Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:Vital articles

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Aurangzebra (talk | contribs) at 06:50, 16 April 2024 (→‎Add List). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut
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

The purpose of this page is for discussions of over-arching matters regarding level 5 Vital articles, such as procedures, quotas, or other broad changes. Level 5 Vital articles are meant to be 50,000 topics for which Wikipedia should have high-quality articles.

If you want to simply propose articles to be added, removed, or swapped from the level 5 Vital articles lists, please do so at the relevant subpages: #1 People; #2 History & geography; #3 Society (arts, philosophy, religion, everyday life, recreation, and social sciences); #4 STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics).

Discussions on this page and its subpages follow these guidelines:

Voting count table (>60%)
P = passes
F = fails 		opposing votes
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
0
supporting votes
 – – – – F F F F F F
1 – – – F F F F F F F
2 – – F F F F F F F F
3 – F F F F F F F F F
4 P P P F F F F F F F
5 P P P P F F F F F F
6 P P P P F F F F F F
7 P P P P P F F F F F
8 P P P P P P F F F F
9 P P P P P P F F F F
  1. Discussions should run for at least 14 days before being closed;
  2. Discussions should have at least 4 participants before being closed;
  3. For a change to the list to be implemented, it must have over 60% support;
  4. For a change to the list to be implemented, it must have 4 support votes;
  5. Discussions should remain open until 7 days after the most recent vote.
  • 14 days ago: 15:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
  • 7 days ago: 15:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Add Voyager Golden Record

Not sure what category I should put this in, but this is an important time capsule that shows human life. Interstellarity (talk) 13:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Interstellarity (talk) 13:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, despite the unusual context, one part of me leans towards putting it with other Specific anthologies somewhere in Culture. Indented under Voyager program  4 in Tech also makes a lot of sense though. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. per nom. Fine with placing it either in Culture or under Voyager program. We may also want to consider pioneer plaque which is a similarly identifiable and widely-known capsule. Aurangzebra (talk) 18:46, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 09:33, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion
  1. How many known time capsules exist?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to Split society subpage

User:Zar2gar1 suggested this above. Here are the current page sizes:

STEM-94,014 bytes
Society-532,282 bytes
History and geography-237,116 bytes
People-284,427 bytes

I propose that we split society in a fairly even manner into 2 or 3 separate subpages-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Size updates

STEM-126,155 bytes
Society-518,292 bytes
History and geography-235,486 bytes
People-318,168 bytes-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:36, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Current size updates

STEM-118,652 bytes
Society-387,125 bytes
History and geography-189,091 bytes
People-175,675 bytes


Support
  1. as nom. I'd support either 2 or 3 separate pages.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. It's already the second smallest category. The page size is not too worrying at this point IMO, but more of a reminder that we could be focusing our attention on other areas. J947 ‡ edits 23:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify, the proposal is for the overall talk-page category, which also includes Arts, Religion and Philosophy, and Everyday Life. You're right though that we don't list those on the corresponding project page. Even if you combine them all, those sections really don't have large quotas either; they just attract a very disproportionate amount of attention. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 01:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Close and/or archive every discussion that can be closed and archived first. Let’s wait and see if the society subpage is in fact naturally unwieldy or if it was just that the old system f***ed that subpage especially hard. SailorGardevoir (talk) 23:33, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Of whom are you an alt of? The Blue Rider 21:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pardon? J947 ‡ edits 23:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it's clear this isn't their first time on Wikipedia. Was just curious what was their previous account, namely if it was someone that used to be active on this project. The Blue Rider 19:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, this might work if we're patient. Page stats show it has gone down at least 50kB since the end of December, but I doubt we'll know if that's a reliable trend for a few months yet. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 01:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
How would it be the proposed division? The Blue Rider 21:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, after thinking about this a bit more, most of the sections (except maybe people?) mix general concepts with specific instances. The society one is just very popular. It may seem forced given the quotas aren't that high, but a naive 2-way split (say Arts + Religion and Philosophy as one, Everyday Life + Society as the other) would result in talk-pages closer to 250kB. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 01:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We need some help at Society. There are 200+ proposals. We even had a repeat proposal just seven days later. I am not sure if there is enough attention to proposals stuck in the middle of the page. starship.paint (RUN) 09:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cewbot

How often does Cewbot run? I just added a page to the list and the templates still haven't been updated. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It can take a few hours or days. The Blue Rider 21:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Thanks! QuicoleJR (talk) 22:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent move

@Interstellarity, did you just move the people pages to biographies without discussion? SailorGardevoir (talk) 01:14, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @SailorGardevoir and thank you for asking. The short answer is that I did move the pages without discussion. The long answer is that I opened up a discussion on the level 4 page here. There was one comment in that discussion that suggested that it could be retitled Biographies rather than People. I probably should've opened up a discussion on this page before doing all those page moves and I encourage editors to post their comments here. I am more than happy to move those pages back if consensus disagrees with me. Interstellarity (talk) 02:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think @SnowFire’s comment was meant to be a sign-off for you to do this. SailorGardevoir (talk) 02:17, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do people articles include non biographies like bands and other people group articles?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:04, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. SailorGardevoir (talk) 04:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, biographies don't have to be of a single person, they can be of a group. The Blue Rider 13:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do think one of the most common type of people group with articles is bands. We also have sports teams such as 2017–18 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team. I think bands are commonly nominated for addition and removal in people. I have nominated the 1927 New York Yankees season and 1972 Miami Dolphins season (not sure why some sports use team and some use season for team-season articles, but I digress). I think these were before the page split and I don't know whether those teams would belong in the people subpage. However, the question is whether the renaming properly addresses our spectrum of groups of people. I am also not sure how famous individual animals (live or fictional) are impacted by the page move.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:48, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They’re not. The fictional characters are under Arts, while real individual animals are listed under Animals. SailorGardevoir (talk) 20:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. suppose someone wanted to nominate R2-D2. Is that a biography?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:55, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, fictional caracthers are also biographies. The Blue Rider 15:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a heads up that the links to the corresponding vital articles page no longer work since there is no page called Biographies. I would fix this myself but I'm unsure how since one of the links is in the talkbox which I believe is templated. Aurangzebra (talk) 07:03, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aurangzebra: Can you provide a link in an example? I can try my best to fix it, but if not, I can put an edit request in if it is template or fully protected. Interstellarity (talk) 13:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I don't really like this change. It broke a bunch of stuff like Aurangzebra mentioned, and I preferred the People name. Like with the VA4 move proposal, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have reverted my edits until we gain further consensus on whether this change is good. I think it would be good to use diffs and links so that any potential issues can be resolved beforehand. Hope this helps. Interstellarity (talk) 22:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I remain a bit confused. It seems that User:SailorGardevoir has clarified that fictional characters and real individual animals are not relevant to this consideration. However, is there agreement that people groups such as 1. Bands, 2. Sports teams are considered part of the biography subject. People groups can become a slippery slope. I guess we mean an enumerable set of individuals. We don't mean things like labor unions, militant factions or terrorist groups do we. A basketball team-season article would refer to about 20 people (including coaches). An American football team-season would refer to maybe 50-80 people depending upon the era. However, these are finite lists of enumerable people. Bands would generally range from a handful to maybe a dozen enumerable members. Is there some agreement on which people groups belong on the people subpage and which ones don't.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what the fuss is about. I've already clarified that groups can also be considered biographies; google "collective biographies". Why make up a hypothetical scenario? There are no sports seasons on our list, nor are they likely to ever be. The Blue Rider 21:07, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sports teams are not listed under people. SailorGardevoir (talk) 21:10, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add Technical geography

ADDED
Added 6-0. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 05:03, 16 April 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.

Technical geography is a term used to describe "using, studying, and creating tools to obtain, analyze, interpret, understand, and communicate spatial information." This branch has been used to subdivide the discipline since at least 1749. Many subtopics and techniques within this discipline, like cartography, projections, and remote sensing, are already listed fairly highly. I recently suggested the three branches human geography, physical geography, and technical geography be moved to level 3, but was told to try moving the first two to level 4 and technical to level 5 first. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 16:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Per nominator. The Blue Rider 17:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per above.GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 19:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 04:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. per nom Aurangzebra (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --RekishiEJ (talk) 05:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 01:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss
  • P.S. @GeogSage: Normally people support their own proposals, I assume this is the case here. The Blue Rider 17:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up! Articles for improvement have the opposite rule, and I didn't know the convention here. I appreciate the help!GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 19:50, 7 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.

VA template in edit summaries

I know this has been brought before but surely there is a way for the template to work in edit summaries, because its extremely annoying to not be able to simply click on the proposal; most of the time it doesn't work but I have seen some instances were it did work. The Blue Rider 21:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it’s annoying to me as well. Not sure how to fix this, but willing to get some ideas. Interstellarity (talk) 21:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have also found this really annoying. Maybe we could try asking at VPT? QuicoleJR (talk) 17:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add Cathedral of Christ the Saviour

Because currently it is the largest and tallest church in Russia (link), it is definitely vital at this level.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:19, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Add Cosmos

Not sure where this should be listed, but is an important topic for level 5. Interstellarity (talk) 13:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Interstellarity (talk) 13:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per nom.GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 23:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Remove Cartogram and add Thematic map

I'm a bit surprised that Cartogram is the thematic map that made it onto level 5 as they are quite rare comparatively. I suggest dropping the page for cartogram completely and replacing it with thematic map, a category of maps that includes cartograms. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 23:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC) Support[reply]

  1. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 23:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 05:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discuss

NA articles.

Can we get the Cewbot assessment page to include articles rated NA? That’s usually an indicator that something got moved. SailorGardevoir (talk) 23:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add List

Super-basic and fundamental topic. List should be under Information, as a list is one of the most common types of/ways to organize information.

Support
  1. BD2412 T 01:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 05:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. The purpose of the VA project is to identify a list of articles that we should devote more editing resources towards to make them high quality. We don't need that for list: there is no specialized history to them (the article itself mentions that the scholarship on lists is fragmented) and their purpose and existence is straightforward; it's basically a dictionary term. Almost everything on the article seems fairly obvious. It also establishes a dangerous precedent. Where do we stop? Should we add paragraph for example? Aurangzebra (talk) 06:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion

Clarification that early modern period ends in 1815

For as long as I can remember, the cutoff between early modern and modern on the vital articles page. However, recently another editor has been moving articles around to split early modern at 1800. The significance to 1815 is the end of the Napoleonic Wars and the Congress of Vienna that defined the world order for the next 99 years. 1800 is a 00 year but has no additional historical significance. pbp 21:35, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support 1815
  1. pbp 21:35, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support 1800
  1. Based on our early modern period article, which generally supports a 1500-1800 date. SailorGardevoir (talk) 22:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support something else
Discussion

FWIW, the article (which is trash, BTW) states, "There is no exact date that marks the beginning or end of the period and its timeline may vary depending on the area of history being studied." pbp 00:10, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SailorGardevoir: Without saying "it's what the article says", can you defend why 1800 is a good year for that split? What watershed event occurred in that year? pbp 00:10, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s a nice round number that’s close to the end of the French Revolution, which is what most people consider the main event that divides the modern era into early and late periods, not the Congress of Vienna. SailorGardevoir (talk) 00:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VA5 quota now 50,075. Reduce Countries and subdivisions by 50? 1348/1400 to 1348/1350

Per Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5, VA5 quota is currently 50,075 articles, not 50,000. Countries and subdivisions is currently 1348/1400 articles. Shall we reduce the quota by 50? Making it 1348/1350. starship.paint (RUN) 08:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 11:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. As nom. starship.paint (RUN) 09:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. We have too many pointless country subdivisions, so we could and should reduce it even further. Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 21:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

VA5 quota now 50,075. Reduce Animals by 25? 2357/2400 to 2357/2375

Per Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5, VA5 quota is currently 50,075 articles, not 50,000. Animals is currently 2357/2400 articles. Shall we reduce the quota by 25? Making it 2357/2375. starship.paint (RUN) 08:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
Oppose
Discuss

I'd rather reduce Basics_and_measurement down to 350. It's a nice round number. Besides, I think we have more animals omitted rather than measurement units. Makkool (talk) 11:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add Princess Peach

Princess Peach's popularity has been slowly growing even more since she was given her own game, Princess Peach: Showtime! as well as losing her damsel in distress style in The Super Mario Bros. Movie

Support
  1. Greenish Pickle! (🔔) 11:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Would rather have Bowser or Luigi. The Blue Rider 15:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Every fictional character we list has been the "headliner" for some massive global franchise. Until Peach spawns her own global franchise (e.g. blockbuster movies, video games, and series about her specifically), I would oppose. Aurangzebra (talk) 06:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5&oldid=1219184080"