Wikipedia talk:Vital articles

Introduction

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 June 29, 2013 88 3 88 450 289 82 1000 October 13, 2013 90 4 92 446 284 83 999 January 13, 2015 90 2 96 417 333 60 998

• All discussions will remain open for a minimum of 15 days.

1. After 15 days any proposal may be closed as PASSED if a) at least five !votes have been cast in support, and b) at least two-thirds of the total !votes support the proposal.
2. After 30 days any proposal may be closed as FAILED if it has a) earned at least 3 opposes, and b) failed to earn two-thirds support.
3. After 30 days any proposal may be closed as NO CONSENSUS if the proposal hasn't received any !votes for 30 or more days regardless of the !vote tally.
4. After 60 days any proposal may be closed as NO CONSENSUS if it has a) failed to earn at least 5 support !votes, and b) earned less than two-thirds support.

Please be patient with our process: we believe that an informed discussion with more editors is likely to produce an improved and more stable final list. When proposing to add or remove a particular topic from the Vital Articles list, we strongly recommend that you review and compare the other topics in the same category in order to get a better sense of what is considered vital in that area.

• 15 days ago: 07:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC) ()
• 30 days ago: 07:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
• 60 days ago: 07:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Add Epidemiology

Much like Famine, epidemics/pandemics are one of the largest and timeless human disasters. I personally think epidemic would do better on this level, but due to overlap, this is probably the best choice. It's simply such a major topic, both in history and simply for the survival of the human race entirely. Absolutely vital for an encyclopedia.

Support

1. Support as nom. ~Mable (chat) 09:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 23:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC) How about pandemic? --Thi (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak oppose The overlap with disease is a little too much IMO. Cobblet (talk) 08:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
2. Oppose Per Cobblet. Gizza ^(t)(c) 05:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
3. Oppose I agree. Too much overlap with disease. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

While disease would discuss in length about the effects of a condition on a body, epidemiology is all about how a disease spreads through a populous. Because of how broad disease is, the article cannot possibly cover this topic much at all. @Thi, a pandemic is an epidemic, but on a larger scale. Epidemic would be the primary topic. I completely forgot why I picked epidemiology rather than epidemic now, though...

Add Fashion

Came up in the animation discussion. A much more vital cultural concept that it; on the level of video games and such. I think it's current not inclusion is the result of a systemic bias (Wikipedia is written by young male geeks who don't care much for fashion). Let's remedy this. Like it or not, for most people the choice of which clothes to wear is pretty vital, and more so than the topics like animation or video games. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Support ~Mable (chat) 08:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Much more encyclopedially vital than the clothing industry. This is culturally significant in the extreme. It is in fact almost the cover concept for cultural significance itself.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Support per Piotrus and Maunus. Also fashion doesn't just mean clothing fashion. Fashion is more distinct from clothing than animation is from drawing. It is a huge cultural phenomenon becoming universal in a globalized world. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:01, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
5. Support per nom. Neljack (talk) 20:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
6. Support per nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose per comments. ~Mable (chat) 09:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose per comments. Sunrise (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Mable. RJFJR (talk) 22:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Discuss

This crossed my mind before and I brought it up a few didn't like the idea, clothing is in the 100 and 1000 lists, fashion is not a technology or craft separate from clothing like animation or video games, but an art form or creative expression through/with clothing, is it distinct enough from clothing for this level? I am neutral at the moment...Also for regular everyday things like clothing, the article furniture was previously in, but removed without discussion, furniture is pretty vital to majority of people in their everyday life, and is not really covered by anything other than house, that I can see anyway. I would like to add furniture back before something like fashion. Is common place vital, with things like furniture? the expanded list has furniture plus several examples of it too. Carlwev  09:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, that's a good argument. I'm not completely sure about it anymore either, as "the art of [blank]" isn't that important when [blank] is already on the list. ... I just checked the article and it is dedicated for a good portion to the cultural aspects of clothing. I think that should be enough for this topic, yes. ~Mable (chat) 09:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• Would someone be willing to define the difference between "popular culture" (already listed) and "fashion"? Is the latter simply one aspect of the former, or is it more than that? I'm not sure how to conceptualize these things. Cobblet (talk) 23:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but in layman's terms, the two concepts have very little to do with eachother. Fashion generally only focuses on clothing. Though it could also refer to other things that are "in fashion," thus popular, this should probably be seen as an entirely separate definition. Fashion as clothing could simply refer to communicating culture and taste through clothing. In that sense, fashion doesn't even need to be popular. The article on fashion is almost entirely about how people dress or express themselves through their appearance.

Popular culture is even more vague. It's a very wide topic, according to the article: "the entirety of ideas, perspectives, attitudes, memes, images, and other phenomena that are within the mainstream of a given culture." Simultaneously, popular culture is even used to refer to things that are not actually that popular, but fall within a modern and not-alternative style. Popular culture is incredibly hard to define, while simultaneously being all around us. Wikipedia itself might even be referred to as popular culture by some people, as it is part of a modern thing that many people use and might signify culture in some way. ~Mable (chat) 09:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Add Mecca

Just read the lead of it and you'll know that it is crucial and should be in the list.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak oppose, there are plenty of vital topics to cover Islam with, but I don't think we need this one on this level ~Mable (chat) 08:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 23:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose I agree with nominator reasons and I would support a swap of Saudi Arabia with Mecca--but since Saudi Arabia was just added, no need for both. AbstractIllusions (talk) 16:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
4. Oppose just adding Mecca, but I would support swapping in Mecca for Saudi Arabia. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Discuss

I could support a Saudi Arabia-Mecca swap. It would be one of the few cases where a city within a country is arguably more vital than the country itself. Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Discuss removing some elements

Currently we have the following elements as vital: Aluminium, Carbon, Copper, Gold, Hydrogen, Iron, Nitrogen, Oxygen, Silicon, Silver. They are all interesting, but are they all vital? Do we want to trim this list to make space for other articles? If so then which? RJFJR (talk) 19:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

They all seem vital to me. I might even add a few more, such as tin, lead, and helium. -- Ypnypn (talk) 20:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd support adding lead and helium. About removing some of these, it is somewhat complicated. I think I'd only support the removal of aluminium, or possibly silicon if someone was able to convince me it was redundant to current technology topics listed. The rest either seem technologically and/or historically vital, with hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen and carbon standing out as most important of all. I'd rather remove aluminium than add tin. ~Mable (chat) 21:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Indeed if anything we should be listing more, although I'm fairly comfortable with the current list. I'd rather add protein than another element, for example; but if I had to suggest an element it would be sulfur. Cobblet (talk) 00:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I would say that protein is definitely more important than RNA. :-) Sunrise (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I can't see how helium could be vital here. Its applications are limited compared to the other elements. Being abundant is not a good reason to consider it vital. I would list some of the states of matter e.g. gas before helium not that chemistry really needs to be expanded (although maybe biology and physics could do with a trim). Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

While some of these are vital, I'm not convinced of all of them. Hydrogen (most common element and the simplest) is definitely vital. Carbon sounds vital at first since one of the major divisions of chemistry, organic chemistry, is about carbon; but we have organic chemistry as vital so do we need Carbon by itself? (Carbon by itself is pretty boring.) Gold we need to keep not as an element but because it is a monetary base. Silicon I challenge: a lot of semiconductors are based on silicon, but not all, and semiconductor technology is what is vital, not the silicon they may be made out of. Why is nitrogen vital? (Air is vital which contains a lot of nitrogen but nitrogen itself isn't really that vital to me.) Oxygen maybe because oxidation is so important. Iron is important for construction so we may want to keep it as vital, similarly for aluminum. Silver has been used as a monetary base, debatable if that makes it vital. That leaves copper, which was important to early industry (the copper age), but is it vital? RJFJR (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Saying that carbon isn't vital because we have organic chemistry would be like saying that money isn't vital because we have economics. The article on carbon is about a lot more than just elemental carbon. Silicon isn't just vital because of semiconductors; silicates are the most common mineral on Earth and in the solar system. Nitrogen and oxygen are essential elements for life (no less so than carbon and hydrogen) and no educated person should be unaware of the significance of the Haber process. Copper is definitely still vital; think electrical wiring, for instance. Cobblet (talk) 22:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I can support removing silver. I prefer a potentially hazardous metal like lead, mercury or uranium before silver. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I would support removing nitrogen, as we already include air. Nitrogen has a lot less "common" applications than silver does, but I guess I could weakly support removing silver as well now... I still support removing aluminium. ~Mable (chat) 08:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

technical bias

I just found this article now, and it is hilariously biased towards technical issues. Aluminium, black holes, the weak force, and others are interesting topics, but hardly vital to really anybody's understanding of the world. The sections about art, history and religion are sorely lacking in comparison. This page should consider taking for reference the proportions of articles in more conventional encyclopedias, and this will surely call for a cull of the science and technology sections, interesting (and of higher than average quality) though they are. Keep an article for Chemical Element, and lose all the individuals. Harley peters (talk) 02:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Turned this into a separate section, let's see. Over a third of the articles fall under science, technology, mathematics, medicine, etc. However, these articles include every-day things like transportation (cars and bikes), some of the most common illnesses, the planets of the solar system, the anatomy of humans, all animal classifications, communication (internet, phone, tv, etc), weapons, etc, etc. These are all incredibly common topics in every-day life. We can't exactly get rid of hospital, bridge or calculator. On the other hand, if you look at, for example, the kind of topics mathematics indulges in, it is true that we got a large amount of articles that would be of no interest to a layman. I personally think it's balanced, as these articles are also vital. They describe the basics of their field. Thanks for your input, though - if you want to suggest a specific article for removal, please go ahead. ~Mable (chat) 08:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I would also argue that aluminium, black holes, and the weak force are indeed vital to one's understanding of the world. For example, to not know about the weak force is to not know about one of the fundamental characteristics of reality. If I draw a parallel to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the importance of topics when choosing article titles, I would view this as analogous to the "enduring significance" clause. Sunrise (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I confess that I am 35 years old, am a year short of a PhD and have never heard of this fundamental aspect of reality, nor has it ever left a noticeable hole in my sense of reality or my world view. I dont think that is a good criteria. The good criterion would be whether I would be likely to ever want to look it up in an encyclopedia.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, wanting to find out what I have been missing, I looked for the Weak force and found out that we dont even have an article about it.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

...You've linked to it (via redirect). :-P Sunrise (talk) 01:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

No, I've linked to Weak interaction via redirect. If the "weak force" isnt notable enough to have its own article then it also clearly isnt notable enough to be on the vital list. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

They refer to the same phenomenon. The difference is analogous to the difference between Gravity and Gravitation. Note that the former redirects to the latter, so we "don't have" an article on gravity either! Sunrise (talk) 03:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Then "gravity" should not be in the list. It is absurd to add topics to the list that redirect to other topics. It strikes me as a rather stupid choice to redirect gravity to gravitation, and probably in contravention of our naming policy, but if it is the case then the topic to include is gravitation and not gravity. A redirect per definition is not vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

On the other hand, if "fundamental" is a reason for including articles, why don't we list quark? I don't think removing strong interaction and weak interaction is out of the question—they're both discussed in force and particle physics, and we don't even cover other major physics fields like fluid mechanics at all. Malerisch (talk) 01:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I definitely agree that removing them is conceivable. There are a lot of these topics and we have to exercise judgement. I was mainly responding to the OP's implication that reasonable people generally shouldn't consider them to be important. Sunrise (talk) 01:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

There tends to be two sorts of articles in science and tech, those that are familiar to a lay reader (and it is plainly obvious that they are vital most of the time) and those that are technical which still may be vital but not necessarily. There are also articles that overlap with each other and consequently take more spots that they should on such a tight list. For example, we have computing, computer and computer science, all of which are repetitive. Personally I think they should only take up 2 spots notwithstanding the importance of computers (we removed World Wide Web because of its overlap with internet a while ago).

Then there are articles like Neptune which are added on the basis of completing the set of planets in our solar system but are not important at all to a lay person. We won't be colonizing Neptune any time soon. You cannot even see the planet without a telescope. OTOH, from an anthropocentric perspective, something like eclipse is not listed at this level but far more vital to someone with a casual interest in astronomy. Based on the current structure of the list, science is indeed the biggest section by far. Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Article class update

I've updated the article class count. Here's the breakdown by area. From our last count, the noticeable differences are a reduction in Start/Stub and B-class articles and an increase in C-class. There is a moderate increase of Good Articles while the number Featured Articles was static.

I don't know how much of the difference can be attributed to a change in article quality, changes to class criteria or changes to which articles are listed on VA. Nevertheless it is interesting to observe where the list has progressed and where it has not. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

FA A GA B C – Total People 23 1 23 51 34 0 132 Hist 6 1 2 28 26 6 69 Geo 9 0 9 47 26 1 92 Art 2 0 3 18 28 5 56 Phil and Rel 1 0 4 27 20 8 60 Everyday 2 0 5 36 41 5 89 Society 0 0 7 30 45 19 101 Health 5 0 11 14 6 3 39 Sci 39 0 25 65 55 9 193 Tech 1 0 4 56 46 4 111 Math 2 0 3 45 6 0 56 Total 90 2 96 417 333 60 998

Add Fuel Cell

Propose adding the Fuel Cell page to the Vital Articles list under Energy. Seems to have a common theme with the other energy technologies and could certainly use some updated links, perhaps a rewrite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.79.0.254 (talk) 19:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest for you to first make this suggestion at level 4, as it isn't even included there yet. This is the list of the thousand most vital articles on Wikipedia, whereas level 4 is for the 10,000 most vital articles.

Adding it to level 4 would probably be a good idea. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The amount of work an article needs is also irrelevant to us. Many of the articles on this list are of very high quality. Please do explain why you think the topic is vital for an encyclopedia to cover if you suggest it on level 4 :) ~Mable (chat) 20:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

We include Battery (electricity) in the 1000 list, that is similar to fuel cell, not sure which is the "parent" article at the moment of the two, probably wouldn't have them both on such a short list.  Carlwev  22:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Might be worth discussing a swap, though I think battery as a common item in life is more important than the more abstract "fuel cell". ~Mable (chat) 08:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Remove Neptune (planet)

How vital is our article on Neptune? Is it a vital topic for someone with only a casual interest in astronomy? We are hardly even getting near this planet except with some long-distance space probes like the Voyagers. You can't even see the planet without a telescope. It doesn't give insight to key topics in astronomy or physics like a black hole does, and frankly, it isn't as interesting to read about either. If we are only listing Neptune to complete our list of planets (we got Solar system for that, that article sums up the key characteristics of the planet anyway), then I suppose we might as well drop it.

Support

1. Support as nom. ~Mable (chat) 09:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose --Thi (talk) 11:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
2. Oppose I can think of plenty of reasons why someone with even just a casual interest in astronomy would want to read about Neptune: the story behind its discovery, its unusual weather, its orbital resonance with Pluto and other Kuiper belt objects, Triton (one of the most interesting satellites in the Solar System), etc. Cobblet (talk) 18:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
3. Oppose User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
4. Oppose Part of our system of one article for each planet. (Unfortunately no article that combines all the outer planets of the solar system so we can combine Neptune and Uranus.) RJFJR (talk) 22:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
5. Oppose All 8 planets in our solar system are vital. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Solar eclipse

Now this is something you can see from Earth, and it would probably be something worth looking up a lot more for a layman than planet Neptune is. "Why is the entire sky suddenly black?" might be a realistic question a person might ask themselves. "This image is beautiful/looks weird/what is this?" is an easy way to get someone to look it up. I'm sure it is not the most fascinating topic in astronomy, the terminology, predicting, historical record, viewing, effects and the list of forthcoming eclipses are all very interesting for a layperson

It's too bad that solar eclipse and eclipse are separate articles, and I'm not even completely sure myself whether this article deserves to be on level 3, but I'm looking forward to hearing what you guys think :)

Support

1. Weak support as nom. ~Mable (chat) 09:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
2. Support I dont think constellation is more important. Eclipses are important cultural and historical phenomena in almost all societies, they are astronomically interesting because they provide a way to observe an important fact about the solar system with the naked eye.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Constellation is more important. --Thi (talk) 11:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
2. weak Oppose though I can think of two reasons for including it: Eclipses are used for some measurements and because people should read the warning about not looking at eclipses with the naked eye. But we're very close to our 1000 article limit and I don't think solar eclipses are common enough or important enough to add at this time. RJFJR (talk) 22:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
3. Oppose. While interesting, a solar eclipse is just the Moon passing between the Sun and the Earth. Ancient people probably wondered a lot about what was happening during a solar eclipse, but you could say the same thing about Thunder and Lightning which aren't included. And unlike a solar eclipse, which most people never experience in their lifetime, just about everyone will experience thunder and lightning. I don't think it's a vital article at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Discuss

Remove Calculator

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.

---

A calculator is a specialized form of computer (which we already have.)

Support

1. Support as nom. RJFJR (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
2. Support No more vital than any other type of computer. Calculators haven't had the same impact on society as other devices related to computing such as printers. Just not important enough to be vital. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
3. Support per Gizza. ~Mable (chat) 10:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
4. Support --Thi (talk) 14:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
5. Support Less vital than most home appliances. Something like air conditioning seems clearly more vital to me. Cobblet (talk) 19:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
6. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose, I'm going to need better rationale. Calculator on its own seems vital to me despite its overlap with computer. ~Mable (chat) 22:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments

If there was space, I prefer adding articles that do not overlap with anything in the technology section like tunnel or bomb. I can't see calculators being more vital than those topics. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Neutral on calculator, I would support tunnel, we have bridge. Bomb seems reasonable, does it overlap with explosive material? and to a lesser extent, artillery, and nuclear weapon. Candle doesn't quite seem level 3 tech to me, at level 4 we don't even have lantern, torch or flashlight. For explosive things, we don't have TNT at level 4 either.  Carlwev  14:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I probably wouldn't support tunnel – for most of history they weren't really significant as transportation routes, so the comparison to bridges isn't perfect. There are a bunch of things of similar importance to candle that aren't listed, e.g. oil lamp, furnace, window. It might be preferable to list lighting and/or HVAC instead. Cobblet (talk) 19:16, 24 January 2015 (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.

For inspiration

Here is a translation of Finnish-language Wikipedias list of one thousand vital articles. --Thi (talk) 14:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that Thi. The Finnish list provides another perspective. It definitely seems to be influenced by the English list (some sections are almost identical and share the recent additions to the en list) while it has become very different in other sections. Btw, is the original list at fi:Käyttäjä:Thi/Luettelo_keskeisistä_tietosanakirja-artikkeleista or fi:Wikipedia:Luettelo_keskeisistä_tietosanakirja-artikkeleista? And is there much difference between the two? Gizza ^(t)(c) 07:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

They are identical, the first one is a copy of original in the Wikipedia namespace. The list was originally a translation or a slightly modified version of En list, as in many other Wikipedias. It has recently been in a peer review, so it takes into account many recent changes in en-wikis list but is tailored to Finnish Wikipedia. There was a poll about which are the most vital and interesting articles, United States, Finland and evolution got most votes. --Thi (talk) 13:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Why no coordination with meta - list of 1000 articles?

I look at the list of 100 most important articles and wonder why there is no coodination with the list meta:List_of_articles_every_Wikipedia_should_have ? Obviously the 100 most important should be in the 1000 most important. What is it good for if you guys spend your time here on en:wikipedia if people on meta are doing the same job? As an editor on sw:wikipedia i am interested in these lists but uncoordinated they are useless. And what is the point to have separate lists on Meta an En: ?? Cheers! (Sorry:I wrote this first to the level2 page till I saw the advice to ontribute here..) Kipala (talk) 11:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@Kipala: thanks for your question. It is a shame that there isn't more coordination between the English and Meta lists although I believe they serve slightly different purposes. As the English Wikipedia is very mature, the list here is intended to be a list of articles that ideally are a priority in becoming Featured or otherwise of a very high quality whereas the Meta list also serves as a list of articles that every encyclopedia should have (this is relevant for smaller language Wikipedias). From memory, the meta list of 1000 and 10,000 were copy and pastes of an older version of the English lists. Since then, the lists of each site have gone their separate ways. Funnily enough, when you skim each of the lists you will notice that the English list has been globalized to a greater extent than Meta even though you would expect it to be the other way around.

Inter-wiki coordination (not just English Wikipedia and Meta) is weaker than it should be throughout the WMF sadly. Editors tend to get bogged down in one wiki. Working on multiples wikis at least in the beginning requires a great deal of effort. Gizza ^(t)(c) 05:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated Enzyme 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.--Jarodalien (talk) 07:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Add Mark Twain

He has been regarded as the greatest American humorist, and as the father of American literature. He is more vital than any American writer and, thus, he should be added here. Gonzales John (talk) 13:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Gonzales John (talk) 13:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
2. Support – He is arguably the most important writer of the 19th century. He should be added. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 19:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I'd be open to a swap for Poe or Hemingway, but I think it would really be excessive to have three American writers on the list. Consider that we have one English writer, one German, and (most strikingly of all) no French writers. I would say all these countries have literary traditions at least as important as the US. I'd say there should only be one American writer. Twain would indeed be a strong candidate to be the one, but I can't support just adding another American. Neljack (talk) 00:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
2. Oppose Per Neljack. As far as Western writers go, Voltaire should be in first. An issue more concerning is the weak representation of non-Western writers. Gizza ^(t)(c) 06:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
3. Oppose Twain stands as the first major vernacular writer and may therefore be worth adding, but as Neljack said, Twain should not be added without removing another American. Poe should stay, because he fathered whole genres of literature that are still widely read today. Exchanging Twain for Hemingway makes better sense, because the list does include not even a single writer of realist fiction, but has far too many Modernist writers. So Gonzales John, there you have a plan to improve the case for Twain.MackyBeth (talk) 19:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

He's probably slightly more important than Poe, maybe a swap would get better results, due to there being too many Americans like others have said. Voltaire is probably more important than them both, maybe he has a chance, maybe some works should go like Don Quixote to keep the size the same. We already have Don Quixote's author Cervantes, do we really need a Cervantes work too, we don't even have a Shakespeare work, nor in fact any work of literature originally in English. About works, also do we really need the Mona Lisa in addition to Leonardo da Vinci? or as many works of architecture?  Carlwev  16:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Don Quixote is more vital than the author Cervantes. The work was his magnum opus and greatly surpasses him in notability (gets triple the page views for instance). It would be like replacing Mahabharata with Vyasa. Doesn't work. Having said that, you make a good point on the overlap between them. Cervantes could go to make room for someone else, either in the Spanish-speaking world or beyond.

Wrt the Mona Lisa, 2 articles on painting seem reasonable in a list of this size. There isn't really an article other than an actual painting could be added as a subtopic. No genre or movement really stands out. The closest may be oil painting and watercolor painting. Similarly with architecture, it is easier to narrow down and create a list of 8 or so subtopics based on works than genres. Many of the buildings are influenced by multiple styles of architecture. Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Remove neutrino

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.

---

Under Subatomic particle, I can understand having separate articles for Proton, Neutron, Electron, and even Photon, but why is Neutrino any more important of a subatomic particle than Quark or Gluon or Boson which aren't listed?

Support

1. Support as nominator. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
2. Support It's noticeably less important than the other physics articles listed (and even some that aren't, e.g. radioactive decay). We can afford to lose it. Cobblet (talk) 05:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
3. Support (regretfully) I find neutrinos cool and interesting, but I have to admit they aren't very significant at the human scale of things. RJFJR (talk) 14:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
4. Support --Thi (talk) 22:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
5. Support  Carlwev  16:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
6. Support per nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 23:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

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.

Replace Insect with Invertebrate

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.

---

By using Insect rather than Invertebrate, we are leaving out a lot of animals that people often think are insects but are not, such as spiders, snails, centipedes, worms, etc.; and we are also leaving out a lot of sea life, such as shellfish, starfish, jellyfish, octopodes, etc.

Support

1. Support as nominator. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose But invertebrates are not a very meaningful taxonomic group; there is little they have in common besides not having vertebrae. Insects are the most notable class of invertebrates and I think it is preferable to keep them on the list. Cobblet (talk) 06:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
2. Oppose Cobblet pretty much said it. Also, the the insect article is much more developed than the invertebrate one, which would be hard to expand. RJFJR (talk) 14:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 22:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
4. Oppose removal  Carlwev  16:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Although, I wouldn't mind adding vertebrate and invertebrate, I'm not sure if others would, and I wouldn't add it at the expense of insect. Not an exact science but we have over 60 insects at the expanded list, we used to have over 100. Although vertebrate are more visible and visibly active to humans, it may seem odd to have the major vertebrate divisions, but only one invertebrate one, the insect. Their may be too many others on equal footing too consider, but perhaps invertebrate and/or some of it's divisions like mollusc, crustacean and more I can't think of should at least be discussed?  Carlwev  16:38, 26 February 2015 (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.

Layout improvement idea – de-'#-ize' the lists

Because the various lists have sublists (and sub-sublists), the use of numbers does not help the reader much. (For example we have Mediterranean Sea as a single numbered article ('1.') as a sub-list of Atlantic Ocean ('2.'), which is sub-listed under Sea ('1'), which is a Hydrological feature (sub-section) under the broad Geography section. Also look at Prime number.) Using bullets for each item on the lists will present better. The readers can see quite well whether any particular list has got a lot of items or just a few items or just 1 or 2 items. – S. Rich (talk) 16:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I see the same the same numbering problem, and maybe it can be made better. I can see you're trying to fix it and sometimes it's good to be bold, but I'm not sure this was the correct solution, or if such a change should go ahead without consensus, in fact this has no replies at all. I personally find numbers helpful, if not down the margin like bullet points, then in list/sublist headers, as used in several pages of vital and expanded vital articles lists. Now I have to manually count leaders and inventors to see how many there are which has more, which I can do but it takes longer when I could previously just see at a glance. But, regardless of my view, why was such a change put in place after one user asked no one replied, but it was done anyway within 6 days, not more than 15. Although not a content change as such, still a change, other alterations have at times still taken into account the 15 days, 2/3 of votes and minimum 5 support rule we use; or at least I think they have. Why is this any different?

1. In short, why changed with no replies to discussion, no other support at all, let alone minimum support, nor minimum 15 days either.
2. Why only done to the expanded list, when the same number method with same problems is also still used on levels 1 2 and 4?
3. Why no other solution to the problem considered, a different numbering method, or total number of a list in it's title/header, or something else I can't think of.  Carlwev  16:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The numbers have been added to make it easier to the count the articles. And counting the articles is relevant because we've decided to limit each vital list to 10, 100, 1000 and 10,000 respectively. It will become much more difficult and count and maintain the list without the numbers. For example, finding out the number of cities or illnesses on the list is no longer immediately obvious as it once was. Counting ever illness is a tedious chore.

Stating the Level 1 vital articles on the larger lists is also going to be hard to maintain. The vital lists are not very well integrated and a change to one of the lists is not often picked up by the followers of another vital list. There was some opposition to a similar proposal in the past. IMO somebody can always click on the link at the top directing them to Level 1. Mentioning that information again is redundant. Gizza ^(t)(c) 10:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I also would prefer putting the numbers back in. Cobblet (talk) 21:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I kind of like the new format (though I don't feel strongly about it.) RJFJR (talk) 14:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I would prefer the numbers back as well. There really wasn't a good reason for removing them, and it has made keeping track of the article count a whole lot more difficult. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Mathematics

The list of mathematics articles is shown in two columns. The numbering sequence restarts at the top of the second (right-hand) column. I think that it should continue from the previous (left-hand) column. That is, the first item at the top of the right-hand column should be number 7. --76.14.68.103 (talk) 07:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Remove Candle

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 don't think this cuts a 1000 list. Sure fire heat and light are vital, but I don't really see why candle is vital. Other sources of light are not present in the 1000 list nor even in the 10,000 list, such as flashlight, torch, lantern, gas lighting, Electric light, street lighting and more. Going off topic a bit, but if I think of completely random objects important historically or today, there are also many tools, weapons and other objects missing, are candles more vital than spear, axe, saw, shoe, brick, or art things like pen, pencil or ink? Perhaps a wider article would be better, something like lighting? or something else.

Support

1. Support  Carlwev  17:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. RJFJR (talk) 19:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
3. Support convincing nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 06:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
4. Support --Thi (talk) 11:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 00:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

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.

Wikipedia:The Core Contest

is being run again in March - see Wikipedia:The Core Contest for details. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Primary School invitation

Hi everybody. On behalf of the teams behind the Wikipedia Primary School research project, I would like to announce that the articles Bicycle, Republic of South Africa and Nelson Mandela, all vetted as vital, were selected a while ago to be reviewed by external experts. We'd now like to ask interested editors to join our efforts and improve the articles before March 15, 2015 (any timezone) as they see fit; a revision will be then sent to the designated experts for review (for details, please see each articles' talk page). Any notes and remarks written by the external experts will be made available on the articles' talk pages under a CC-BY-SA license as soon as possible, so that you can read them, discuss them and then decide if and how to use them. Please sign up here to let us know you're collaborating. Thanks a lot for your support! Elitre (WPS) (talk) 17:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Add 2 musicians to Level-3 vital

I propose we add Igor Stravinsky and Louis Armstrong to the level-3 vital list. There isn't a single 20th-century classical composer or jazz musician who is currently rated above level-4 vital, even though the Wikipedia articles about these 2 genres or categories of music are rated level-3. If any music genre is of level-3 importance, then at least one major pioneering individual of this genre should also be so classified. Stravinsky arguably was the first major composer to take 20th-century western art music fully beyond the influence of Richard Wagner (or 19-century romanticizm in general for that matter). Jazz forms a major link between modern classical music and rock music, and Louis Armstrong is widely cited as this genre's most influencial pioneer.

Support

1. As nominator.--ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 22:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
2. Support if Verdi and Tchaikovsky are removed This discussion has been seen here many times. I'd have picked Debussy myself rather than Stravinsky but nevertheless these are good choices. Cobblet (talk) 00:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
3. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 23:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
4. Support --Thi (talk) 19:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 23:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Actually, I considered Debussy as well, but I think Stravinsky's neoclassism had a somewhat stronger and longer lasting influence on 20th century music than Debussy's impressionism. I believe there has also been some debate among musicologists as to how completely Debussy escaped Wagner's influence, whereas with Stravinsky there has been no serious doubt about his break with Wagner that I know of. Still, I agree it is very close between them and I would not hesitate to nominate Debussy if the level-3 list were open ended rather than restricted to 1000 articles. ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 23:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Remove 2 musicians from level-3 vital

I additionally propose we remove Guseppi Verdi and Petior Tchaikovsky to the level-4 vital list if it is necessary to maintain the level-3 list at 1000 articles. Like Johannes Brahms, who currently occupies a place at level-4 vital, they both wrote very high quality music that was innovative to some degree, especially within their own countries, and they both gained large international popular followings among concert-goers and opera-lovers that continues to this day. However, also like Brahms, Verdi and Tchaikovsky did little to advance western art music as a whole beyond what was achieved by Richard Wagner.

Support

1. As nominator.--ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 22:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
2. Support Less fundamentally influential on the direction of Western music than Stravinsky and Armstrong (even though I have a soft spot for Tchaik). Cobblet (talk) 00:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 23:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

• Note: The current Level 3 article count is only 994, so removing these articles just for the sake of keeping the article count at 1,000 is unnecessary at this time. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I wasn't sure whether the article count was at 1000 or not; I'm still learning how to navigate around Wikipedia's many internal information sources. I believe it has been at 1000 on occasions in the past. In any case, the current count makes the second of my 2 nominations rather less important for now than the first, but I agree with those who have asserted the current Level-3 list is overloaded with 19th-century romantics (because of their popularity?). I'm beginning to think the pioneering baroque composer Monteverdi and the equally pioneering classical-era/period composer Haydn are also deserving of places on on the Level-3 vital list. The addition of these composers and the removal of the 2 already identified would create a well balanced list consisting of Hildegard of Bingen (medieval pioneer and perhaps master -latter debatable), Monteverdi (baroque pioneer), J.S.Bach (baroque master), Haydn (classical pioneer and master), Mozart (classical master), Beethoven (classical master and romantic pioneer), Wagner (romantic master), Stravinsky (modern classical pioneer and master), Louis Armstrong (jazz pioneer and master), Elvis Presley (rock and roll pioneer and master), and the Beatles (60's rock pioneers and masters). By "master", I refer to any musician who reaches the pinnicle of achievement and influence in a particular genre, era/period, or style, and who's music usually represents the culmination of that genre or period. If there's still some room for another addition after that, Debussy could be a good choice as a pioneer and master of musical impressionisn that paved the way for many modern classical composers and arguably some jazz musicians. For now, I'll see how the current nominations play out before making any further move to nominate the earlier composers or Debussy. ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 11:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I for one would like to see more attention focused on removing things from the list. Past discussion has shown that it's easy to think of things to add but difficult to think of things to remove. There are glaring omissions everywhere you look. Taj Mahal and Machu Picchu are vital while the Mughals and the Incas are not? No French writers, no Enlightenment writers? (Voltaire says hi.) No cats or sheep? We have room for Washington and Franklin but no room for Lenin or Sun Yat-Sen? Twelve musicians are vital (Shankar plus the suggestion above) but not a single architect or athlete is? Etc. Cobblet (talk) 22:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

One point made I disagreed with; "Every genre of music we list we must have at least one person from the genre also." Music is vital 100 material along with architecture, visual arts, literature, construction, engineering, history, etc Some of those vital 100 topics have been expanded very little or not at all here. We list many things in the 1000 list that have no person or genre/style/type listed also. We have video games but no people/title/genre of. Sport with football, athletics, and Olympics but no athletes/sportspeople, architecture but not style or people. Literature and many writers, but no genres. History, but no historian. Dance but no style or dancer. Why does every genre of music also need a person from it too. We don't list a person from every Religion we list nor every country, city, industry, artform, other entertainment or discipline we list, why is music more special? To list too many examples, there are probably more. I think we have too many people, especially musicians I think we could do with less, I wouldn't wanna add Armstrong I think Jazz maybe important but Jazz itself is probably enough. Also I think we could lose Ravi Shankar.  Carlwev  10:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Recent changes link

See MediaWiki talk:Recentchangestext#Vital articles edit request, a related changes link to this page has been added to our recent changes option. I always found it useful while patrolling for vandalism. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)