Wikipedia talk:Vital articles

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Vital articles page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

WT:VA

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27: 4 months

General Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

Level 5 Subpages

People History and geography Society STEM

Introduction

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

The purpose of this talk page is for discussions on over-arching matters regarding vital articles, including making proposals or asking questions about procedures, policies, quotas, or other broad changes to any or all of the five levels. This page is not for proposing whether an article should be added or removed from any vital article lists, and such proposals should be posted on the following pages:

For proposals regarding a specific individual Level 1 vital article, see Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/1
For proposals regarding a specific individual Level 2 vital article, see Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/2
For proposals regarding a specific individual Level 3 vital article, see Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/3
For proposals regarding a specific individual Level 4 vital article, see Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4
For proposals regarding a specific individual Level 5 vital article, see the relevant sub-pages of Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5

Proposal: six-month no-revisit rule

I'd like to propose, at all five levels of VA, that if a proposal reaches consensus, you can't make a counterproposal against that for at least six months. For example, if consensus resulted in an article being added, you can't propose to remove that article for six months. If consensus resulted in an article being added, you can't propose to remove that article for six months. Etc. etc. swaps are a little more complicated though p b p 01:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support

p b p 01:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this makes sense, and we should have a page of general guidelines for VA on a VA "homepage" (which I am going to try an construct when I have time). Aszx5000 (talk) 13:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I see a nomination that has recently been discussed, I usually ask if they would close the discussion so that we can focus on other stuff rather than rehashing what we have recently resolved. This makes complete sense.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

per Aurangzebra. It would just be an unnecessary bureaucratic hindrance for new members to engage in the project. Links or results of a previous disscusions can always be mentioned in the proposals and hopefully reflected, but mandating this as a rule feels needless. Respublik (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to illustrate the point, I would only support this if the period for auto and manual archiving in all the relevant levels would be extended to six months after a closure. Respublik (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per Respublik. We need fewer rules, not more. feminist🩸 (talk) 06:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having re-considered, it will be too cumbersome to police and probably not needed. Aszx5000 (talk) 17:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think adding and enforcing this rule would be useful. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 02:41, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. If this rule went into effect, I would be to anxious to try and participate at all here. I tend to blunder through life as it is, and a rule like this would be broken by me on accident the day it was implemented. I'm sure this is true for other editors as well. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

good idea in theory but in my experience (aka when I do this), it's primarily an accident and it's infeasible to expect that people search through the archives any time they want to post a proposal. Aurangzebra (talk) 19:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VA4 articles no longer being recognised as such

Cewbot has been removing VA4 indications on VA5 pages (Special:Diff/1236359647, Special:Diff/1236541750) and setting the article counts to zero on the respective VA4 pages (Special:Diff/1236359537, Special:Diff/1236541485). Additionally, if you visit an affected VA4 article's talk page it shows up as a VA5 article.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 08:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the reason is that the level 4 subpages uses “#invoke:Icon” and the bot can't recognize that format. The problem is that Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4 doesn't show up completely, and User:Ahecht explains his solution here. A trouble is that changing to #invoke would require significant modifications to the robot's code, which could take some days, and I'd have to have some spare time to do it. This format would also interfere with manual editing. Also User:Interstellarity mentioned here about slow loading of Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4.

My suggestion is to let Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4 be like Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5, with one directory and not all articles. After all, we have Wikipedia:Vital articles/List of all articles and Wikipedia:Vital articles/List of all level 1-4 vital articles to search. For level 4 subpages, back to the original syntax.

I have stopped the bot from generating lists. Kanashimi (talk) 01:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4 only be a directory seems fine to me if it would completely fix the issues. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:56, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, before you stopped the bot, it edit-warred with me to again remove Lv 4 designations. Why exactly does ONLY Lv 4 use invoke? _pbp 03:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Purplebackpack89 looks like Jonesey95 manually switched the templates over to the module on the Level 4 subpages (I had tried it earlier as a test, but self reverted to avoid interfering with the bot). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 04:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any editor is welcome to undo my conversion of those template calls to module calls if it is interfering with the bot. I was trying to solve a WP:PEIS problem. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:28, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interstellarity has removed the lists from WP:VA4, so it is now a directory, and there won't be PEIS issues. Are Jonesey95's edits alright to be reverted? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:18, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I say go ahead.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:19, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kanashimi I have undone Jonesey95's edits. Cewbot should be safe to restart on this task. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:41, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Kanashimi (talk) 23:55, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Level 1 Proposal: Remove The arts, replace with Art

Currently proposed at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/1#Remove The arts, replace with Art. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 22:28, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More votes needed

Hello @JpTheNotSoSuperior, Kevinishere15, NegativeMP1, B3251, Flemmish Nietzsche, Iostn, 49p, GeogSage, and Mathwriter2718:, just a suggestion to take a look at the higher level vital article talk pages if you are free and willing, we have several proposals that need more votes to decide an outcome. Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/1 ...... Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/2 ...... Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/3 ...... Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4. Thank you. starship .paint (RUN) 02:05, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. I'll take a look. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 02:26, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have participated on VA4 before FYI, although I might check again Iostn (talk) 19:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've known about the existence of the other levels, and I've even browsed them before. The only reason I haven't contributed to them yet is that they are a lot harder to determine what is vital or not for said levels compared to V5, especially V3 and above. I'll try to take a look at V4 soon. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 04:03, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at them, this is how I feel too. It seems nearly impossible to make some of these decisions. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 12:31, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I concur Mathwriter's opinion here. Even V4 confuses me and I'm honestly too scared to make any major proposals for it, let alone V3 and above. λ NegativeMP1 21:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Levels 1 and 2 have the broadest and most fundamental topics, related to very basics of life, humanity, and knowledge; levels 3 and 4 begin to have more examples of specific things like people, countries, events and (mostly on level 4) creative works - on level 3 especially the most famous/influential ones such as Shakespeare, United States, World War 2 and the Bible. Level 5 is the one I'm getting confused about, with subjects ranging from "would be on level 4 if there was more space" to "quite niche/recent but relatively influential" to countless obscurities thoughtlessly added during the level's WP:BRD era. It should develop more for me to get an intuition of where the boundary of the most important 50000 topics lies.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 07:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Potential GA drive

I suggested this before but I think it would be possible to create a GA drive for the book article similar to the earlier failed one for land. It's specific enough that it wouldn't be as massive of an undertaking as most other level-3 articles. It's still in a state of disrepair but I think it has a much better structure than it used to. LarstonMarston (talk) 00:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen your work there, and I'd like to help out some if I can at the very least :) Remsense ‥ 论 00:13, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great! I think the biggest issue right now is sourcing. I linked some relevant books in the "further reading" section that I haven't had the time to properly go through. LarstonMarston (talk) 00:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Broad-concept article

A Wikipedia:Broad-concept article is an article about a somewhat general concept, often with many potential related articles. Cleaning, Cobra, Deafness, and Diffusion are all broad-concept articles that are also tagged as vital articles.

An editor has suggested tagging more articles as BCAs at Wikipedia talk:Broad-concept article#Categorization of BCA. As there seems to be substantial overlap between vital articles and BCAs, I wanted to invite you all to join the discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles which need attention

The following categories all contains articles which need attention from a bot or human editor. I am proposing to merge them all into Category:Wikipedia vital articles needing attention which will make it easier for people to monitor. The exact problem will be identified by the sort key (e.g. see how L is described at the top of that category page).

~~Category:NA-Class vital articles (0) - indicates that the page is a redirect or disambiguation page~~ Done
Category:Articles not listed in the vital article list (0) - missing from the list, so probably not actually a vital article#
~~Category:Unassessed vital articles (0) - all vital articles should be assessed for quality~~ Done
Category:Wikipedia level-unknown vital articles (0) - all vital articles should have a level number
Category:Wikipedia vital articles in an unknown topic (0) - all vital articles should be identified with a valid topic

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the categories above have now been merged — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New proposal: More vitality levels?

The English Wikipedia has six million articles, so why don't we have six levels of vitality? Also, maybe tweak level five to have 100,000 articles, and level six have 1,000,000, and the requirements to get into level six are similar to that of five. (10⁶=1,000,000, so about 1/6 of all articles). I believe a sixth level is important, and adjusting the 5th level continues the powers of ten. Hellow Hellow i am here 18:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. We are barely able to maintain the 50,000 vital articles we have now. And keep in mind, that's only 50,000. 1,000,000 vital articles is a completely unfathomable concept that should never be implemented. I wouldn't even support an expansion of Vital-5 from 50,000 to 100,000. Also keep in mind that the process of determining what a vital article is or isn't is determined by someone proposing the article, and then garnering enough support over the course of about a month (usually) at V5, maybe a bit longer at the higher levels. Doing that with 50,000 more articles, let alone 1,000,000, is quite literally impossible. λ NegativeMP1 18:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that we struggle with Level 5 and the 50,000 articles in it. I could not see any scope that we could handle a 6th level, unless it was done by some kind of AI / Rule-based System? Sorry. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it is effectively keeping up with the six million we already have. We have more than one-million editors, so I don't see why keeping up with one million articles is that hard. It is definitely hard, but we do have harder tasks already. Hellow Hellow i am here 18:49, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are maybe 15 (25 at most) editors that have any sort of involvement in vital articles. And this isn't "keeping up", and I don't see any way how this is "keeping up". Just because we are gaining more and more articles daily doesn't mean we need to expand vital articles to account for that. λ NegativeMP1 19:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, but we also have to account for the fact that there are an increasing amount of articles. It is important to realize that if you don't increase vital article count, then the amount of people who actually care about vital articles in Wikipedia, they are just 1% of all pages so you would expect few to care. Hellow Hellow i am here 19:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vital article represent a small, hand selected assortment of articles that are among the most relevant subjects to an actual encyclopedia. Having 50,000 vital articles is already stretching it when you view it from that angle, and there's even been people who criticize Vital-4 (which is only 10,000). 1,000,000 (or even just 100,000) is, once again, completely unfeasible. And vital articles do not need to be expanded to accommodate for whatever articles are being made now. Vital articles should remain as the top 1% (if not less) of Wikipedia articles, not 15%.

Also keep in mind the other goal of vital articles: the maintenance part. There are already very few people who actually maintain and improve articles designated as "vital", and I am sadly part of those who don't (though I plan on changing that). And again, with flaws like this with only having 50,000 vital articles, then try to come up with any way that 1,000,000 vital articles is a feasible concept. λ NegativeMP1 19:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll help maintain. I am a new user, but I'll spot typos and find outdated data Hellow Hellow i am here 19:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Besides, all articles should be maintained. It isn't like vital articles are the only articles that get outdated, any article can get outdated. Hellow Hellow i am here 19:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC) So, if we add more vital articles, more people will maintain because there are more vital articles to maintain. Hellow Hellow i am here 19:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simply because you add more articles to the vital articles and improvements spill over to the vital articles as a result does not mean there will be more "vital article contributors." Widening the scope would only lead to less stability of the system as a whole, and more vital articles ≠ more vital contributions. Nub098765 (talk) 22:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No you don't. Your idea would create an even bigger conceptual mess and make the idea of Vital articles even less tenable for editors who may not find it useful as is. Remsense ‥ 论 05:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Really, vital articles are just articles that have a higher quality and are more important to Wikipedia, not articles that may be more useful. Usually, they are going to be equally good, because most people understand mathematics already, which means usefulness is out of the question. There is no mess by adding 950,000 vital articles to the 50000 we already have. There is no problem if these articles are organized, which level 2-5 vital articles are already organized. Hellow Hellow i am here 13:03, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The entire point of this project is to create a roadmap for the site that is comprehensible and navigable by interested editors. Otherwise, there is literally no reason for it to exist. You may as well say "every article is important". Remsense ‥ 论 20:03, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm convinced that you're either not being serious at this point, or genuinely do not know how the vital articles process works. Nobody wants to manage (or even find and add) 950,000 more vital articles, do you hear yourself right now? λ NegativeMP1 16:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hear myself perfectly fine. Look, every article is important, but some are definitely more important than others. I said what I said, and I mean what I mean. 950,000 articles is less than the total amount of articles on even the Russian Wikipedia. Hellow Hellow i am here 16:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can't chat long, but can I make a compromise suggestion? And this would apply for anyone interested in expanding the VA lists further. If you really want to see more vitality levels, your best bet would probably be to draw up, on your User page, a plan for how to make a list of that size scale.

Come up with the most specific, granular points you can, in all aspects: policies, procedures, technology, etc. Then slowly introduce those points (no more than one open proposal at a time) at Level 5.

Like almost everyone else here, I don't see the value in a Level 6, and I'm also on the record that I'd personally like to see Level 5 cut down some. I do contribute on-and-off at Level 5 though, and I do believe there is a place for it. The real problem with Level 5 (and I suspect even Level 4 to a degree) is that things just don't work the same at that scale.

If you focus on specific solutions to the scaling problem though, you not only make a Level 6 more likely in time, but we also avoid retreading this discussion and you help out the bigger lists we already have. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We need to spend more time actually writing/editing the articles we have as it is. Trying to argue over a list that big sounds like an absolute nightmare. Maybe if we have ten times the number of active Wikipedia editors in a century we can discuss it. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What we should have is a 20,000, 30,000 and 40,000 list. And if 50,000 ever stabilizes, THEN AND ONLY THEN create a 60,000. _pbp 00:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That actually sounds smart. However, the 20,000, 30,000, and 40,000 lists aren't necessary. Hellow Hellow i am here 13:04, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When we get 50,000 articles to be at least rated C or better, and 10,000 B or better, then I'd agree. Until then, we should focus on making a really solid 50,000 "Vital" articles. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding the VA list would become a logistical nightmare for the reasons I and others explained in the Oppose section here.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with that? I just looked at the previous potential expansion and the support side had great reasoning. The oppose side also had good reasoning, but we will reach ten million articles within our lifetime, unlike what is said in the discussion.--13:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC) Hellow Hellow i am here 13:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this pitched enough to be called a perennial proposal yet? Hyperbolick (talk) 06:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The Blue Rider 22:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most Wikipedia editors already think this project is a joke, specially the level 5 level for being too broad and arbitrary so adding yet another level would worsen the project's perception. The Blue Rider 22:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Has the VA target icon disappeared from articles

I think that the VA target icon has disappeared from articles (i.e. the one that appeared beside the GA/FA icon for logged in editors)? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 21:00, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it seems like it has. I looked at random level 2 and 3 vital articles to find that. Hellow Hellow i am here 16:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I remember seeing it there. Was this some kind of gadget or script? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was a script, I believe, and yes it is not working anymore :( The Blue Rider

15:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps User:Nardog/VitalTopicon.js? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That script would have been impacted by the changes in the Categories topic above. It uses the top level categories (such as Category:Wikipedia level-1 vital articles) that have been depopulated. -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have been informed by Nardo that this has been resolved. Can anyone confirm? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is working again, thanks! The Blue Rider

19:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bolding?

Can someone explain why some vital articles are bolded on Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5 etc., and others are not? We avoid bolding in articles for a reason—it's not generally very clear what it indicates! It seems completely arbitrary: isn't the point of this that we have five tiers? The only thing I can imagine is there's this secret tier 4.5 that's been invented but not described somehow. — Remsense ‥ 论 05:34, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The bolded articles are ones that are level 4 or lower; for some reason only some of them are actually marked as lower than level 5. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 06:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See, I really should've intuited there were a lot fewer Level 4s than there should've been. Guh. Remsense ‥ 论 06:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The bot handling the markings of higher-level articles for some reason began doing it inconsistently several days ago, removing most parenthetical such notes. I forgot to report it.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 06:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts § Vital articles bug?

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts § Vital articles bug?. Sdkb ^talk 18:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfCs for nominating articles

I don't see anything about RfC's about vital article nominations in nomination instructions and what not to use RfCs for.

Given the low participation in some of the discussions and given vital article nominations are not as common as something like WP:AFD discussions, is there any argument against starting RfC's about specific vital article nominations? Bogazicili (talk) 20:10, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The list on what not to use the RfC process is not an extensive list. Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Archive 16#Specifying that RfCs should not be listed on AfDs makes a good argument for AfD that can also apply to WP:VA:

There are hundreds of proposals on WP:VA; adding an RfC to each would overwhelm the RfC lists, obscuring other RfCs.
WP:VA is inherently a specific request for comment about the vitality of an article, already suited for soliciting comments without the need for an RfC;
Adding an RfC to just one VA nomination would give it disproportionately more attention than other nominations, creating an imbalance;
WP:VA's nominations have differnt time periods than RfCs, which last 30 days; adding an RfC could unnecessarily delay the nomination closure by a lot of days.
WP:VA is structured specifically to gather consensus on the vitality of articles, making it preferable over the RfC process. The Blue Rider 20:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, there is low participation. Most nominations in Level 5 seem to have 3 or 4 votes, for example.

There is also Wikipedia:Systemic bias problem.

PhD thesis:

It demonstrates that Wikipedia narratives about national histories are distributed unevenly across the continents, with significant focus on the history of European countries (Eurocentric bias)

Given the limited participation in certain topics, some of these systemic bias issues can be exacerbated. Bogazicili (talk) 20:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:VA has been noted, by this study, of having a good balance between geographical regions: VA represents region-neutral articles and articles relevant to the Global South at much higher rates than any of our three metric-based rankings. The Blue Rider 20:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is only about which article is about which country. to determine geographical breakdown, we obtain country data from Wikidata, which allows us to assign each article to any countries it strongly pertains to

It is not about narratives. For example, there is 2022 Kazakh unrest

5 but not Kazakh famine of 1930–1933. I would argue latter is far more important.

An example for the Eurocentric bias I talked about is including Holodomor

4 but not Kazakh famine of 1930–1933. But this wouldn't be necessarily detectable in the methodology of the study you linked. Bogazicili (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then nominate Kazakh famine of 1930–1933 for vitality. Almost every day there are proposals made at vital articles to try and reduce what is seen as a bias towards specific countries, regions, topics, genres, or companies. Vital articles, like the rest of Wikipedia, is a community effort anyone is free to contribute to. Be the change you want to see. λ NegativeMP1 22:10, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to do it and now it's done. I can't do everything at once.

This topic is about RFCs though. Those were just examples. Now that I thought more about this, RFCs for the initial nomination can be too much. But if there is limited participation, a follow up RFC should be an option. Bogazicili (talk) 11:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for comment discussions should be used for matters where there is a lot of general interest, often because the decision will affect a lot of people. The RfC process is not a tool to generate interest, nor is it designed to process a high stream of discussions, as this would place a lot of demand on the community's time. I think having a separate stream for vital article discussions is a better fit: I think it already reaches most of the people interested in the vital article process, and avoids swamping the centralized discussion process. isaacl (talk) 19:09, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree an RFC should not be used for a project list that is not reader oriented.Moxy🍁 01:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We do have RfC's for non-articles. This would be under Wikipedia:Requests for comment/WikiProjects and collaborations Bogazicili (talk) 17:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We do related to the governance of content. Moxy🍁 23:29, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this would not be a desirable use of the RFC process.

Additionally, I think the desire to have "more" editors is misguided. The goal is to make the right decision. The goal is not to have lots and lots and lots of people make the decision.

I believe I've mentioned this before, to the OP and in the context of Vital Articles, but Google used to put prospective employees through 12 interviews. However, the answer rarely changed after the fourth interview.[1][2][3] The subsequent eight interviews were almost always a complete waste of everyone's time.

Editors' time and attention is our most valuable resource. It is a really bad idea to have more people than necessary involved in this process. If you can get the right answer with a couple of people, then indiscriminately recruiting more editors to VA is actively harming Wikipedia. The opportunity cost of spending more time looking at VA's lists means that other work does not get done. So please, please, stop trying to get "more" people for VA. Instead, please focus on getting "the right" people in VA. For example, if you feel like Asian subjects are underrepresented, then please try to recruit a small number of editors who are familiar with Asian subjects. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To tag onto this, on a few posts I've made, I'll just ping relevant Wikiprojects on their talk page to let them know there is a discussion. For example I recently posted some things about fighter jets to remove and add, so posted a notice onto the talk pages for Aviation and Military History. My knowledge of these things is below the expert level, so my hope is that relevant editors will see that and come vote. This mechanism should help to get the "right" people while also getting "more" eyes. At least that is the intention. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing: how do you propose doing that without WP:Canvass? My desire to get more people is due to the Eurocentric bias of English-language Wikipedia. Bogazicili (talk) 17:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can find and recruit individual editors to the VA process in general. For example, you could see who is editing Culture of Asia, and invite them to put Wikipedia:Vital articles or relevant subpages on their watchlist. You could also look at who edits VA articles the most, and invite them. Since these people are not being invited to any particular discussion/decision, then the canvassing rules don't apply.

You can also post notes about individual proposals at relevant WikiProjects, as GeogSage did. This is recommended in the canvassing rules.

An occasional RFC for an especially difficult decision might be acceptable, but this should be rare. Also, just so you know, Wikipedia:Requests for comment strongly discourages editors from having more than two RFCs at a time. Realistically, that means an annual limit around 25 RFCs, but in practice, if you start more than a couple a year, people will likely notice, and editors who start lots of RFCs on the same basic subject tend to be 'rewarded' with a WP:TBAN. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing: I was hesitant in contacting Wikipedia projects, given WP:Canvass, especially in a WP:Contentious topic such as WP:PIA. Something like Gaza genocide is covered in 10 Wikipedia projects. Posting in 10 Wikipedia projects might be considered as mass posting, which is inappropriate in WP:Canvass. Posting only in a place like Culture of Asia could be considered partisan, which is also inappropriate in WP:Canvass. Please check with Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee about your suggestions.

I also don't see this part strongly discourages editors from having more than two RFCs at a time in WP:RfC. There is WP:RFCBEFORE.

As I said, my current proposal is this: Now that I thought more about this, RFCs for the initial nomination can be too much. But if there is limited participation, a follow up RFC should be an option

I agree that editor time is limited and RfC's should be started only after other methods fail. Bogazicili (talk) 18:29, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overuse of RfCs doesn't help. It is rare for a single article, or a single editor, to have more than one or two productive RfCs open at a time. Before starting a lot of RfCs, please check in on the RfC talk page for advice.

Here's a copy of the box in RFC that discourages more than two RFCs at a time.
The rule is that "Canvassing refers to notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way". Canvassing therefore does not refer to inviting someone to join a project in general, without any particular discussion in mind. "Hey, would you like to join my group?" is not canvassing. "Please come vote on this exact discussion" could be. You should do the first, not the second.
WP:CANVAS says: "An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following:
- The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion."
  Ergo, notifying WikiProjects is explicitly not a violation of the anti-canvassing rule, even if there are ten relevant WikiProjects.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]