Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 → Archive 15

Global proposals

Move History of video games and Olympics events to history section

Article like History of video games should be listed in history section agaist articles like Generation X. Article like 1896 Athens or History of chess should be listed in history section against articles like history of ballet or History of the FIFA World Cup. Why we list all these historic articles in every day section? And why we list so plenty specialistics terminology to video games? Should we also list endless topics for terminologies related to chess gameplay or clasical music (including very few viewed pages just like altissimo) in art section? Dawid2009 (talk) 20:17, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Thoughts:
  1. First off, at Lv 5, sports should be spun off from life onto its own page
  2. Specific iterations of the Olympics, or any other sporting events that make Level 5, should be listed under sports
  3. History of...'s should be at history
  4. Video games need to be pruned bigtime pbp 20:25, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

FYI: Consensus discussion?

As a heads up, there is a discussion on making VA a consensus-building discussion at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4#Add Pocahontas. J947 (c), at 22:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Articles more vital than Jiffy (time)

Discuss

Off the top of my head, I can think of numerous basics and measurement articles that are way more vital than the ridiculous jiffy, but are not listed at all. Some of these should even be more than level 5.

Systems of measurement
Historically important units
Measuring instruments

There does not even seem to be a section for this

Not sure if these strictly count as measuring instruments, but they are definitely vital

Measurement recording

Again, there is not even a section

Measuring instruments are listed in Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Technology. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 07:26, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
@Hanif Al Husaini: As most of those articles would be listed under the Technology: Measuring Instruments section, they wouldn't affect the quota of the measurement section. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:58, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I have added Calorimeter to Technology: Measuring Instruments section. As Telemeter redirects to Telemetry, I have added Telemetry to Basics and measurement. I'm not sure about adding Avometer as Multimeter is already listed in Technology under Electronics and Avometer is a type of multimeter. As for voltmeter and ammeter, again I'm not sure as their functions are covered by the multimeter. As for Wattmeter, I'm not sure whether to add that or Electricity meter (kilowatt-hour meter) instead. As for the rest, I can't comment as I don't have the knowledge. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 15:54, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Further proposed additions

The first few on this list potentially belong in a higher level. SpinningSpark 12:42, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Magnetic potential

Magnetic potential is now a dab page and has been split into magnetic vector potential and magnetic scalar potential. This has caused your bot to remove the project template (it had ended up on Talk:magnetic vector potential after the split). I don't know which of these (or both) that you now consider vital. SpinningSpark 11:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Cambridge

Why is Cambridge, Massachusetts listed but not Cambridge in Cambridgeshire? The one in Cambridgeshire is a standalone settlement, the original and the one normally associated with "Cambridge" since although the Massachusetts one has 2 internationally known universities they don't have the name "Cambridge" in them and are often only considered to be in Boston while the original one's university is clearly in the Cambridgeshire one. The Cambridgeshire one is also a standalone settlement (and slightly more populated) while the Massachusetts one is a part of Boston. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:34, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposals, June 2020

Add Crossover (fiction) to Arts/Literature/Literary genres/Fiction

A notable form of fictional setting. It can be found in literature, comics, films, video games, animation, fanfiction, in every genre of fiction.

  1. Support Dimadick (talk) 15:49, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Add Multiplayer online battle arena to Strategy video game

MOBA genre was the most popular video game genre on the planet in the 2010s. Still very popular.


Add Real-time strategy to Strategy video game

RTS is one of the most notable terms in video gaming.

Add Defense of the Ancients to Specific video games and series

Defense of the Ancients (DotA) is a GCD of League of Legends, Dota 2, Blizzard Entertainment, and Warcraft franchise. DotA is the originator of the MOBA genre, and notable example of strong community and modding.


Add Orc to level-5 vital articles

It's weird to not be on any list.

  1. Support Dimadick (talk) 15:50, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

EchoBlu (talk) 16:45, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Ordering

Hi! I've never really checked out these pages, but I knew about vital articles. Could I ask why the cue sports are listed as such:

  1. Cue sports (Level 4)
    1. Carom billiards (Level 4)
  2. Blackball (pool)
    1. Pool (Level 4)
      1. Trick shot
      2. Nine-ball
    2. Snooker (Level 4)
      1. World Snooker Championship
    3. English billiards
  3. Eight-ball

This seems a bit backwards, as things like Eight-ball are cue sports, and snooker isn't a type of blackball. Could I suggest:

  1. Cue sports (Level 4)
    1. Carom billiards (Level 4)
    2. English billiards
  2. Pool (Level 4)
    1. Trick shot
    2. Blackball (pool)
    3. Nine-ball
    4. Eight-ball
  3. Snooker (Level 4)
    1. World Snooker Championship

Is there a reason for its current locations? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Vitality estimator

The idea of a tool/bot estimating article vitality was brought up earlier, and although discussion stagnated I still believe this project needs one. To recap, the estimator would be a program that looks at an article's statistics (amount of - or global enwiki rank by - pageviews, other language versions, page watchers, wikilinks to the article, WikiProject importances; modified by year of article subject's origin to penalise newer subjects) and, based on those, assigns an "estimated vitality" score to the article. Page statistics are from time to time already cited in VA debates to imply an article's degree of vitality, and a well-crafted algorithm (a hand-tuned one or one made via machine learning) could consolidate them into a single handy score to inform discussions. One of the criticisms of this project is the amount of subjectivity involved, and by adding much needed objectivity it could gain more reputation and support. Humans would of course have the final say on what level an article should be on, but the greatest use of the estimator would be to quickly find large discrepancies by showing least probably vital articles listed on a level and most probably vital articles not yet listed on that level. Should obscure topics like Tivoli circuit or minicomic really be listed while Cogito, ergo sum isn't yet?--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 10:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Support idea for Level 5 only, maybe for Level 4. Otherwise, this isn't a bad idea. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:20, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

It would perhaps be best implemented as an external tool like the ones at https://pageviews.toolforge.org. Massviews is already somewhat useful for both listing articles in VA subpages and listing articles in a category, but query options are limited (no combined queries for example) and pageviews alone are not optimal (just because Doki Doki Literature Club has been an Internet fad for the past couple of years doesn't mean it's comparable to The Brothers Karamazov in real-world impact - the hypothetical "estimated vitality" score would take into account that the latter has significantly more page watchers, other language versions, is rated top-importance in two WikiProjects and has a subject that is more than a century older).--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 13:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Categorization of the Literature branch

How important is the organization of the categories on the Project Pages? Because some of the literary works seem mis-categorized to me. Several important Asian & Middle Eastern works from what would be Europe's Middle Ages are categorized under Antiquity--but I don't know of any literary scholarship that would use that categorization. And the list of "World Literature" is basically just Europe. I know it's difficult to periodize World Literature given that European periods don't apply to non-Western history, but these categorizations seem very out of date. If the organization of the categories isn't crucial, then maybe it's not an issue. But if the organization of categories is an important part of the Vital Articles project, then I say we adjust these until they line up with academic categories. Thanks, Aristophanes68 (talk) 05:17, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Template:Vital article and Category:Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in an unknown topic

Right now, 8,000+ articles are in Category:Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in an unknown topic. Many of them are in the category because they use the "link" paramenter instead of the "topic" or "subtopic". Bots that update the template shouldn't be deleting the "topic" or "subtopic" parameter because it breaks categories. @Cewbot: or somebody else, could you look into this? pbp 18:14, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Quota proposal: Move 100 to Math, make all quotas round 100s

So for kicks, I thought I'd work on adding articles to the incomplete lists at this level, and I've really focused on the Math section. It's actually up against the current quota now, but honestly, there's still a lot that could be added.

I haven't even looked closely at popular sections like Geometry for gaps yet, theoretical comp-sci is still missing large subtopics like models for concurrency, data, & distributed-computing, and there are multiple Applied math fields (e.g. Mathematical finance & Mathematical biology) that could still be added. Even if everyone decided I went really overboard in the Graph theory or Foundations sections, and pruned them aggressively, I'd estimate that only frees up another 50 slots tops.

To keep changes minimal for now, how would everyone feel about this?

  • +100 articles for the entire Math category (1100 -> 1200)
  • Choose either of the following for Sports, games, & recreation:
    • (My preference) -50 articles; on the one hand, it's already ~60 over, but on the other hand... it's already over & needs pruning regardless
    • +50 articles & -100 from any significantly incomplete category
  • Choose either of the following for Astronomy (no strong preference):
    • -50 articles; this will leave the section as complete with ~10 articles over
    • +50 articles & -100 from any significantly incomplete category
  • Any combination of the above will also make every quota on the list a round multiple of 100

Any thoughts? --Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't know. We have articles on very advanced topics in Math, but we lack the same depth in some other sections. General Art articles (other than art works) and Social Sciences come to mind. I'd rather let the quotas be as they are, or rather move quotas to somewhere else than Math. --Makkool (talk) 11:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
A good chunk of the current articles could probably be replaced with more basic ones, but at the same time, the idea of "advanced" is a little weird with math. Most people use it more & learn more of it in school than a specific science like physics, but that standard curriculum is probably only a very tiny part of the field. At the same time, many topics people don't normally learn are still really useful & not necessarily hard at all.
More directly, you may be surprised at how many gaps there are even in simpler topics. Just off the top of my head, I've added topics like Latin squares, If and only if, Ordered pair, the Seven Bridges of Königsberg, and Sieve of Eratosthenes. And that's only from focusing on missing / sparse subfields; I haven't even gone over the ones that were already pretty full, like Geometry or Algebra. Two more examples that just came up at the Level 3 list are Curve and Solid geometry. Neither is currently even listed at Level 5.
One other thing I've noticed is there are a few topics currently listed under different categories, but probably do belong more at the Math page. Abstract facets of Computer science and Cryptography, like Automata theory or Symmetric-key algorithm are good examples.
As for categories to peel slots from, the two that jumped out at me were Physical geography and Biology,biochem,.... Both would still be at least 100 slots away from their quotas after giving up 100 each, plus Physical geography's quota of 1900 would become a rounder 1800. Personally, I'd also look at cutting some People, but it seems there are a lot of strong feelings around the People lists.
Like I said, I'm not really invested in any outcome, but if the goal for the Level 5 list is to be comprehensive, the Math section will definitely need more slots. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:43, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Not vital

Over 88 percent of Americans have never played any Final Fantasy game ever. Over 70 percent of Americans have never even heard of the Final Fantasy series ever. Final Fantasy series and its games are NOT vital articles. Putting Final Fantasy and its series under vital articles list is wrong, and shows this site has no credibility. Most active Wikipedians on the English Wikipedia have never even heard of Final Fantasy series and that is a fact. When 3 in 4 Americans doesn't know a video game series exists it's not vital period. Who decides its vital? Some Final Fantasy fan that is able to get their way due to this site having a lot of gamers. I bet my life Jimbo Wales has never even heard of Final Fantasy. Give me a break, our President has never heard of Final Fantasy series. JasonCowl349043 (talk) 00:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

As discussions on this page already indicates, Final Fantasy (the main parent franchise article) has support for inclusion, while most of the games themselves have been removed. (Note cross-discussion by this user at Talk:Final Fantasy). -- ferret (talk) 02:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Vitality is relative. So, if Final Fantasy is not vital... what is it unvital relative to? What should be included instead in Vital Articles level 5? VA level 5 includes top 50 000 Wikipedia articles deemed vital, which is ~0,8% of all articles (one in 125) and actually a rather large amount. A collection of such size will inevitably include topics many Wikipedians are unfamiliar with, and you just have to accept that. Video games are a multi-billion dollar industry, are probably going to be even more popular in the future, and deserve representation by including the most significant games and series, which Final Fantasy unquestionably is one of. Note that there is still an open discussion on how many video games should be listed, with the consensus to reduce it.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 07:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree with ferret. Of course there is no argument for individual games, but until there's a well-reviewed list of 50000 articles, I can't imagine a case for removing the franchise. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:21, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Whether or not the game has been played by most, surely it is influential to later games, yes? Hyperbolick (talk) 07:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
English Wikipedia is not Wikipedia for American. And whether an article is vital or not does not require one to have played it. C933103 (talk) 10:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Mathematics "vital" articles!?

Looking over the list for mathematics, it seems fairly decent, with one rather obvious problem: it includes many pages that the mathematics wikiproject would consider low-priority, low-importance, and is missing many pages that would be considered to be mid-importance or even high-importance. This mis-match of priorities is mildly disconcerting. It appears to be another ratings system on top of the existing system, created without any effort to figure out what is actually important, to mathematics, as a discipline? How does this work? Who is making these decisions? Is this being done by number of page views, or something? 67.198.37.16 (talk) 13:53, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

There are currently 239 math articles marked as "top" and 880 marked as "high" priority. That's a total of 1119 articles - about the same as the number of "vital" math articles. I would recommend that any article marked as mid or low priority be removed from the vital list, and every article marked as high or top priority should be added. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 14:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
The Level 5 vital articles list for math is definitely a work-in-progress. To answer several of your questions, yes, the vital article lists are built up in a different way from the wikiprojects, probably the main one being ratings are much more controlled:
  • Changes are done via proposals in the talk pages (with one exception that only really applies to Level 5)
    • The exception is if a category is under its quota, anyone is just free to fill in gaps until the category reaches its quota
    • I actually brainstormed a lot of the articles that are there just this winter (and I agree a lot of them could probably be swapped, though keep reading for complications)
    • So at least once a category is full and had some changes voted on, ratings should be stabler than with the unrestricted updates used by the wikiprojects
  • The priorities may also be a bit different then what emerges from a specific wikiproject
    • There's a strong emphasis on being as comprehensive as possible within the quota
    • The outline structure in particular also means articles may be preferred for their ability to cover or touch on other articles
    • All other things being equal, general audience interest or current article quality are also sometimes factored in
I feel the main issue for now is simply the math quota is too low, but quota changes require consensus, and math discussions just don't seem to draw as much as interest as the other categories, like People. That's part of why the list is so wonky. I was trying really hard to be comprehensive (even if it meant tossing in some niche articles at first), but hit the 1100 quota before I even got around to looking over established subcategories, like Algebra & Geometry.
As for resyncing with the Math Wikiproject priorities some, I think that's actually a really good idea. I would just suggest proposing swaps in relatively small batches on the talk page first. I feel a lot of what I added in Fundamentals Foundations & Graph theory could probably be blown away as low-priority, but just checking turned up some articles I'm surprised aren't given higher priority. For example, Latin square and Bézout's identity are both given just mid-priority. Of course, I could go update their template priorities right now, but that's exactly why the vital article lists do things a bit differently. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:10, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Mary Surratt

She's listed under "Military personnel, revolutionaries, and activists". That's sorta weird. She was definitely never military personnel. Revolutionary? She was executed for being part of the conspiracy to kill Lincoln, but the evidence was fairly weak and it's not clear there's a consensus that she was guilty, and even if she was guilty I'm not sure that counts as "revolution". She doesn't seem to have made a point of propagating her political views, which would think would be required for "activist".

Maybe move to "miscellaneous"? --Trovatore (talk) 23:31, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

@Trovatore Better, I'd support removing her. Rather a niche figure, American-centric As you point out, she hasn't really done much, and is more of a trivia footnote historical figure. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Trail of Tears

A user has made significant changes to the lead of Trail of Tears, which is listed as a level-5 vital article per the article's Talk page; members here may wish to review. Dmoore5556 (talk) 12:28, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Removal of news program

FYI, news program was merged into news broadcasting. I removed it from the list (diff), but am unsure if there's any procedure for filling the newly opened slot to add a replacement. SnowFire (talk) 21:07, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@SnowFire: Currently the society subpage has already exceeded the quota substantially, thus you'd better nominate an article for addition here rather than just adding an article to that subpage by yourself.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
I wasn't planning on doing any such addition. If there isn't space, then no need to do anything anyway. SnowFire (talk) 13:22, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Sulpicia?

Having just nominated Sulpicia (satirist) for Good Article status, I noticed that the article was included as a level 5 vital article and was somewhat baffled. With the best will in the world (and as the only person who cares enough about her to have contributed substantially to her article!) I cannot see how her article can be considered vital in any sense, so I just wanted to drop a note on this talkpage to check that the other, much better known Sulpicia, who actually has more than two lines survive and whom scholars have actually written more than a few pages about, wasn't the intended target? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:48, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Definitely agree. Larrayal (talk) 00:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
(And I've no interest in getting into the weeds of how Vital Article lists are decided, but just off the top of my (primarily Hellenist rather than Latinist) head Juvenal, Propertius, and Tibullus are all classical Latin poets more important than Sulpicia the satirist who aren't represented. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
It's kinda complicated to explain, but it's mostly editors who feel that something need to be on this list, then community deciding of what to add and what to remove when the list is completed. I'm saying this, but after a one minute read on the page, I noticed the Ancient part of non-European litterature is featuring a bunch of authors that are definitely post-classical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larrayal (talk • contribs) 13:21, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
You were not kidding on that last part. Saturdayopen (talk) 01:06, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Martin Cortes (son of Malinche)

I see that Martín Cortés (son of Malinche) was added as a vital article (here)? Really? On what basis? We have little information about him, and what we do have shows his only accomplishment was to be embroiled in a scandal where he was accused of insurrection. This makes little sense. Tarl N. (discuss) 22:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Because he was one of the first mestizo born in Mexico ever? I feel like that alone is a very good reason to have him on here. I mean Virginia Dare is on here solely due to being the first English person born in the Americas. Saturdayopen (talk) 23:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
@Saturdayopen: He wasn’t. Remember, he was born almost 30 years after Europeans had arrived in the Americas. There had been numerous Europeans in mesoamerica for decades before Cortés met Doña Marina. He was sufficiently irrelevant that the only records that exist of him involve either his father or his brother. That’s not a good qualifier for a vital article - it will remain a stub permanently. Tarl N. (discuss) 01:29, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
"But many scholars and historians have marked her multiracial child with Cortés as the symbolic beginning of the large mestizo population that developed in Mesoamerica.[1]" This is from La Malinche page. Saturdayopen (talk) 02:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
@Saturdayopen: Largely symbolism and propaganda. Martin is the first easily identified Mestizo born in Mexico (because he was born to such a prominent father), but far from the first Mestizo. I happened to stumble across a statue in Akumal, Quintana Roo, which claims that the first Mestizo was conceived on that beach in 1498. Also propaganda. The real point is there is so little documentation on him that having his article as "vital" is futile - the information to expand it simply doesn't exist. It would be like saying that an article on the first person to die in WW-I (Albert Mayer) should be vital. Tarl N. (discuss) 02:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
You know what, screw it. I don't know why you are vehemently against having him listed as a vital article, since you're one of the main editors. The fact that the conception of Martin Cortes is usually used as a symbol of the mestizo nature of Mexico should be enough for him to be considered vital, but apparently he can't be added because you think his article is only going to remain a stub. Saturdayopen (talk) 02:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
It's not a matter of "winning" for an article I'm familiar with. It's a matter of what would make sense for a "vital article", and a stub isn't it. By the way, I found a reference in Wikipedia to that statue in Akumal, portraying Gonzalo Guerrero, a Spaniard living with the Maya who already had three Mestizo children by the time Cortés even started his expedition. Their names, regrettably, are lost to history. Tarl N. (discuss) 07:20, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Tate, Julee (2017). "La Malinche: The Shifting Legacy of a Transcultural Icon". The Latin Americanist. 61: 81–92. doi:10.1111/tla.12102. S2CID 148798608.

Add Islam in Belgium, remove FC Barcelona

The Islamic State is popular in some cities in Belgium such as Molenbeek-Saint-Jean, unlike Barcelona, which has the advantage of right-handed autonomy from Spain even though it does not resonate as much in European society, including because it is not proscribed. Luizpuodzius 187.20.15.195 (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose, reason doesn't make sense. C933103 (talk) 09:59, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposal to highlight entries for living people on these lists

Would it be possible to highlight or otherwise mark entries for living people on these lists? This would be useful for noting which vital articles are BLPs that should receive additional scrutiny for potential improvement and sourcing. BD2412 T 01:55, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Pl add LAW in Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5

LAW means all kinds of Acts, Constitutions of Various Countries in the world Details of Different Laws , Acts , Punishments , Courts, Jurisprudence of the Different Countries all these will come up to more than one Lakh Articles only in india i expected these will come up to 10 thousonds articles pl examine this ```bvprasadtewiki``` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bvprasadtewiki (talk • contribs) 10:27, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Remove John Breckinridge Castleman

I noticed that this was a vital article after participating in a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Military-related vital articles, and personally cannot fathom why this figure is considered to be a vital article. He was a brigadier general and a military governor, but wasn't an important example of either; I'm not sure why he was even added. Hog Farm Talk 02:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Support
  • Support removal - nothing in his biography to indicate he was anything special as a military leader.GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Support removal John C. Breckinridge (a Confederate general but also Vice-President and listed under politicians) is probably notable at this level, but Castleman isn't. The only reason I can see for him being added is a mixed-up between the two. pbp 04:54, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Support removal but also suggest that the removal just be BOLDLY done. VA5 is a loose place, Castleman was added without a discussion, so just go remove it without a full discussion. A Civil War-minded editor should feel free to boldly update the bios included, no need for bureaucracy IMO when being a VA5 or not isn't really that important. SnowFire (talk) 18:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Support removal. No interwikis outside English and the lead just says he was a general, with no indication why he was more important than zillion others. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:52, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Support removal per previous arguments. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 08:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

US centric bias in law articles

Just to give an example, we have no less than 32 US Supreme court cases listed as vital articles, but not Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany, Constitution of India, or Constitution of Russia.

Another phenomenon is a single court decision being listed as more vital than the issue it addresses: Brown v. Board of Education is ranked as a vital article, but School segregation or even School segregation in the United States are not. Obergefell v. Hodges is listed but not same-sex marriage in the United States, a broader topic. If the so-called vital articles actually ranked the significance of topics, you would expect the broader issue to be considered more vital.

Today, Antinoos69 just added another two US Supreme Court cases, stating: "The inclusion of these cases cannot be considered even remotely debatable. They clearly merit inclusion. Duh." Well, no. (t · c) buidhe 01:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

The "they clearly merit inclusion. Duh." attitude is not helpful. We can't just list every single important U.S. court case as a vital article while ignoring the rest of the planet. Especially considering the law category is full. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
In what sense is the law category “full”? Are there a priori quotas? Who set them? Are they writ in stone? Antinoos69 (talk) 04:02, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes, there is a quota. The arbitrary threshold for the Society and social sciences section is 4,000 articles, and we currently have 4,625 articles in it. Additionally, the Law subsection has a limit of 590 articles, and there is currently 594. Moreover, adding or removing articles in sections that are already completed must be the object of a consensus here. Larrayal (talk) 04:15, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
As you yourself call this threshold “arbitrary” I don’t see what need there would be to comment further. Change the number. Antinoos69 (talk) 04:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Whether they deserve inclusion or not (they probably don't), the Society and social science section is already overcrowded, and nothing should be added without asking. And 32 US decisions is way too much. Chose the 5 more important, remove the rest, maybe send some of them to the History section, and replace 10 of them by important countries constitutions and legal rights, as stated. (We'll soon need to cut a lot of things in this section, I will propose a plan of action on that in the coming week, hopefully. Why is there more american schools than ethnic groups ? Why is there more US laws than for all the rest of the world combined ? Such questions needs answers, and a north american bias can't excuse anything.) Larrayal (talk) 04:11, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
The obvious solution to the exclusion of important articles is to add them. If there is going to be a US cases section, then it should include the essential cases. There can be no question that the cases I included are essential, and all the more so in our times. If cases from other countries should be added, then go and add them. Keep in mind, however, the disproportionate importance of case law to American civil rights and liberties. Such an enormous amount of our civil rights and liberties here, where the Constitution is so very difficult to amend, comes down to case law. Also keep in mind the influence, both historical and otherwise, of the US in this area. Antinoos69 (talk) 04:16, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't meant to be american-focused, and Supreme Court decisions aren't the most important thing that ever happened in the history of sociology, and specially legality. Individual decisions should be kept as a minimum, historical ones should be limited to the history section. As a non-american, I can't care less about one specific justice decision otherwise almost unknown in every other states in the world that only came after half of the US states had already issued marriage licenses anyway - and we can't include each one of them. Yes, we could use more lgbt history related articles, but the solution isn't with more laws in already crowded area and without consensus. Additionally, the use of the term "arbitrary" was meaning that nor I nor you can change the number without prior consensus between several editors - those have been discussed several times and will probably not change. Somebody will probably revert your last edit, don't try reverting it again, an edit war isn't needed on it. We can keep discussing the inclusion of those articles, though - perhaps other editors will find some interest in keeping them, but keep in mind that if we include new articles, the usual procedure means that other articles needs to be taken out of the list at first. Larrayal (talk) 04:42, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
I strongly suggest you leave your anti-Americanism, personal bigotries, and anti-intellectualism at the door; otherwise, I won’t deal with your rather distasteful self further. If tribalism were to reign here, we wouldn’t be left with much content at all. The fact is that there is a US cases section here. That requires including the essential cases; otherwise, dump the entire cases section. The cases I included are landmark and influential decisions. Any American or legal expert would immediately recognize their importance. If you’re too ignorant to know that, blame your educational system, not me. You apparently misused the word arbitrary—again, blame your educational system or lexical skills. Antinoos69 (talk) 11:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
The instructions say "Additions AND removals to sections that are complete or nearly complete should be discussed". You added to a complete - ie quota filled section. You are accusing others of bias rather than defending the addition by properly showing the importance of the added items. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
This list isn't meant to be for "in our times" only. C933103 (talk) 09:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Good point. I recently noticed this when someone tried to delete an article about a term from Polish law, which also revealed how many are missing. This is a problem with the entire Wikipedia - probaby b/c legal terms that are not relevant to English speakers are both mostly unimprotant and boring. Anyway, yes, 32 SC cases is IMHO a good ~25-30 too many, this is super American centric. Vast majority are vital for US history and nothing but. Cut, burn and slash. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:51, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

US court cases have some degree of significance due to US being a common law country.C933103 (talk) 09:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Falling prey to recentism

173 articles for 21st century history (at this rate there would be 173*5 = 865 articles by the end of the century) vs. 238 articles for the entire nineteenth century show we are falling prey to recentism bias and need to trim 21st century articles. (t · c) buidhe 03:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

If we are talking about 173 articles every 20 years then it would takes another 30 years or so before the section hit quota and then it would need to adopt voting system, which I don't expect it to happen. The entire section will probably be fill up relatively soon, and later people can replace less important topics with newer significant events. C933103 (talk) 17:46, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Why is Eucla, Western Australia, on here?

Am I missing something? Why is Eucla, Western Australia a vital article? Steelkamp (talk) 15:38, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I added it due to the place's local time zone being somewhat significant and are often cited in relevant discussion, although I guess it isn't that vital as whole... You can remove or replace them with items you found more significant. C933103 (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

add nazism in the Americas, remove strasserism

Óbvius more relevant, such as spoke the sky is blue.Vascu (talk) 20:23, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

  1. Oppose, Recentism and America-centrism. C933103 (talk) 14:51, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Slayer

I have nominated Slayer for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 15:26, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_8&oldid=1104197642"