Wikipedia talk:Vital articles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Vital Articles
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Vital Articles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of vital articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and work together to increase the quality of Wikipedia's essential articles.
 
Please consider reading the frequently asked questions for this page before asking any questions on this talk page.
Archives This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Any threads with no replies in 30 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.


FA FA GA GA A – Total
December 1, 2007 83 45 90 139 25 690 1022
February 1, 2008 85 47 84 145 25 669 1003
April 1, 2008 87 46 79 139 24 673 999
June 1, 2008 88 46 79 140 25 670 999
August 1, 2008 88 48 75 144 25 671 1000
October 1, 2008 88 49 73 143 25 684 1014
December 1, 2008 88 50 72 145 24 682 1014
FA A GA B C – Total
December 1, 2009 82 7 49 586 146 129 999
January 1, 2011 78 8 60 472 255 113 986
January 1, 2012 76 1 76 454 275 109 991

Contents

[edit] Sports and games

Anybody find it weird that we have 8 articles on games and only 3 on sports? This I think is wrong considering the specificity of some of the articles. For example; Xiangqi is a stragety game very similar to chess; Draughts and Chess are played on the same board. In addition, sports has a much greater global impact than games; you don't have a World Cup of Go watched by millions on TV every four years. Therefore, I propose removing one or more of the following games articles:

  1. Board game
  2. Draughts
  3. Xiangqi

and replacing it with one of the following sports articles:

  1. Basketball
  2. Track and field
  3. Rugby football

Thoughts? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and FYI, Xiangqi was BOLDly added only two months ago. It should be noted we already have one Chinese game in Go, BTW Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 15:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
China is big - with a population of 1.3 billion and a hugely important culture - and Xiangqi (Chinese chess) is fairly well known.
However 7 "indoor" games vs 2 "outdoor" games hardly seems like the right balance. Draughts definitely doesn't seem worth being included and I think swapping it for track and field would be a good start - I'm not so sure on the others - Cricket is also important - especially in South Asia - another hugely important cultural area. In that sense it hardly seems "fair" for the Chinese to have two games and the South Asians to have none. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I'd be open to the first leg of your suggestion, as well as perhaps swapping out Xiangqi to fulfill the second. Cricket hadn't occurred to me b/c the one large country on Earth that doesn't play much cricket is coincidentally the one I live in Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 22:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I know I'm a bit late to this discussion, but I strongly disagree with the removal of Xiangqi from the list. --Yair rand (talk) 09:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Why? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Additions

I propose adding Niccolò Machiavelli to People/Philosophers and social scientists; Eye and Bone to Science/Biology/Anatomy; Surgery to Health and medicine/Medicine; Japanese yen to Society and social sciences/Business and economics/Money; Red Sea to Geography/Sea; Cue sports, Bat-and-ball games, and Golf to Everyday life/Recreation and entertainment/Sport; and Microwave and X-ray to Science/Physics/Light/Electromagnetic radiation. Machiavelli is one of the most important political philosophers. Japanese yen (the third most traded currency, only behind the two currencies that are currently listed) and Red Sea are both important to international trade and commerce while their articles will provide non-Western examples to the sparse Money and Seas subcategories. The sports articles are internationally played and help balance out the current focus on football, cricket, and the Olympics. Eye, bone, and surgery are fairly obvious additions to the anatomy and medicine subcategories. Microwaves and X-rays are important and highly-viewed scientific articles that are also important to discussions of technology, health, and communication. Since there are currently 988 articles listed, adding these 11 will bring the total to 999, so no articles need to be removed to make room for these. -Mabeenot (talk) 02:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

None of these are unreasonable, but I'm leaning towards some and against others. My preliminary take:
  • Machiavelli: weakly against; I feel like there are a dozen political philosophers of his importance.
  • Bone: we have skeleton, but adding bone as a subelement would be okay.
  • Surgery: Absolutely. The health and medicine section doesn't feel quite right to me, but I'm not a medical doctor. I'd like to have one look at the selection.
  • Yen: You've got to draw the line somewhere - what about the 4th most traded currency? But the list probably is Western-biased (as an American, I'm not qualified to say) so maybe.
  • Red Sea: I do not think it's as important as the other bodies of water listed.
  • Sports certainly seems underpopulated, but I think it needs a broader reexamination than just tacking on a few more articles.
  • Microwave and X-ray: We'd have to include the rest of the electromagnetic spectrum, including radio waves and gamma rays, and that's just too many and too much detail. Science is big (though no unduly so) already.
Anyone else have opinions? HereToHelp (talk to me) 03:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I'd say "no" to Machiavelli; he's not at the level of importance for the limited list here. I'm also against Microwave and X-ray, since we have Electromagnetic spectrum listed. And I'm not sure we need articles on all the major specific currencies, as opposed to general coverage in an article on Currency.
  • The Red Sea isn't all that important, nor is it very large. If another sea were going to be included, I'd prefer the Coral Sea as it's much larger and biologically more important as well. It's also in the Southern Hemisphere, unlike the other two currently listed.
  • Bone is unnecessary with Skeleton as the animal anatomy list focuses more on systems than parts, with a few exceptions. However, if you think Bone is a better choice than Bone fracture (currently listed), then a replacement for the more general article is certainly fair.
  • I say "yes" to Eye & Surgery; those are huge omissions. However, Visual system might be better than Eye.
  • I also agree with HereToHelp that the Sports section needs to be reworked in toto rather than patched up with more articles. Why not do a thorough proposal for that section, including the possibility of some removals/replacements? --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I tried to do something like that above. I don't believe that "Cue sports" and "Golf" are more significant than, say "Basketball". I also don't believe we need both "Cricket" and "Bat-and-ball games" in a list that has fewer than a score of articles Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 15:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Purplebackpage89 seems to be about right. Yen, I disagree, historically the Pound Sterling is more important, and in today's world the Chinese Yuan is more important than the Yen anyway. If any additional currency should be included I'd go for the Yuan. I don't think the Red Sea or the Coral Sea are important enough. The arguments in favour of including Iran as a country and/or more cities is significantly greater - Shanghai, Mumbai, Hong Kong and Singapore would all be reasonable additions - certainly more so than adding any more seas. I would be up for switching Berlin with one of the cities I've mentioned above or for Iran. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I think we should break this up. We're currently trying to do to much in one thread. But I feel like visual system is kind of like motion - a very broad topic with an underdeveloped article, where the real action is in a more detailed article. That doesn't easily translate into an eye/visual system verdict, however. I guess we'll just keep bouncing ideas around and come up with something. HereToHelp (talk to me) 19:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Switching Berlin for Iran

Berlin isn't historically that important - its a fairly small city and unlike France and the UK the Germans have lots of important cities - not just Berlin. Additionally Germany was only founded in 1871 and before that the Holy Roman Empires capital was at Regensburg. In contrast Iran is one of the world's great civilisations and neither it or Persia are included in the list at all at present. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

That's not true. We have Achaemenid Empire, which is the article on the Persian Empire (it redirects there). So we already have coverage and do not need to make the switch. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
While that means we do cover it somewhat, Iran is more important than just that empire. It is still under covered.
Otherwise we could switch Berlin for another city, like Shanghai, Hong Kong, Singapore or Mumbai. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
We already have one Chinese city and a city from northern India, so I'd be somewhat opposed to adding Shanghai, Hong Kong, or Mumbai. Singapore is a possibility, as I'd like to see a city from Africa or Australasia included. Other possibilities are Cairo, Kinshasa, Lagos, Jakarta, or Manila. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Currently we have 4 cities in Western Europe, which is the equivalent region to compare to either China or India. We have zero cities in South East Asia, which again is comparable as a region to Western Europe, and we have zero cities in Africa as you point out. We could reduce the cities in Western Europe to two (London as its English speaking and Rome as its historically and religiously important), and remove Seoul as its not that important, then to replace them we could add Shanghai, Mumbai and Cairo or some other combination. Possibly we could remove Mecca and replace it with Singapore. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
We could do that if comparable geographic area was the deciding criterion. However, we also have to consider that the English Wikipedia will need better coverage of topics of closer relevance to English speakers. English is historically a language of Europe, so there will be more influence from Europe. You're talking about removing Paris and Moscow, in addition to Berlin, and I'm not sure that's such a great idea. Mecca might be replaced with Cairo (or Singapore), as it's not such a large city and its importance is really that of its religions significance (and that will be covered by the article on Islam). So, I'd agree that Mecca might be a good candidate for a switch. Likewise for Seoul.
So, we have an agreement that Berlin, Mecca, and Seoul could be replaced. We seem to agree that we want Cairo and Singapore included as part of that swap. However, I favor adding Jakarta over Shanghai or Mumbai, if we're talking about just three swaps. This would provide greater ethnic, linguistic, architectural, and religious diversity while retaining a very large and very old city in the list. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Moscow is in eastern Europe ;). Other than that that sounds like a good compromise. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Done. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Foundation list

Following recent discussions at WT:FAC, please note http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-December/070674.html --JN466 15:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Biological entries

I was surprised to not find Protein in this list. Recently RNA has been found to be much more active than expected. But even so, practically all that life is and does are the effects of the activities of proteins. In my view all of these article are less important:

  • Death
  • Female (should be covered by sex)
  • Male (should be covered by sex)
  • Homosexuality (very peripheral in biology, but maybe important in social sciencies)
  • Botany (partly covered by Plant and Fungus); (Do we really want both subject and object separately in this high priority list?)
  • Tree (rather arbitrarily chosen trait)
  • Algae (like tree, a trait or form)
  • Zoology (like botany)

Other articles that I miss: Spider, Eukaryote, Protist (like algae but much more), Eye, Ear. --Ettrig (talk) 14:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem I see with your proposal is that it's too scientific. Yeah, the terms you cite are probably not as important to a scientist, but they're much more important to the majority of people in the world who aren't particularly educated. Death, Trees, Male and Female certainly belong in the top 1000 in my opinion Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 15:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I see a little bit of weight to the subject and object argument, by which I think you mean the field of study and the object of study. I would be amenable to cutting botany and zoology for eye and ear. We have Eukaryote. I'm slightly leaning against protist on Pruplebackpack's argument: this is a list of things important for humans in general. Expect to find chauvinism in favor of body parts, over one of dozens of ways to classify single-celled organisms. HereToHelp (talk to me) 15:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
You get me to think of a deeper and in my mind very important question. Why do we construct these lists? I thought this is where we define what people should be interested in. (I am a bit sarcastic here. ;-) If we want to define importance as what people are interested in, then it would be much more accurate to go by page-view statistics. Personally I think both our theoretic endeavours and objective statistics should be weighed in and that there should be a vigorous discussion about how. But there is no need to base this list on what we guess ordinary people are interesed in. They have already told us, loud and clearly. Here are the pageviews for Novemember 2011, thousands: Protein 178, Death 127, Female 58, Male 42. All the figures are respectable, but among these, protein is clearly of most interest to our readers. --Ettrig (talk) 15:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
My impression was that the criteria was neither what people should or are interested in, but rather a set of very general articles that serve as jumping-off points to more detailed one. As your statistics demonstrate, popular articles are probably fairly detailed. If it sounds like we're writing a middle school science curriculum, well, maybe we are. It's extremely subjective. The best use I can think of for this list is that general or overview articles require a very different approach from detailed ones, and if someone wants to specialize in general articles, have at it. That said, this isn't really a list of overview articles, so I the question is very much unanswered. HereToHelp (talk to me) 19:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Um... you'll need to start by saying which Vital articles list you're talking about. The 1000 list does include Eukaryote, so you should have spotted it. However it deliberately does not include Protist because of the significant overlap with Eukaryote and the obsolete status of Protist as a taxon.
Part of what happens with the 1000 list is that the article selection must be severely limited, and slots are apportioned between all areas of knowledge. Some things just can't be included because of the arbitrary count restriction. By contrast, the 10,000 article list is much longer, and hasn't even filled all the available slots yet, so there is much more room for further additions.
As for specific complaints, you'll have to expound a bit. For example, I don't understand your objections to including Tree and Algae in the list of vital articles. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
There are so many problems with this (1000) list, I got a bit confused. Yes, I see the Eukaryote now, good. I will try to address one problem at a time. It seems that there was an ambition to organize the Organisms part as a hierarchy of taxons. But if so, this isn't done correctly. Algae is not a taxon. The hierarchy is
Organisms
Archaea
Bacteria
Eucharyote
Animal
Fungus
Plant
--Ettrig (talk) 21:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
The focus of the list is not taxonomic, nor strictly hierachical. Your concerns, while valid in a classification system, are not particularly relevant in a list of Vital Articles for an encyclopedia. Here, the groupings are purely artifical and convenient. Too many levels of indentation in a list of this size would destroy the convenience. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Human anatomy

This has come up in multiple posts now, so I thought I'd point out that we missed something right under our noses (literally). Proposed adds (which can be taken on a case-by-case basis):

Also, there was a request for bone; we already have skeletal system but it's still a possibility. HereToHelp (talk to me) 15:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Will anything be removed to compensate? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't think Mouth or Nose will be of sufficient value at the 1000 article level. By all means include them on the 10,000 article list, however. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Updated numbers

I've just gone through, and updated the assessment levels of the articles on this list (see chart at top). Some observations:

  • The most conspicuous trend is the continuing growth of VA GAs. It is now on a level with FAs, where numbers keep declining. I did include three articles that were both A and GA (the only possible combination, to my knowledge) only in the GA category. These were Alan Turing, Napoleon and Cold War.
    • This seems to both support and contradict statements made in a recent analysis that caused much debate over at FA. The study claimed that "GA...has less Vital Articles overall." This is no longer true, though the proportion of GAs that are VAs is still much lower than that for FAs, seeing how there are about four times as many GAs as FAs.
    • Secondly, the study claimed that "the amount of VA GAs has been dropping faster than FA GAs." [I assume that should be "faster than VA FAs."] This was true up until a point, around 2010. The decline was in part due to a restructuring of the VA list, but mostly due to the Sweeps project, where about a thousand GAs were delisted, many of them VAs. Since then, however, the number of GAs on this list has been increasing at an impressive rate.
    • It does seem to confirm the study's contention that FAs are becoming more and more peripheral: as more VAs are being demoted, fewer are promoted. The contrasting success of the GA project is not due to greater focus on vital topics, but simply to greater overall output: last year, GAs grew at almost exactly a 10/1 ratio to FAs.
  • B level articles kept being demoted to C, but at a much slower rate than the year before.
  • The number of Start-/Stub-level articles remains relatively constant. There is only one Stub – Pop music – but at almost 20k and with over 40 refs, I think this is unduly harsh.
  • There are nine free spots.
  • Oh, and Bing Crosby is now one of the 1,000 most important things to have happened to the universe, ever. No word yet on Liberace.

Comments most welcome. Lampman (talk) 01:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

On another note, the count reflects Wikipedia's general problem with systemic bias. In the "Science" section, 54 of 191 articles are either FA or GA, giving an average of over 28%. For the "Arts and culture" section, the corresponding numbers are 4 of 64, or 6.25%. Lampman (talk) 08:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Interesting statistics. Perhaps publish something special in the post about your analysis? ResMar 00:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
You mean the Signpost? I suggested it, but never got a response. Lampman (talk) 14:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Have reassessed pop music, it's no stub for sure. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Redirected entries

I have checked all the entries listed at Wikipedia:Vital articles (permanent link here), and I have found that some entries are either piped or redirected to pages whose titles differ from the names of the entries as shown on the list.

Philosophy and religion

  • Qur'an (redirected to) Quran

Everyday life

Society and social sciences

Health and medicine

Science

Technology

Mathematics

I can understand the desire to present some entries with piped links, but the fact that six entries are redirected seems to be an oversight.
—Wavelength (talk) 00:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I have now revised the six redirected entries, so that the links go directly to the articles. The “n” in the entry “nth root”, like the “e” in the entry “e”, remains unitalicized on the list, although they are both italicized in the titles of their respective articles.
—Wavelength (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Watchers of vital articles

I recommend that a group of editors specializing in maintaining the page Wikipedia:Vital articles have each a watchlist dedicated specifically to articles on the list, so that they can immediately notice when listed articles are merged, split, renamed, or disambiguated. Then the list can be updated accordingly.
—Wavelength (talk) 21:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't happen very often anymore. It happened quite a bit 5 or 6 years ago, but those kinds of changes seldom happen anymore to articles like these. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I found many such articles among those listed at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded. For example, the articles “Currant”, “Date”, “Fig”, and “Paw paw” are all disambiguation pages.
—Wavelength (talk) 22:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Did any of that happen as a result of a recent move, or was this something that happened a long time ago, or was the wrong link added to the VA listing in the first place? The fact that a problem exists now does not mean the problem originated in the recent past. For example, Paw Paw has been a disambiguation page since it was created in 2004. The form Paw paw was created as a redirect in 2005. So, the problem must have resulted from the addition of an undisambiguated link to VA in the first place, and not from a page move or disambiguation effort. This problem could only be found by checking the links from VA, which I presume no one bothered to do before. Watching the target page would not have helped. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I have not ascertained how the problem originated, but I am willing to check the entries of the extended list, as I have done for the entries of the main list. In my recent contributions, I saw many of the irregularities in the course of my using the lists for checking and revising section headings in listed articles. My preference is to check the 12 transcluded pages, one at a time, proceeding from the bottom transcluded page upward, because that order approximates my order of interest in the topics.
—Wavelength (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I have begun to check the 12 transcluded pages, and I am planning to post messages on their respective talk pages. For convenience, here are links to those 24 pages.
If you have those pages on your watchlist, then you can see when I have posted there.
—Wavelength (talk) 03:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
For additional convenience, I have made these 12 shortcuts and I have added them to the respective transcluded pages.
WP:VA/E/P, WP:VA/E/H, WP:VA/E/G, WP:VA/E/A, WP:VA/E/PR, WP:VA/E/AP, WP:VA/E/S, WP:VA/E/PS, WP:VA/E/BH, WP:VA/E/T, WP:VA/E/MA, WP:VA/E/ME.
—Wavelength (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I have interchanged the positions of the eighth and ninth transcluded pages as listed at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded, for consistency with the order of their transclusion there.
—Wavelength (talk) 03:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I have checked WP:VA/E/ME, WP:VA/E/MA, WP:VA/E/T, WP:VA/E/PS, and WP:VA/E/BH for redirected and disambiguated entries, but that is probably all for now. This memorandum can help me or another editor in resuming the checking.
—Wavelength (talk) 03:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Questions about inclusion, of lack thereof

First, "Specific languages". What is the criteria for inclusion? It is not List of languages by number of native speakers... for example, it misses Punjabi language, which has more native speakers than German of French, yet it has Greek language, which is way down on the list.

Second, history.

A. What where the criteria?
B. East–West Schism seems relatively esoteric, and I would like to see the justification for its inclusion in the list.
C Why History of the United States, but not of other countries? Because it is the largest English speaking country? Why is the largest more important then one with the longest history (no History of the United Kingdom?
D Both Scramble for Africa and European colonization of the Americas seem redundant, as Colonialism is already on the list. The lack of Asian article (Imperialism in Asia) seems biased. Further, the lack of Decolonization seems surprising.
E What makes Russian Empire more important than German Empire or the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth? (I would suggest adding those two, rather than removing RE)
F Justification for Islamism, please.
G Why Korean War but not the Vietnam War? Both seem US-centric. Either have both or none.
H What makes Arab–Israeli conflict worthy of inclusion, when Sino-Indian War nor a single one of several Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts was listed? Or events like Prague Spring? Dozens more of similar importance could be named.
I Civil rights movement. Important... to US. Not so much to the rest of the world. US-bias? What makes it more important than Cultural Revolution in China, to name another big cultural and societal shift on the other side of the world?
J No Iraq War? Seriously?

Third. Artists. I am not seeing anything in the lead of those figures to justify their inclusion.

A What makes Pablo Neruda equal to the fifteen other names on the list? Is he really the most important writer of the second half of the 20th century?
B Shitao. Because? Token Asian artist for "Countering systemic bias"? I hope not.
C Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī. Again, why? What makes him equal to Leibnitz or Godel? And why Ibn Khaldun is not in the Philosophers and social scientists?

Fourth. Medicine... I am not seeing Frostbite as vital. Frankly, I think we can kill all second level entries under Disability and Physical trauma, with one exception - Mental disorder should be elevated (it seems to be on the same level as physical trauma).

Firth. Everyday life (or perhaps another section) should hold fashion. Most of our editors may be geeks, but to most people out there, clothing (included) matter more than computers. Or please run by me how furniture is more important than fashion.

Sixth. Minor. I am not sure if Women's suffrage placement in history is the best, I'd suggest moving it to social issues. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 01:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you about Shitao - he's not significant to be on this list and it would be best to move him to the expanded one. Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī however, is an extremely important figure in the history of mathematics - he developed a systematic method of solving quadratics. --He to Hecuba (talk) 14:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)this is a WP:SOCK of a WP:BANned user, you may safely ignore any and all input from them and revert any edit they made without further cause. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I think you make some good points here - but you need to break this up into individual points.
With regards to point C, we already have the history of India and China - the two obvious choices, as well as Japan. We do also include the bit of British history with a worldwide impact - the Empire - including the US as well seems perfectly sensible. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • With regards to B, agreed.
  • With regards to D, Some cleanup seems worthwhile.
  • With regards to G, the Korean war is de-facto still going on - the Vietnam war is well any truly over. Maybe the Korean war could be replaced with the Indo-Pakistani conflict which has been more active.
  • With regards to H, I'm not clear how that is a particularly big deal frankly - including the Indo-Pakistani conflict might well be sensible however, see above.
  • With regards to J, what about WP:RECENTISM? You're complaining we are missing the entire history of the US, but you want extra coverage of one war? That doesn't seem consistent. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
East-West schism should certainly not go - it's one of most important events in church history. Indo-Pakistani conflict probably more important than Korean/Vietnam war. --He to Hecuba (talk) 19:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
For balance how many other similar articles would we need for other religions? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I think it would be a good idea to add Succession to Muhammad, but no others are really as significant. --He to Hecuba (talk) 18:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
RE: "First... Greek language", yes the number of modern Greek speakers is very low, but Greek was the international language of the Eastern Mediterranean, western Asia, and northern Africa for many centuries, and is an important source language for English words. I would reply to more of your questions, but there are many, many questions and they are all over the map. There doesn't seem to be a theme for this thread other than "I'm dissatisfied and questioning." If the topics were divided up and more focussed, it might lead to a productive discussion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
With regards to "Third" A, I suggest removing Pablo Neruda and adding Cesar Vallejo since Thomas Merton called him "the greatest universal poet after Dante." He is also seems to be considered one of the greatest innovators in poetry during the 20th century. Latin American literature is not to be underestimated. Besides, Neruda may have won the Nobel Prize but in South America Vallejo is considered the better poet. Mauri96 (talk) 13:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested changes

I thought we could start with some which I think are less controversial from Piotr's list:

Is there any opposition to these two things? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I suppose not. Whoever removes them, please update the counts. HereToHelp (talk to me) 19:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I would oppose removing either. Both are major social changes of lasting importance. I disagree strongly with Piotr's assessment of both articles. The former is not esoteric, and the latter is not US-centric as claimed. I'm assuming he didn't actually look at the article. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Mongol Empire

I am planning a push to get this article up to FA status. I'm willing to try and do it on my own, though of course it's a lot of work. Is there a best place to post about it, to see if anyone else would like to help? --Elonka 02:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review is a good place to start. I do not know whether there is a History / Asia / Mongolia project, but you might look for one or all of these and post there to garner more help. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles&oldid=479298272"
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Interaction
Toolbox
Print/export