Wikipedia talk:Vital articles

General Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

Level 5 Subpages

People History and geography Society STEM

Introduction

FA FA GA GA A – Total December 1, 2007 83 45 90 139 25 690 1022 June 1, 2008 88 46 79 140 25 670 999 December 1, 2008 88 50 72 145 24 682 1014 FA A GA B C – Total December 1, 2009 82 7 49 586 146 129 999 January 1, 2011 78 8 60 472 255 113 986 January 1, 2012 76 1 76 454 275 109 991 June 29, 2013 88 3 88 450 289 82 1000 October 13, 2013 90 4 92 446 284 83 999 January 13, 2015 90 2 96 417 333 60 998 December 23, 2016 94 2 107 425 355 17 1000 December 10, 2017 91 3 115 392 376 17 994 January 22, 2019 92 4 122 389 380 12 999 December 20, 2019 88 2 121 390 383 17 1001 November 25, 2020 83 1 127 373 402 15 1001

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: 12:28, 31 July 2024 (UTC) ()
• 30 days ago: 12:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
• 60 days ago: 12:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

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.

---

Remove Abu Nuwas

Normally I would suggest swapping him with Rumi, but since we are in the business of getting rid of articles, I thought I would suggest a cold removal. Abu Nuwas nets very few page views on Wikipedia, never surpassing 250 views in a single day. While he is culturally important, I do not think he is even the best representative of Middle Eastern literature. The lack of attention readers give to his article indicates that he is not a key figure for an English-language encyclopedia.

Support

1. Support as nom -- Zelkia1101 (talk) 02:13, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Support. He's not vital at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
3. I oppose a straight removal but would support a swap with Rumi or Ferdowsi. Having one representative of Middle Eastern literature is more important than listing five writers from the British Isles, particularly when English literature is also listed. Cobblet (talk) 03:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC
4. Support swap with Rumi or Ferdowsi per Cobblet. Aza24 (talk) 03:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
5. Support swap with Rumi per Cobblet.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 12:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
6. Support swap with Rumi per Cobblet. Interstellarity (talk) 23:01, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
7. Support swap with Rumi per Cobblet. The removal of Rumi was always a mistake, Persian literature is one of the most important and one we should cover. Abu Nuwas isn't really as comparable in importance and in the lower tier of this list. GuzzyG (talk) 06:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
8. Support swap with Rumi per Cobblet. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 18:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
9. Support removal If you want more space for other entries in this section. --Thi (talk) 11:07, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
10. Be replaced by Rumi, since he is the most popular and best-selling poet in America (from the lede of the article), which surprised me a lot, since usually a person tends to prefer a poet with the same ethnicity to one with another one, and a typical American is a WASP.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:46, 1 May 2021 (UTC))
11. Support. Not very well known. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
12. Support' swap with Rumi. I tried in the past swap/comprasion of Zorroastrianism with Rumi (what resulted in removal of Rumi and dening him) but this was during time when writers were more overreprsented. Rumi is clearly big omnission for English Wikipedia and Zorroastrianism should be replaced with another article. This is not bad to have Rumi over Persian language if there is consensus he is the most vital writer in Muslim World. I think Ali is much more vital than Rumi but can live with that entry/consensus. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:46, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
13. Support swap with Rumi per above. Gizza (talk • voy) 09:18, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

For anyone curious, I did some research into Abu Nuwas a while back (with the intention of working on his article because he's on this list) and found that he is not even close to the level of any other figures on this list. There are certainly more prominent Arab poets as well. Aza24 (talk) 03:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

If people are insisting on a swap, I would prefer Rumi to Ferdowsi, given the former is vastly more popular with users. -- Zelkia1101 (talk) 05:19, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

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.

Cleanup time

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vital Articles#Cleanup time. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:21, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

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.

---

Swap: Remove Bengali language, add Swahili language

I was really surprised not to see Swahili here – a major African language with a long literary heritage, a lingua franca in huge parts of Eastern Africa, and an official language of the AU. Yes, there are more L1 speakers of Bengali, but it’s not only a numbers game. For South Asia we already have Hindustani, which like Swahili is more international. Bengali is more strictly limited to Bangladesh and adjacent areas in India. African culture is not very well represented in the list; adding Swahili would remedy that to some extent. --Telepanda (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.
2. Support. Bengali has a relatively large number of speakers, but it doesn't seem particularly vital to list at this level to me. Portuguese is probably more vital to the English Wikipedia and we recently removed it. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

   We didn't actually remove Portuguese in the end. Cobblet (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

   Aa, I see it survived by one vote. Regardless, I supported its removal and I support this one as well. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:22, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

3. Support addition Swahili deserves to be here, we are lacking in African culture and it is practically the lingua franca for a good chunk of the continent. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 18:16, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
4. Support Swahili is a much more important language in culture and history than Bengali, which is contained and historically isolated. We need more articles pertaining to Africa than what we have now. Hindustani will have to suffice as the representative of the subcontinent. — Zelkia1101 (talk) 18:54, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
5. Support Bengali has a lot of people, but Hindustani has even more.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
6. Support addition Niger–Congo is the largest language family by number of languages, and third largest by number of speakers. It deserves to be represented and Swahili is the obvious choice. Cobblet (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
7. Support addition Per my comment in the archives. Swahili is supercentral language in global language system Dawid2009 (talk) 20:19, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
8. Support removal, oppose addition. Neiter is really important. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removal Bengali handily beats Swahili and Portuguese (another recently suggested removal) in page views. It has more than three times the number of speakers than Swahili and its literary heritage is just as rich as Swahili's. I don't consider Bengal a less significant cultural region than East Africa, and the Bengali diaspora is very much an international one. I'd rather remove Brahmic scripts if push came to shove. Among the alphabets the only one I'd keep is Latin. Cobblet (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose removal per Cobblet. With approximately 228 million native speakers and another 37 million as second language speakers,Bengali is the fifth most-spoken native language and the seventh most spoken language by total number of speakers in the world.— TheWikiholic (talk) 02:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose removal' Languages are vital in my book. We can cover the most important langusges if we discuss/mention on that talk around writers like Rumi (repressntative of Persian language which is not on the list), Dante (Italian, not listed), Tagore (Bengali, just nominated) etc.. Languages are more foundsmental than literatures/single writers to human knowlage. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:20, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose removal Bengali is a large language, too large to be removed from Level 3. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 03:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
5. Support removal, oppose addition. Neiter is really important. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
6. Oppose removal With over 200 million speakers, Bengali is the 4th most most influential Indo-European language. Only the English language, Hindi, and the Spanish language have more speakers. Dimadick (talk) 12:00, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

1. Did Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus vote twice?

The way they have Bolded their writing, I would guess they wrote it on both sections as are showing they both support removal but oppose addition, as opposed to a simple clean straight support or oppose. Not the way most people do it, but I can see the intention. One should just be mindful when counting up when this is closed as to not count it twice.  Carlwev  23:05, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

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.

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.

---

Remove Year

We list two units of time but don't list units of measurement for any other fundamental quantities. I think calendar sufficiently covers the notion of a calendar year that we don't need to separately list it. Nor do we need to cover the various astronomical definitions of a year at this level – they're pretty esoteric.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 20:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
2. I'd support removing this and day to free up some space. To the extent they are human constructs they are covered by calendar, and to they extent they relate to astronomical phenomena (axis of rotation, orbit around the Sun) they are certainly Level 4 worthy but not Level 3 worthy; indeed, the latter is already covered by orbit.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Support per discussion above; too much overlap with calendar, which should cover the various agricultural issues related to year. I will oppose removing day if proposed, as I don't see anything else regarding the difference between night and daytime. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
4. Support per everyone else. GuzzyG (talk) 05:44, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose the concept of a year is important, I don't think orbit can replace it. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 03:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Dawid2009 (talk)
3. Oppose Calendar and year seems to be a good combination. Calendar talks about systems of organizing days and year as a basic concept is defined in another article. --Thi (talk) 16:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose --Tucvbif (talk) 13:15, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Day and Year seem different to me than other units of measurement as they are not really constructs like other units of measurement but are based on naturally occurring phenomenon, specifically the rotation of the Earth on its axis and revolution of Earth around the Sun. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

While we are on the topic then how would you feel to maybe swap it with New Year? Dawid2009 (talk) 13:34, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

That would be an even worse addition, since it's subsidiary to Year and we don't post holidays on here.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

New Year at least would not have overlap with Orbit/Calendar etc. and covers something other else what is not mentioned in Orbit/Calendar about Year. We would bit more cover definition of year also in cultural article, just as we rejected article Rainforest to cover its definition in Amazon Rainforest at this level (see in archives why Amazon rainforest is level 3 despite being subsidiary to rainforest which is level 4 article). This would be the only article on holiday/festival neutral for all nations (though there are also other more important cultural topics which express everyday life so I am not sure New Year would be vital enough at this levek, anyway). Dawid2009 (talk) 14:08, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

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.

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.

---

Swap: Remove Neutron and Proton, add Carbohydrate and Lipid

If something on nuclear structure absolutely needs to be listed, better to list atomic nucleus than to list both neutron and proton. But I'm not even convinced that's necessary. We already list a lot of topics related to atomic and nuclear physics and their practical applications. Meanwhile for cells, we do not list cell nucleus nor any other organelle, nor cell cycle.

I didn't oppose the addition of hormone since we have nothing on cell signaling or the endocrine system in animals. But carbohydrates and lipids are fundamental building blocks of life – as biomolecules go, these should be a much higher priority. (Protein is listed, while DNA and RNA are listed separately rather than nucleic acid.)

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 21:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Support additions I was surprised they weren't already on here.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:21, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Other articles cover atomic physics reasonably well. --Thi (talk) 11:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
4. Support Ideally we would have both pairs at this level but we are way overboard currently. Proton and neutron are covered by subatomic particle anyway. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 03:25, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removals Protons and neutrons are the constituent parts of the atomic nucleus and serve as counterparts to the listed electron (I'm aware the latter is more important historically and with electricity, but I digress). I might be convinced with a swap for quarks, but even that's a bit debatable given the niche knowledge of the latter. We have enough space on here that we don't need to remove these.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:21, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

   It is far from apparent that we do in fact have space for them. We're at 1003 articles and it appears there is support to add more countries and more people. It is also far from apparent to me why nuclear physics needs to be represented by all of subatomic particle, proton, neutron, and radioactive decay when theory of relativity suffices to cover both special relativity and general relativity, and state of matter suffices to cover all of solid, liquid, gas and plasma (physics). I suggest that hormone was a weaker choice than all of the topics I've just mentioned. If we don't remove proton and neutron, I will propose swapping them for atomic nucleus and removing hormone, unless you have a better suggestion. Cobblet (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

2. Oppose removals per above comment. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose removals I don't see how neutron and proton are covered by subatomic particle any more than how Uranus and Neptune are covered by planet/solar system. Gizza (talk • voy) 06:55, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

   They aren't; but people seem to like listing astronomical objects. If people also like listing nucleons, I'll respect that consensus. Cobblet (talk) 09:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

4. Oppose. As a non-physics expert, the terms neutron and proton are much better known that the others. Rule of thumb (commonly known=more vital) suggests the current set up is good. Nether of the proposed additions strikes me as being even on the same level as far as public use of the terms.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose. Proton and Neutron are more basic in a sense. RJFJR (talk) 03:20, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
6. Oppose --Tucvbif (talk) 13:16, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

• The Biology section is already the largest section in the sciences. And endocrine system probably would have been a better article to list at this level than hormone. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

  These topics, along with protein and hormone, could just as easily go under (bio)chemistry as under molecular biology. And Life is level 1 after all. Cobblet (talk) 02:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

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.

Spring Offensive

Wikipedia:Vital_articles/List_of_all_articles#S includes Spring Offensive. The article has been moved to German spring offensive. Cewbot has now removed the article from Vital Articles as it is unlisted. I haven't the faintest idea how Vital Articles work. Should the lists be edited and the article re-inserted under its new name? Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 14:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but I think a bot will do so.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Same thing now with Edward Plunkett, 18th Baron of Dunsany moved to Lord Dunsany. DuncanHill (talk) 13:46, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

• They haven't been re-added. So anyone who wants to de-list a vital article only has to get it moved. DuncanHill (talk) 21:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

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.

---

Remove Colonialism

Colonialism is the form of imperialism that involves a population transfer from the subjugating power to the territory being subjugated. While it has been used to describe earlier historical events (we cover many pre-modern groups of people who established colonies such as the Phoenicians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs and Vikings), the term is strongly associated with the Age of Discovery, which is listed along with many of its aspects (European colonization of the Americas, Western imperialism in Asia, Scramble for Africa, Spanish Empire, British Empire). Decolonization is also listed. Given all of our coverage of Western colonialism (note how Britannica does not have an article on colonialism per se), I think keeping just imperialism to cover the slightly broader political concept is sufficient.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 15:28, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
2. Per nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Seems to be covered by other articles on this list. --Thi (talk) 18:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
4. Support Cobblet said everything do not need to add but will say else that IMHO having Magellan and Age of Discovery would be much better to keep room than decolonisation and colonialism. Dawid2009 (talk) 18:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
5. Support - always felt that colonialism is redundant to imperialism here. More suitable at Level 4. Gizza (talk • voy) 01:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
6. Support. Too much overlap with other listed articles. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
7. Support. Too much overlap, per Cobblet. GuzzyG (talk) 14:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
8. Support per above concerns on overlap. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:09, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I think colonialism as a separate concept from imperialism is still worthy of being listed at this level. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 20:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Colonialism is distinct from imperialism, and it is unfortunately one of the prevailing themes of history that touches all six continents. There is no reason to have as many writers biographies as we do while not having a key concept like imperialism. I will oppose the removal of an article that is not a writers biography on this list — Zelkia1101 (talk) 20:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose - These are two distinct concepts, two distinct articles. Jusdafax (talk) 03:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose I think colonialism has had an overwhelming impact on human history, with most modern countries starting out as colonies. Dimadick (talk) 07:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose per Dimadick. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
6. Oppose --Tucvbif (talk) 13:16, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

1. Oppose. I'd rather remove some or all subarticles which are limited practical examples of colonialism (like the ones you mention - European colonization of the Americas, Western imperialism in Asia, Scramble for Africa). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

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.

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.

---

Remove Board game and Card game

These seem to be mostly covered by game in my opinion, I think they could work fine at Level 4. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 03:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 03:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
2. Support removal of card game, neutral on board game—Card games seem to have little major impact on society and are especially modern. Not sure about board games, which are an older tradition afaik. Aza24 (talk) 03:41, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 07:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
4. Support removal of card game Card game article is more isolated, not comparable to board game. GuzzyG (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
5. Support per nom. RJFJR (talk) 03:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Board games and card games are important cultural mainstays that exist across cultures and times. It would be ridiculous to remove them, especially since they represent so many people and cultures, from Ancient Egypt to ourselves. How the hell are either less vital than Franz Kafka or Rumi? — Zelkia1101 (talk) 10:52, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

#Oppose per Zelkia; further, card games date to at least the renaissance and include such cultural mainstays as Poker and Contract bridge.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:13, 4 May 2021 (UTC) While I won't support, I'm striking my oppose on the grounds that we are above quota and already have game.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:24, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

1. Oppose removing board game From Senet to Snakes and ladders to Chess to Monopoly - board games are a important enough part of human life/activity thoughout multiple cultures and enough time to be listed. GuzzyG (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Zelkia. There are biographies and probably many other articles which should be removed first if space needs to be made. Disagree with removing longstanding, cross-cultural phenomena. Gizza (talk • voy) 03:21, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose  Carlwev  18:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose Per above. Probably there are better topics to cut and otherwise video games also should be called into question. Dawid2009 (talk) 06:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

I'd support this IF we were also removing video game. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:37, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

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 Sargon of Akkad, Add Akbar

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.

---

Note: Akbar has already been added to the list in another nomination.

I think this would be a good swap to promote a more diverse landscape of people. Interstellarity (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
2. Support We already list Hammurabi for ancient Mesopotamia, I'd like a pre-contemporary Indian ruler, especially a Mughal one. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 16:13, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
3. Support per above. --Thi (talk) 17:31, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
4. Support Since the previous proposal to add Akbar is likely to pass, this is essentially a proposal to remove Sargon. Even without listing him, Mesopotamia remains the cradle of civilization with the most coverage on the list. I'd consider it an improvement to replace him with one history article related to sub-Saharan Africa such as the Songhai Empire, for example (not that we actually have room for it at the moment). Cobblet (talk) 05:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
5. Support per above. VIT4 is sufficient. czar 00:06, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
6. Support Minoo (talk) 23:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Sargon of Akkad is vital and central to encyclopedia as the founder of arguably the first empire and the first organized state. He kicked off the period of prosperity in Mesopotamia that would vault that region into historical prominence for thousands of years. His person is central to the history of the Middle East. Why are we removing him and keeping Kafka or Twain? Is Sargon of Akkad really vital when they are? — Zelkia1101 (talk) 14:22, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Sargon is the earliest empire-builder known to us, and one of history's most influential rulers. 23:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)Dimadick (talk)

Neutral

Discuss

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.

Saint Lawrence River and Seaway

Both these articles were moved from Saint to St. The bot is removing the vital article templates and I'm on mobile today. Wondering if someone could fix their entries in the lists? - Floydian ^τ _¢ 13:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@Floydian: The bot has fixed these entries. I note Gulf of Saint Lawrence and the associated categories have not yet been renamed. Cobblet (talk) 18:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it was quite a big task with going through the articles to change each instance as well, so I didn't get around to the categories (nor, TBH, do I know how to properly move them). Cheers, Floydian ^τ _¢ 00:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Swap: Add Paleolithic and Neolithic, remove Neolithic Revolution and Early human migrations

I've been paying attention to this list more than I used to for WP:TCC, and I've thought for a while that there's a...discrepancy...in which prehistory articles inhabit Vital 3 and which inhabit Vital 4. At Vital 2, we have Prehistory -- all good. At Vital 3 this first subdivides into Stone Age -- reasonable, very popular term. Then that subdivides twice, still at the Vital 3 level, into Neolithic Revolution and Early human migrations...with Paleolithic and Neolithic not popping up until Vital 4. This creates the bizarre situation that a Vital 3 topic is a subtopic of a Vital 4 one, as "Neolithic Revolution" is a subtopic of "Neolithic". "Paleolithic" and "Neolithic" are clearly more fundamental divisions of "Stone Age" at this level; it is impossible to understand the Neolithic Revolution without understanding either of those two, and while humanity's worldwide dispersal is certainly an important topic, if the choice is between the current divisions at Vital 3 and the proposed ones, I think the proposed ones more comfortably fit with the thousand core topics. (Given a bit more breathing room we might be able to accommodate all three of Paleolithic, Neolithic, and Early human migrations at Vital 3, but we don't have that room and IMO the subdivisions take precedence.) Vaticidalprophet 01:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. nom
2. Support removal of Early human migrations I guess some other articles are more interesting for general reader, foer example Paleolithic. I have no strong opinion on how many articles about prehistory are needed at this level. --Thi (talk) 19:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
3. Support removal of Neolithic Revolution and additions. Gizza (talk • voy) 06:55, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removal of Neolithic Revolution The advent of agriculture is the event that separates human history into a before and after, up there with, if not above, the Industrial Revolution and advent of the Information Age. I am neutral to the other proposals.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:53, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose removal of Early human migrations. Knowing about how humans moved out of Africa and settled every continent of the world (barring Antarctica) is arguably more important than periods defined by technology (of which there are already many at this level). Gizza (talk • voy) 06:55, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose removal of Early human migrations per daGizza. This makes much sense to know about early human migrations before every other history article, for example either of preColumbian America and Age of Discovery. Dawid2009 (talk) 16:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose both removals They are far too important to humanity's history to ignore. Dimadick (talk) 12:04, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose both This change is no improvement. Minoo (talk) 23:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Canal, Add Public transport or Bus

I'm not sure if the removal was a good pick to remove, but I think the addition is necessary because we don't have anything that covers buses. The only kind of road transport we cover is the car, but since buses are the other major kind of road transport, it is necessary. We do have forms of public transport on the list such as Rail transport, and Aircraft already on the list. I would like to know your thoughts on adding each one, but not both. Interstellarity (talk) 18:10, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 18:10, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose City suffices at this level. We do not need to separately cover every type of urban infrastructure. How is public transport more vital than something that would be equally if not more relevant to a rural setting like farm, which we've previously rejected? Cobblet (talk) 01:40, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Car is already included, this is sufficient. We cannot cover every type of vehicle. Minoo (talk) 23:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Neutral

Add History of life

I think the article History of life should be a level 3 (or 2) vital article (right now it is a level 4 vital article). ObserveOwl (talk) 13:30, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. (nom)

Oppose

Discussion

We already have Evolution at Level 2, and Abiogenesis at this level, which I figure already covers this topic, but others might feel different.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Paleontology and History of Earth probably covers this sufficiently for this level. --Thi (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Personally I would replace history of life with paleontogy which is more specific. I do not think History of life is less vital than early human migrations or even human evolution. All these articles are incredibly important to human knowlage and more than enough vital at this level. Dawid2009 (talk) 16:14, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Splitting the biographies from the main vital articles

I noticed Zelkia1101's vital biographies here which specializes in vital biographies. I think we should split the biographies on their own page called Vital people or Vital biographies. This project could replace Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Core biographies. The reason why I think this would be beneficial is that you can't compare a vital biography to a vital article that is not a vital biography. For example, Mark Twain and Jazz are on the same level, and saying which one is vital doesn't make any sense. If this passes, we should start off by putting the current level 3 biographies into a separate level 1 biographies list and setting the quota of 100 or 50, and deciding through discussion which articles to keep and remove to reach that quota. Level 4 biographies would become level 2 biographies with a quota of 500 or 1000 and also deciding through discussion which articles to keep and remove. Level 5 biographies could become level 3 biographies and the same thing would happen to them and have no opinion on what the quota should be. I'm interested in your thoughts on this and if you have suggestions other than mine, please throw them in there. Every suggestion is worth it. Interstellarity (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I can see this happening, but also keeping the status quo of biographies integrated into the main articles.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:27, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

These seems like a solid direction to go in, but can we not make this into a "vote" like everything else? I encourage people to try and discuss this thoroughly rather than just a pure vote. Aza24 (talk) 15:36, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I have taken out the votes and turned it into a discussion. After reading the comments, once we discuss different ideas, then we could put it to a vote. Interstellarity (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that seems more sound for something like this. Aza24 (talk) 15:55, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

One of the things I'm concerned about is the possible extreme selectivity, and overall unhelpfulness of a say "Vital biographies 1" level. If we start making a small list which is just "Jesus, Aristotle, Gutenberg etc." I don't see it as actually being helpful to editors. Since we have 127 biographies right now, I wonder if the highest list should start at 150 for a nicer (yet arbitrary) number. That would give us some room to air out many of the closer removals and additions we avoided because of the numerical constraints. Aza24 (talk) 15:55, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I started a draft here based on JMW's sketch with Zelkia1101's list of 50 important people. I think this is a good start so we can make decisions on how we can improve the list by adding and remove people. Anyone is welcome to contribute to it. I haven't started on the 100 people yet, but I plan on doing that soon. I think if we take out the people from the main articles, we have a lot of room for important articles we can add. Interstellarity (talk) 23:42, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I started a first draft of level 2 of vital people here. Feel free to make any changes without consulting me first. Interstellarity (talk) 12:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Level 3 is complete. As always, you can make any changes as you feel necessary. Interstellarity (talk) 11:27, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

John M Wolfson's sketch

Here is my idea of how this would work, based on the fact that the current COREBIO list has 202 entries.

• Level 1: 50
• Level 2: 100
• Level 3: 500 (either this or level 4 would be the highest level for living persons)
• Level 4: 1,000 (either this or level 3 would be the highest level for living persons)
• Level 5: 5,000

(Like the main list, each level also includes entries from higher levels.)

I think level 1 would mainly be split into religious figures, philosophers, scientists, and politicians/leaders. Level 2 could accommodate more categories such as businesspeople and writers, and lower levels perhaps still more. I strongly suggest restricting living persons from the top 2 and maybe 3 levels, as is the current practice at (main) level 3. I think some exclusivity is in order if only because "Level 1" has such a cachet on the main list that would be important here (there is a difference between Jesus/Muhammad tier and Twain/Goethe tier); I think 50 is a good start.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:01, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Comment

I'm surprised people noticed my project so quickly. The current level-2 list contains all 500 articles, and I think it's solid if people wanted to use it as a jumping off point. I discuss my reasoning for choosing the people I did on the talk page, if that's of any interest. If anyone has any suggestions, let me know. Overall, I don't see a reason for a new official list per se, but think it would be nice to revive the core biographies project, since it's already established. Zelkia1101 (talk) 16:02, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not really sure why we need this. The vital articles lists already include people, and while yes, it's kinda absurd to try to compare the vitalness of Mark Twain and jazz, that could be said for lots of the comparisons we have to make when the compiling the lists; that's just the nature of the endeavor. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

  I think that if the people have their own list and we took out all the people, this gives us 127 slots to fill that could be used to add more articles that are not covered at this level. I still think that having a vital people list would be beneficial to the project. Interstellarity (talk) 10:45, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

1,000 biographies in Level 4 would not be enough. You could include the most common names from cultural history but not so much from global political history, or vice versa. Level 4 Vital biographies should have 5,000 biographies and level five 15,000 bios, if vital people will not be listed anymore in Vital articles. 5,000 might look large number but the list of 2,000 biographies is already quite ambitious listing and not always the easiest to handle or navigate. Many other names are in the same level of notability than those currently listed. --Thi (talk) 14:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Thi: What do you think would be the best structure for this list? Are you fine keeping the quota for the first three levels the same? If not, what could be different about them? Interstellarity (talk) 19:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I think users would find 50, 100 and 500 as logical choices. 50 is quite narrow selection, but it is a starting point. List of 100 can be useful when you can compare it to larger list with 500 entries. 500 biographies would be a successor to original Corebios project. I think 15,000 biographies would be useful in Level 5. If we have a list of 65,000 articles, we really don't need to think about creating Level 6 with 100,000 articles. (I guess most editors would be satisfied with that number, list of 100,000 would need too much work.)

An ideal structure would be:

• Level 1: 100 articles and 50 bios
• Level 2: 1000 articles and 100 bios
• Level 3: 5000 articles and 500 bios
• Level 4: 10,000 articles and 5000 bios
• Level 5: 50,000 articles and 15,000 bios

Currently the list starts with quite trivial list of 10 vital articles and we don't have a list of 5000 vital articles (and don't really need it), but maybe some other language version would find this structre useful. Levels 3–5 would represent the structures of printed encyclopedias. I have for example a single-volume encyclopedia with 15,000 short entries and a multi-volume encyclopedia with 5,000+ long articles. Such encyclopedias as Encyclopedia Americana contain about 50,000 articles and Britannica 100,000 articles. Encyclopedias and biographical dictionaries have often long special articles among shorter articles, for example 100 or 1000 main topics. --Thi (talk) 20:08, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Thi: I like that list a lot. I have changed the numbers to match that. It sounds like you would be in favor of getting rid of the current level 1 list and I agree with that since it is very hard to pick which 10 articles are most important for Wikipedia. The current level 2 list could be the new level 1 list. The current level 3 list minus the biographies would become the new level 2 list with articles in place of the biographies. The level 4 and 5 lists, like the previous level, minus the biographies, could stay the same with new articles in their place. I think separating the biographies into their own list would be beneficial to Wikipedia since it will be easier to compare importance between articles. You can't compare a biography's importance with a non-biography article. Interstellarity (talk) 20:51, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Removing the Level 3 biographies

I was wondering if this would be a good time to remove the Level 3 biographies. The new list of vital people covers most of the biographies at this level. What this would do would be to demote all biographies in the vital articles list to level 4 temporarily until a level 4 and 5 list of biographies is made. Once a level 4 vital people is complete, we can demote all level 4 vital article biographies into level 5. Same thing with level 5. Once the level 5 vital people list is complete, we can completely remove the biographies from the level 5 list. It would be a phased approach, first remove level 3 biographies, then level 4, them level 5. I'm hoping this will be a good idea. It might take a little bit of discussion before we can come to a conclusion on what we can do. Interstellarity (talk) 21:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

As nobody has spoken against removing the biographies on level 3, I will go ahead and do that. I will keep the biographies on the lower levels. Any editor is welcome to revert if they have a different opinion on splitting the biographies. Thanks, Interstellarity (talk) 19:26, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of the biographies. However, there was a discussion (see here) regarding the new list. In that discussion, several users expressed their opinion for the keeping of Michael Jackson in the list. There was discussion, but not consensus. Apart from that, taking into account that the former Level 3 contained 127 biographies and the current Level 2 contains only 100, all those 100 biographies should come from the previous 127. Later, if deemed necessary, we can propose the addition of other new biographies that were not even in the former Level 3 (e.g. Rumi), but I think that a voting with a consensus would be necessary to remove Michael Jackson (or another biography) and thus include a new one. Because otherwise, Jackson would be in current Level 3 along with Elvis Presley. even though months ago we had a voting that resulted in the removal of Elvis Presley from the former Level 3 and the addition of Michael Jackson to that level. Where then does this common consensus that we reached go? As for the rest, I agree with the changes, and in this case the simplest solution is to keep Jackson in Level 2 (just as Louis Armstrong is there) and then later vote on whether to swap him for another biography. Salvabl (talk) 18:13, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with the removal. As I’m barely active as a Wikipedian, I know my say is probably limited. :) Still, I think the Vital articles page has become boring and dead without people. For me, the biographies made the page come alive. There’s always people behind science, art etc., and listing a few of those people made the page much, much more interesting. I predict the pageview will slowly drop… I don’t see why the 127 biographies couldn’t stay – they are no threat to the ”Vital Biographies” project! Also, with so many active users in past discussions, I find this change very drastic and a bit ”hijackey” or single-handed – are all the active users really on summer holiday? :) At least, they should have some weeks to vote and comment, as is common for ordinary proposals… (BTW I agree with Salvabl that Jackson should probably be level 2 in the bio project.) --Telepanda (talk) 19:06, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

• As someone who uses the VIT lists more than participates in them, I don't see this as being a good move. I think it's fine to maintain a separate list of bios for personal use (or under the Biography WikiProject, similar to what other WikiProjects do), but I'm not seeing the benefit from further dividing the VIT pages. The lists are already difficult to navigate. As a side note, the lists broke the bot, which just removed all VIT3 bio notices from the VIT4+ lists. czar 23:56, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Add Fela Kuti (when we get under quota)

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.

---

JMW suggested this person to add as a non-Western musician. However, because we are over quota, I'm opposed to adding it right now. Once we get a few articles removed, I think this might be a good representative of non-Western music. I think if this passes and we are over quota, we should wait to add it until we are under quota. Interstellarity (talk) 23:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support when we get under quota. Interstellarity (talk) 23:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
2. A world musician would be nice, but we are indeed at quota at the moment.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose We do not need more musicians than what we have now, and Kuti is not particularly popular on Wikipedia. Again, I sympathize with the desire to include non-Western musicians, but I am opposed to adding articles for purely representative purposes. Zelkia1101 (talk) 16:14, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Neutral

Responding to Zelkia's concern, perhaps Bob Marley is a better choice. Cobblet (talk) 14:21, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

That's a good choice in my opinion. @John M Wolfson and Zelkia1101: I was hoping to get your thoughts on whether this is a better choice than Kuti. Interstellarity (talk) 19:17, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Bob Marley would certainly be a better choice than Kuti, but I would still have to oppose. My main contention has always been that we do not need more musicians, and that if we were going to do anything to that part of the list, we should be cutting and not adding. I personally suggest we remove Wagner and Armstrong if it came down to it. I'm not really too bugged by their presence, and I think the musicians list is fine as it stands, but I do not think that adding Marley would at all be an improvement to the Level 3 list. Ideally, there should only be five musicians, though seven is certainly acceptable -- and enough. Zelkia1101 (talk) 19:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm repeating myself, but I agree that it would be better to cut Wagner without adding any replacement. Cobblet (talk) 20:01, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I could see adding Marley, but I also agree that we don't really need a non-Western musician, and if we must add a biography (also debatable) I'd rather add a post-1950 figure that isn't pop culture (such as music) or politics/leadership (such as Mandela or Mao), as much as those are probably hard to come by. (I could also see another businessman to not make Henry Ford so lonely, but Rockefeller never seems to make the cut for whatever reason.) I don't think we need to cut Wagner at this time (though I wouldn't oppose), but maybe Armstrong is redundant with the Beatles and Michael Jackson.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:13, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

How is Armstrong more redundant to the Beatles and Jackson, than Wagner to Mozart and Beethoven? Cobblet (talk) 05:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

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 Canyon

The entry for Grand Canyon looks a bit out of place without Canyon also being included. Also, all of the other specific features have the general feature listed as well. The grand canyon is not the only significant canyon in the world, and should not have higher priority than the main Canyon page. Whycantusernamesbe21 (talk) 06:39, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Support

[nom]

Oppose

1. I'd rather remove Grand Canyon, to be quite honest. Even within the American West it's not as important as the Rockies or even California.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Double the amount of countries

Been a while since I posted here, truth is I want to make a new account but that's irrelevant here. Now that all the biographies have been removed we are severely under quota. People were very much in favour of adding more countries in the past and the list currently contains 39, I propose doubling this to 78. I have a list of countries I think should be added but I'd also like to see what other users have to say. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 14:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

My [External edit: PaleoMatt's] proposed list:

• Afghanistan
• Angola
• Austria
• Belgium
• Chile
• Czech Republic
• Denmark
• Ecuador
• Finland
• Ghana
• Greece
• Guatemala
• Hungary
• Iraq
• Ireland
• Ivory Coast
• Kazakhstan
• Kuwait
• Madagascar
• Malaysia
• Morocco
• Mozambique
• Nepal
• New Zealand
• Norway
• Peru
• Portugal
• Qatar
• Romania
• Sri Lanka
• Sudan
• Sweden
• Switzerland
• Taiwan
• Uganda
• Ukraine
• Uzbekistan
• Venezuela
• Yemen

• Way too much of a focus on countries with a high GDP per capita: there are plenty of more populous countries I'd take over Denmark, Finland, Hungary, Norway, Kuwait, and Qatar. And frankly I don't think we need this many countries. Adding 10 countries and 30 articles on natural features (Southern Ocean, seas, rivers, lakes, mountains, biomes) would be much more of an improvement IMO. I don't even think the Geography section needs this much of an expansion to begin with. Any discussion on removing biographies to add more articles to other sections of the list should look to improving the list as a whole. What is the better replacement for Einstein, Switzerland or general relativity? Does it make more sense to replace Muhammad with Yemen or with Five Pillars of Islam? Cobblet (talk) 15:49, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  As a counterpoint to John Wolfson's suggestions, my choices for ten more countries would most likely be Afghanistan, Ghana, Iraq, Malaysia, Peru, Switzerland, Taiwan, Uganda, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan. I would not support adding any subnational entities or regions. If the countries I suggested were added, I'd also consider adding Central America and the Caribbean as supranational regions (although adding either or both would make me less likely to support adding the Caribbean Sea), but I would not support adding Scandinavia – even within Europe I consider the Balkans more vital. Cobblet (talk) 04:41, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• New Zealand is infamous for being forgettable/irrelevant such that it is often left off world maps and referred to as "the planet's bonus track"; as such, and with a population smaller than New York City, I feel that it is inappropriate for this level. I also oppose Iraq and Greece since we already have Mesopotamia and Ancient Greece along with several countries in their area, although they are more justifiable. In addition to Cobblet's suggestions for natural features I think that with this large amount of new space some subnational entities such as California (cultural and technological capital of the world and would be a Top 10 economy were it its own country) and Maharashtra (Bollywood and Indian finance) are better additions to describe the world around us.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:00, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • As I think more about this, I could see adding these countries:
    • Afghanistan
    • Angola
    • Austria (or at least something about the Austrian Empire/Austria-Hungary/Habsburg Monarchy/etc.)
    • Chile
    • Ghana (or maybe something about the Ashanti Empire, etc.)
    • Madagascar (genuinely surprised it wasn't already on here)
    • Malaysia (ditto)
    • Portugal (ditto)
    • Sri Lanka
    • Switzerland (notable for its longstanding diplomatic neutrality and internally decentralized nature)
    • Taiwan (I can see re-adding this)
    • Uganda (the most populous country not already on this list, if I'm not mistaken)

  I think these are the main "holes" in our current country list. A few more in addition to these would be fine, but I think these are plenty for now. I would not support adding any of the individual nordic countries, but I would support adding Scandinavia.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:51, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• Most (if not all) countries are Level 4 VA, what you mean by "inclusion" is elevating from them Level 4 to 3. I don't think this is justified. Aeonx (talk) 23:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)