Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Vital articles

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Maykii (talk | contribs) at 21:07, 28 August 2021 (→‎Swap: remove Lake Victoria, add Uganda: o). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconVital Articles
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Vital Articles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of vital articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and work together to increase the quality of Wikipedia's essential articles.Vital ArticlesWikipedia:WikiProject Vital ArticlesTemplate:WikiProject Vital ArticlesVital Articles articles
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) (Purge)
  • 30 days ago: 12:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
  • 60 days ago: 12:28, 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)[reply]

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

FAILED
Remove Early human migrations and Neolithic revolution: failed 2-4 and 2-3. Add Paleolithic and Neolithic: 2-1, no consensus. --Thi (talk) 13:50, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  3. Support removal of Neolithic Revolution and additions. Gizza (talk • voy) 06:55, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  4. Oppose both removals They are far too important to humanity's history to ignore. Dimadick (talk) 12:04, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose both This change is no improvement. Minoo (talk) 23:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add 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)[reply]

Support

[nom]

  1. Support Important geographic feature. Dimadick (talk) 11:17, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - Interstellarity (talk) 15:35, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  3. Oppose per all. --Thi (talk) 16:32, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. And move Grand Canyon to VA4. czar 00:52, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss
  1. I would exclude Grand Canyon. I'd prefer Valley over Canyon. WIKINIGHTS talk 00:07, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Support
  1. As nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:24, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  3. Support Important geographic articles, with high impact. Dimadick (talk) 05:46, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support'·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:30, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  3. Oppose Extreme geographic features are not inherently important. WIKINIGHTS talk 03:03, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Not every section header needs an article on here.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:07, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per above. --Thi (talk) 15:42, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Insignificant topic. Less vital than its own elements. Dimadick (talk) 05:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Support
  1. As nom  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:10, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 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)[reply]
  3. Support Addition of countries would make the list only better. --Thi (talk) 12:31, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support adding Taiwan If developed but less populous countries like UAE and the Netherlands are good enough for the list, Taiwan must make the cut as well. Cobblet (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support adding Afghanistan and Taiwan Afghanistan has been nicknamed as the Graveyard of Empires, and used to be a battleground for the Great Game between the British Empire and the Russian Empire. It has a long and colorful history since the days of the Durrani Empire. Taiwan is a rump state of the Republic of China (1912–1949), and represents the legacy of the Chinese Civil War into the 21st century. Both are vital players in Asian history. Dimadick (talk) 06:33, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • Afghanistan has been a passive place where big powers fight but hasn't done anything itself So has (to an extent) Poland, which we still list.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:31, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Procedural oppose. The removal of biographies has now been reverted, for lack of consensus. Therefore any additions need to replace something, unless editors actively want level 3 to be bigger, in which case that should be agreed.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:17, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose adding Afghanistan and Switzerland We have no room for any more countries besides Taiwan. Cobblet (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose adding Switzerland Not a vital European state. Per Switzerland during the World Wars, it has mostly served as a refuge place for exiles from various countries. It has had little impact on European conflicts and alliances. The Culture of Switzerland mostly represents a crossroad for the cultures of France, Germany, and Italy, rather than being influential in its own right. Dimadick (talk) 06:44, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Changing from support to oppose since biographies have been reverted meaning we have no space. I would support a swap of Israel for Taiwan however, both countries have similar merits but Taiwan is more populous and has a greater economy. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 16:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose The list is full. I especially oppose adsition of Switzerland which is beyond me. This is clear Western Europe has been overrepresented after addition of Netherlands. Remember there are more underreresented egions in Europe and various countries with greater population. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Support
  1. Support as nom. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 02:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support at least mollusks, weak support crustacean as we already have arthropod and insect. If crustacean passes we should also consider beetle, spider, and maybe ant.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:51, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Large groupings of animals with a high impact on the cuisine of various countries. Dimadick (talk) 06:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose We have no room for these. Cobblet (talk) 17:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Not now. --Thi (talk) 08:21, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

Add Homicide

Homicide naturally follows Death as a cause of death. If we include the less important Suicide, we should also include suicide. WIKINIGHTS talk 00:05, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. nominator. WIKINIGHTS talk
  2. Per nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose We have no room for this. Cobblet (talk) 17:01, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Per List of causes of death by rate about 1.36% of all deaths worldwide is attributed to suicide and other forms of self-harm. And suicide has been used as a key concept in human culture since at least the days of the Greco-Roman world. Per the same list of causes of death, only 0.70% of worldwide deaths are attributed to "interpersonal violence" (various forms of assault). Homicide has had less of an impact on human culture than suicide, and affects much less people. Dimadick (talk) 07:04, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Violence would probably offer more general view. Currently there is no room. --Thi (talk) 08:20, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Trimming the biographies – Politicians and leaders

I'm not going to lie, I was somewhat excited when the bios were split for the amount of space it afforded us to focus on other things. Now that that's been undone, however, I still think we should trim them to about 100 or so to get that same effect, if a bit reduced. There have been attempts to make 100-bio lists, such as Thi's list and GuzzyG's list, but neither had formal !votes taken on them. I liked how we trimmed the writers' section fairly well, and would like to do that for every section, starting with politicians and leaders.

This is currently the biggest section, and to be quite frank it probably always will be. I'm going to propose the removals of people who are not on both Thi's or GuzzyG's list, as well as that of Hatshepsut, whose inclusion I'm not particularly convinced on. NOTE TO CLOSER: Just because I am nominating certain removals does not necessarily mean I support them, just that I think they are worthy of discussion. As such, do not consider me to support a nomination unless I explicitly mark a !vote in the "Support" section. Also, in the interests of not flooding this talkpage, please refrain from "bulk-nominating" the other biography sections until this one is complete.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Hatshepsut

We already have Ramesses II for pharaohs, and Elizabeth I and Catherine the Great for female leaders. If we really needed a female pharaoh we could have Nefertiti or Cleopatra. Although she is on both Thi's and GuzzyG's list, looking at her article I remain unconvinced that she has a legacy of actual deeds that most of the entries on this list, especially Ramesses, don't also have.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. As nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Not as necessary as some countries. --Thi (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support swap with Cleopatra. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 21:35, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support swap with Cleopatra, the latter is more famous. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support swap with Cleopatra. Interstellarity (talk) 12:50, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Strong oppose I would remove one of Tudor first (for example SWAP Elizabeth I with Queen Victoria). Dawid2009 (talk) 20:32, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose The Pharaohs of the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt are better known to the general public than most of the others. Hatshepsut remains one of the better known rulers of the New Kingdom of Egypt. Dimadick (talk) 09:02, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

Remove William the Conqueror

He is on neither Thi's or GuzzyG's list, which is likely fitting; we already have Elizabeth I and Henry VII for British leaders; one reason he was added in the first place was that he closed the temporal gap between Charlemagne and Genghis Khan, but as this list becomes more exclusive I don't think such temporal gaps matter as much, especially during the so-called "dark ages". While I don't feel particularly strongly about this, and I originally supported his addition, I think Henry VII and Elizabeth I (and maybe Queen Victoria) are adequate to cover British history.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. As nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Elizabeth I is more cental cultural figure. --Thi (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Strong oppose What is sense to keep list with teo tudor and no other political figure from UK? Dawid2009 (talk) 20:32, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose I don't see why he should be removed outright, I would prefer a swap. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Every king of England between the late 11th century and the early 18th century claimed descend from William. His Domesday Book is one ofr the most valuable sources on English economic history. Dimadick (talk) 09:05, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

Remove Joan of Arc

Not on GuzzyG's list. I am personally neutral on this; on one hand she ultimately didn't do much, but on the other she led a frenzied crusade and became a folk hero.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Strong support. Tomorrow or in next few days I will put rationale here. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:32, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support If you want to make room for other topics. --Thi (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support fairly insignificant historical figure - except to French national sentiment.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:27, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose I don't see why we should remove her outright similar to what I said about William above. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 21:38, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose She was one of the most important figures of the Hundred Years' War, and the Kingdom of France is underrepresented. Dimadick (talk) 09:07, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. Household-levek of fame, or close enough. More famous that a bunch of kings and such that only us history buffs know. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:03, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

Remove Henry VIII

Not on GuzzyG's list. Unless we are swapping him with Queen Victoria, I'm afraid I'll have to oppose this despite nominating it. He's one of the most famous/well-known British monarchs, and even outside of his eight wives he was crucial in the development of British constitutional history.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. So strong support One of Two tudor. But honestly I would preferencji SWAP Elizabeth with Queen Victoria. Tomorrow ot in few next days I will keep ratiknale here Dawid2009 (talk) 20:32, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Louis XIV would be better choice since Elizabeth I is already listed. --Thi (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Despite being nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per nom. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 21:40, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Henry was the founder of the English Reformation and his Dissolution of the monasteries largely transformed England and Wales. To quote the main article: "The dissolution of the monasteries in the late 1530s was one of the most revolutionary events in English history. There were nearly 900 religious houses in England, around 260 for monks, 300 for regular canons, 142 nunneries and 183 friaries; some 12,000 people in total, 4,000 monks, 3,000 canons, 3,000 friars and 2,000 nuns." Dimadick (talk) 09:10, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

In the past some users (at least Aza24 and RReagan007) kept doubts about Elizabeth. By all that mean borg Tudor should Technical have chance/nomination for Remo Val just as Stalin/Lenin Below. If You disagree You can always make nomination with oppose vote as you Didi at Catharine Below. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:32, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Akbar

Not on GuzzyG's list. I'm leaning oppose on this but will refrain from making a !vote for now. He seems crucial in medieval Indian history, and while this isn't the best metric he has more than 125 interwikis, so I think he might be a good counterpart to Ashoka.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Support Tagore was added. --Thi (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. It's west-centric, I know, but... Akbar who? Indian history is sadly not very well known, and that is related to vital concepts. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:00, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose As long as we ar not reoving one of two Tudors I oppose'l rrmol of every bio listed underground political figures (except Joan of Arc, and Stalin/Lenin where I am neutral, I will explain Tomorrow or in few next days why) . Dawid2009 (talk) 20:32, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Vital importance to that regions history. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 21:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC
  3. Oppose Akbar was a successful expansionist, and the Mughal Empire was one of the most extensive empires in Asia. He was also a patron of the arts, and created "a library of over 24,000 volumes". I would put him above most world rulers. Dimadick (talk) 09:14, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per all.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

Remove Catherine the Great

Not on either list, but I'll still have to oppose this. Unless we are swapping with Peter the Great, I think she represents Tsarist Russia in the era when it went from being European backwater to one of the great powers of the world, stretching from the share of Poland she conquered all the way to the first European colonies in Alaska.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Support swap with Peter the Great. This is tough but I think Peter has a longer and more lasting legacy. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 21:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Despite being nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. She is ddfinietly needed. Much more than other Women which ee list. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:32, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Typical topic of an encyclopedia, quite reasonable inclusion at this level. --Thi (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Unlike Peter I, Catherine II was a representative of enlightened absolutism. The Russian Enlightenment is largely associated with her political reforms, and manufacturing prospered under her reign. "The upper classes of Russia put more money into manufacturing, which grew during Catherine's reign. The number of enterprises increased from 600 to 700 in 1762 to over 2,000 when her reign ended." Dimadick (talk) 09:19, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

Remove one of Vladimir Lenin or Joseph Stalin

Thi's list has Stalin while GuzzyG's has Lenin. I have come to agree that having both is redundant, and not in a necessary Caesar/Augustus or Socrates/Plato/Aristotle way. I would personally prefer removing Stalin, as he is covered by Lenin, Hitler, and Mao. That said, Stalin carried out much of the effort in World War II and serves as a foil to Hitler while Lenin was primarily an ideologue, so I won't let the best be the enemy of the good if consensus develops otherwise.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. As nom; prefer removing Stalin but am fine with removing Lenin if that's where consensus lies.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:34, 19 August 2021(UTC)
  2. Support removal of Lenin Stalin is the most famous dictator with Hitler and Mao. Lenin is associated with Communism and Soviet Union which are listed. Currently World War II is more popular topic than the First World War. I think Stalin's article should have a little higher priority. --Thi (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support removal of Lenin. Both are important but there has been a bit of consensus here for a while that one needs to be removed. Lenin brought the revolution but it was Stalin that built Russia into an industrialised nation and won a world war. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 21:46, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support removal of Lenin Lenin served as head of government of Russia for 7 years (1917-1924). Stalin was the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union for 30 years (1922-1952). Stalin had the lengthier term in power, and probably had more of an impact. As we note in the General Secretary article: "At 30 years 7 months, Stalin was by far the longest-serving General Secretary, serving for almost half of the USSR's entire existence." Dimadick (talk) 09:24, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Too important, defining for early communism and so on. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:58, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

Add Violence

As a more general topic than homicide. This covers topics related to war, crime, and more. WIKINIGHTS talk 22:02, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. nom. WIKINIGHTS talk
  2. Makes sense, this is a vital concept. We do have the even more higher level conflict here, however (right?). So there is arguably some redundancy. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Typical content for an encyclopedia. Other related concepts are listed such as Genocide. --Thi (talk) 13:58, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral

Discussion at WP:VPPR

Please see this discussion at the village pump: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Proposal:_Split_the_biographies_from_the_main_vital_articles. I opened up a discussion there for greater visibility. Interstellarity (talk) 14:58, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Red categories

Hey team - a fair number of categories for vital articles have not been created and so appear red on Special:WantedCategories. Can someone from this project take on the task of setting them up? Thanks in advance, UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Assyria or Add Babylonia

I don't think it makes sense to list Assyria when we don't list Babylonia. I think that Assyria should either be removed or Babylonia should be added so that both articles are on the same level. I would be opposed to the removal and addition at the same time. Interstellarity (talk) 17:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Support removal of Assyria as first choice. Interstellarity (talk) 17:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral

Swap: remove Lake Victoria, add Uganda

Uganda is the most populous country in the world not currently listed. World's largest lakes are listed, Victoria is the largest lake in Africa.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:44, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose I don't think we should a country simply because it is the next biggest population wise. Uganda doesn't have much else going for it other than this, we already have a lot of representation from East Africa and Uganda doesn't have anything unique enough going for it to warrant it being included alongside Kenya, Tanzania, and Ethiopia. Lake Victoria is the second largest freshwater lake in the world and is important to a large region also being one of the sources of the Nile. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 21:07, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

Swap: remove Shape, add Two-dimensional space

Top-priority article vs. Low-priority article (in WikiProject Mathematics). Three-dimensional space is already listed at this level.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:45, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Remove Richard Wagner

Three classical composers and three popular musicians is reasonable number at this level.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:46, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose no convincing reason given and we already have one less musician than artists and explorers. Wagner effectively covers romantic music, modern classical and to some extent movie, tv and video game music. Since we don't have Verdi, Stravinsky, Debussy, or Schoenberg, so removing Wagner leaves a huge hole. But mainly, I just don't think we need to be removing any musicians right now. Aza24 (talk) 17:53, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles&oldid=1041145058"