Wikipedia talk:Vital people

Sorting chronologically

I'm in the process of sorting the vital people chronologically because I feel it better represents people through time. If anyone wants to help out in doing this, please do. Interstellarity (talk) 15:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I finished sorting. Interstellarity (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

6 over quota

I just did a count of the articles and noticed we are 6 over quota. I put in a bot request to update the count, but for now, I did it manually. If someone could remove the 6 least important people on the list, that would be great. Interstellarity (talk) 15:42, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

• Surely won't be a controversial call, that. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:48, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Status?

What is the status of this "Vital people" initiative? Based on Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_183#Proposal:_Split_the_biographies_from_the_main_vital_articles, it seems like it should be wrapped back into the "Vital articles" project, whose biographies appear to be restored to their article lists. czar 05:28, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Czar: You are an administrator so feel free propose/organise what you do think. These pags FWIW are esseys (and at least will be for long time). We have a lot of essays in template below at page Wikipedia:Vital articles. For example sandboxes of Sethallen, Igrek, Power~~enwiki etc. Wikiproject Core Biographies is inactive since years of years. But if we will ever integrate those two projects (ping User:daGizza and User:John M Wolfson and User:Amakuru who are other active admins in that projects) and run up again something related with biographies (read unnecesary next effort if we have list of all articles), then I think Vital articles should have much more participants and pagewatchers. Maybe redirecting Wikipedia:Sandbox to Wikipedia:Vital articles for a while could help to gain more pagewatchers. Just as Lea Luboshutz gained 16 212 pagewatchers thank to data base error per Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, what do you think? Dawid2009 (talk) 18:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Admin permissions are for technical actions, so not a substitute for editor consensus. My suggestion here, if there has been no other discussion, is to redirect these "Vital people" pages into the existing "Vital articles" pages to avoid confusion. As far as I've seen, the proposal to split out biographies was contested. If someone wants to maintain these within a WikiProject or user space, that's another alternative. czar 03:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

@Czar and Dawid2009: I agree with this, redirecting back to WP:VA sounds good. The pages were split out without attribution, so the licensing is slightly questionable, and there wasn't really a consensus to establish them. It doesn't make sense to maintain two parallel sets of "vital people" given that bios are already one of the categories within WP:VA, with lots of spaces available once you get down to level 5.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:02, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Redirect to WP:VA or integrating with Wikipedia:Core biographies sound good IMHO. Some people made much work to create lists of 500 most important people but there is almost the same copy other's sandboxes and even if we would redirect, the content can be still findable in view history. Dawid2009 (talk) 16:17, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:04, 15 February 2024 (UTC)