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: 10:24, 31 July 2024 (UTC) ()
• 30 days ago: 10:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
• 60 days ago: 10:24, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 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]

1. Support Important geographic feature. Dimadick (talk) 11:17, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
2. Support - Interstellarity (talk) 15:35, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

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)
2. Oppose We definitely do not need to list types of valleys. Erosion should be enough to cover most erosional landforms at this level. Cobblet (talk) 16:23, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose per all. --Thi (talk) 16:32, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
4. And move Grand Canyon to VA4. czar 00:52, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

1. I would exclude Grand Canyon. I'd prefer Valley over Canyon. WIKINIGHTS _talk 00:07, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

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)

Some nominations

I've noticed the removal of biographies and the creation of the Vital People list. Some proposals:

• History of philosophy
• History of religion
• Idea
• Political philosophy
• Self
• Work (human activity)

Also, Homicide over Suicide. WIKINIGHTS _talk 13:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• History of philosophy is currently a redirect to an article section and thus ineligible. Idea isn't even at Level 5 at the moment but I can maybe see it if we don't already have a similar concept on the list. I think we already have various political concepts on Levels 2 and 3, although a recent general trend is to list the study of things above the things themselves. Self is currently at Level 5. I'm fine with History of religion, Work (human activity), and Homicide being promoted, but Suicide should stay as it is also an important cause of death.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:20, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm surprised that we don't have a separate History of philosophy article. History of human thought exists. WIKINIGHTS _talk 03:01, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

This will be closed with no effect since the nom forgot to add voting sections. I'd support Work and may be Self. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:10, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I'll nominate Work (human activity), Homicide, and History of human thought formally. WIKINIGHTS _talk 06:56, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Add Mount Everest and Mariana Trench

Now that we have more space from the biography moves, it has been suggested above to add more natural features for Geography. I think having both the highest and deepest parts of the Earth surface would fit well in that case, although to what extent we should have any individual geographic features can also be debated.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:24, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:24, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
2. Weak support ME (not MT). Extreme points are not vital but ME is very famous, more so than MT or GC (particularly outside US, most people in the world have heard of ME, much fewer of the two other entities - although I am sure for most Americans, ME and GC are about as famous...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:09, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose per discussion here and on previous occasions. I don't consider the list improved by replacing individual people with geographic features that are only of interest as extreme points. I consider exploration, Nepal, and seabed (or even something like marine life, although that is not on any of the vital article lists) more vital articles, for example. Cobblet (talk) 19:58, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose I don't see Mount Everest as more vital than Grand Canyon. Ocean current or Ice age would be more useful topics than Mariana Trench. --Thi (talk) 20:31, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose Extreme geographic features are not inherently important. WIKINIGHTS _talk 03:03, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Everyday life proper

Add "Everyday life" (currently Level 5) as a general article for the section "Everyday life". WIKINIGHTS _talk 03:11, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. as nominator. WIKINIGHTS _talk
2. It's a very important topic, which should be moved up in vital ranking as well. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:07, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Not every section header needs an article on here.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:07, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose per above. --Thi (talk) 15:42, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Remove Grand Canyon

I think that Canyon should be added while Grand Canyon should be removed. Canyon is broader than the specific Grand Canyon. Interstellarity (talk) 15:36, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 15:36, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
2. Support per discussions. --Thi (talk) 15:42, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
3. Support per all. If this is in the wrong section it's because I'm on mobile and anyone is free to move it accordingly.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:48, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
4. Support per #Add Canyon czar 00:55, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
5. That make sense, if we have to trade 1:1. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:07, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Add Afghanistan, Switzerland, and Taiwan

Since the bio split, we've had quite a bit more space. In that light, and per the country discussion above, I think there is some consensus to add these three countries. Apologies if this is a trainwreck, but I think there are some points to be had for all of them:

• Afghanistan is the first country in English alphabetical order often considered a crossroads of the world, and given such a position it has had a colorful history and managed to foil foreign-power intrigue from the United Kingdom, Soviet Union, and United States. Also, if we add it we have an unbroken chain of countries stretching from China to Turkey, perhaps the most historically-important region of the globe in human history.
• Switzerland seems a bit odd on this list, but has famously maintained diplomatic neutrality for centuries (Napoleon excepted) in an otherwise-bloody Europe, even through both World Wars; as such, it houses the International Red Cross and many international institutions in Geneva and Zurich. In addition, its highly decentralized canton structure beats even the United States for federalism, also rather special in a world of unitary countries.
• Taiwan is an important power in East Asia and has been involved with power struggles between China, Japan, and European countries. While I originally supported its removal, upon the addition of the similarly-sized Netherlands and further reflection I think it deserves a spot once again.

 – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:10, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:10, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Afghanistan is notable enough due to its large population and historical and geographical importance, Switzerland and Taiwan are important international players in economics and diplomacy. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 22:54, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
3. Weak support Taiwan due to importance and controversial role in international relations as well as global economy (one of Asia's tiger economies).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:06, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose A and S.Afghanistan has been a passive place where big powers fight but hasn't done anything itself, and has no economic importance. Switzerland has no diplomatic importance except as the neutral meeting ground, so passive here as well, and as for their role in the economy, outside some banking aspects, it's not very important either. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:06, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
  • You use economy as a reason to add Taiwan but not Switzerland which has a larger economy? Also disingenuous to say that Switzerland's role as the neutral meeting ground isn't important, hosting offices of the UN, WTO, WHO, ILO, etc is rather important on the global stage. Also not to mention other notable aspects of Switzerland such as the Large Hadron Collider, FIFA headquarters, International Red Cross, Nestle, Rolex, etc. As for Afghanistan, I'm not too keen on the idea of adding countries solely for having large populations (Uganda is a good example of a commonly suggested country that falls under this) but Afghanistan definitely has its history and geography on its side here as a complement to its large population, even if you take out the importance in geopolitics that is the conflict of the last few decades, Afghanistan was a key component of the silk road and has been inhabited by civilisations as early as the Indus Valley. Afghanistan is also rather infamous for its unforgiving geography which has been decisive in determining the history of the region for millennia which has earned it the name of the "crossroads of Asia". -- PaleoMatt (talk) 12:02, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Mollusca and Crustacean

We could do with listing some more of the larger well known groups of invertebrates and these two seem like the most obvious additions. I also wouldn't be opposed to adding Arachnid or some more specific insect groups. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 02:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 02:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss