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: 19:47, 8 June 2024 (UTC) ()
• 30 days ago: 19:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
• 60 days ago: 19:47, 24 April 2024 (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)
2. Oppose We are already lacking in African figures and Mansa Musa is one of the most important. -- Maykii (talk) 05:46, 3 August 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)

This is something of a late reply (I'm new here), but may I suggest Askia Muhammad I as an alternative to Mansa Musa? The current article on him is rather inadequate, but his reign is known in some detail, and he made the Songhai Empire into one of the most powerful states in African history. The other medieval West African rulers I would consider of comparable importance to Mansa Musa and Askia Muhammad are Sonni Ali and the semi-mythical Sunjata. Ornithopsis (talk) 15:51, 19 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)

First, we should get the list to 1000. LightProof1995 (talk) 15:41, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia:NODEADLINE. 2. Is this even possible to think all the ten article on level 1 to GA within 1 year time? That would mean 1 GA per month. And with the scope each of those articles are covering it would be quite difficult. 3. Getting GA for the sake of getting article to GA isn't benefitial. C933103 (talk) 20:17, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

User:C933103, may you elaborate on these points? I do somewhat agree the arguments, at the very least to a certain extent. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 19:24, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Not C933103, but I do agree somewhat on the first point. A year's time for all 10 is absurdly tight. These articles should be thought of as journal articles, which even with collaboration can take upwards of a year or more. And, of course, this deadline could hinder the quality of the articles' outcome which relays a bit back to the third point. I respect the enthusiasm but the turtle approach rather than hare is my advice. DMT Biscuit (talk) 22:05, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I do agree with NODEADLINE in that don't just rush for the sake of meeting the deadlines. However, in my opinion some form of a deadline is still necessary. Take a look at a similarly ambitious project: WP:Majestic Titan, which aims to have a ton of articles improved to GA. The only thing lacking is a deadline, and this caused the project to slack and unable to move forward from Phase I for 14 years. Personally, I don't think that 10 years is an absurd goal if you taking account of exponential growth, but even if we just push 5% of Vital articles to GA during that timeframe, that's still a big win for me. As for rubberstamping GA, I think this is a real issue that must be sorted out. Perhaps we have two uninvolved editors instead of one to give comments to a Vital GAN? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 23:29, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Thinking about this a little bit, perhaps it would be better for us to improve our current GAs and FAs to be up to standard, as this requires much less effort compared to improving a Start-class article. See also: Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles#Reassessment_of_Vital_articles. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:43, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with CactiStaccingCrane (talk · contribs). I thought of something similar too. Once we hit 1000, and we are discussing swaps instead of additions, we should consider the rating of the articles were are considering swapping. For example, if a C article is on the list and a Featured article is being recommended, it could make more sense to do the swap, as then it would be less work for us. However, we need to make sure that when this is the case, we are not swapping because we don't want to improve articles -- rather, we are swapping because both articles being considered are well-written for their topics, and the topic we are considering putting on the list is just easier/more interesting to write about than the article being taken off the list. LightProof1995 (talk) 14:31, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

This sounds like a great goal. I have done a few GA reviews for vital articles, and while I won't have time to do any for the rest of the year due to non-Wikipedia obligations, the ones I did in the past seemed so much more meaningful and impactful than just random music albums or condiments (seriously). Hopefully, we can motivate and encourage other experienced GA reviewers to support this. Jclemens (talk) 18:04, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Changing the voting rule for level 4

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/4#Change_the_!voting_rule regarding changing the voting rule on the level 4 talk page. Interstellarity (talk) 17:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposal to prohibit mass nominations

Mass nominations by a single user at once, such as by LightProof1995 above, are not helpful or productive, and merely flood up the page with one person's opinion. This often happens when a new user finds the lists and proposes multiple nominations at once to 'fix the list'—when in reality they are merely oblivious of past consensus and most of their suggestions are ignored anyways.

I propose that no user should be allowed to have such mass nominations—this would be broadly constructed, as I think limiting to a specific amount would be unnecessary and too arbitrary. Aza24 (talk) 02:40, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Support rule change with stated "no more than 3 recommendations at once" lol

Please go through all my suggestions anyway I tried really hard LightProof1995 (talk) 06:28, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Suggedtion: If "FA review", user can report one time per one week ([1] - No more than one nomination per week by the same nominator.) then I think it is fine for VA to one(the same) user could do just three nominations per week (for example one swap, one removal and one addition) but it would be reffered only to level 1, level 2 and level 3, not level 4 and the level 5. By all that mean, user could do about 12-15 nominations per month, what probably is reasonable given fact how slow process we have and how long we were waiting after "mass nominations" by the same user (inluding mine one time, I admit/remember). Dawid2009 (talk) 11:07, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Dawid2009 I think that's a good idea too. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

As big as possible doesn't equal to good article

I noticed someone added a banner to an activity encouraging editors adding as many bytes as possible to vital articles, with goal of 30KB and award at 50KB. But it should be noted that, article above 50KB is considered WP:TOOBIG and is deemed may need to be divided just because of its length. Note that 50KB is roughly 10000 words and take more than hallf an hour for most people to finish reading. Most people probably wouldn't spend this much time into reading a wikipedia article. Hence if an article is expanded beyond this length, then split should be considered for readability purpose. C933103 (talk) 14:57, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

C933103 We are using the wikitext size, which is that "(xyz bytes)" that you often see in edit history. The bytes you are referring to is "Readable prose size", which is the amount of displayed text, which you find out by using Xtool. We are quite clear about this: Our definition of the article size is the number that you see in the edit history, not the readable prose size found in XTool. In practice most articles are still way too short when expanded to 30 kB, see Arabic numerals and Skeleton for reference. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:17, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Abolish voting for consensus

I think that this is a long overdue, per Wikipedia is not a democracy. With our current voting procedure, an empty vote would have similar leverage to a well-formed argument, as well as being time-consuming, divisive, and potentially set precedent for bad practices. We should form consensus just as most processes on Wikipedia does – a good old discussion. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:29, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

The current rule already specified that it is not votes that are counted. Thus in theory empty votes that do not provide any arguments or discussions should be ignored I guess. I guess it can be written more explicitly in the rule? C933103 (talk) 17:41, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree. At the very least you should write "per nom" to clarify your oppose/support rationale. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 23:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Support for level 5 only. Oppose the rest Dawid2009 (talk) 17:55, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Changes to Level 5 do not usually require discussion unless list is full C933103 (talk) 18:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose This seems as though it would engender entropy and more hairsplitting - the relative permeance allows for the real intention to arise, in theory, at least. DMT Biscuit (talk) 18:20, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't fully understand your dislike of the current rules. You say on the level 4 discussion page that you dislike the focus on the composition of the lists rather than actual improvement of the articles listed. I actually fully agree with you on this. But the point of the current rules is that by enforcing a minimum level of participation in discussions involving the selection of articles, we promote the list's stability, and discourage poorly considered attempts to significantly alter the list. I don't know why you would want to "incentivize making snappy decisions" regarding the selection of articles if you think such discussions are not productive to begin with. Your proposal seems to be self-defeating. Again, I stress that the !voting rules only apply to the selection of articles: "Individual topics are proposed for addition or removal, followed by discussion and !voting." Anything else regarding, say, the improvement of actual articles can be done by standard consensus-based decision-making.

You do have a point regarding empty !votes – there are people who have a habit of only leaving empty !votes and never actually contributing to discussions. On the other hand, sometimes people leave an empty !vote when they agree with the comment of a previous !voter and have nothing new to add. I try to assume good faith in such cases. Cobblet (talk) 18:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

C933103 I agree with your comment that some level of discussion is needed to be enforced in order to make the list resistant to swooping changes. However, the current rules aren't demanding a strawpoll, as the current rule very specifically said in a) and b) that the X number of supports is needed to be achieved. It doesn't matter how well developed your argument is, your !vote would have a similar power to a person giving empty votes. I think that the Vital article list should adopt a system like WP:AFD where there isn't a hard and fast rule for the outcome of the discussion, while still allow support and oppose !votes followed by a rationale. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 23:41, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose pbp 03:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
• One idea I have for making the consensus rules better is anyone is to give more leeway in making changes to the list. I am thinking that rather than discussing every change to the list, we could make it so that anyone can make changes to the list as they please, but if the change is reverted within a certain time period (ex. 24 Hours, 48 hours, 72 hours, 7 days), then they must come to the talk page to get a consensus. This might work better for level 4 than with level 3, but just a thought. Interstellarity (talk) 12:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  I think that's a great compromise. An anti-variant of this that works better with Level 1, 2, 3 is to propose a change here and if it is accepted yet people aren't satisfied, they could revert within a time period and get more consensus. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  Again this seems self-defeating. If you genuinely want people to focus less on improving the list and more on improving the articles on it, don't make it easier for people to change the list. The less stable the list is, the less incentive anyone has to work on articles on the list that might get removed at any point. Cobblet (talk) 13:24, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  I haven't explicitly said that this change would make editing the list easier. In fact, it could make editing the list harder, as the majority of votes would be opposes and you couldn't just simply pile on empty supports. What the new system allows though is quick closure clauses and promoting good arguments. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  I'm specifically referring to Interstellarity's suggestion to allow anyone to change the list as they please – obviously that is going to make the list less stable. Nevertheless, I'm willing to at least change the current rules to say that empty !votes are to be ignored. Cobblet (talk) 14:41, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Elephants and Whales

Adding these back because they were only archived after 10 days. I'll bring up the other topics only 2-3 at a time per consensus. LightProof1995 (talk) 03:16, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Elephants

I think 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)

I definitely feel elephants are, in fact, on the same level of importance to humans and domestication, given their use in warfare. I still Support. Not that domestication is necessary for inclusion anyway, e.g. insect, mollusca, crustacean are all vital-3.

Support: Aside from their major significance in human history and culture as beasts of burden, war animals and a source of luxury goods, elephants are ecosystem engineers - their size and bulk means they literally reform entire landscapes - making glades and pathways through forests and stripping scrubland back down to open plains. Hugely important animals. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:26, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I will add, my idea to add both elephants and whales comes from playing Civilization IV, where both of them are resources due to their importance for civilization. This game also taught me about Mansa Musa, Hatshepsut, Ramesses II, and Saladin, so I think it is a useful reference for composing this list of vital-3 articles. Because of this, I will list the other animal resources in the game:

Cattle

Horse

Sheep

Pig

Beaver (A type of Rodent, which we have) This is the "Fur" resource

Fish

Clam (A type of Mollusca, which we have)

Crab (A type of Crustacean, which we have)

Deer We don't have this.

Elephant We don't have this. In the game, it is called the Ivory resource and shows elephants, but you also need this resource to make War Elephants.

Whale We don't have this.

Camel We don't have this. Represented as Camel archers, but only if you play as the Arabian civilization as Saladin. Comparatively, you can have War elephants playing as any civilization. In Civilization III, war elephants were unique to the Indian civilization. In Civilization V, war elephants are unique to the Indian civilization as a unit called "War elephant" and the Carthaginian civilization as a unit called "African forest elephant", replacing chariot archer and horseman units, respectively. The ivory resource is still present, but isn't required by the Indian and Carthaginian civilizations to make their elephant units. There is also a Bison resource in Civ 5. LightProof1995 (talk) 04:47, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I didn't think about deer until I made this list, but I'm not recommending we add them. I do think we should have both elephant and whale, however. Additionally, when zooming in on a town in the game, you can hear dogs barking and chickens clucking, which we both have. LightProof1995 (talk) 15:17, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Wouldn't Camel be more important? Ivory is a luxurious good, and war elephants aren't really something too common in the history of the earth, so I don't think they are more appropriate to be part of this vital list. C933103 (talk) 01:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Omg Camels!!! Nice catch haha yeah I forgot about them!! They are in Civilization IV too, but only if you play as the Arabian empire, led by Saladin, as Camel archers are a unique unit that replaces the knight. I'll add them to the list. LightProof1995 (talk) 04:34, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose We have plenty of mammals as it is. At this point adding something like cotton should be a much higher priority than adding another mammal. Cobblet (talk) 04:12, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Whales

I think 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)

Support LightProof1995 (talk) 13:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Support: Similarly to elephants, whales have a major degree of significance in human history and culture as sources of food, and critically, oil - which literally kept the lights on for an entire period of history. They also literally stir the oceans with their bulk, mixing nutrients between water layers, their waste feeds plankton and their carcasses ocean floor ecosystems - altogether serving to play a major role in global carbon sequestration - on a similar level to significant numbers of global forests and jungles. Not sure if all this is all properly covered in the article, but it should be. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:33, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Oppose Same reason as elephants. Maykii (talk) 05:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC) LightProof1995 (talk) 03:16, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per my comment re elephants. And who is to say an alien would not find Posidonia australis more interesting than any animal? Cobblet (talk) 04:12, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Add Cotton

Would be a useful addition to fill up the quota. Interstellarity (talk) 23:55, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 23:55, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
2. Telepanda (talk) 19:50, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
3. This seems like an obvious inclusion given its importance in human history Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:30, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
4. Support One of the most important plants in agriculture. -- Maykii (talk) 11:45, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Neither supporter has provided a rationale. Are we counting these !votes? Cobblet (talk) 19:53, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I think both of these votes should count LightProof1995 (talk) 11:08, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Add 3 39 more women

I hate voting to add/swap/remove articles from the list. However, I think this problem is serious enough for us to do, which is to balance out the gender bias a bit by promoting women articles from Level 4 or 5 to Level 3. See also: Women in Green's Hot 100 list and prior discussion at Ambitious goal proposal. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:39, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Scrap it, we need a lot more. Since there are 112 articles, about 50 should be about women. 50 - 11 = 39 articles. Well, pick 39, and swap others out. Easy. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:14, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I would be incredibly wary of nominating based on any criteria other than being essential for encyclopedic knowledge. You said as much yourself in the discussion you linked that swapping out based on other criteria would essentially be an attempt to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Hopefully more notable women become prominent in this century and the centuries that follow, but well over half of notable people in the past have been men. If anything, I'm skeptical of including biographic articles on the Level 3 list at all. It moves away from the "broad concept" theme of the rest of the list. And even if we do keep biographies, I certainly don't think that Walt Disney, Roald Amundsen, or Frida Kahlo represent the hundred most notable people in all of human history. I would rather restrict the criteria for biographic articles than expand them. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:43, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Agree with, Alien. We should rather curtail the list of male bios than try and match the number for ideological reasons. DMT Biscuit (talk) 07:17, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Thebiguglyalien I somewhat agree with what you've said. It is true that this is teethering on the edge of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. However, like what you've said, there's a few bios that have questionable amount of vitalness and I think they can be swapped by other women. For example, why Queen Victoria isn't on the list, when she is the second-longest monarch of the UK and has ruled the British India for 25 years since its founding? How about Hypatia, which her writing and murder have influenced generations of philosophers (which her life become obscured over time)? It would be an easy ask to add these two to our list given that we are under quota. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Plus, having a super male-dominated list would not help us at all with our goal – the community when they found out about this would fight back and accuse us of sexism. That's not good at all for the fledgling WikiProject. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:59, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

History isn’t fair – the most influential people have traditionally been male. (Of course with some notable exceptions! And this will change to some extent in the future when women worldwide get equal opportunities.) Why should we rewrite history? I’m all for adding Cleopatra or Queen Victoria, but doing a ”mass swap” to please our modern sense of justice seems a little off to me. Speaking of representation, the list is also very white-dominated… (With Turing as maybe the only rep. of LGBTQ+ people…) --Telepanda (talk) 12:04, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Disagree with most people here, who are missing the point of this list. This entire point of this list is too point to vital articles on Wikipedia, and encourage their improvement. I mean holy shit. who cares if the list perfectly represents the most important people in human history (which it doesn't, by the way), lets just make an interesting and diverse that makes people excited to work on articles!!! Wouldn't that be more beneficial?? This project is regarded as a joke by so many WP veterans, since they see an unacceptable obsession over curating an awkward assembly of white males. The frequently cited WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS is utterly irrelevant, and applies to the content of articles; this is a WikiProject, and the list serves a secondary function to identify important areas of improvement and then improve them, an approach which has utterly disappeared. Aza24 (talk) 16:32, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

If there are "WP veterans" who don't understand that most prominent historical figures have been men (for better or for worse), then I can't take the opinions of those WP veterans seriously. The fact that the list is haphazard should be cause for concern, not something that we lean into. If the focus is making it "interesting and diverse", then I want to add Sinbad (comedian), Vermin Supreme, and Anna Kendrick. That's an interesting and diverse group. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:35, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I think you don't understand what Aza24 meant. What she meant is that the Vital list would always be subjective and will always going to contain biases and such. We shouldn't aim for perfection in this regard, as it is useless to do so. The list instead should list articles that are important to the readers and to a lesser extent, editors. Making the list balanced in gender and geography would also increase the project's reputation significantly and would avoid allegations of sexism, racism, etc. -ism stuff. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 23:30, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

tl;dr: The list should be used for improving articles, not ranking them. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 23:31, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

For a variety of reasons, the historical figures who have had the most renowned legacies are mostly men, so it's pretty much inevitable that this list is going to have more men than women. It is also unlikely that a protracted argument over either the nature of those reasons or the precise criteria that make something a vital article is going to make anyone happier. However, I think we can all agree that there are several women who are no less vital than some of the men on this list. Mary, Queen Victoria, and Cleopatra all come to mind. There are a few people on the list who could probably be trimmed to make space. For instance, the "Explorers" section could probably be trimmed somewhat; Ramesses II could probably be replaced with Cleopatra, and do we really need both Edison and Tesla? Ornithopsis (talk) 00:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

A consensus on what vital means has never been formed in this project. The idea that "the historical figures who have had the most renowned legacies" are the most vital, which is assumed by many users here, has no actual legitimization in the scope of the project, and is what got us here in the first place. Aza24 (talk) 19:05, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

My previous message probably did not come across the way I intended.

The things that make a person into someone considered worthy of a vital article, for just about any attempt to define that concept, are a complicated interplay of many factors, including their actions, their opportunities, their overall historical context, the limitations of the historical record, and what historical narratives people construct from the available data. That is to say, our understanding of historical figures is subject to many biases, which affect how "vital" various historical figures will appear from any given Wikipedia editor's perspective. "Most renowned legacies" was my (poor) attempt at condensing that vague line of thought into a few words. We can try and critically examine those biases, but there are some unavoidable limitations to our ability to do that, due to the nature of the historical record.

The other thing I was, apparently, failing to express is that the discussion at hand seemed to be heading in the direction of an ill-tempered debate over what made articles "vital" that made nobody happy and accomplished no significant changes. But, we should still be able to acknowledge that the article is biased and ask ourselves what our options for alleviating that bias are. Ornithopsis (talk) 03:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with your argument and I'm sorry for assuming bad faith. I think the best course of action here is to just not choose biography articles for the WikiProject for the timebeing, and to let time for decisions to be made accordingly. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:50, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps we should relegate biographies to Level 4 then? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:05, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

A quick look at the level 4 bios reveals the same ”problem”: The number of notable men vastly outnumbers the number of notable women. (Look at the list’s writers, painters, politicians etc.) Of course there can be some adjustments. But you would have to change history itself to achieve full equality in a list of vital people from the past. Relegating the bios unfortunately won’t change centuries of skewness, even if it would be nice. :-) Telepanda (talk) 18:59, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

See above comments by Aza24. I think she put it well. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 23:38, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Add suggestions below:

1. Hypatia
2. Mary, mother of Jesus
3. Queen Victoria
4. Diana, Princess of Wales
5. Margaret Thatcher
6. Boudica
7. Cleopatra
8. Marie Antoinette
9. Mother Teresa
10. Anne Frank
11. Marilyn Monroe
12. Grace Kelly
13. Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis
14. Oprah Winfrey
15. Nefertiti
16. Queen of Sheba
17. Eleanor of Aquitaine
18. Fatima
19. Caroline Herschel
20. Hildegard of Bingen
21. Elizabeth of Russia
22. Teresa of Ávila
23. Isabella I of Castille
24. Rosa Parks
25. Joni Mitchell
26. Steffi Graf
27. Martina Navratilova
28. Billie Jean King
29. Angela Merkel
30. Golda Meir
31. Doris Day
32. Ella Fitzgerald
33. Barbra Steisand
34. Aretha Franklin
35. Aung San Suu Kyi
36. Lata Mangeshkar
37. Virginia Woolf
38. Audrey Hepburn
39. Édith Piaf
40. Astrid Lindgren
41. Enid Blyton
42. Coco Chanel
43. Benazir Bhutto
44. Rani of Jhansi
45. Charlotte Brontë
46. Emily Brontë
47. Dorothy Hodgkin
48. Shirley Temple
49. Greta Garbo
50. Ada Lovelace
51. Harriet Tubman
52. Emmeline Pankhurst
53. Empress Dowager Cixi
54. Maya Angelou
55. Emily Dickinson
56. Indira Gandhi
57. Hedy Lamarr
58. Helen Keller
59. Amelia Earhart
60. Miriam Makeba

Having a look at Level 3 I have to admit that it's difficult to consider many of these as important as something like Mayan civilization or Adolf Hitler etc. The ones at the top I think are the strongest.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I strongly Support adding Hypatia as Vital-3!!!!!!! I also support swapping her in and taking Ramesses II out. I've looked up more about him and think he may deserve to be on this list and his article just needs to be improved. So if we are having two pharaohs on here, I'm fine with him, but if we are trying to have less biographies and men, and we already have one Egyptian pharaoh, I see him being taken out once the list reaches 100 and we are trying to curtail it. I think trying to have an equal amount of men and women is just not going to work as there won't be enough votes per the discussion above. However, per the discussion above, there is consensus to not only have more women and less men on the list, but also to maybe have less biographies on the list in general. I Oppose adding Queen Victoria simply because we already have a female English monarch, and as others have stated, less biographies, not more. Hypatia, on the other hand, I feel would be a great addition, whether she is added on her own or swapped in. LightProof1995 (talk) 05:23, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Level 2

Just a note to let you know that I opened up a discussion on Level 2 for swapping country with state. Interstellarity (talk) 18:08, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Add Queen Victoria and Hypatia

Per my argument at § Add 3 39 more women: why Queen Victoria isn't on the list, when she is the second-longest monarch of the UK and has ruled the British India for 25 years since its founding? How about Hypatia, which her writing and murder have influenced generations of philosophers (which her life become obscured over time)? It would be an easy ask to add these two to our list given that we are under quota. If these articles are added, Queen Victoria should be in "Leaders and politicians" section and Hypatia to "Philosophers and social scientists".

Support

1. As a nominator, CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:14, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
2. After giving this some thought, I think these are as good as any option. The biography section may need some pruning, but we can cross that bridge when we get there. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
3. See my reply to the discussion above as to why I support adding Hypatia. LightProof1995 (talk) 05:25, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
4. Support Both should be on the list, honestly not sure we don't already have Victoria... and if we want to be more inclusive of women then Hypatia is surely one of the best examples of a scientist we could add. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maykii (talk • contribs) 11:39, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1. See my reply to the discussion on adding more women above as to why I do not support adding Queen Victoria. LightProof1995 (talk) 05:25, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
2. Oppose These are worse choices than the recently rejected Wu Zetian and the recently removed Sappho. Cobblet (talk) 13:25, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

   I feel the Sappho vote was more about the swap instead of removing her. Even the nominator stated they felt Sappho was important, but simply had been beaten out by Florence Nightingale in importance (who was added, as the swap passed).

   5 Wikipedians voted for a swap.

   3 voted for removing Sappho.

   3 voted for keeping Sappho and wrote about how she deserved to stay on the list.

   Now since we are discussing adding more women to the list and it is under quota at 997, a second vote for "adding Sappho" might pass. LightProof1995 (talk) 04:50, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

   The swap did not pass. Nightingale was added as the result of a later discussion. Cobblet (talk) 06:09, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I think that both of these articles qualify under the current criteria (or lack thereof), but as I said above, I think the standard is currently too low for individual biographies. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:32, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

Replace Greek mythology with Olmecs

Myth is already a level 3 article, and Greek mythology is the only mythology above level 4. The Olmecs were the first major civilization in Mesoamerica and were influential in the development of subsequent Mesoamerican civilization. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:05, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Support

1. Support (obviously). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:05, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
2. Strongly support deleting Greek Mythology, even if it makes the list go down to 996. It doesn't deserve to be on here over Celtic mythology or Egyptian mythology, and there are many more important articles that need to be added to this list. I also support adding the Olmecs to this list, but not as strongly (but not enough to say I am neutral about adding the Olmecs to this list). LightProof1995 (talk) 05:43, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
3. Support removal of Greek mythology, there is no reason to have this over other forms of mythology. Maykii (talk) 11:43, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Neutral

I am now neutral about the Olmecs on this list per the discussion below. LightProof1995 (talk) 03:57, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose addition of Olmecs, there is already multiple Mesoamerican civilisations on the list. I don't think another is necessary. Maykii (talk) 11:43, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

I'm not at all convinced that a third Mesoamerican civilization is a more significant omission than a pre-Inca Andean civilization; something related to Ancient China; or civilizations from areas such as West Africa or Southeast Asia which are wholly neglected by the current list, e.g., Songhai Empire or Khmer Empire. Cobblet (talk) 13:33, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. Now that you mention it, Songhai Empire does seem like a much more glaring omission. I would support its inclusion. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:41, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I feel the Khmer Empire is the most glaring omission of the three -- West Africa at least has Mansa Musa, and the Songhais were only the dominate power in that region for two centuries. The Khmer were the dominant power in Indochina for six centuries; they also built the Angkor Wat. The Olmecs at least have Mesoamerica; Indochina and Southeast Asia I feel are the most underrepresented. LightProof1995 (talk) 03:57, 26 August 2022 (UTC)