Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Vital articles

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 128.77.131.222 (talk) at 09:33, 21 April 2021 (→Add Algeria: why not regions?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconVital Articles
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Vital Articles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of vital articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and work together to increase the quality of Wikipedia's essential articles.Vital ArticlesWikipedia:WikiProject Vital ArticlesTemplate:WikiProject Vital ArticlesVital Articles 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

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: 01:42, 26 October 2024 (UTC) (Purge)
  • 30 days ago: 01:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
  • 60 days ago: 01:42, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Add Abstract algebra

One more math proposal for now. So there wasn't a consensus to add specific algebraic objects, but with several Geometry topics being consolidated, how about adding the field of Abstract algebra?

Like I mentioned in a different proposal, it may not be taught in public schools much (at least not yet), but it's everywhere in contemporary math and the basics are pretty accessible. Honestly, to leave it out would be a bit like leaving Theory of relativity out of the Physics section.

Support
  1. Support as nom. -Zar2gar1 (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support I agree we could use another article on modern pure mathematics on the list and this is probably the most obvious choice. Cobblet (talk) 00:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Per above Dawid2009 (talk) 14:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose Seems to me the perfect example of Level 3,5 article. More important than some other articles but not as popular and well-known concept as school algebra. Theory of relativity is listed over Special relativity and General relativity. --Thi (talk) 10:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not trying to change your mind, but just to clarify, abstract algebra only comes under the overall field in the most general sense of studying symbols & structure. It's not just a generalization of the same techniques in school algebra (as general relativity is to special relativity). It's a totally new framework with its own concepts, and school algebra is just one of the many things it explains. So it's more like relativity extends Newtonian physics to incorporate findings from electrodynamics & other fields. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose not convinced it is vital enough for Level 3. PaleoMatt (talk) 21:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

Swap: Remove Portuguese language, Add Indonesian language Malay language

One more proposal coming from the discussion on Indo-European languages. Multiple people expressed support for representing one or two more language families somehow, and there seemed to be interest in not over-weighting specific Indo-European languages as much.

Of the ones we currently list, I think Portuguese may have the fewest reasons to single it out for Level 3. We already have 3 other Romance languages (Latin, Spanish, & French), and the lion's share of its speakers are already represented by listing the country of Brazil.

Compared to the other ones I'd consider, Bengali has more speakers (in a previous British colony), Russian is one of the 6 UN languages and represents the Slavic branch alone, and German may represent fewer people but probably has a deeper history of interaction with English (via literature, science, trade, immigration, & history).

As for which language to add, Indonesian actually has several reasons to recommend it:

  • It's the common language (if not always the first language) of the 4th most populous country
  • According to our list of most-spoken languages, it's #10
  • It represents an entirely distinct language family (Austronesian languages)
  • There's also a significant amount of history between the country and the English-speaking world, especially in the 20th century
Support
  1. Support as nom. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support removal per this and previous discussions. --Thi (talk) 09:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support both (removal and addition) per nom. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support removal. I was unsure about the removal, but we probably don't need to list both Iberian Romance languages, and Spanish is the more important one. I'd support removing Bengali as well. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support removal and addition per nom. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 08:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support addition per comments below. Cobblet (talk) 15:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support addition Per previous nominations and my comments. Malyasia also as country potentially could be swapped with Singapoore. Dawid2009 (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support addition Per what has been said here. PaleoMatt (talk) 21:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support removal per above comments -- Zelkia1101 (talk) 00:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support addition per above. Gizza (talk • voy) 01:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose addition. I don't think we need to be adding any more languages at this level, and nothing about this one seems particularly vital to the English Wikipedia to me. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose addition I would add for example Malaysia first. --Thi (talk) 09:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong oppose removal of Poortogese language. Poortogese language deserve representation. Huge population and dominance in South America. Sputh America is represented almost nowhere on this list, even among people which are too overrepresented (IMHO) on the Level3. How it can be less vital than Russian language if already have far more speakers?? Especially if I can read about (my first language family) Slavic languages in in Indoeuropean languages?Dawid2009 (talk) 22:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi there, I just wanted to let you know that I totally understand where you're coming from. Personally, I just wanted to remove the IE language family link & maybe Greek alphabet, but I thought I should put down these proposals that came from the earlier ones.
    Part of why I've tried to avoid voting on things like specific languages, people, or history is because it gets even more subjective. Like I implied above, another reason for suggesting Portuguese simply comes down to, for topics like these, that we do factor in that it's the English VA list (not a universal one). I could be totally wrong, but it's just my impression that Russian (on top of being one of the 6 UN languages) would have a lot more English-readers looking for info than Portuguese.
    I totally agree with you that South America could probably use more representation overall; I wonder if more history & geography topics are a better way to do that though. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose addition per above comments. Neither Malay or Indonesian are vital enough for addition.-- Zelkia1101 (talk) 00:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose removal I think we should have both Portuguese and Malay languages on the list. I would have stuck with Indonesian language (the more-spoken) instead of Malay, but feel adding either would be an improvement. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose removal especially with the list being five articles under quota. It's reasonable to list the most widely spoken languages of countries which have over 200 million people. Cobblet (talk) 14:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose removal per above. Gizza (talk • voy) 01:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

I don't see a need to remove any of the currently listed languages. But we are not providing a balanced overview of linguistic diversity when 10/13 of them are Indo-European languages, even though fewer than half the world's population speaks one of them as L1. Adding a couple more languages to represent other major language families such as Austronesian makes sense. I think Malay is a better choice than Indonesian though – compare how we list Hindustani rather than Hindi and Urdu. A previous nomination failed. Cobblet (talk) 06:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would be fine with adding Malay, and I'd like my support !vote to be construed in that light. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You learn something everyday. I genuinely didn't realize that Malay was so wide-spread and Indonesian is just a national dialect of it. It clearly makes more sense for the proposal. Since everyone that's supported the add so far specifically mentioned Malay too, I've updated the proposal. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with user:DaGizza in previous discussion that Greek language is weakest language on the list. For that matter Latin language was much more influential but Greek was still quite significant. See for example pt:Deus/Deus. I also agree with Cobblet that current list of languages with Malay in addition would be ok. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If anythong has overlap on this list then not Roman representation among Indoeuropean languages. We shoukld rather remove Englush literature or at least handful or at least handful of English writers from last 200 years. How can Englush literature have +6 overrepresentations if Poortogese language has to bre removed just because Spanish language on the list has more nativespeakers than English? Literature is level 2 article, meanwhile language is 1. Dawid2009 (talk)
Passed 5-2.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Add Arabic numerals

This is by far the dominant number-writing system (i.e., using 0-9 instead of Roman numerals), and I think should be listed in its own right as it crosses language/script barriers, being used in languages that use Latin, Cyrillic, Greek, East Asian scripts, and perhaps many others. Even if we end up removing Greek alphabet, I think this should go in the "Writing" section of "Society and social sciences". – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. As nom. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, I actually agree with Thi's point that we already indirectly cover them some, but they are also distinct from numbers themselves. I'm not necessarily opposed to putting them down as a writing system under Society either, but would prefer under Math. Besides wanting to see the Math section grow a little, you arguably can't separate the characters from the arithmetic on them. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support An influential number system. Dimadick (talk) 20:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Arguably as important as some scripts on this level PaleoMatt (talk) 21:53, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Arabic numerals are the most popular and influential decimal system by far. -- Zelkia1101 (talk) 20:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose. We already list Arabic, which covers the numerals. And since modern Mathematics uses these numerals, all of the Math articles that we currently list (such as Number) cover this indirectly. I don't think listing this article separately at this level is necessary. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Number and History of mathematics covers this. --Thi (talk) 18:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

It's currently listed under Mathematics on level 4 though. Cobblet (talk) 18:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While I still think it's mainly Level 3-worthy as a writing system (i.e., how the numbers are written, rather than the numbers themselves), the section isn't too terribly important at this point. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the opposing comments, replace Arabic numerals, Arabic, Number, and History of mathematics with Greek alphabet, Greek language, Alphabet, and Writing. Hmm... Cobblet (talk) 18:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please elaborate on what you mean by this. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The same kind of arguments put forward by the opposers here are ignored by the same participants in the other discussion. Cobblet (talk) 20:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well I haven't made up my mind about removing the Greek alphabet yet, but I'm leaning towards its removal, especially if Greece is added. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Swap: Remove James Joyce, Add John Milton

I'm somewhat surprised not to see John Milton on this list already. Milton is one of the forefathers of English poetry, and his epic poem Paradise Lost is considered by many critics to be the best English-language work ever penned. Beyond his influence as a poet, Milton was an avid republican during Cromwell's rule as well as a free speech advocate. Milton was celebrated by many prominent English-language poets, among them William Blake, and he is often considered an equal to, if not better than, William Shakespeare. Joyce, while important, does not stand as tall in the history of literature as Milton. -- Zelkia1101 (talk) 03:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Support as nom.
  2. Support addition, neutral on removal while I think we have a bunch of English writers as it is, Milton should definitely already be one of them. I think Joyce has some importance in modernism, but don't know if that secures him a spot on here. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:53, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support, as between the two, Milton is the more vital. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support addition, Milton is definitely vital for level 3 but so is Joyce. PaleoMatt (talk) 21:54, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support addition, neutral on removal Per the main article on him, Milton popularized blank verse, "probably the most common and influential form that English poetry has taken since the 16th century". He coined many neologisms, and his vocabulary inspired imitators such as James Thomson, Alexander Pope, and John Keats. While his religious attitudes were already considered outdated by the Romantic poets, his works were used as poetic models by the likes of William Wordsworth, John Keats, and Mary Shelley. The Victorian authors inspired by Milton included the realists George Eliot and Thomas Hardy. In the late 20th and early 21st century, Milton was influencing new works by Philip Pullman. Milton has had a much more enduring legacy than James Joyce, or Modernism as a literary movement. Dimadick (talk) 21:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose Having Kafka and Tagore as the only 20th century authors is not ideal and having less 20th century writers than 20th century musicians even more so, Joyce is all over 20th century literature. Atleast Chaucer would represent a different era. Milton is obviously important, but we can't list everyone and he just does not fit. The only thing wrong in the literature section is Voltaire should be moved to thinkers and Victor Hugo added to writers in his place. GuzzyG (talk) 06:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose I think Matsuo Basho would be more important addition in poets. Joyce was also a short story writer and Anton Chekhov or Poe are not at this level. Dante wrote the most famous Christian epic and in my opinion it would be more important to add Torquato Tasso to level 4. --Thi (talk) 20:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per Thi. Cobblet (talk) 04:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discuss
My recollection is that James Joyce had three novels in the top 10 on the list of top 100 novels of the 20th century. RJFJR

Add Meteoroid

Common topic in popular science. Meteors (shooting stars) are among the most famous astronomical phenomenons. This concept is closely connected with Meteorite. Meteor or Meteorite is listed among main articles in my encyclopedias.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 19:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC) Support also Meteorite. --Thi (talk) 20:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Prefer meteorite as they are more important in science once they have fallen, and we already have comet and asteroid for when they are in space. Note to discussion closer: consider this a support for meteorite if that's what the nom is changed to.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose meteoroid is not vital enough, especially for a cold addition with no swap. I may be partial to meteorite, as John suggested, but I would prefer to see it swapped with some other article as we are nearing capacity. -- Zelkia1101 (talk) 10:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per above PaleoMatt (talk) 21:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. Too much overlap with Asteroid which is already listed. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

Add Hormone

Important topic health and medicine, one of the main articles in those encyclopedias I have had access. Often used concept in everyday discourse (melatonine etc.). [1]

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 19:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Includes such important topics as estrogen, testosterone and anabolic steroids, and adrenaline.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support per above. Surprised this isn't already here honestly. PaleoMatt (talk) 21:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Carbohydrate, lipid and nucleic acid are more vital classes of biomolecules, although sugar and DNA are listed. Cobblet (talk) 22:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Swap: Remove Delhi, add Buenos Aires

India has both Delhi and Mumbai, in contravention of our "one city per country" rule; Mumbai is far more important IMO with its status as India's financial capital and Bollywood. South America has only São Paulo on here, compared with North America's and Africa's two and Asia's and Europe's several. (Oceania doesn't have any, which I don't have an issue with tbh.) Buenos Aires has the fourth-largest metro area in the Americas, and was a hub of immigrants in the late 19th and early 20th century on par with New York City, ultimately becoming a rich multiracial city. Of course, those days are long gone, but the city still has such important landmarks as the Teatro Colón. As recently as 2012 it was the most-visited city in South America. I know I might be selling it short here, but I think it is an important city whose inclusion would increase our geographic diversity in city selection.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. As nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per nom. Interstellarity (talk) 22:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support removal Mumbai is to be preferred over Delhi, but I do not see a case for Buenos Aires. It is quite simply not important enough as a city to be included -- Zelkia1101 (talk) 14:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Strong oppose There is no such rule. The Delhi Sultanate was playing a decisive role in Indian history long before Mumbai or Buenos Aires came into existence. Also, more people live in India than in all of Latin America: it's more than fair to Latin America that each is represented by two cities. Bringing up the Teatro Colón while neglecting Qutb Minar, Humayun's Tomb and especially the Red Fort makes no sense. Cobblet (talk) 04:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose addition One city per country is not any strict rule. Latin American countries such as Chile, Cuba, Peru and Venezuela should come first. --Thi (talk) 10:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose addition per above -- Zelkia1101 (talk) 14:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose There is no "one city per country" rule, and if there was, China and India would be the two countries to ignore it for. Delhi is much more prominent than Buenos Aires. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:58, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose removal - taking into all factors of vitality (length and diversity of history, population, economic output, cultural and artistic contributions, political power, architecture, religious significance, linguistic influence over the region) Delhi is easily a Top 10 city and more vital than Mumbai if an Indian city had to be removed. Neutral on Buenos Aires. Gizza (talk • voy) 01:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per above. PaleoMatt (talk) 09:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose There is no such rule limiting each country to one city. Delhi has a fur longer history than Buenos Aires, and has had more of a historical impact. Dimadick (talk) 20:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose pbp 22:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

I'm aware that "China" has both Hong Kong and Beijing, but as said in the earlier discussion the two systems makes Hong Kong different enough from the mainland to not violate the rule IMO. I know IAR and all, but Delhi isn't that super-important to be the sole exception.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Add Green Revolution

Since it seems like Norman Borlaug won't pass, and since various people have mentioned that they would prefer adding the Green Revolution over him, I have decided to go ahead and nominate it here. See the above entry on Borlaug for information on why this event is vital.

Support
  1. Support as nom -- Zelkia1101 (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sure, per the above discussion.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:24, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - per above and earlier discussion in the Norman Borlaug proposal. Gizza (talk • voy) 00:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Dimadick (talk) 10:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose. I don't think this is a very good article to list at this level. Most of what the article covers are already covered by various other articles already listed. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

I added wikilink above to Norman Borlaug nomination which is now in the archive. --Thi (talk) 11:51, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Strong interaction and Weak interaction, add Sulfur and Phosphorus

Sulfur and phosphorus are two chemical elements common on Earth and in life. The strong interaction and weak interaction are only part of particle physics and are best discussed in this level as part of some other topic.

Support
  1. as nom User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak support additions Sulfur and phosphorus are indeed the last of the CHONPS elements, which are the "building blocks" of life. Nevertheless, I might be looking from the inside as a biologist on them, and I can understand if a layman understanding of the world around us would not be significantly improved by adding these two elements compared to, say, lead.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support additions Not only are sulfur and phosphorus absolutely vital in the context of biochemistry, they are important in other areas of chemistry as well. Phosphorus is a limiting nutrient in freshwater ecology (see phosphorus cycle) and phosphate in the form of guano (historically) or apatite (nowadays) is one of the most heavily mined minerals due to its use in fertilizer. Many important metal ores are sulfides, and sulfuric acid is such an important industrial chemical that its production used to serve as a proxy measure for a country's overall industrial output. Cobblet (talk) 16:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support additions Among main articles in encyclopedias. 150+ language versions in Wikipedia. --Thi (talk) 16:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support additions. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support additions-- Zelkia1101 (talk) 20:13, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose removals The weak and strong forces are two of the four fundamental forces, all of which are listed. I don't see us removing Gravity or Electromagnetism anytime soon, and I feel uncomfortable listing some but not all of the group. The strong force is important in building stuff like the atomic bomb, while the weak force, despite being quite weak (heh) to our understanding of the world around us, still has a role to play in atomic decay and the resultant radioactivity.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose removals I'd consider the strong and weak nuclear interactions just as vital as any of the subatomic particles we list. In fact, the first particle physics article I'd consider removing is photon because of the overlap with electromagnetism and light. Cobblet (talk) 16:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

Lead would probably not be my choice for another metal. I might go with calcium: everyone understands its biochemical importance, and it's also hugely significant industrially – it's in concrete, lime, gypsum (e.g., drywall), and plaster for example. But twelve chemical elements is probably enough, and CHNOPS plus five metals and silicon would be a fairly representative mix. Cobblet (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Add United Arab Emirates

The UAE could be a potential addition. It's influence especially Dubai is famous for its tourism and unique culture. Interstellarity (talk) 15:15, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Support Definitely an up and coming country, not just Dubai but also Abu Dhabi has been an influential city. Although it is only rather recently become influential it is one of if not the global hub for the Arab World and is a regional powerhouse as a member of OPEC and the GCC and has even intervened in the war ongoing in Yemen. In general the Middle East is expanding massively economically and the UAE may be the greatest example of this from being a desert to housing some of the most influential cities in the region including the world's tallest skyscraper among other achievements. It also is the top tourism destination in the entire Middle East. In my opinion this is the most vital country we are missing from the Middle East. PaleoMatt (talk) 15:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support IMO, no longer just an "up and coming country": Dubai is one of the world's most important trade and transport hubs – see the GaWC 2020 ranking of global cities, for instance. I used to think Dubai would be a better addition, but nowadays the UAE is a middle power that is acting independently of Saudi Arabia and the rest of the GCC, e.g., in Libya and Yemen. Moreover Abu Dhabi is also an influential city in its own right – its sovereign wealth fund is twice as large as Dubai's nowadays. The UAE's significance is no longer limited to the rise of Dubai as it might have been 10 or 20 years ago. Cobblet (talk) 16:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Powerful country. --Thi (talk) 16:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Dimadick (talk) 10:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support per Cobblet. GuzzyG (talk) 08:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. I would rather add Dubai, tbh. Also, its global relevance has been fairly recent, dating roughly to the 1980s.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per above comment. Dubai would be a better choice to add. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Neither Dubai nor the UAE are encyclopedically relevant enough to be on the top 1000 list of most essential articles. Level 4 is sufficient for both. -- Zelkia1101 (talk) 20:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discuss

For the list of countries, when a country became globally relevant hardly matters; this is not the History section. All that matters is that it has global prominence. Cobblet (talk) 16:32, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Swap: Remove Jakarta, Add Berlin

Jakarta may be a large city however there is other larger cities we do not list such as Shanghai, Dhaka, Karachi, Los Angeles, and Bogota... Secondarily it is the capital of Indonesia however it does not have much global significance and the capital is planned to be moved to a new city in the near future anyway due to major problems such as the city sinking. Berlin on the other hand is the only capital of a great power (Germany) not listed here, has a huge political, economical, and cultural influence being home to the government of the largest EU member, large creative industries and tourism sector, leading world universities and well known modern art and nightlife. The city has numerous world famous institutions such as museums, zoos, and World Heritage Sites. The city functions as its own federal state within Germany too and its history (especially in recent times with the Cold War which saw the Berlin Airlift, Berlin Wall, etc.) has been influential and important in European and World history. PaleoMatt (talk) 09:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Support as nom. PaleoMatt (talk) 09:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 09:31, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Dimadick (talk) 10:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Surprised Berlin wasn't already on here.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 12:06, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Berlin is absolutely vital at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Strong oppose per my comments here and here. European cities are already overrepresented relative to cities of other continents: we list London, Moscow, Paris, Rome and Istanbul. That's twice as many cities as Europe should have based on its 13% share of the global urban population. Southeast Asia has only a slightly smaller population than Europe and yet it is only represented by Jakarta and Singapore. The argument that Jakarta will lose its importance because it won't be the capital someday is flimsy speculation which ignores the realities of the context. The Jakarta metropolitan area remains the most populated area of the country by a huge margin, comprising 32 million people (that's twice as large as the population of the entire former East Germany), and its GDP (which at almost 300 million USD, is larger than Berlin's even in nominal terms, i.e., not accounting for PPP) represents over a quarter of the Indonesia's entire GDP. None of that is going to disappear overnight, just as none of Ankara, Islamabad, Brasilia, Abuja, Dodoma or Naypyidaw have displaced the primary role that Istanbul, Karachi, Rio de Janeiro, Lagos, Dar es Salaam and Yangon continue to play in their respective countries. Moreover, Jakarta is the seat of ASEAN, while Berlin doesn't host a single major EU institution. Berlin isn't even the financial capital of Germany. Jakarta is an alpha city according to the 2020 GaWC ranking; Berlin is only beta+. Cobblet (talk) 12:44, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose addition Another (beta+ city) from western Europe is nowhere near to be considered vital on this level and does not have comparable importance to Rome or London. We already have extreme bias in toward Europe, especially western Europe. Beyond that I agree with Cobblet, Jakarta is more vital in almost any and every possible way. Most other criterias than population and geographic diversity are purely subjective. Berlin is quite significant but not so significant to be listed along with Germany on this level when we do not have countries like Ukraine, Morocco etc. Dawid2009 (talk) 14:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Opposite removal I'm neutral on the addition. Berlin is an important city in European city, but I'm not sure we have room for it given we already list more important cities like London or Paris. I would like to see geographic diversity on our list, and therefore I oppose the removal of Jakarta. -- Zelkia1101 (talk) 04:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Does not beat Athens in historic importance in European history. We arguably need more South East Asian cities right now than we need more European cites. (like Bangkok). Berlin's important, but so is Los Angeles and we pick and choose based on being representative. We can't list everything important on a list of 1k and picking cities over countries in that case does not make sense. We should only be listing the absolute most important 20 cities, the rest can go to entire countries. (Like Sudan, Algeria, Uganda, Kazakhstan, Peru, Chile etc, which covers more than a single city of a state we already list ever could. GuzzyG (talk) 08:12, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

Add Algeria

The Maghreb is a large cultural region in Africa we are completely missing from the list of countries at this level. I propose adding Algeria as it is the largest country in the region both population and area wise even beating out many countries in both of those categories that we already list. Algeria is also a regional power, has some of the largest natural gas and oil reserves in Africa and has a long history under many empires. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 00:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Support as nom. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 00:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Given all that and Camus you've got my vote.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 07:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

I'll stay neutral on this proposal pending at least the outcome of the UAE proposal. I'm leaving some figures here for (my own) reference.

According to projections from the UN World Population Prospects for 2021, the largest countries by population not currently listed are Uganda (47.1 million), Sudan (44.9 million), Algeria (44.6 million), Ukraine (43.5 million, including Crimea), and Iraq (41.2 million).

The population of the Maghreb (Algeria, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Tunisia, Western Sahara) is 106 million. Other regions currently unrepresented or underrepresented on the list include Western Africa (196 million excluding Nigeria and Mauritania), Southern Africa (159 million including all the countries south of the DRC and Tanzania except for South Africa), Central Asia (75 million; 115 million if Afghanistan is included with the former Soviet republics), Central Africa (58 million including the six CEMAC countries), Southeast Europe (53 million including Albania, Bulgaria, Greece, Romania, former Yugoslavia), Central America (51 million), and the Caribbean (44 million). Cobblet (talk) 05:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why not add the regions themselves (rather than countries)? (I’m not an active Wikipedian and will not be voting etc. - it just struck me.)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles&oldid=1019061442"