The VA lists have value to readers as a form of contents navigation (which is why they're linked from WP:Contents), but listing the designation at individual articles would likely mainly have the effect of generating reader complaints about why certain articles are/aren't listed. If the goal is to motivate editors to improve the article, then the designation should be presented in the place editors go, which is the talk page. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:55, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Sdkb: We've closed this discussion, we settled on a user script. 〜 Festucalex • talk 06:11, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

  Ah, nice! That's a good approach for interested editors. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:17, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Add COVID-19

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 we should add COVID-19 (or COVID-19 pandemic but eh) --2007Gtbot (talk) 15:09, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Ultimately not even as significant as the Spanish flu. Coverage of both in late modern period and contemporary history suffices. Cobblet (talk) 18:19, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I would support one or both at Level 4. At the moment, among the vital 10,000, we only have the broader article of coronavirus. There are smaller epidemics/pandemics and diseases that have caused less mortality and disruption than Covid at that level. But here only the Black Death is vital. The Spanish Flu is in front of the line as Cobblet say still probably not quite vital. I may support bumping public health up to this level and probably support promoting either epidemic or pandemic to Level 4. Gizza (talk) 04:01, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

+1 Aszx5000 (talk) 14:14, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Like other users have began to mention, for level 3 it's simply not as significant as other included diseases/conditions like the Black Death, Cancer, AIDS, common cold, smallpox, malaria or missing ones like Spanish Flu, polio dementia or depression. The COVID-19 pandemic is already at level 4 in modern history near Spanish flu, and the virus group, coronavirus is at level 4 under biology with other infections. Not sure if we would need the specific virus, we don't list rhinovirus that often causes the cold, nor do we list things like cough or nausea at level 4, or vomiting not even at level 5.  Carlwev  16:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support [nom]
2. Support per nom. 〜 Festucalex • talk 15:49, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Going to oppose, covered enough already. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:33, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose COVID-19 pandemic is in Level 4. --Thi (talk) 12:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
3. Oppose It's an important event we all lived through, but the COVID pandemic is too proximate for us to really judge its significance five, 10, 25 or 100 years on. Articles at this level are meant to cover topics that are central to human history, culture, geography, society and so forth. Obviously no one can say with certainty, but I'm not sure that human beings in 2100 or even 2050 will look back at the COVID pandemic as a cataclysmic event, the same way we look at the French Revolution or even the English Civil War, which is not listed. Zelkia1101 (talk) 20:16, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
4. Per my comments above. Aszx5000 (talk) 23:45, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
5. Per above. Cobblet (talk) 16:23, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Jet engine

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're at 1001 articles again, so something has to go, and this one's always stuck out to me. Jet engines are just a type of internal combustion engine, which we already list, that is connected to a turbine and a propelling nozzle. They're only used in rockets and aircraft, but we already list the former, and not all aircraft are jet aircraft. I can think of a few topics that are more fundamental to aviation, such as airfoil, wing, aerodynamics, or even fluid mechanics. A jet engine can also be thought of as a specialized gas turbine, which is a topic with much broader relevance beyond aviation. Any way you look at it, this is a rather specialized topic and not the best choice for the list.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 02:56, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Thi (talk) 11:30, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
3. Support Agree with nom. Interesting topic, but covered by aircraft, rocketry and internal combustion engine at this level.  Carlwev  22:33, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
4. per nom. Aszx5000 (talk) 15:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
5. per nom. --Telepanda (talk) 13:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.