Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Vital articles

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:VA)
General Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
Level 5 Subpages

People History and geography Society STEM

Introduction

[edit]

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:

New proposal: More vitality levels?

[edit]
NOTED
Even when disagreeing, several participants noted a persistent interest in expanding VA further. However, agreement was almost unanimous that doing so would be infeasible and counter-productive, at least at this moment. Anyone interested in expanding the size and/or scope of VA is advised to help iron out any remaining process issues first, especially at Level 5. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 01:49, 21 December 2024 (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.

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]
Yeah, I'd say it has. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:44, 26 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]

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.

RfCs for nominating articles

[edit]
NOTED
Reached strong consensus that a formal RfC would be overkill for most VA discussions, especially on individual articles. Multiple participants agreed that VA doesn't really need as much participation as possible, but rather enough participation with fresh ideas and good discussion. One participant noted that WP:CANVAS does not prohibit pinging relevant WikiProjects or even potentially interested editors, only cherry-picking editors with the intent of swaying a discussion's outcome. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 01:49, 21 December 2024 (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 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]
Nota bene* 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.
  1. Here's a copy of the box in RFC that discourages more than two RFCs at a time.
  2. 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.
  3. 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]
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.

What should happen to redirects and disambiguation pages which are marked as vital?

[edit]

I frequently come across redirects and disambiguation pages which are identified as vital articles. Sometimes these are the result of page moves or merges. It would be good if there were some instructions on how to deal with this — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If Cewbot doesn't bypass redirects it should. When I come across a disamb from a move, I look at the potential intended targets' talk page histories, usually the correct one's talk page has a recent edit by Cewbot unmarking it as vital. My position is to just remove deleted articles (or ones redirected into a different already-listed article) on sight.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 18:13, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should articles that are removed on a level be removed also on levels below it?

[edit]
CONFIRMED
Unanimous agreement that a removal proposal only applies to that level; closing per WP:AVALANCHE. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 01:49, 21 December 2024 (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'm referring to this closed proposal of a level 4 article. This article is now removed from level 4, but should it be removed from level 5 as well? I have been under the impression that it shouldn't be, but maybe I've been mistaken. What has the consensus been? Makkool (talk) 17:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removals on lower levels should be separately nominated. Removing an article from level 3 just demotes it into a level 4 article for example. That's the procedure I've observed.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 17:47, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I always figured this was just the inverse of WP:VANOSKIP and that "removal" at a higher list only applied to that list. I wouldn't be surprised if things got dropped entirely without step-by-step demotion in the past, but that was before the procedural changes this past year. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:51, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, they should not. If anyone thinks that an article listed at VA4 should not be listed at all, they would have to make separate proposals for VA4 and VA5. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:00, 17 December 2024 (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.

Broad reorganization of geography

[edit]

Winter is here, and I've been motivated to put some thoughts together on this for a broader discussion. I'm going to Ctrl-C Ctrl-V some content from discussion on Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/History and geography with @Zar2gar1 and Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5 after being prompted by @Makkool to come up with a plan.

I had worked on the Geography topics template a while ago (while working on the main page for geography) and think that it can give some ideas for how we could organize stuff. I've been trying to put some thought into approaching this here. Specifically, many broad topics are vital to geography but, in my opinion, most people have been using geography to mean places, and broad topics aren't as interesting to them. My view of what geography is vs what the average person thinks of is likely to be vastly different, and it is honestly hard to look at the state of Wikipedia or hold discussions on the matter, which is why I'm trying to be cautious and think about how to approach this problem. I’d suggest reading over the Geography  2 page to get an idea of what I mean if you don’t understand my point of view here. I've organized my thoughts below, please pardon the length:

To demonstrate, first start with the geography topics at VA level 2, which has 11 articles. This is where I believe the problem starts. Vital articles level 2 lists City  2, Country  2, Sea  2, Land  2, as well as Africa  2, Asia  2, Europe  2, North America  2, Oceania  2, South America  2. To be blunt, as a geographer, this looks like it was compiled by people with a (Western) 5th graders understanding of geography and confirms that it is mostly a place to put Locations and Place identity, two topics that are not included as vital articles at all. Continents are a really bad way to organize information, especially if we are going to push the weird notion that Europe is somehow a continent by any definition of the word (Pluto isn't a planet, and Europe is not a continent). Country  2 is so ambiguous as a term that it is essentially meaningless, and is less useful than something like Territory, which is broader and crosses species. Also, while most people don't know the difference between Nation  4, Sovereign state  5, or Nation state  4, at least those are defined in some literature clearly. I'd drop country completely in favor of something indicating regions or places, maybe something like Regional geography  5. City  2 is another one I oppose at level 2, and would suggest Human settlement  5 as a replacement. Many people think Cities are the be-all, end-all of human civilization, which is a very biased perspective.

Now look at the geography topics template (below). Quantitative geography, Qualitative geography, Time geography, Philosophy of geography, Geodesign, Geoinformatics, Geographic information science, Statistical geography, Spatial analysis are all major "fields" that aren't included but probably should be. Techniques like Geostatistics, Geovisualization, Computer cartography (and Web mapping), forms of Geographic information system  5 (such as Distributed GIS, Internet GIS, and Web GIS) are all missing. Heck, while Remote sensing  4 is thankfully included, Photogrammetry isn't.

Note, that there is almost zero overlap between the template and the way vital articles are organized. The discrepancy between how I believe geography should be organized/approached and the way it is on vital articles is daunting and disappointing. Discussing this with editors is discouraging s I find people are highly defensive of the status quo. A "Basics & methods" section would be a start, but it is still original research when it comes to organization. That said, in a perfect world, if the section is actually about geography and not just a place to store places, then I'd go with the three-branch model at level 2, with categories Human geography  4, Physical geography  4, and Technical geography  5. I'd swap city with Human settlement and country with Territory, and put them under human geography, and I'd drop all the nonsense continents (seriously, including Europe as a continent should be viewed as backward as all the other racist Eurocentric nonsense that polluted early science. If Europe is a continent, so is Florida, and the model is completely useless for anything but explaining the racist European organization of the World. There isn't an argument that includes Europe but doesn't add several other locations, like India). Plate tectonics  3 at level 3 is fine, and we can put them at level 4 under there...maybe. Technical geography could start with quantitative and qualitative geography, satisfying the "methods" section. I'd keep "basics" under the broad heading of geography or use "key concepts," which is used in outside literature.


So my ideal 11 articles for VA 2 would be:


That is my ideal, but I would agree with an argument that quantitative and qualitative geography as categories could be at level 3 to organize concepts like Cartography  4. Scale (Geography) is central to the discipline, but I wouldn't be super set on convincing people it belongs at level 2. Dropping those three, this organization could therefore free up 3 article slots for level 2. I think we could use that organization at VA level 2 to fix all the other issues in the organization of the discipline. Due to the size of this issue, I'm struggling to think of where even to start, as the status quo is really hard to fight against, especially as many editors default to opposing changes. It's actually hard to even look at how bad the current organization is. As a geographer, I almost want to give up before starting. As it stands, I would consider the current organization of the geography section to be completely original research that does not align with outside sources. Fixing it through trying to add/swap/move/remove one or two pages at time through the levels feels like trying to organize a hoarder nest. Hoping to discuss a broad housecleaning strategy here.

BTW, Those blue links are all VA link templates, so if they're missing a number, they aren't listed as vital... GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 21:17, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss

@GeogSage: I'll start the ball rolling with some thoughts while trying (and failing) to keep things short. First off, don't get discouraged if pushing for big changes here feels like a slog. There's a lot of compromise and things rarely end up the way you plan (like the old joke that a camel is a horse designed by committee). I've had that feeling working on articles sometimes too, but the nature of VA makes it inevitable.

One thing I'd actually be a bit more optimistic about is pushing your 11 priority articles up through the ranks. Even if they don't all make it to Lv 2 and the proposals take time to play out, we could nominate them for their next rank now, based on your rationale here. Some (like Technical geography  5) could probably still be added to pages as organizational headers too, even if the articles don't pass.

Pushing the more abstract articles to Level 3, or especially 2, might be hard though. Nothing's impossible, especially if enough people find your point about continents persuasive and free up space. At the same time, accessibility is sort of an unofficial factor for the higher levels; in a way, your point about the current Level 2 topics resembling a middle-school curriculum might be considered a positive. I know when I participated some at Level 3, if I had to choose, I would usually prefer a concrete, intuitive object over an abstract field of study (e.g. Set (mathematics)  3 over Set theory  4).

As for a specific schema, it sounds like we have several possible changes:

  • Add a Technical geography section
  • Consolidate Cities, States, etc. into a new Human geography section
  • Draw an even clearer line around Basics / Key concepts

Two things stand out to me:

  1. These 3 changes are largely independent so we could propose them in parallel. One failing to win approval shouldn't block the others either.
  2. All 3 changes probably only require full votes at Lv 5 because that's the only level where we would need quota adjustments and new pages. At Levels 1-4, these will just be organizational headers, and unless things have changed, people are typically more relaxed about boldly sorting items on a single page. As long as you post a notice, give people a few days for comments, avoid transcription errors, and accept feedback if anyone reverts, you could possibly change the schema at Levels 2-4 on your own initiative.

So yeah, it might be a programme and take several months to filter through, but I don't think what you've described would be unpopular. The end result obviously won't match your vision 100%, but much of it could still pass.

Your comment about listing specific locations also reminded me of one other idea. It's definitely not for now (it would be extreme scope-creep), just for the long-term, but you might appreciate it. In several big-picture discussions here about what we should include, I've seen participants split roughly down the middle. I tend to lean towards being more exclusive and conceptual, but I really liked one person's counterpoint, something to the effect of "many editors simply like to make lists so what's the harm if we give them a new space to do so?"

That got me thinking that maybe someday, as sort of a compromise, VA could spin off other types of reference lists. People that wanted to vote on recent events, music albums, landmarks, etc. could do so there, while the original VA list could focus more on forming a stable, centered, and balanced knowledge graph. In your case specifically, if VA ever spun off a ranked gazetteer, many of the locations (and the talk-page churn around choosing them) would be shunted off to there, and conceptual articles would almost definitely have more weight. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your last point about establishing new spin-off lists for different topics sounds feasible; much more than starting a new Level 6 grade. Maybe there could be something like Wikipedia's film reference list, where the bar for inclusion wouldn't need to be tied to fitting inside the 50,000 articles mark with all the other subjects. I see this project as well as something that would be evolving to something more stable, where we wouldn't be focusing on broadening the scope so much. Makkool (talk) 18:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I don't want to hijack this thread, and I personally don't think VA is quite ready to have the discussion yet. But I think the spin-off reference lists would have many advantages if we implemented them in the medium-term.
In a lot of our proposals, especially around popular or recent topics, we wind up breaking into different camps or falling back onto arbitrary reasoning (myself included). We don't consistently fall in the same camps and all have good points, but we do wind up working at cross-purposes. I think with the other lists, we could replace some repeated debates (over things like recency, influence, or representation) with jurisdictional rules, which are (hopefully) easier to find a stable consensus on.
Say, someone nominates a biography article. Instead of arguing over recentism, we just ask when they were last active in their field, and if it's < X years, we kick the discussion over to a yearbook. Locations, landmarks, "X of Country Y" type articles? Gazetteer. Specific movies, music, paintings, etc.? Catalogs. The lists would still use a size limit and process like VA to prioritize things, but each article type could be evaluated more on its own terms -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zar2gar1 Thank you for the reply! Wikipedia is great because anyone can edit it, which is also it's biggest weakness. Ideally, I'd want to believe editors would let the literature speak for itself and be willing to change their mind when presented with a viewpoint that is well supported in outside literature, but I've found that won't stop people because they won't read it. There are a few topics I've published on professionally, that I teach advanced college courses in, and when it comes to a Wikipedia article, consensus will end up being 3-1 against me despite citations. Some of these topics are harmless and pedantic, others are dangerous widespread vessels for misinformation across multiple pages. Can't get people to take that seriously though, because they don't understand the topic, much less why it is a big deal. Fortunately, the discussion here is more pedantic then dangerous misinformation. VA organization seems much less well organized then a camel made by committee, it seems like many of the categories were haphazardly thrown together early when the project was more malleable, and are now entrenched behind layers of bureaucracy. Like, when was this current organization implmI've technical geography to be moved from level 5 to level 4 here, and attempted to add several geography topics not included at all to level five here. As you are aware, this process is glacial paced, but hopefully there is some interest. It looks like much of the geography section at level 2 was organized on 16 May 2009 by @Quadell (who doesn't seem to be really active now a days), and hasn't changed that much since. It looks like this is a situation where it was really easy to set up early, and now we're stuck with those early decisions for better or worse.
I want to clarify, I don't mean that the current layout looks like a "middle-school curriculum," I mean that it looks like it was designed by 5th grade American students, and geography isn't taught to 5th grade American students. When it comes to teaching Geography and designing curriculum, that is usually at the college level unless the students are taking "AP Geography." That said, in the United States, the National Council for Geographic Education established the Five themes of geography, which are "Location," "place," "Human-enviornment interaction," "movement," and "region." European schools may be different, {I'm not familiar with each of their curriculum) but the five themes could also replace the current organization of level 2, although a bit less cleanly. In addition to these five themes of organizing the discipline, there is the Four traditions of geography (I originated that page, and would not recommend we use the traditions here), and the three branch model of Human geography, physical geography, and technical geography used by the UNESCO Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems. I favor the UNESCO model for simplicity, as well as because I believe it best fits the current way the discipline is approached today. On the topic of curriculum though, I've been going through my personal library and looking at the literature that covers intro geography for some ideas (yay for publishers giving out free desk copies). One book that resembles the current organization on Wikipedia might be the 1897 text Natural Elementary Geography, which has sections for "Introductory lessons" (containing things like map reading, direction, "Homes of the races of Mankind," "Our interest in the Eastern Continent", etc. ), "North America," "United States," "Minor countries of North America," "South America," "Eurasia," "Africa," and "Australia and Islands." I'd argue we should likely not use a 1897 book for this, but even then Eurasia was listed as a continent, which is a step up from separating Europe and Asia into separate continents. The textbook Introduction to Geography by Arthur Getis et al. is a bit more contemporary and aimed at freshman college students. It breaks it down the discipline into sections "Introduction," "Techniques of Geographical Analysis," "Physical geography: Landforms," "Physical Geography: Weather and Climate," "Population Geography," "Cultural Geography," "Human Interaction," "Political Geography," "Economic Geography: Agriculture nad Primary Activities," "Economic Geography: Manufacturing and Services," "An Urban World," "The geography of Natural Resources," and "Human Impact on the Environment." There is a similar organization to the textbook Introduction to Geography: People Places & Environment by Dahlman Renwick, with a few exceptions like the technology and techniques being placed in the introduction chapter, and there a chapter titled "A world of States" that stands out from the Getis book. A step more advanced then these introductory texts is World Regions: In Global Context by Sallie Marston et. al. (I say more advanced because it is more specific and builds upon the general concepts of geography by exploring the regional tradition. This is still an introductory level book though.) breaks it down to "World Regions in Global Context," "Europe," "The Russian Federation, Central Asia, and the Transcaucasus," "Middle East and North Africa," "Sub-Saharan Africa," "The United States and Canada," "Latin America and the Carribbean," "East Asia," "South Asia," "South East Asia," and "Oceania." I like these as benchmarks for what an accessible schema might be. I would suggest that World Regions: In Global Context be used as a template for a level 3 organization of place names and regions (emphasis on regions and not continent, we don't want to use continents to organize human society).
I agree with your summary of possible changes. I understand that it won't likely ever match what I think it should look like, but would like to see it reflect the academic literature a bit more. Even if the pages are not fully moved around, I would like to see all the "continents" knocked off level 2, as this archaic method of organizing regions doesn't deserve this level of prestige/attention. I'd also like to see City swapped with Human Settlements. I'm not sure I fully understand your idea for other type of reference list on Wikipedia, but it could be an idea for Wikipedia:WikiProject Geography. The issue really is that we can't get enough participants in these groups... Making a bunch of really cool lists sounds great, but from what I can tell splitting them up only limits participation. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 21:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you mean about the openness being a mixed blessing sometimes. And don't get me started on some of the political stuff (there's a reason I mostly stick to technical articles despite an interest and some exposure to foreign affairs). Maybe even more than that, the volunteer nature of Wikipedia inevitably gives whoever has the strongest fixation a lot of leverage over a topic. On a couple occasions, I've walked away from articles that I knew were garbled because I didn't want to fight an edit-war; I only do this to scratch an itch after all.
That said, even if the piecemeal proposals can feel like trench warfare sometimes, VA strikes me as a very level-headed place. I actually worked on several of the STEM lists a year or two ago, back when we just allowed boldly adding to unfinished lists. And I have to admit, while I was initially skeptical about formalizing Lv 5 more, I think the change has been for the better. Even if things move a bit slower and there are still kinks, I feel the lists are evolving for the better, and even the less popular ones aren't stagnant.
I would stand by the one thing I mentioned, that even if your individual proposals hit a wall, you can probably sort the current articles boldly, as you see fit. As long as they're all on the same page and you add a courtesy notice to the talk page in advance (just in case anyone has comments), you should be good. You've clearly put significant thought into this and bring a strong background so I don't think you'll see much push-back. Even if a proposal is necessary at Lv 5, I see no problem with either your "5 theme" or "3 branch" schema.
I think we've only reverted reorganizations like that a couple times, and even then, it may have only been temporary due to articles being dropped by mistake. If you'll be shifting many articles around, doing it in several edits spread out over time can help by making it easier to check.
It may be more tedious up front, but as the most granular level, you may want to focus on Lv 5 first. That will require sorting out the new page names and quotas by proposal. After that though, you could roll-up any reorganization from there, probably with minimal bureaucracy. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Table at main VA landing page

[edit]

Why does the table at the main VA landing page show a May 2024 as of date. Can we get this set up so it is always current.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles&oldid=1264722435"