Wikipedia talk:Vital articles

General Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

Level 5 Subpages

People History and geography Society STEM

Introduction

FA FA GA GA A – Total December 1, 2007 83 45 90 139 25 690 1022 June 1, 2008 88 46 79 140 25 670 999 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 December 23, 2016 94 2 107 425 355 17 1000 December 10, 2017 91 3 115 392 376 17 994 January 22, 2019 92 4 122 389 380 12 999 December 20, 2019 88 2 121 390 383 17 1001 November 25, 2020 83 1 127 373 402 15 1001 March 19, 2022 74 2 127 387 406 5 1000

The purpose of this discussion page is to select 1000 topics for which Wikipedia should have high-quality articles. All Wikipedia editors are welcome to participate. Individual topics are proposed for addition or removal, followed by discussion and !voting. Since the list is currently full, it is recommended that a nomination of a new topic be accompanied by a proposal to remove a lower-priority topic already on the list.

All proposals must remain open for !voting for a minimum of 15 days, after which:

1. After 15 days it may be closed as PASSED if there are (a) 5 or more supports, AND (b) at least two-thirds are in support.
2. After 30 days it may be closed as FAILED if there are (a) 3 or more opposes, AND (b) it failed to earn two-thirds support.
3. After 30 days it may be closed as NO CONSENSUS if the proposal hasn't received any !votes for +30 days, regardless of tally.
4. After 60 days it may be closed as NO CONSENSUS if the proposal has (a) less than 5 supports, AND (b) less than two-thirds support.

Nominations should be left open beyond the minimum if they have a reasonable chance of passing. An informed discussion with more editor participation produces an improved and more stable final list, so be patient with the process.

• 15 days ago: 10:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC) ()
• 30 days ago: 10:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
• 60 days ago: 10:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Improving science to GA

I'm currently trying to improve the level 1 vital article to GA and it's been an interesting start so far. What do you think about the article so far? What parts of it need a lot of improvement? I'd love to hear your comments! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Maybe a section on what is considered science? C933103 (talk) 04:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I think we have that, at Science#Branches. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:20, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I actually think there is a chance here. There are just over 10 tags in the article which need fixing up, and also the item needs the lede cleaning up. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:32, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Lee Vilenski, It's not that simple, but I like the enthusiasm! The main problem is presenting info in due proportions, which require multiple people looking at the article. So, here's my broad checklist:

1. Verify text with sources
2. Add more information
3. Fixing layout
4. Prose and stuff

So yeah, back to work after a GA withdrawal... CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:38, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I have promoted the odd GA or two in my time. The lede is by far the worst part of this article. The things that are marked as requiring sources (as well as some other bits that aren't tagged) is the first step. The general level of sourcing is very good, there would need to be a dedicated effort to check what is being cited is actually in the source. I don't think the layout is particularly bad, and I don't think we need to add additional info, unless there is something specific that is missing. There's certainly some poor prose in this article, but perhaps that could be resolved at GOCE. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:52, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I think that would require a complete rewrite of the lead. Let me make a prose proposal and post it on science's talk page. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:40, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

For your information, the article is now at good article nominations page. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:45, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Women’s suffrage, Add Suffrage

Suffrage is a much broader topic than women’s suffrage. Interstellarity (talk) 18:15, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 18:15, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
2. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 04:57, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
3. Support I've thought about this one a while and I'm going to support. Women's suffrage beats out suffrage in terms of pageviews handily, and historically the women's suffrage movement has been the most prominent suffrage movement in most countries. All the same, I think it's best to list the general, overarching article rather than a specific example. Women's suffrage is contained in the broader context of the right to vote, which is an essential liberty in all free societies. Zelkia1101 (talk) 15:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

   But then suffrage is also a close subset of democracy. Of course there are other key aspects to democracy than the simplest right to vote, but that is why we have democracy at VA3 explaining them. Do we need another article at VA3 describing specifically the right to vote part of democracy? C933103 (talk) 18:27, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

   suffrage is a subset of liberty more so than democracy, but the point is that with a list this large we are going to have a significant degree of overlap in places, people and things. Why do we list Louis Armstrong and Jazz? They clearly overlap. Well, we list them because we think that each is important in its own right. My point about suffrage and women's suffrage is that women's suffrage is a specific species of suffrage that we have decided is more important than the general concept itself. It would be like if we listed representative democracy and not democracy. Zelkia1101 (talk) 14:28, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

4. I Support this LightProof1995 (talk) 05:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

So I guess this PASSED. How do we add it?

EDIT: I made the swap here, and listed Suffrage as vital-3 on its talk page, and listed Women's Suffrage as vital-4 on its talk page. This needs one more vote to pass.

EDIT: Hey @Cobblet, I see you undid my edits to swap Woman's Suffrage and Suffrage. I was going to go to the vital-4 list to swap them as well when I saw you undid my edits in vital-3. Is this because you want to ignore Interstellarity's rule change, so it needs one more vote? LightProof1995 (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I am not aware of any consensus for any rule change. Interstellarity does not make the rules. Cobblet (talk) 20:51, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

That makes sense, I just want to add I only saw the conversation about Interstellity’s edit/rule change after I made the Suffrage edits, because I actually was going by the Introduction section’s statement about if 15 days pass and there is 67% consensus, then it passes LightProof1995 (talk) 21:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Interstellarity changed the rules without even attempting to gain any sort of WP:CONSENSUS for the change. That is unacceptable behaviour, and I have reverted their changes. Cobblet (talk) 21:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

William Utermohlen

I don't understand this addition; I find no discussion in archives, and it is hard to imagine how this obscure artist is "vital". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Unwatching now; should anyone decide to explain how an editor who writes an article on a mostly unknown person can add the article themselves to VITAL, they will need to ping me. I don't understand what makes this article vital, or why there is no process governing who adds what. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

No minimum number of votes required?

User:Interstellarity has recently altered the consensus rules on the Vital Articles Project at all levels so that instead of needing a minimum of 5 supports, a proposal can pass with only one support (i.e. only the nomination) and then applied this change of rule to every existing proposal retrospectively. With all due respect, I found this to be a ridiculous change when 1. It wasn't discussed at all 2. Many proposals would've been opposed in greater numbers had people known about this change (I could not be bothered opposing many proposals which only had the nominator supporting because it didn't look like they were going to be successful and I imagine many others were in the same boat) and 3. A nomination with no further comments or agreement doesn't signify "consensus" in any shape or form.

It's one thing to change things slightly in order to make the project active (although even then it's good to discuss and ping all major long-term editors of the page) and another to go to such extreme lengths. You might as well make it a free-for-all and take away the requirement to discuss any changes if one support is enough for a proposal to pass. Gizza (talk • voy) 02:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

This is unacceptable behaviour. Cobblet (talk) 03:03, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello and I am sorry that I did not discuss this before implementing the change. I do have a few ideas on how we can make the rules better. My first idea is for the first rule, to change the minimum number of support votes needed to pass to 3 and as well as for the second rule, change the number of opposes to 2. My second idea I have would be to allow anyone to edit the vital articles pages as they please, but if an addition or removal is reverted within 48 hours, then they must take it to the talk page to get a consensus. Please let me know your thoughts regarding these ideas. Interstellarity (talk) 11:06, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

This project goes through cycles of activity and inactivity. It's a feature, not a bug. The rules are fine as they are. Cobblet (talk) 16:38, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Please do not ignore ongoing discussions like Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/4#Change_the_!voting_rule C933103 (talk) 04:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Compare to Encyclopædia Britannica

Hello, I have made a page on Wikipedia:WikiProject Vital Articles/Compare to Encyclopædia Britannica to compare articles from both encyclopedia together. Spoiler: Britannica is much closer to our Vital article quality than you might think. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

This leave me with a question: how could we make this project more active? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Remove Mansa Musa

Another superfluous addition (my fault, sorry) that we could do without. Mansa Musa is not renowned for anything besides his enormous wealth, and he has no great achievements to his name that put him beside Qin Shi Huang or George Washington. We have four African leaders as it stands, only two of which are actually vital at this level, and along with math history is probably our most bloated section, so someone needs to go if we are to get to 100.

Support

1. as nom Zelkia1101 (talk) 17:43, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
2. Support The like of Hanseatic League seems more vital than that in term of businesss and wealth than such (king?). In term of African history, the like of Umayyad Caliphate seems more vital than this. C933103 (talk) 12:20, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I see no pressing need to cut bios further when we are already under the quota as it stands. I don't see anything wrong at all with listing two Ancient Egyptian monarchs and two sub-Saharan African leaders. Cobblet (talk) 00:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I vote Oppose and I agree with Cobblet. Mansa fulfills both a niche for both sub-Saharan African leaders and Islamic leaders pretty well. I thought about proposing we switch Saladin for Mansa Musa, but we have Islamic Golden Age and Crusades already, which both cover Saladin, but not the vast wealth of Mansa Musa nor the great scholarship he inspired by founding the University of Sankoré in Timbuktu. Maybe we can replace Ramesses II with Saladin because then Saladin would fulfill a Middle East/Arab/Islam niche, and we already have Hatshepsut, who is cooler than Ramesses, to fulfill the Ancient Egyptian ruler niche. Not only was Hatshepsut one of the four female leaders on the list of 26, but also her tomb, the Mortuary temple of Hatshepsut is one of the most-studied structures in Egyptian archeology. Ramesses was known mostly for his war campaigns and territorial conquests, but he mostly just reconquered lands lost previously, and looking at maps, Egypt's borders under Hatshepsut in the Eighteenth dynasty were roughly the same as in the Nineteenth dynasty under Ramesses. LightProof1995 (talk) 05:01, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

The question is why? What does cutting the article out of the Vital list helps with improving Vital articles as a whole? Nothing. It doesn't hurt to keep the article in here for now. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

The point of paring down the biographies to a nice round number like 100 is to clear room for non-biography articles that are more worthy of addition than many of the biographies on this list. Zelkia1101 (talk) 14:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

So? Why don't suggest these articles here instead? Better yet, why not improving them? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:50, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree. A swap would be more productive: ”Swap Mansa Musa for Alchemy” etc. I don’t see the point of removing several biographies only to leave a gap that needs filling. The list is already 3 below quota – which articles should those 3 be? Telepanda (talk) 10:49, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

It is sometimes difficult to find perfectly suitable articles to swap. Removals and additions can be less confusing. --Thi (talk) 14:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I see your point. :) 1 removal/addition/swap a time should be fine. Just don’t see the point of ”mass-cutting” biographies just for the sake of it. I mean, if somebody gets a brilliant idea for a non-biography addition, then surely room can be found for it? (A gradual ”modification” of the list seems to me much more reasonable than chasing some random ideal of, say, 100 biographies – which could quickly lead to a list far below quota. But yes, I’m not very active here, so just my casual observation as somebody whose OCD is triggered when the total number is not 1000! ;) ) Telepanda (talk) 23:40, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Generally it serves to clean your house up first before you move in all the new furniture. If you have any suggestions, feel free to make a nomination. Nothing immediately come to mind as a swap, which is why I proposed a cold removal. Zelkia1101 (talk) 14:24, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

That's not my point. My point is that the Vital article list is utterly useless if we don't improve articles in the list. Swapping/adding/removing articles from the lists don't help with improving our coverage of broad-topic articles in general. We should think more ways to improve Vital articles, not perfecting the Vital article lists. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

See also: Wikiproject Vital Articles. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:35, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Barnstars

There's new barnstars at the WikiProject Vital Articles for those bold enough to improve a Vital article towards GA and FA. Here it is:

		The Good Article Barnstar
		Make 1, get 1 for free!

		The Featured Article Barnstar
		The course of FA never did run smooth...

CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:55, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

What article should we collectively push towards GA first? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Reassessment of Vital articles

I'm currently going through the vital article list to update the assessment. If you see the article goes from B-Class to C-Class, it is most likely for the following reasons, of decreasing importance:

1. The article is lacking reliable citations. Usually this means that the article have a lot of uncited material (>10%) and/or relying too much on primary sources.
2. The article is lacking important content. Usually the tell-tale sign is very short sections (lots of 1-2 paragraph sections) or again, a lot of uncited material.
3. The article is too long, exceeding 90 thousand characters of readable prose. This criterion doesn't usually meant automatic demotion, but rather as a consideration for ambiguous cases.

If you have any concerns or questions, feel free to message me here or at my talk page. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:40, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

@CactiStaccingCrane: Can you also go through the FAs and notice them (per the instructions on WP:FAR) if they do not meet the featured article criteria? This will help with efforts to review these articles at WP:URFA/2020. Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 13:36, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Z1720, yes, I will probably go through the FAs at some point. But that will be a different process, let me just draft it out in my sandbox... CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:38, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Z1720 Done, and to sum up the situation: "Hell is the truth seen too late". CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:39, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Article	URFA comment	Last action date
Amphibian	No comment	2012-12-16
Ancient Egypt	No comment	2008-03-30
Antarctica	Passed, keep at FAR	2022-06-25
Archaea	No comment	2008-07-02
Archimedes	No comment	2007-10-23
Atheism	Notes given...	2007-04-28
Augustus	No comment	2007-08-31
Australia	No comment	2010-06-29
Bacteria	Remark: 2 satisfactory	2006-12-03
The Beatles	No comment	2009-11-03
Bird	Notes given...	2007-12-20
Byzantine Empire	Notes given...	2012-06-27
Canada	No comment	2010-04-20
Charlie Chaplin	No comment	2014-01-14
Climate change	Passed, keep at FAR	2021-01-21
Charles Darwin	Notes given...	2006-12-19
Dinosaur	Remark: 1 satisfactory	2005-12-17
Walt Disney	Not applicable	2016-05-21
DNA	No comment	2007-04-25
Earth	Not applicable	2020-11-14
Electron	No comment	2009-08-30
Elizabeth I	No comment	2007-12-10
Evolution	Notes given...	2007-06-10
Leonhard Euler	Passed, keep at FAR	2021-09-04
Fungus	No comment	2009-08-22
Galaxy	Notes given...	2007-02-10
Genetics	Notes given...	2008-03-25
Germany	Remark: 1 satisfactory	2011-06-13
Han dynasty	Notes given...	2009-04-21
Hydrogen	No comment	2008-04-20
Immune system	Checked, 3 satisfactory	2007-01-09
India	Notes given...	2011-07-28
Influenza	Notes given...	2006-11-02
Michael Jackson	Notes given...	2008-07-28
Japan	Notes given...	2011-04-14
Jesus	No comment	2013-08-15
Joan of Arc	Reviewing...	2006-08-31
Logarithm	No comment	2011-06-01
Nelson Mandela	Not applicable	2017-02-10
Mars	Passed, keep at FAR	2022-06-25
Maya civilization	Checked, 3 satisfactory	2015-07-24
Mercury (planet)	No comment	2008-06-06
Metabolism	Notes given...	2007-03-30
Middle Ages	Deferred	2013-05-26
Moon	No comment	2010-05-18
Murasaki Shikibu	No comment	2011-09-16
Neptune	No comment	2008-03-14
Emmy Noether	No comment	2008-06-22
Olympic Games	Notes given...	2009-05-12
Oxygen	No comment	2008-02-06
Periodic table	No comment	2012-11-07
Pi	No comment	2012-06-04
Planet	Reviewing...	2008-02-08
Primate	No comment	2008-12-03
Rodent	Remark: 1 satisfactory	2014-10-22
Saturn	Notes given...	2007-08-02
Sea	Notes given...	2013-10-05
Solar System	Passed, keep at FAR	2022-07-09
Sun	No comment	2009-07-30
William Shakespeare	No comment	2007-08-14
Sheep	No comment	2008-02-13
Shen Kuo	No comment	2007-06-01
Speed of light	Passed, keep at FAR	2022-03-19
Star	Notes given...	2006-10-13
Supernova	Reviewing...	2007-02-10
Tang dynasty	No comment	2007-08-03
Uranus	No comment	2007-09-29
Venus	Not applicable	2016-06-26
Virus	Remark: 1 satisfactory	2008-09-23
Wind	Reviewing...	2009-06-27
Mary Wollstonecraft	Notes given...	2007-01-20

FAR for Wind

I have nominated Wind 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) 13:35, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

New Topics and Replacement Ideas

Hello, Since this is currently at 997, I propose we add these articles as Vital-3: Protist, Elephant, and Whale.

Both species of African elephant were listed as endangered in 2021 because of habitat loss and the ivory trade. Elephants have also been important in warfare historically. Currently Elephant is a featured article.

The blue whale is the largest animal known to have ever existed. Many species of whale are also endangered because of their importance humans (whaling).

Protist seems so vital I'm surprised it isn't listed yet.

Replacement Ideas:

Under weapons, I vote we replace Knife with the article Blade, which is more general, referring not only to knives but also swords, axes, spears, etc. I feel the Blade article needs more work.

If we are going to have a business-person, I vote John D. Rockefeller takes the place of Henry Ford. Not only is Rockefeller the richest person of modern history, he only became so wealthy because the government broke up his business into 34 companies over anti-trust concerns after he had already retired, and for some reason this made him even wealthier than he already was. He then became one of the greatest philanthropists of all time. Ford, on the other hand, was antisemitic, and not as successful as Rockefeller.

Furthermore, I vote Reincarnation takes the place of Greek mythology. I feel Egyptian mythology, Celtic mythology, and more are just as cool, and the Myth page doesn't even mention them, so other cultures' mythologies besides the Greeks deserve more love. Reincarnation, on the other hand, is an idea seen across many cultures and religions, notably being a tenet of all four major Indian religions (all are vital-3 articles: Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism, and Jainism), but also seen in faiths such as the Druze, Jewish Kabbalah, and Wicca. LightProof1995 (talk) 06:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

First of all, it is a bad idea to try to fill empty slots for the sake of filling it. Those animals being declared endangered is just part of the much larger topic of Holocene extinction which see many more species going down the same path. Second, it would be better to have each unrelated proposals separated into different sections, so that arguments and counterarguments can be laid out in a more easy to read manner. Third, Ford's prominence was more than merely his wealth, as discussed in some other recent proposal for swapping him out, including one removal proposal I raised just not too long ago. And vitalness of an article should not be impacted by how good or bad the subject is. C933103 (talk) 08:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I mention the fact elephants and whales became endangered because their animal products were so important historically to humans that we almost wiped them out. The fact that they were so important historically is why I feel they are both vital-3. LightProof1995 (talk) 09:21, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I want to add, it was a coincidence all of the topics I want to add are organisms. I truly went up and down the list and decided these three were most important, and should be added. LightProof1995 (talk) 08:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I would suggest to halt adding or replacing Vital articles for now. It's a waste of time if we don't make use of the list to improve articles. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:11, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I would feel more inclined to edit Wikipedia if there were an even 1000 vital articles. I was happily editing away, but then noticed this, and I'm way too organizationally quirky to not try to fix it. It's the entire point of having this list, is to choose the most vital 1000. I spent a long time going through everything trying to decide what to add and I genuinely believe we should add Protists, Elephants, and Whales.

Protists are insanely important and there are sooooooo many. As soon as I noticed they weren't listed I was like "well that's the most important to add". Haha.

It's not just the importance of elephants and whales historically to humans, it is also the fact they are such majestic and fascinating creatures. Just think about what elephants look like. They have distinctive ears, trunks, and tusks. The hippocampus of the elephant is larger relative to its size compared to humans which is why elephants are known to be such emotionally intelligent animals and is why you've heard the phrase "An elephant never forgets".

Now think about whales. Imagine you were an extraterrestrial looking at this list of vital articles. You might say "Ah, yes, humans arose from abiogenesis and evolution, first they were single-cell organisms, then fish, then they moved on land and evolved into primates, then humans, and that was the peak of evolution. So surely no animal went back into the ocean after having evolved on land right? Because that would make like no sense??? And they would see dinosaur and say "Ah yes, these were the largest animals to have ever existed on Earth for sure. Because how could these humans not include the largest one on this list?"

We need all three of these added. LightProof1995 (talk) 18:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Add Protists

We should add Protists. I'm surprised they haven't been added yet. LightProof1995 (talk) 08:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Oppose We have discussed this before, "protists" are not really a proper group and is basically just a catch-all for any eukaryote that isn't an animal, plant, or fungus. Maykii (talk) 05:30, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Elephants

We should add Elephants. It is currently a Featured Article which points to their importance. Elephants are the largest living land creatures and have been vital to humanity for millennia. First domesticated by the Indus Valley civilization, they were historically important in warfare, such as when Hannibal crossed the Alps on elephants. Both species of African elephant were listed as endangered in 2021 due to the illegal ivory trade and habitat loss.

It's not just the importance of elephants and whales historically to humans, it is also the fact they are such majestic and fascinating creatures. Just think about what elephants look like. They have distinctive ears, trunks, and tusks. The hippocampus of the elephant is larger relative to its size compared to humans which is why elephants are known to be such emotionally intelligent animals and is why you've heard the phrase "An elephant never forgets". LightProof1995 (talk) 08:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Oppose The only specific animals we list are domesticated ones that are especially important to humans, elephants are not on the same level. Maykii (talk) 05:31, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Whales

We should add Whales. Like elephants, whales have also almost been driven to extinction due to their importance to humans. The whaling industry was important from the 1600s to the 1900s for products such as oil for lamps and ambergris. The blue whale is the largest animal known to have ever existed. Whale watching is a popular form of tourism worldwide.

Imagine you were an extraterrestrial looking at this list of vital articles. You might say "Ah, yes, humans arose from abiogenesis and evolution, first they were single-cell organisms, then fish, then they moved on land and evolved into primates, then humans, and that was the peak of evolution. So surely no animal went back into the ocean after having evolved on land right? Because that would make like no sense??? And they would see dinosaur and say "Ah yes, these were the largest animals to have ever existed on Earth for sure. Because how could these humans not include the largest one on this list?" LightProof1995 (talk) 09:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Oppose Same reason as elephants. Maykii (talk) 05:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Replace Knife with Blade

Under weapons, I vote we replace Knife with the article Blade, which is more general, referring not only to knives but also swords, axes, spears, etc. I feel the Blade article needs more work. LightProof1995 (talk) 09:03, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Oppose Knives are an important part of human history and culture and should be kept. Maykii (talk) 05:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Replace Ford with Rockefeller

If we are going to have a business-person, I vote John D. Rockefeller takes the place of Henry Ford. Not only is Rockefeller the richest person of modern history, he only became so wealthy because the government broke up his business into 34 companies over anti-trust concerns after he had already retired, and for some reason this made him even wealthier than he already was. He then became one of the greatest philanthropists of all time. Ford, on the other hand, was antisemitic, and not as successful as Rockefeller. LightProof1995 (talk) 09:03, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Oppose: "Richest person in modern history" and "Being made this rich due to government antitrust action" are interesting trivia, but I do not believe they constitute vitalness of most important 1000 articles on the Wikipedia. As for removing Ford, there are some aspects to consider, but "antisemitic" obviously isn't one given we have some dictators and genociders like Adolf Hitler on the list, and "not as successful as Rockfeller" is not just a subjective judgement of what is successful but also fail to address other reason that Ford is notable (Like the way he run factories and how he lead the world into the era of motorization). C933103 (talk) 15:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

It is true that antisemitism or being bad in general is not enough to say he shouldn't be included. However, his antisemiticism was not notable enough for it to get him in the vital articles list, like Hitler. I do feel if their bad qualities aren't their notable qualities, their bad qualities should be considered as a reason to kick them off the list, so long as there is a better replacement (i.e. just as historically impressive, but no bad qualities), just because I like to think those people that didn't have bad qualities deserve to be more recognized and known.

I thought I was being objective when I said "not as successful as Rockefeller" because whenever I search him I find phrases like "Rockefeller was the richest individual in American business and economic history." https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=47167#:~:text=Rockefeller%20(1839%2D1937)%2C,American%20business%20and%20economic%20history.

However according to this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wealthiest_historical_figures Ford is at the top, although it should be noted Rockefeller is mentioned in this paragraph at the top of the same page: "While the Rothschild family rose to the status of the wealthiest family of bankers in the 19th century, their wealth was distributed among a number of family members, preventing them from appearing among the wealthiest of individuals. The richest among the Rothschilds was the head of its English branch—Nathan Mayer Rothschild —the richest person of his time. Bernstein and Swan in All the Money in the World (2008) mention the top four richest Americans ever—all tycoons of the Gilded Age—respectively: John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, Cornelius Vanderbilt, and William Henry Vanderbilt. Henry Ford was ranked only the 12th."

I wonder if Rockefeller is not at the top of the list but is still often cited as the "Richest" American ever because he gave away a large portion of his wealth. It seems Andrew Carnegie gave away even more of his wealth away as a percentage than Rockefeller, but both of them were still way more philanthropic than Ford.

It is true Ford invented the assembly line and cars are very important to humans. But how could you have cars without oil (Rockefeller) or steel (Carnegie)? Oil is used for waaaay more things than just cars. It is used in asphalt, pharmaceuticals, synthetic dyes, and most important of all: plastics. The 34 companies that came from Rockefeller's Standard Oil company have since remerged into corporations like Exxon-Mobil and Chevron, and they have monopolized the entire oil-to-plastic supply chain at the detriment to the environment. The importance of the oil industry on the industrialization of society cannot be understated. So I still vote Support but I appreciate your response.

Also, I looked into that list more -- Rockefeller *is* only at #4 on that list because he gave his wealth away -- The numbers on it were extrapolated from his net wealth when he had died. Not his total wealth. Check out this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_richest_Americans_in_history Rockefeller is consistently ranked #1. So I am not being subjective when I say "Rockefeller was more successful", if you equate success with wealth, which I was in the sentence. LightProof1995 (talk) 19:03, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Replace Greek Mythology with Reincarnation

I vote Reincarnation takes the place of Greek mythology. I feel Egyptian mythology, Celtic mythology, and more are just as cool, and the Myth page doesn't even mention them, so other cultures' mythologies besides the Greeks deserve more love. Reincarnation, on the other hand, is an idea seen across many cultures and religions, notably being a tenet of all four major Indian religions (all are vital-3 articles: Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism, and Jainism), but also seen in faiths such as the Druze, Jewish Kabbalah, and Wicca. LightProof1995 (talk) 09:06, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Oppose: Remember this list is the most vital 1000. "Other deserve more love" is not exactly a good reason. C933103 (talk) 15:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree other mythologies not being here is not reason enough to delete Greek mythology, but I do think Reincarnation is more important a topic than any specific culture's mythology, as reincarnation is seen across many cultures. It is more broad. So I'm leaving my vote as Support. LightProof1995 (talk) 19:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Replace Ramesses II with Saladin

I think we should replace Ramesses II with Saladin because then Saladin would fulfill a Middle East/Arab/Islam niche, and we already have Hatshepsut, who is cooler than Ramesses, to fulfill the Ancient Egyptian ruler niche. Not only was Hatshepsut one of the four female leaders on the list of 26, but also her tomb, the Mortuary temple of Hatshepsut is one of the most-studied structures in Egyptian archeology. Ramesses was known mostly for his war campaigns and territorial conquests, but he mostly just reconquered lands lost previously, and looking at maps, Egypt's borders under Hatshepsut in the Eighteenth dynasty were roughly the same as in the Nineteenth dynasty under Ramesses.

As for Saladin, his empire was larger than any Ancient Egyptian empire, as he was the sultan of not only Egypt, but he also conquered Syria, Palestine, and large portions of Arabia. Saladin was one of the few Muslim crusaders who was actually respected by his Christian enemies. I think for Ancient Egyptian topics, as long as we have Ancient Egypt, the Pyramid of Giza, and Hatshepsut we cover it pretty well, especially since we can't add Egyptian mythology which I also feel would be better than having Ramesses. LightProof1995 (talk) 09:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Replace Piano with Wetlands

This replacement, unlike my other suggestions, is not a swap between related subjects.

I feel pianos, while cool, are not more vital than a number of other musical instruments such as the drum, the guitar, the flute, the trumpet, the harp, etc.

Wetlands are an extremely critical part of Earth's ecosystem. The term wetland includes swamps, marshes, bogs, fens, and mangrove forests. The fact that water constantly inundates the soils of wetlands gives rise to anaerobic conditions that provide unique and important functions for the environment, such as giving rise to a wide range of plant and animal diversity, and protecting the soil integrity of the area. They are found worldwide, from the taiga in Siberia, to Florida. LightProof1995 (talk) 09:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Addition of wetland would be a good idea that I would Support, however I would oppose the removal of piano, given it is indeed more vital than some other equipment, can even be said as representing all the different instruments. C933103 (talk) 15:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

All Vital GAs by 2032

Right, so I think everyone knows this by now, but if you don't, the WikiProject Vital Articles is now revamped with a goal of, well, 1000 Vital GA/FA by 2032. The reason for that specific goal is to stimulate the editors and to have a real sense of hurry (so no WP:Majestic Titan that lingers on Phase I for 14 years). I have outlined a vague direction about how this could be done, but I think that ultimately the plan should come from the group's consensus. What do you think is the best way to start on achieving the goal? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vital Articles#First GA drive discussion. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)