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 Aurangzebra (talk | contribs) at 05:17, 28 March 2024 (→‎Swap Catherine the Great for Peter the Great). 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
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 73 2 127 387 406 5 1000
January 11, 2023 71 2 128 299 471 27 998
February 5, 2024 71 0 131 403 395 0 1,000

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. When the list is full, it is highly recommended that a nomination of a new topic be accompanied by a proposal to remove a lower-priority topic already on the list. Please see the table to the right (on desktop) or above (on mobile) describing the percentage of articles as FA, GA, etc. for a history of the list.

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

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

Nominations should generally be left open beyond the above-listed minimums if they have a reasonable chance of passing. Please be patient with our process. We believe that an informed discussion with more editors is likely to produce an improved and more stable final list. When proposing to add or remove a particular topic from the vital articles list, we strongly recommend that you review and compare the other topics in the same category in order to get a better sense of what is considered vital in that area.

  • 15 days ago: 14:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC) (Purge)
  • 30 days ago: 14:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
  • 60 days ago: 14:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Vital article landing page

I know that there have been RfMs on moving this page to Vital Article Level 3 (which have failed), but I think the issue is that in the absence of a proper Vital Article landing page, this was the best fit, which makes sense.

However, I do find the Vital Article Project at times confusing to engage with and navigate, and the RfC above on the top icon shows that wider members of the Wikipedia community have chequered views of the VA Project.

I think there should be a proper VA landing page that explains the project, it's guidelines (e.g. can a redlink be nominated, must an article start at Level 5 before going higher etc.). There is a lot of good work being done here (and as the academic paper above highlights), but it is very easy to miss it (and even dismiss it, per above). Aszx5000 (talk) 16:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even this WikiProject Vital Articles page is not right. It is all about how to bring VA to GA/FA status. Instead, it should be about the policies and guidelines about how Vital articles are chosen and how to participate productively in those discussions. It is unusual that some editors from GA/FA (per the top icon RfC above) are dismissive of VA, but according to the VA main page, the sole focus is how to bring VA articles to GA/FA status? Instead, the VA main page should be about the process of adding/removing VAs imho. Aszx5000 (talk) 12:29, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that an improved landing page is needed. Separating from level 3 might be the best idea. If you could mock up a proposed page then it might help — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:55, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would be willing to try. Can you give me some pointers about how I would do that? I have never done such a thing outside of article creation? Should we set up a sandbox version that we could all have a go at? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 12:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you could create a page in your userspace (e.g. User:Aszx5000/Vital articles) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Final question, I am going to try an draft a page that focuses on the policies/guidelines etc for adding/removing VAs. I thought that the Wikipedia:New pages patrol front page would be a good template as it lists in detail the policies/guidelines/tools for NPP. Obviously, NPP is a more complex process, however, would such a template/approach work? Aszx5000 (talk) 20:02, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will reserve judgement until I have seen your proposed page :) Then I will comment constructively — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aszx5000 you could incorporate some of Wikipedia:Vital articles/Frequently Asked Questions into the landing page — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:05, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is very helpful and what I would like the landing page to feature prominently. thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) Aszx5000 (talk) 15:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any progress with this @Aszx5000? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have been away for a few weeks but going to give this a go in March and see where I get to. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aszx5000: Any updates on the landing page? Interstellarity (talk) 13:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Swap Hatshepsut  4 for Cleopatra  3

Why is Hatshepsut V3? She is just your above-average pharaoh. But hey, there's a perfectly good swap: Cleopatra, a much more famous female pharaoh. 81 interwikis vs 145, 1.5k daily views vs nearly 150k! (yes, check yourself, maybe there's some data error?). Cleopatra has List of cultural depictions of Cleopatra and many more entries in Category:Cultural depictions of Cleopatra vs Category:Cultural depictions of Hatshepsut. Sems like a no brainer here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:10, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. As nominator. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support for Cleopatra, I think i read somewhere that it was the top read historical article on the en wiki in 2023 or something very close. Neutral on Hatshepsut. Respublik (talk) 18:01, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Vileplume (talk) 22:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support, especially since we already have a pharaoh of the New Kingdom. Generalissima (talk) 18:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support swap per nom/disucssion below. starship.paint (RUN) 14:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support swap per nom. Interstellarity (talk) 13:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Refrained from commenting on this initially to let someone more in the know comment, but as that isn't coming then oppose as per previous discussions, Cleopatra is generally agreed to be historically unimportant especially outside of her involvement with Julius Caesar  3 and Augustus  3 (both listed). Hatshepsut was not only actually influential in and of herself but also from a less represented era of history. J947 ‡ edits 20:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

Re data error: Hey Google. J947 ‡ edits 02:16, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@J947 Nice! So before the data became messed up there, "the annual views on Cleopatra were around 2.5 million." which seems to be ~<7k. So not as crazy but still supporting my argument that she is much more vital. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add Max Weber  4

Fathers of sociology include Weber, Marx (who is alrady V3 and is considered also one of the fathers of economics and political sciences...), Émile Durkheim  4 or Auguste Comte  4. One of those other 3 should be V3 as well, within Philosophers and social scientists. Probably Weber (128 interwikis, ~1,6k daily views). Durkheim has 98 interwikis and ~900 views, Comte 93 and ~700 views. Weber has more interwikis and views than V3 Mary Wollstonecraft (98, ~1,5k), or from scientists, Antoine Lavoisier (102, ~1,2), not that I am suggesting a swap this time (but if I were, those would be my 'less vital' candidates). Anyway, from the lead of Weber: he "is regarded as among the most important theorists of the development of modern Western society. He was one of the central figures in the development of sociology and the social sciences, and his ideas profoundly influence social theory and research... [he] is commonly regarded as one of the central figures in the development of the social sciences." --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. As nominator. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support swap with Friedrich Nietzsche --Thi (talk) 11:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think I'd support removing Nietzsche. If we have to enforce quota, maybe somebody else, from another group (Catherine above, for example). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:29, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per nom. And don't swap out Nietzche. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose We're over 1000 articles and we don't need more people to represent the humanities and social sciences. Cobblet (talk) 03:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss
  1. Max Weber would be one of my first choices to promote to V3 but with the quota completely filled, I don't think there's anyone on this list currently I'd remove in favor of Weber. Sociology simply does not have the same historical and social presence as philosophy and economics (it's a relatively modern field!). Also, would definitely not want to remove Wollstonecraft in favor of Weber (both sys bias + I think being one of the first feminist thinkers is more notable than being one of the first sociologists) and would definitely, definitely not swap with Nietzsche. Aurangzebra (talk) 07:53, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aurangzebra: Feminism is even younger then sociology. Both Feminism  3 and Sociology  3 are at V3, and I'd argue that out of those two, the study of all society, including all inqualities (including gender) is more vital, ditto for the founders. That said, I am not suggesting to remove Wollstonecraft, but I think Weber is more vital than a dozen other figures we list. Again, I'll point to for example Catherine. A regional ruler is less vital than a scholar who estabilish a major branch of science and whose ideas are still key. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sociology is important, yes, but the field itself doesn't play a significant role in our history, society, or culture. I can guarantee you that if you ask the average person to name any sociologist, they won't be able to. Meanwhile, feminism and its adjacent movements are always in the news, its personalities are well-known through history and society, and the day-to-day effects are more acutely felt (particularly by one half of the population!) than the effects of sociology. I could agree to a swap but I don't think I'd agree with swapping Catherine the Great for the reasons the opposers put in that other thread. I'll take a look at who's in VA3 in a bit and see who is closest to the chopping block. Aurangzebra (talk) 01:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: six-month no-revisit rule

I'd like to propose, at all five levels of VA, that if a proposal reaches consensus, you can't make a counterproposal against that for at least six months. For example, if consensus resulted in an article being added, you can't propose to remove that article for six months. If consensus resulted in an article being added, you can't propose to remove that article for six months. Etc. etc. swaps are a little more complicated though pbp 01:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. pbp 01:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I think this makes sense, and we should have a page of general guidelines for VA on a VA "homepage" (which I am going to try an construct when I have time). Aszx5000 (talk) 13:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. per Aurangzebra. It would just be an unnecessary bureaucratic hindrance for new members to engage in the project. Links or results of a previous disscusions can always be mentioned in the proposals and hopefully reflected, but mandating this as a rule feels needless. Respublik (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to illustrate the point, I would only support this if the period for auto and manual archiving in all the relevant levels would be extended to six months after a closure. Respublik (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Respublik. We need fewer rules, not more. feminist🩸 (talk) 06:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
  1. good idea in theory but in my experience (aka when I do this), it's primarily an accident and it's infeasible to expect that people search through the archives any time they want to post a proposal. Aurangzebra (talk) 19:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move Abraham  3 and Moses  3 to Mythology or Abrahamic religions

This is self-explanatory, these articles are listed in this section on all other levels. Vileplume (talk) 20:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. As nom. Vileplume (talk) 20:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 22:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support if you mean under 'Abrahamic religions'. If you specifically mean Mythology, oppose. Aurangzebra (talk) 06:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support moving under Abrahamic religions. Cobblet (talk) 03:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Hm? They are religious figures, clearly. The Blue Rider 00:27, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think OP means under Religion which is where Abraham and Moses are slotted at every other level. Aurangzebra (talk) 06:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They are already under Religious figures. The Blue Rider 00:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And they aren't under that in all subsequent levels is the issue. Don't really mind either category but I do support consistency. I lean towards keeping them under Abrahamic religions since their existence is disputed (there is no unequivocal guarantee that they were real people). Aurangzebra (talk) 05:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion

Swap Viking Age  3 for Ethiopian Empire  5

NO CONSENSUS
~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2024 (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.

I am not sure the concept of a distinct "Viking Age" is as primary of a topic as is currently presented. Norse history is certainly important, but the Vikings are just one aspect of that, and I think it's primairly a result of a focus on English history (where it's much easier to make a "Viking Age" periodicization due to a period of actual Norse rule) in English-language sources. At the moment, Sub-Saharan Africa is excluded from any of the specific subtopics within the Vital 3 section, excepting perhaps Scramble for Africa  3. Mali would be the obvious choice, but the presence of Mansa Musa in the biography section makes me want to suggest the Ethiopian Empire. It covers a very broad range of history (1200s to 1900s), ties into various important historic trends (Relations with Islamic states, presence in the Indian ocean trade, resistance to European colonialism, importance to the histories of all three major Abrahamic religions, etc.) that are important to understand for a broad understanding. Generalissima (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
Oppose
  1. I would support a swap for Vikings  4. Vikings are historically and (pop)culturally important; the latter certainly much more than any African Empire. I'd expect to find Vikings, not Viking Age, which is indeed not a very common concept at this level. And Ethiopian Empire is not even V4 - I'd suggest proposing it as an addition at that level first. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Ethiopian Empire is not at V3 in terms of global impact, whereas the Viking Age is. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss
  • Normally swaps would require the added article to be level 4. Mali Empire is up to discussion above if you're interested. The Blue Rider 23:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support this user's alt suggestion. OrdinaryGiraffe (talk) 04:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I meant Piotrus's. OrdinaryGiraffe (talk) 04:24, 12 March 2024 (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.

Add African Union  4

NO CONSENSUS
~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2024 (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.

The African Union is similar to the European Union which we list in that it provides a heavy influence on the global scale of politics.

Support
  1. Interstellarity (talk) 21:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. The African Union is not similar to the European Union, the latter is much more functional and thus influential than the former. The Blue Rider 21:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per BR above. European Union  3 is vastly more vital (important, etc.) than African Union. Whether AU should even be at V4 is questionable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per above. --Thi (talk) 11:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per above, not at the level of the EU (although it may become that in the future). Aszx5000 (talk) 14:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Mobile phone

We already list Telephone at this level which should cover all phones. Interstellarity (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Interstellarity (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. The Blue Rider 13:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)][reply]
  3. Support per nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 20:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose Important in economy and culture. Telephone is more like history topic. --Thi (talk) 09:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. I would support swap with Smartphone  4-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have an opinion on the swap just yet, But I would fine with it if other people think it would be OK. Interstellarity (talk) 01:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also support Smartphone at V3, which has had a massive global impact. Aszx5000 (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

Add Journalism

Although we do list News  3, I think this is a key concept for level 3 which I believe is as vital as Broadcasting  3 and Publishing  3. Interstellarity (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Interstellarity (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Important area in society. News doesn't cover all, for example journalism ethics and freedom of the press. --Thi (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose there's too much overlap between journalism and Mass media  2, News  3, Broadcasting  3 and Publishing  3. It would be like having both Education  2 and Teaching  5 at this level. Ethics in the industry doesn't need coverage any more than ethics in medicine, law, banking and a number of other professions. Gizza (talk) 02:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per Gizza. Mass media covers journalistic ethics; freedom of the press ought to be covered under liberty. Cobblet (talk) 03:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion

Moving Physical, human, and technical geography up in their hierarchy

Geography is rightfully a level 2 vital article, but physical geography, human geography, and technical geography are high level categories that should be higher up. Physical and human geography are both level 5 vital, and technical geography is newer and not included at all. Many concepts that are within these three subdisciplines, and it is odd for Map to be level 3, cartography to be level 4, boarder being level 4, Mercator projection is level 4, and equator being level 4, but human, physical, and technical geography are lower. I'd suggest that each of these three should be level 3 or 4. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • At least for human geography, since it's the only one I have experience with, is a branch that appeared with Ratzel in the 19th century so pretty recent I would say and not that widely studied to be level 3 or 4 vital. The Blue Rider 16:50, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does recency impact how vital something is? Even if the term itself is fairly new, terms like "civil geography" have existed since the 1700s and discuss very similar topics. 21st century geography emphasizes human geography quite a bit, and most ontology currently split the discipline between either human or physical, or human, physical, and some synonym for technical. Remote sensing, which at its earliest could be considered a 19th century technology, but more reasonably was developed during WWI, is a Level 4 vital article. Human geography, and its subbranches, is extremely widely studied.
    GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 17:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your best shot is to propose physical and perhaps human geography at level 4 and technical geography at level 5. The Blue Rider 23:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the advice. I don't really understand the criteria for any of these ratings honestly, but I'll try that. As a geographer, these lists don't make much sense. Cities and countries are both human geography concepts, and cartography, GIS, and map projections are technical geography. I'd be in favor of moving them up however as you described, as its more appropriate then the current situation. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 02:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Climate change to level 2 from level 3

For example, Astronomy  2 includes child articles with the same level: Solar System  2, Sun  2, Moon  2. Sun and Moon are also the child articles of Solar System. Earth  1 is even higher up. I agree with all those classifications. Can we also move Climate change  3 to level 2, same level with Climate  2? Both climate and climate change can also be considered child articles of Earth, Life  1 etc Bogazicili (talk) 23:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Climate change is too specific to be level 2 vital, it doesn't compare in any metric to the Moon, Sun nor Solar System which are extremely essential to the comprehension of society. The Blue Rider 00:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Human-induced climate change is the largest, most pervasive threat to the natural environment and societies the world has ever experienced, and the poorest countries are paying the heaviest price, a UN expert said." [1] Swap with Deity or Folklore is possible, they are covered by Religion and Culture. --Thi (talk) 10:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Climate change is a recent phenomena, I highly doubt such proposal will pass. The Blue Rider 16:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention local climate change has caused the fall of various civilizations [2]. I'd say that's essential to a society. Not to mention climate change has similar page views to Moon and Solar System (31 million vs 39 million and 36 million), and higher than Universe  2 (19 million). Bogazicili (talk) 11:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'd support this move. Ed [talk] [OMT] 16:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's Climate variability, not Climate change. The Blue Rider 16:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Climate change is the current version of Climate variability and change (and climate change is globally quicker and is human induced). Climate variability and change  4 is like a "History of ..." article. However, localised and quicker forms of Climate variability and change, similar to modern-day global Climate change, has happened to several civilizations which contributed to their fall [3] [4]. Bogazicili (talk) 20:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Blue Rider, Thi, The ed17, FYI, I created a proper proposal topic below. Bogazicili (talk) 21:04, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the climate change article is only reffering to the current climate change. The article is not an "History of...", only 1 out of 4 sections is talking about the history. Civilizations falling because of climate change is a tiny traction of all the reasons. The Blue Rider 21:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current climate change affects the current human societies, so it is "extremely essential to the comprehension of society" Bogazicili (talk) 21:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move Climate change to Level 2

Per above discussion (sorry hadn't done the proper proposal format in previous topic) Bogazicili (talk) 21:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Bogazicili (talk) 21:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Computer is as recent phenomenon. --Thi (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Supporting due to its high and outsized importance now + into the predictable future. Ed [talk] [OMT] 22:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Recentist proposal, this article is only reffering to the contemporany climate change, but even if it included all its history, it's not on the same par as, say, Sea  2, Food  2, Energy  2; it's too specific. The Blue Rider 21:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I don't think how recent something is matters to how vital it is. I oppose it because it's too specific, as per the second half of The Blue Rider's comment.GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 21:54, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If it is recent it had less time to create impact and it can also rise doubts if its going to hold in the long-term. The Blue Rider 22:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, the Information Age, United Nations, and Satellite are level 3, and computer and electricity are level 2. While I can understand that time could impact if it will hold long-term effects, I think that is minimally important when compared to other variables.
    That said, the list for level 2 articles has a lot that could probably be bumped down to make room, like sports, mass media, book, and computer. These are impactful but why is sports more vital then something like Game (level 3), a broader category of which sports are generally a subset of. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 23:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As we go down the levels, the recentist argument starts to get weaker, so level 3 might include things a little more recent, nevertheless, the rate of techonogical development is exponential so that's why things like the United Nation, Information Age and Satellite get listed since they drastically changed society.
    Sports and games are different things, sports had and still have more impact than (board/video) games. Books? So essential to us, they were the most common way to store knowledge, if we didn't have the recordings of those books we wouldn't have achieved modern society. I might support demoting computer and mass media though the latter is probably older than you think. The Blue Rider 23:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My understanding is that a sport is a type of game, while games are much broader then just board/video games and include a lot of examples on the page, including sports. I'd honestly argue that sports could be bumped down before game is bumped up. Games are a primary method of learning that predates formal sports.
    Writing is the dominant way we store information. The page for book has a bit of an ambiguous definition, and I'd tend towards thinking of books as one iteration of how we stored written materials then the more broad definitions which can include newspapers and quipus. With writing included, book seems a bit redundant as a technology. The Simple machines Lever, Wheel and axle, Pulley, Inclined plane, Wedge, and Screw are all much lower, as is paper and rope.
    I'm not really of the opinion that age of something matters that much, and "mass media" seems a bit random of an inclusion.
    The higher lists just seem very haphazard to me. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 04:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per The Blue Rider and GeogSage. Also climate change is a subtopic of Climate  2 which is already Level 2 and is in turn mostly a subtopic of Earth  1. Gizza (talk) 03:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per The Blue Rider and DaGizza. feminist🩸 (talk) 06:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion

@GeogSage: Sea has 5,894 incoming wiki links [5], whereas Climate change has 26,138 [6]. I don't understand the "too specific" argument. Sea also has much lower page views [7]. In fact, climate change seems to have most page views (especially recently) compared to the aforementioned articles (Sea  2, Food  2, Energy  2) [8] Bogazicili (talk) 22:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Page views are to be avoided as the sole metric. Obviously that popular controversial concepts like climate change will have higher views. The Blue Rider 22:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course it isn't the sole metric. Bunch of other arguments have already been made. The scope of climate change is wide, and includes topics related to society, health, economy, environment, culture, politics, international relations, migration, etc... Even Train  3 is level 3 lol, climate change needs to be higher than 3. Bogazicili (talk) 22:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many topics can have impacts on many areas, it's a matter of essential it is to them; climate change only has a great impact on the environment, the rest is moderate at the best. I don't understand your comparison to the train, are you aware of the pivotal role that railroads had on society? The Blue Rider 23:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bogazicili, Donald Trump has 30,206, and Barak Obama has 34,509. Views are not something I would really consider. Climate change has a lot of broad implications, but so does the Internet, which is a level 3 vital article.
The concept of a Sea has a wide scope, including topics realted to society, health, economy, environment, culture, politics, international relations, migration, etc., as well as all of human history. While climate change is impactful to the world, the sea(s) is/are one of the largest impactors of our climate as a whole. The article Atmosphere of Earth is a class 3. The term Climate is represented and is a class 2. I struggle to think that climate change should be ranked higher then the atmosphere of the Earth, or on the same level as the climate in general.
GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 23:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @GeogSage: Train is Level 3, so climate change being same level with climate makes sense to me Bogazicili (talk) 23:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why does train being level 3 mean we should move climate change to level 2? There is a limit to how many pages can be on each level. Climate change may be an important issue, maybe consider that the entire discipline of "earth science" and "weather" are level 3, and that "climate change" needs to have these to be understood at all. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 02:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Swap Catherine the Great for Peter the Great

Peter is one of the key rulers that changed Russia totally. There is even such expression "pre-Petrine Russia", there is no such expression as "pre-Catherinian Russia". Russian history is clearly divided into before (with the boyars, without any schools, without navy) and after Peter (with Governing Senate, with Academy of Sciences, with a big navy). His importance cannot be overstated. Interstellarity (talk) 13:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Interstellarity (talk) 13:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion
  1. Going to reserve judgment on Peter the Great because I'm not a huge expert on Russian history but it is worth nothing that a proposal to remove Catherine the Great lost 6-2 and I think Grnrchst's reasoning on that thread is pretty compelling. I would vote again to reject any proposal that wants to remove Catherine the Great. Aurangzebra (talk) 05:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hatshepsut mistakenly removed from VA:3

This is the first time I've ever participated in this project, so perhaps my understanding is mistaken, but in the discussion swapping Hatshepsut for Cleopatra (began January 24), there were five supports for adding Cleopatra, so she was correctly added, but Hatshepsut's removal only had 4 supports and a neutral, so she should have also stayed, by my understanding of the rules. Is this correct? Ladtrack (talk) 08:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the project! Yes, you are correct. @AirshipJungleman29:, as the closer, please fix it, thanks. The Blue Rider 12:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mea culpa. Suppose this means that there will be two Egyptian female pharoahs, so there will inevitably be a disussion to remove one of them in the near future. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well there was clearly not no consensus on the matter, so instead the discussion should still be open. J947 ‡ edits 23:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I feel like AirshipJungleman29 is closing discussions to hastily. Activities levels here aren't high and things might even take months until we get a consensus. The Blue Rider 01:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Swap Mobile phone with Smartphone

Per recently closed discussion above, I am proposing this swap since Smartphones are ubiquitous to modern life nowadays. Interstellarity (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Interstellarity (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose All smart phones are mobile phones, but not all mobile phones are smart phones. When you compare Smartphone and mobile phone views (see here), mobile phone gets 3,886 views while smartphone gets 2530.GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 19:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @GeogSage and @Purplebackpack89: Would you support a straight removal of mobile phone without a swap for Smartphone to get at quota? Interstellarity (talk) 23:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would support dropping mobile phone to level 4 without a swap yep.00:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC) GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 00:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, thanks for mentioning that. I did propose above that Mobile phone be dropped to level 4, but there wasn't a lot of participation in that discussion. I would encourage people to either say they support a swap or support a straight removal. Interstellarity (talk) 00:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. per Blackadder pbp 21:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 09:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion

Move Bread and Cheese from level 3 to level 4

Within the "Food and drink" section on level 3, there are several staple foods and crops, such as Salt, Spice, meat, fruit, and vegetable as well as the staple cereal crops of maize wheat and rice, and crops like potato and soy bean. Milk is listed under beverages.

Bread and cheese stand out as the only two prepared food items within this list. These two are also very Euro-centric, should we add "noodle" or "tofu"? If we are going by significance, "beer" should be listed under "alcoholic beverage," as it is the third most popular beverage after water and tea, and possibly older then "bread" and "cheese."

Bread and cheese are significant, but they are out of place in the list and open the door to the questions of why we include those but not others. Removing them would open space for other pages.GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 05:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Support

  1. Support GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 05:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per nominator. The Blue Rider 11:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. A lot of cuisines (incl. non-European ones) use bread as the major staple (e.g. Lebanese cuisine), and cheese is also widely used by them (incl. Nepalese and Bhutanese cuisine, though no doubt rarely used in East Asian and Southeastern Asian cuisines), thus both cheese and bread are no Euro-centric.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Bread is also known as cultural symbol (sacramental bread, Bread and Roses). Oppose removals unless it means space for really vital topics such as states. --Thi (talk) 19:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose bread, it is not Euro-centric, we have articles on Indian bread, List of Pakistani breads, List of American breads, read Category:Breads by country - Australian, Brazilian, Chinese, Egyptian, Indonesian, Jamaican, Japanese, Mexican, New Zealand etc. Neutral on cheese. starship.paint (RUN) 09:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Discuss

  1. Comment @User:Thi and @User:RekishiEJ, Wine is also a cultural symbol, and there is a while List of foods with religious symbolism. The importance of bread and chees are not universal, and while more cultures then Europe enjoy these staples, they are not as important to everyone everywhere. In terms of symbolic foods and making space for "really vital topics," egg is a level 4 vital article, not level 3, much less Eggs as food. Eggs are both important in biology, reproduction, and obviously as a food item for humans. With topics like egg, Yogurt, butter, beer, and wine not making it to level 3, I struggle to see the justification for bread and cheese, and the list really seems inconsistent.GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 22:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Swap Frida Kahlo  4 for Vincent van Gogh  3

At V3 in Artists we have 6 articles: Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, Rembrandt, Hokusai, Pablo Picasso and Frida Kahlo. I don't think Kahlo is at the same level as the other 5. A quick look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts/Popular pages suggests van Gogh is more popular, and arguably, more famous, impactful and vital. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:37, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. As nom. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per nom; while representation is important, it should not be too extreme. Kaholo does not rank even close to the other V3 artists, while Van Gogh does. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per nom; Van Gogh is iconic. Jusdafax (talk) 05:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose both per previous discussions. There's the representation problem. J947 ‡ edits 10:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kahlo is an highly influential activist and painter to the Mexican culture, arguably the most famous women painter. Van Gogh is as vital as its expressionist counter-part, that is, Edvard Munch  4. The Blue Rider 01:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. May support a swap of Van Gogh with Rembrandt  3. Kahlo is far more well known than Rembrandt who is fairly obscure and page views over the last decade backs this up. Kahlo gets almost quadruple the number of readers as Rembrandt consistently. Gizza (talk) 02:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

Add Mali Empire

Mali Empire is the most important polity that ever existed in Africa. Sucessor of the Ghana Empire  4, it emcompassed a fairly large territorial extent. Mansa Musa  3 was fulcral to the conversion of (West) Africa to Islam and his iconic pilgrimage to Mecca put the Mali Empire on the map. It played a major part in the Atlantic slave trade  4 and to the trade of salt and gold, it was essentially an important trade post. It was the hub of intelectual and cultural development with many scholars coming to Timbuktu  4; monuments like Great Mosque of Djenné  5 were built, as well as the first sub-saharan university, Sankoré Madrasah. The Blue Rider 18:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. As nominator. The Blue Rider 18:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. We probably should have at least one African empire represented and this is the best candidate. Aurangzebra (talk) 03:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. The most important polity that ever existed in Africa was the British Empire. Or maybe the French. For a modern palate, that may be disturbing and objectionable, but it is sadly true. While Mansa Musa deserves a place at VA3, his empire does not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:23, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak oppose, per lack of historic records, historic significance, or frankly lasting relevance. Also somewhat per above. Even South Africa  3 and Egypts seems more important. Respublik (talk) 18:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Not a V3 level in terms of global impact. Aszx5000 (talk)
Discuss

Add egg

A topic that is definitely vital at this level, since it has been a frequent used word in both daily and science contexts.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. per nom Aurangzebra (talk) 05:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Remove History of architecture, history of music and history of film

Okay, no doubt they are vital, but are they really as vital as history of art, which is currently also considered vital at level 3? Besides, there are currently 1002 articles in the list, yet still incomplete as it lacks some articles so vital that should definitely be added (e.g. egg, analytical chemistry and lead).

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose history of music and history of film. Architecture is a subset of art, the others, less so. pbp 16:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 17:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose all. Logic is the same as pbp's but on top of that, I think architecture is a distinct enough field from art to warrant its own history article. Aurangzebra (talk) 05:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles&oldid=1215959602"