Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Add Egg  3

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.

---

A topic that is definitely vital at this level, since it has been a frequently used word in both daily and science contexts.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
2. per nom Aurangzebra (talk) 05:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
3. I can see this at V3. Vital for live, and culture. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
4. per nom GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
5. --Thi (talk) 09:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
6. Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 02:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
7. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
8. 'Support Dawid2009 (talk) 08:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose We're two articles over quota and no swap has been proposed. Eggs are just one aspect of sexual reproduction in some animals – sexual reproduction would be a better choice for this list than egg. Cobblet (talk) 19:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
2. When I think of egg, I think of Chicken  3's so a tad of overlap; weak oppose. The Blue Rider 01:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Discuss

1. I previously suggested removing both bread and cheese from level 3 to level 4 (not that far above this). This was two for, three opposed to bread, two opposed to cheese, and one neutral on cheese last I checked. Could egg be swapped for one of these two?GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

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

Swap Mobile phone with Smartphone

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.

---

Per recently closed discussion above, I am proposing this swap since Smartphones are ubiquitous to modern life nowadays. Interstellarity (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose All smart phones are mobile phones, but not all mobile phones are smart phones. When you compare Smartphone and mobile phone views (see here), mobile phone gets 3,886 views while smartphone gets 2530.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

   @GeogSage and @Purplebackpack89: Would you support a straight removal of mobile phone without a swap for Smartphone to get at quota? Interstellarity (talk) 23:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

   I would support dropping mobile phone to level 4 without a swap yep.00:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC) GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

   OK, thanks for mentioning that. I did propose above that Mobile phone be dropped to level 4, but there wasn't a lot of participation in that discussion. I would encourage people to either say they support a swap or support a straight removal. Interstellarity (talk) 00:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

2. per Blackadder _pbp 21:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 09:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

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

Add Public transport

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.

---

This is a key feature of most modern societies. It covers things like High-speed rail, Ferry, Rapid transit, and Bus. Not sure what to swap it with since it would be one over quota, but looking forward to your opinions. Interstellarity (talk) 02:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 02:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Now that transport is of Level 2, it is reasonable to include this crucial article, however a few articles must be removed so that the quota won't be exceeded.--RekishiEJ (talk) 04:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
3. Broad coverage, I would rate higher than Bicycle  3 and Bridge  3/Canal  3 CMD (talk) 05:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak oppose Mass transit is primarily an urban phenomenon. I'm open to the idea of adding an article related to urban areas, but have some doubts that this should be the first one added. For example, topics like urbanization (rural–urban migration was fundamental to the development of civilizations and is a defining feature of industrialization) and suburb get more views than public transport. Cobblet (talk) 17:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Per Cobblet, but I'd argue public transport is more important than suburb. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

• Restored from archive. starship.paint (RUN) 14:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

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

Remove History of architecture  3, History of music  3 and History of film  3

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.

---

Okay, no doubt they are vital, but are they really as vital as History of art  3, which is currently also considered vital at level 3? Besides, there are currently 1002 articles in the list, yet still incomplete as it lacks some articles so vital that should definitely be added (e.g. Egg  3, Analytical chemistry  4 and Lead  4).

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
2. Support. Subtopics, covered by history of art as well. I read all arguments here, and I favor the nom's position. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
3. Support film as it is a relatively recent industry, and I don't see Film  3 going to V2. Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 00:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
4. Support removing history of film, which is too recent to have a history article at this level. Gizza (talk) 23:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose history of music and history of film. Architecture is a subset of art, the others, less so. _pbp 16:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 17:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
3. Oppose all. Logic is the same as pbp's but on top of that, I think architecture is a distinct enough field from art to warrant its own history article. Aurangzebra (talk) 05:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
4. Oppose All three are vital at this level. Jusdafax (talk) 05:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Discuss

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

Swap Hatshepsut  4 for Cleopatra  3

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.

---

Why is Hatshepsut V3? She is just your above-average pharaoh. But hey, there's a perfectly good swap: Cleopatra, a much more famous female pharaoh. 81 interwikis vs 145, 1.5k daily views vs nearly 150k! (yes, check yourself, maybe there's some data error?). Cleopatra has List of cultural depictions of Cleopatra and many more entries in Category:Cultural depictions of Cleopatra vs Category:Cultural depictions of Hatshepsut. Sems like a no brainer here.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:10, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. As nominator. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Support for Cleopatra, I think i read somewhere that it was the top read historical article on the en wiki in 2023 or something very close. Neutral on Hatshepsut. Respublik (talk) 18:01, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
3. Vileplume (talk) 22:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
4. Support, especially since we already have a pharaoh of the New Kingdom. Generalissima (talk) 18:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
5. Support swap per nom/disucssion below. starship.paint (RUN) 14:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
6. Support swap per nom. Interstellarity (talk) 13:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
7. Support swap per nom. Easy call. Jusdafax (talk) 00:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
8. Support swap per nom. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Refrained from commenting on this initially to let someone more in the know comment, but as that isn't coming then oppose as per previous discussions, Cleopatra is generally agreed to be historically unimportant especially outside of her involvement with Julius Caesar  3 and Augustus  3 (both listed). Hatshepsut was not only actually influential in and of herself but also from a less represented era of history. J947 ‡ ^edits 20:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
2. Oppose per previous discussions. The list is not just about page views; it's also about breadth of coverage and avoiding redundancy. Caesar and Augustus's articles already cover Cleopatra's significance. Cobblet (talk) 16:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
3. Oppose per above and my comments in the past. Gizza (talk) 23:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Discuss

Re data error: Hey Google. J947 ‡ ^edits 02:16, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

@J947 Nice! So before the data became messed up there, "the annual views on Cleopatra were around 2.5 million." which seems to be ~<7k. So not as crazy but still supporting my argument that she is much more vital. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Swap Frida Kahlo  4 for Vincent van Gogh  3

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.

---

At V3 in Artists we have 6 articles: Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, Rembrandt, Hokusai, Pablo Picasso and Frida Kahlo. I don't think Kahlo is at the same level as the other 5. A quick look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts/Popular pages suggests van Gogh is more popular, and arguably, more famous, impactful and vital. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:37, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Per nom; while representation is important, it should not be too extreme. Kahlo does not rank even close to the other V3 artists, while Van Gogh does. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
3. Per nom; Van Gogh is iconic. Jusdafax (talk) 05:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
4. Per nom; Van Gogh is more impactful --EleniXDD※Talk 09:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
5. per above. In terms of the 114 most vital humans, Kahlo does not spring to mind, and van Gogh is more likely to be on that list. starship.paint (RUN) 14:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
6. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 08:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
7. Support swap. Per nom. Later eventually Khalo could be readded but as swap with another biography. Dawid2009 (talk) 12:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
8. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 13:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose both per previous discussions. There's the representation problem. J947 ‡ ^edits 10:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Kahlo is an highly influential activist and painter to the Mexican culture, arguably the most famous women painter. Van Gogh is as vital as its expressionist counter-part, that is, Edvard Munch  4. The Blue Rider 01:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
3. Oppose. May support a swap of Van Gogh with Rembrandt  3. Kahlo is far more well known than Rembrandt who is fairly obscure and page views over the last decade backs this up. Kahlo gets almost quadruple the number of readers as Rembrandt consistently. Gizza (talk) 02:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
4. Oppose per previous discussions. Cobblet (talk) 19:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Discuss

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

Clarification that early modern period ends in 1815

Discission at VA5 _pbp 22:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Soliciting comments on 2 vital articles

Hello. I'm soliciting comments on Talk:Mars and the Talk:Solar System to brainstorm about future improvements to the article. Feel free to chip in your ideas. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Move History of philosophy  3 to level 3

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.

---

At the level 4 discussion of History of philosophy, it was suggested to have it as a level 3 vital article. For comparision: Philosophy  1 is level 1, like Science  1 and Mathematics  1. The corresponding history articles of those two fields of inquiry are History of science  2 and History of mathematics  3.

One possible swap could be with History of film  3, since Film  3 itself is just level 3 article, but I confess that my knowledge of vital article swap-practices is rather limited. There is currently a proposal to reduce the level of History of film. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
2. Per nominator. The Blue Rider 21:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
3. Per nom. Aszx5000 (talk) 08:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
4. Looks like it'd be in good company.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 08:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
5. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 13:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

In the hope of getting more feedback, I'll ping the editors involved in the VA 4 discussion of this article. @Hanif Al Husaini, LaukkuTheGreit, Kammerer55, Aszx5000, Interstellarity, J947, Piotrus, Nihil novi, and Dawid2009: if you have the time, your input would be appreciated. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Coalition to cite all statements in Vital articles with reliable source

It's time to make the Vital list more useful. How about making a coordinated effort to eradicate all {{cn}} in the Vital articles? We can start with Level 1 articles and gradually move downwards to level 2, 3, 4, and finally level 5 articles if we have the time. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I would be interest! The Blue Rider 16:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Nice :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Add East Asia  4

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.

---

We list its history at V3 (History of East Asia  3), but not the region itself. It contains over a fifth of the world population and over a quarter of the world GDP. Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 12:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 12:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
2. Reasonable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose The list contains alla East Asian countries except Mongolia and North Korea. Those articles or History of China would be better choices. --Thi (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

   I would support the removal of Taiwan if it weren’t the twenty-first largest economy.

   Speaking of nominal GDP, I don’t know if we should start a discussion on this, but with Switzerland set to hit $1 trillion by next year, we should decide if it should be V3. It has a comparable population to Israel and United Arab Emirates, which are countries partially listed for their economies. Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

   Maybe nominal GDP is worse than PPP when it comes to vital country lists. In that case, Romania would be more vital. Aside from that, Iraq is probably the next country we should be promoting to V3. Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 21:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

2. Oppose All major East Asian countries are already included. Switzerland has minimal geopolitical significance compared to Israel or the UAE. Cobblet (talk) 15:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
3. Oppose overlaps too much with many countries that are listed per above. Gizza (talk) 04:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

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.

Remove History of Oceania  3

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.

---

Don’t see how a continent/region of 46 million needs its history at a higher level than that of much more important countries, regions, and non-geographical topics. Even two V4 countries (Uganda and Sudan) have higher populations. Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 20:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 20:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
2. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
3. Trivial at that level. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong oppose The histories of all of Earth's inhabited landmasses should be included at this level. Oceania is one of the first places on Earth where agriculture was developed, the earliest example of humans' ability to drastically alter natural environments, the location of the most technically remarkable human migration ever, the most linguistically diverse place on Earth, and ground zero for climate change – no well-educated person should be ignorant of Oceanian history. Cobblet (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Cobblet, Oceania's history is important to humans--EleniXDD※Talk 09:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
3. Oppose per above. Cannot see how the history of a region inhabited by humans for a very long time can be ignored at this level. Gizza (talk) 04:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

1. On an unrelated note, between the two countries mentioned above, I’d probably support Sudan at V3, and I’d be neutral on Uganda, a country with little influence internationally. Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

   I have nominated Oceania for removal at level 2. Discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/2#Remove_Oceania. Interstellarity (talk) 11:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Move Bread and Cheese from level 3 to level 4

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.

---

Within the "Food and drink" section on level 3, there are several staple foods and crops, such as Salt, Spice, meat, fruit, and vegetable as well as the staple cereal crops of maize wheat and rice, and crops like potato and soy bean. Milk is listed under beverages.

Bread and cheese stand out as the only two prepared food items within this list. These two are also very Euro-centric, should we add "noodle" or "tofu"? If we are going by significance, "beer" should be listed under "alcoholic beverage," as it is the third most popular beverage after water and tea, and possibly older then "bread" and "cheese."

Bread and cheese are significant, but they are out of place in the list and open the door to the questions of why we include those but not others. Removing them would open space for other pages.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. Support GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
2. Per nominator. The Blue Rider 11:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
3. Support removing cheese If we have to make some cuts (and we do), I think listing milk is sufficient to cover dairy products. Cobblet (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. A lot of cuisines (incl. non-European ones) use bread as the major staple (e.g. Lebanese cuisine), and cheese is also widely used by them (incl. Nepalese and Bhutanese cuisine, though no doubt rarely used in East Asian and Southeastern Asian cuisines), thus both cheese and bread are no Euro-centric.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
2. Oppose Bread is also known as cultural symbol (sacramental bread, Bread and Roses). Oppose removals unless it means space for really vital topics such as states. --Thi (talk) 19:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
3. Oppose bread, it is not Euro-centric, we have articles on Indian bread, List of Pakistani breads, List of American breads, read Category:Breads by country - Australian, Brazilian, Chinese, Egyptian, Indonesian, Jamaican, Japanese, Mexican, New Zealand etc. Neutral on cheese. starship.paint (RUN) 09:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
4. Oppose bread, weak oppose cheese. Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 23:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

• Comment @User:Thi and @User:RekishiEJ, Wine is also a cultural symbol, and there is a while List of foods with religious symbolism. The importance of bread and chees are not universal, and while more cultures then Europe enjoy these staples, they are not as important to everyone everywhere. In terms of symbolic foods and making space for "really vital topics," egg is a level 4 vital article, not level 3, much less Eggs as food. Eggs are both important in biology, reproduction, and obviously as a food item for humans. With topics like egg, Yogurt, butter, beer, and wine not making it to level 3, I struggle to see the justification for bread and cheese, and the list really seems inconsistent.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
• Can someone propose a swap between Alcoholic beverage  3 and Beer  4 and Wine  4? Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 20:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Swap Rembrandt  3 for Vincent van Gogh  3

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.

---

Vincent van Gogh is more iconic than Rembrandt. Comparing all pageviews data (back to 2015), van Gogh has more pageviews than all Level 3 artists except Leonardo da Vinci. van Gogh also has more than twice the edits of any of the Level 3 artists, and the second highest number of page watchers behind da Vinci. Meanwhile, Rembrandt has less than 25% of van Gogh's pageviews, and is the least viewed Western artist of Level 3. starship.paint (RUN) 01:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Support

per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 02:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Van Gogh is now Level 3 due to swap with Kahlo so in my opinion this is moot. Aszx5000 - your vote indicates that you seem to agree? starship.paint (RUN) 03:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes I do, we can close this now as done. thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

1. Rembrandt's pageviews are much lower than those of Kahlo or Van Gogh. Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 12:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
2. Van Gogh is V3, but so is Rembrant. The issue is that Kahlo should be swapped out to V3 (per nom above). Aszx5000 (talk) 10:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
3. Support per my comments above. Gizza (talk) 01:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Per previous discussions, van Gogh is unimportant in the grander narrative of art history and is largely a figure of popular culture. J947 ‡ ^edits 02:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

   To be fair, Kahlo is mainly known as a pop figure as well; Mexico really did a good job popularizing her. The Blue Rider 14:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

   Or to paraphrase J947, van Gogh is culturally significant, more than a century after his death. starship.paint (RUN) 15:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

2. Oppose We do not have room to list three modern artists, and Rembrandt is the only representative of European art between the Renaissance and modern periods. Cobblet (talk) 15:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Discuss

@Piotrus, Aszx5000, Jusdafax, J947, The Blue Rider, and DaGizza: who voted above in Kahlo vs van Gogh. starship.paint (RUN) 02:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

• I'd rather prefer my proposal to swap him with Frida Kahlo to pass :P Abstain here as I think Rembrandt is also more vital than Kahlo. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  This is the right call - Van Gogh should be swapped in for Frida Kahlo. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Move Climbing  4 to Level 3

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 think Climbing  4 is a definite Level 4. However, it is the head topic for the established Level 4 sub-topics of Mountaineering  4 and of Rock climbing  4, as well as other Level 5s (e.g. Sport climbing  5). It also includes the Olympic sport of climbing, which is Competition climbing, and should itself be at VA 5 (there are other climbing sub-topics which should also be at VA 5). Climbing is also equivalent to other Level 3 R&E topics such as Swimming  3. I therefore think Climbing should really be at Level 3. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

If it had to be swapped with another Level 3 article, I would suggest Board game  3 also from R&E. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

@The Blue Rider: I thought that the proposal of having to have topics move through the levels (i.e. become Level 4 before Level 3), was proposed but never agreed to (did some find it was too bureaucratic)? Aszx5000 (talk) 15:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I see that it was passed Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 76#Proposal: New rule that an article must be listed at a lower level before being nominated for inclusion at a higher level that proposals to move through the levels. thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 16:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

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

Remove Conic section  4

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.

---

We are over quota, and this is not top rated by the Mathematics Wikiproject. Less than 700 views per day. Seems more suited for V4. starship.paint (RUN) 07:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. starship.paint (RUN) 07:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
2. Support compared to the other level 3 geometry articles, the scope of this one is rather narrow. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
3. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 08:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
4. I can see this at V5 but not anywhere higher. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
5. Support. per nom. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

Remove Anarchism  3

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.

---

Its influence on mainstream politics is limited. --Thi (talk) 12:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --Thi (talk) 12:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. It might be limited now but it certaintly wasn't in the 19th and 20th century. The Blue Rider 16:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
2. I wouldn't base removals/additions from V1-V3, or even V4, off of RECENTism. This is still a significant ideology, even if its influence today is limited. λ NegativeMP1 16:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
3. TOOSOON to remove this given its importance in the last two centuries, actually seems to be making a comeback imho. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

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.

Remove Piano  4

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.

---

We are over quota at 1,003. Piano is the only musical instrument listed at V3. I am really not sure why, is it more significant than wind instruments like the flute, string instruments like the violin, or percussion? Something has got to go here. starship.paint (RUN) 09:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 09:49, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
2. support. I made a separate post suggesting this before reading this. Piano makes no sense to be included if drums and flute are not included, and really none are necessary in level 3. The Piano is an extremely modern instrument and not super universal in terms of culture. The cost of maintenance means until recently, they were limited to a limited group.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:08, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
3. feminist🩸 (talk) 02:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
4. SailorGardevoir (talk) 19:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
5. Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
6. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Too important. --Thi (talk) 11:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

   @Thi: - care to explain what's so important about the piano? starship.paint (RUN) 14:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

   The piano's tonal range covers most orchestral instruments. You can play classical music, pop, rock or jazz. The list needs something you can do with your hands, for example Handicraft is not listed. --Thi (talk) 18:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Discuss

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

Move Abraham  3 and Moses  3 to Mythology or Abrahamic religions

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.

---

This is self-explanatory, these articles are listed in this section on all other levels. Vileplume (talk) 20:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. Vileplume (talk) 20:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 22:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
3. Support if you mean under 'Abrahamic religions'. If you specifically mean Mythology, oppose. Aurangzebra (talk) 06:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
4. Support moving under Abrahamic religions. Cobblet (talk) 03:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
5. Support, this makes a lot of sense. I would suggest treating other non-historical figures similarly, because they too are in fact not people. Off the top of my head, this would mean Homer could go under Literature, and Laozi could go under Philosophy, perhaps under Eastern philosophy next to Confucianism. There are probably a couple of others that I'm forgetting, so if there are any more I would support moving those too. Ladtrack (talk) 15:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
6. Support per above. starship.paint (RUN) 14:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
7. Support moving to Abrahamic religions (as they are not at the same level of Jesus  3, The Buddha  3, or Muhammad  3); however, I would question whether they are really at Level 3? Aszx5000 (talk) 17:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Hm? They are religious figures, clearly. The Blue Rider 00:27, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

   I think OP means under Religion which is where Abraham and Moses are slotted at every other level. Aurangzebra (talk) 06:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

   They are already under Religious figures. The Blue Rider 00:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

   And they aren't under that in all subsequent levels is the issue. Don't really mind either category but I do support consistency. I lean towards keeping them under Abrahamic religions since their existence is disputed (there is no unequivocal guarantee that they were real people). Aurangzebra (talk) 05:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

2. Oppose Moses is more hitorical than Homer for example. See also PBP's comment below and Rregan007 comment here. We reached usance to list Abraham and Moses along with all other religous figures and I do not see reason why change it. Dawid2009 (talk) 12:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
3. Oppose. I don't see why? They belong to 'Religious figures'. The current placement makes more sense than the proposed ones, which contain no biographical articles at all. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

Looking at Ladtrack's list, we're talking semi-legendary figures here. Neither biographies nor mythology is a perfect fit. _pbp 15:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I feel the need to clarify that my list was based on what the apparent rationale for placing them in that area in levels 4 and 5 to begin with. I was not actually involved in placing them there and cannot confirm that that is why they are there, but it seems overwhelmingly likely considering the other figures that are similarly placed in level 4. As for perfectly fitting, while it seems somewhat oddly placed on face value, I think the lower levels have it right in this case. There are several biographical articles placed in the mythology section in level 4, and they are placed there because they are considered mythical figures due to lack of historicity. Achilles, for example, falls into the same vein of maybe-possibly based on something. The sacking of Troy is generally regarded as a real thing and the Iliad's Achilles could conceivably have been based on someone. This is more or less the same level of historicity that is attributed to Moses, for example. The historicity section in the Moses article discusses potential Moses-like figures, and the strongest evidence of his historicity is that some version of the Exodus is generally regarded to have happened and that there may have been a central figure in it resembling his depiction in the Torah. But if Achilles was brought into this level, he surely would not be in the people section. This leaves us with the view that the only reason that Moses and Abraham are listed as people and Achilles would not be is simply because large groups of people currently believe in the former two figures, as opposed to the ancient Greek religion which is functionally dead. This does not strike me as a particularly good reason to leave them in the people section. I do think that placing them in mythology, as level 4 does, seems a bit harsh for figures in living religions, so religion feels like a reasonable compromise. After all, they are undoubtedly religious figures, real or not. Ladtrack (talk) 17:07, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

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

Remove Calligraphy  4

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 think Building  3 is more important to humanity than calligraphy, which has overlaps with Painting  3 and Drawing  3. starship.paint (RUN) 03:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. as nom. starship.paint (RUN) 03:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
2. Support per nom.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
3. SailorGardevoir (talk) 19:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
4. Interstellarity (talk) 09:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
5. Support per nom. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Calligraphy was mentioned in the academic paper article about VA and meta's list: [1], they quoted one editor who said something this way: For example, for two of the most important cultural worlds, the Chinese (China, Japan, Corea) and the Muslim (Arab and Persian cultures) the most important art is not painting or even music, (arguably) it’s calligraphy. There is not a single calligrapher in the list. Dawid2009 (talk) 13:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

• Just a note, Chinese calligrapher Wang Xizhi  4 is V4. starship.paint (RUN) 06:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

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

Swap Nuclear weapon  4 with Bomb  3

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.

---

In weapons, we have Armour, Bow and arrow, Firearm, and Knife. The one that sticks out is Nuclear weapon. I suggest swapping this for Bomb, as nuclear weapons are a type of bomb. While nuclear weapons have had a tremendous impact on modern geopolitics, they have only been used twice. Bombs have been used since the 11th century.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. as nom.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 09:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
3. Bomb is the more vital topic. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
4. Without the bomb, there would have been no nuclear weapon. λ NegativeMP1 16:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
5. SailorGardevoir (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
6. Per nom. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
7. Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Military history is a level 3 article. Nuclear weapon is one of the most important scientific discoveries of all time. It is a key concept for existential threats for the whole Earth, anti-war movement and geopolitics. --Thi (talk) 11:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Discuss

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

Discussions at Redirects for discussion

"List of articles all languages should have" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect List of articles all languages should have has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 4 § List of articles all languages should have until a consensus is reached. Interstellarity (talk) 00:19, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

"Vital article" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Vital article has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 4 § Vital article until a consensus is reached. Interstellarity (talk) 00:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

"Vital Article" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Vital Article has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 4 § Vital Article until a consensus is reached. Interstellarity (talk) 00:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

"Vital articles" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Vital articles has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 4 § Vital articles until a consensus is reached. Interstellarity (talk) 00:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

"Vital Articles" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Vital Articles has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 4 § Vital Articles until a consensus is reached. Interstellarity (talk) 00:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Vital article landing page

I know that there have been RfMs on moving this page to Vital Article Level 3 (which have failed), but I think the issue is that in the absence of a proper Vital Article landing page, this was the best fit, which makes sense.

However, I do find the Vital Article Project at times confusing to engage with and navigate, and the RfC above on the top icon shows that wider members of the Wikipedia community have chequered views of the VA Project.

I think there should be a proper VA landing page that explains the project, it's guidelines (e.g. can a redlink be nominated, must an article start at Level 5 before going higher etc.). There is a lot of good work being done here (and as the academic paper above highlights), but it is very easy to miss it (and even dismiss it, per above). Aszx5000 (talk) 16:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Even this WikiProject Vital Articles page is not right. It is all about how to bring VA to GA/FA status. Instead, it should be about the policies and guidelines about how Vital articles are chosen and how to participate productively in those discussions. It is unusual that some editors from GA/FA (per the top icon RfC above) are dismissive of VA, but according to the VA main page, the sole focus is how to bring VA articles to GA/FA status? Instead, the VA main page should be about the process of adding/removing VAs imho. Aszx5000 (talk) 12:29, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree that an improved landing page is needed. Separating from level 3 might be the best idea. If you could mock up a proposed page then it might help — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:55, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I would be willing to try. Can you give me some pointers about how I would do that? I have never done such a thing outside of article creation? Should we set up a sandbox version that we could all have a go at? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 12:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you could create a page in your userspace (e.g. User:Aszx5000/Vital articles) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Final question, I am going to try an draft a page that focuses on the policies/guidelines etc for adding/removing VAs. I thought that the Wikipedia:New pages patrol front page would be a good template as it lists in detail the policies/guidelines/tools for NPP. Obviously, NPP is a more complex process, however, would such a template/approach work? Aszx5000 (talk) 20:02, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I will reserve judgement until I have seen your proposed page :) Then I will comment constructively — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@Aszx5000 you could incorporate some of Wikipedia:Vital articles/Frequently Asked Questions into the landing page — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:05, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

That is very helpful and what I would like the landing page to feature prominently. thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) Aszx5000 (talk) 15:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Any progress with this @Aszx5000? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I have been away for a few weeks but going to give this a go in March and see where I get to. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@Aszx5000: Any updates on the landing page? Interstellarity (talk) 13:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Haven't forgotten but have been time constrained lately and trying to finish the overhaul of major climbing articles. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Finally, I have made a start on the landing page at User:Aszx5000/Vital articles. Better than I can add tabs and navigation but I thought that a landing page that has the key guidelines and policies (and captures what has been agreed and not agreed historically), and a link to its talk page for VA discussion (and not on Level 3's talk page) would be an improvement? All comments welcome - feel free to edit the draft as needed. Aszx5000 (talk) 23:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I think the section "What makes an article "vital"?" could be further expanded with more reasons, right now the criteria seems to have been randomly selected. The Blue Rider 16:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

"what makes an article vital" is from the existing Wikipedia:Vital articles/Frequently Asked Questions, that User:MSGJ pointed me too for content. All of these sections and wordings would need to be collaboratively agreed, but the key is whether we should have a 'VA landing page' like this that summarizes what goes on at VA, and how to get involved, as well as having a separate talk page, instead of this VA 3 talk page for general discussion. Aszx5000 (talk) 16:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

The FAQ was never agreed upon and there are more criteria worth including, I would strongly recommend using the scientific paper that was done on this project. The Blue Rider 12:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, and hopefully this process with improve on that. Where is that paper? Aszx5000 (talk) 12:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

You will also see per User:Aszx5000/Vital articles/Statistics, that it would be great to capture more of the 'science' behind VA as possible. Aszx5000 (talk) 12:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

These were the conclusions of the paper:

Criteria used by Vital articles contributors to justify an article's priority.

Importance Criterion	Example Quote
Everyday Significance	"An activity [sleep] that takes up 1/3 of your lifetime seems to be pretty vital to me."
Cultural Significance	"Sports have in some form been a part of the vast majority of cultures for much of there history."
Historical Significance	"The concept [bourgeoisie] has had a massive role in human history."
Enduring Significance	"The repercussions [of the 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic] will be felt for many decades, at the very least."
Breadth	"Folklore is the broader and more fundamental article [compared to Myth]."
Global Criterion	Example Quote
Balance	"If sport receives enough support then I think we should add an almost equivalent female dominated activity to balance things out (maybe dance)."
Non-redundancy	"Everything on Earth is covered by Earth, and everything beyond Earth is of interest pretty much only for astronomy, which is covered by Science."
Completeness	"The only type of activism we lack is women's rights - of which i would support Emmeline Pankhurst."

The Blue Rider 13:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I think this is a great start! A good definition of a vital article would indeed be useful (if such a thing exists) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks MSGJ! My expectation that if we can get the a "framework" agreed (i.e. headings and ideas), the rest can flow. Even through my version is crude, hopefully others will find the idea of a 'landing page' useful to VA, which will help collate things in one area and allow others to engage in VA easily? thanks again. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

New Vital Article 'landing page'

Per this discussion, I have created a crude draft 'landing page' for VA (and its talk page would be the VA talk page) at User:Aszx5000/Vital articles. Pinging @MSGJ: and @Interstellarity: who were also involved in the discussion. All reactions welcome ! thanks. 11:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Although I encourage you to keep working on the page, I think it is a great start. Take any advice the editors give you and it will be successful. Interstellarity (talk) 20:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest swapping out Hitler for Mandela or perhaps Genghis Khan as an example of leaders, else you run afoul of the very next point, avoiding Western bias (since Einstein and Shakespeare are already "Western"). BD2412 T 21:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done that change. Feel free anybody to make changes directly as you see fit. If we can get a basic version of this up and running, the 'Landing Page 2.0s' will follow soon after I'm sure. thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 22:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I would also recommend that once the page is finalized, we could do away with the FAQ listed at the top since much of the landing page would answer a lot of the FAQs. I don't think the FAQs are updated on a regular basis so it would be great to make sure we get something that is updated and modern for this list. Interstellarity (talk) 23:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense, and why I think that it is better to have as much as possible on a 'landing page' to avoid material in the 'back pages' that gets outdated. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

• Would be great to have someone look at the User:Aszx5000/Vital articles#‎Executing a close section as this has been uncertain to me: E.g.:

If the article is added to a new VA list (or the Level 5 list for the first time), does the bot automatically update the article's talk page that it is a vital article, or does the closer have do physically it?

If an article is removed from Level 4, should the closer check to make sure that it is still on the Level 5 list (in case it disappears)?

thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 11:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps @Starship.paint might be able to look at this and advise? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

That would be great. If we solved this "Executing a close" section, then I think we are almost there in terms of getting a basic 'landing page 1.0' published, and per TheBlueRider above, we should have a longer discussion about the criteria, and filling out some of the subsections such as Statistics (I have seen some very interesting stats on VAs in various locations). Should we ping a wider group of VA participants now to get their reaction? thanks. 08:57, 7 June 2024 (UTC) Aszx5000 (talk) 08:57, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

If there are no further comments, shall we move ahead with this? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I’m all in for the landing page. Interstellarity (talk) 22:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay here's a plan:

1. Move Wikipedia:Vital articles to Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/3 over the redirect
2. Move User:Aszx5000/Vital articles to Wikipedia:Vital articles
3. Split this talk page. Discussions related to level 3 articles, will be moved to Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/3. Discussions that relate to vital articles in general, will stay here.
4. Minor change to Module:Banner shell and Module:Vital article to effect the change in link. Required changes are already in sandboxes.

User:Kanashimi: do we need to change Cewbot's configuration to do this? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good! thanks MSGJ for executing this. Aszx5000 (talk) 17:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

This will require a program code change. Please let me know before finishing the deployment to stop the robot. I will test the robot after deployment. Kanashimi (talk) 22:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Could do sometime today, if that works for you. Otherwise let me know when is good? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I've stopped the vital articles part, so you can start the deployment. Kanashimi (talk) 22:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

 In progress — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done all actions above and some more updates and tidying. There may be a few other things to do — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Excellent job @MSGJ and thank you so much for getting this done. We should put some kind of marker/banner on Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/3 to redirect here for general discussion and proposals? Aszx5000 (talk) 09:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Archiving

What should we do with archiving - do we create a new archiving for the Level 3 page and leave the old one here? Ultimately, we should take the easiest route imho? Aszx5000 (talk) 13:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't fancy going through all the old archives and dividing them into general discussion / level 3 discussion. I suggest new archiving for level 3 and add a note that older archives are in the different location — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Perfect, I think that works. Aszx5000 (talk) 14:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Redirect Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5 to this page

I think that Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5 should be redirected to this page as we should only have one talk page for discussing non-voting items on VA? I placed a notice on the Level 5 talk page about this. Aszx5000 (talk) 12:13, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I thought this page was for overarching discussions about VA. It would soon be swamped with trivial discussions if merged — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

There are quite a few discussion on Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5 that are amending the process for Level 5, that should really be raised here, as these things should be consistent. Aszx5000 (talk) 15:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Finishing the new section on 'Executing a close'

For the Wikipedia:Vital articles#Executing a close section on our new landing page, could someone explain what Cewbot does, and does not do, regarding updating the article talk page and list of vital article pages after a change:

• For example, if I closed a Level 4 as a "Remove" and deleted the article off the VA Level 4 list (but checked to make sure that it was still on the VA Level 5 list), does Cewbot automatically update the article's talk page banner to Level 5?
• Another example, if I close a Level 5 as an "Add", and added the article to the Level 5 list, does Cewbot automatically update the article's talk page to say it is now a Level 5 VA, or do I have to do that manually?
• ... And, if I closed a Level 5 as a "Remove" and deleted it off the VA Level 5 list, does Cewbot automatically take the VA banner off the article's talk page as it is not longer a vital article?

Would be create to clarify the closing process to avoid problems down the line. thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Cewbot updates the data files (see Wikipedia:Vital articles/data) which are then read by the template. (Not sure how it does this exactly.) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I wonder if other VA veterans such as @Czar or @User:Sdkb might know for sure? I do think it would be worth making sure we capture what the process is here for future editors on VA. thanks Aszx5000 (talk) 10:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Cewbot#Cewbot task list shows the bot tasks and links to the original request and source code. I can dig into it more if needed or perhaps the bot maintainer (@Kanashimi) can explain the general closure flow. If I recall correctly, when I've done closures in the past, I've added/removed from the Level list and the bot cleaned up the article's talk template accordingly. But agreed that since it isn't written out, I always have to test it to confirm for myself. czar 14:07, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

The bot determines the level and category of an article by the page and section title of the VA, and updates the VA talk page on a daily basis. Kanashimi (talk) 22:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

So, if I add, or move, a VA between the VA lists, the bot will automatically update the VA's own talk page? What if I completely remove an article from the VA lists (i.e. taken off Level 5), will the bot also remove its VA status on the article's talk page? That would mean that in closing VA proposals, once the VA lists are updated, the closer does not have to touch the talk page of the article in question? thanks so much. Aszx5000 (talk) 00:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes. As per the current process, the bot will synchronize the discussion page of the article on a daily basis as long as the proposer updates the link in the list of vital articles. The proposer may not have to add "|vital=yes" themselves. Kanashimi (talk) 09:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

That is really helpful - thanks Kanashimi, CZAR and MSGJ for clarifying this. I will update the landing page regarding these steps for future closers. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Vital article count vs. target

Is there a way of adding a column to the table on our new landing page that shows the current totals at each Level, so that we know the situation vs. target? thanks. 10:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC) Aszx5000 (talk) 10:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I can calculate that with a module, or we can ask Kanashimi to get his bot to update that regularly. Which is better I wonder? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Regular by bot would be best imho? Aszx5000 (talk) 13:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

It would be pretty amazing if that table on the landing page had the extra column of the actual number of articles, and then further columns that split these actual number into FA, GA, B etc (i.e. the distribution). It would summarise on one table the current status of distribution of quality of VA? Aszx5000 (talk) 10:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

That is already at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Statistics. CMD (talk) 12:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

But split by Level (as per the table on the landing page), and of course automated if possible? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 12:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I had a go at this myself and filled out the table on the landing page, but couldn't find the statistics for Level 4? I think this is a useful overall table as to the quality level of VA? Aszx5000 (talk) 22:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Four merged articles

Currently Amerigame (redirects to Glossary of board games list), Forest gardening (redirects to Agroforestry  5), Limewater (redirects to Calcium hydroxide  5), and Stationary-action principle (redirects to Action principles) are all listed as VAs despite being redirects. Do they need to go through a formal removal process? Two of them redirect to existing lv5s, two do not, so if there is to be a formal process it might be worth suggesting a swap to the non-redirect. CMD (talk) 13:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Redlinks are allowed as vital articles, so in theory, these could be considered as such. However, looking at the list, certainly most of them (if not all), strike me as either weak level 5 candidates (e.g. Amerigame), or needless expansions of existing articles (e.g. Forest Gardening, Stationary-action principle, and probably Limewater). I would put them all up for removal from Level 5. Aszx5000 (talk) 00:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

We've boldly removed re-directs before, like when they made philosopher a redirect to philosophy. If everyone agrees, we could continue as before and just remove those four too without a vote. Makkool (talk) 13:03, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem doing that, and I don't think they are worth keeping in VA. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Cewbot missing sections

I can see on Wikipedia:Database reports/Vital articles update report that there are a whole list of Level 5 Geography VAs for North and Central America (e.g. Alcatraz) that Cewbot does not seem to be able to see on the VA lists? Aszx5000 (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@Kanashimi, does this make any sense to you? If you showed us how to fix it, I would happy to do that again if needed in the future? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I modified the code and the robot will try to fix the articles. Kanashimi (talk) 23:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Great thank you for that - much appreciated! Aszx5000 (talk) 08:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I just notices that Cewbot is also leaving update numbers on the new landing page per here? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 08:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I am working on fixing this mistake. Kanashimi (talk) 10:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Great job @Kanashimi - thank you for that :) Aszx5000 (talk) 16:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Improving the random article buttons on each level

I have been testing the random article buttons at each level and found that it is not perfect. On the level 1 page, where the random article button does the category Category:Wikipedia level-1 vital articles, it has all ten articles, but includes the actual level 1 page in the random article page. I also believe that when we do random articles for the lower levels, we should also do the higher levels. For example, level 3 articles should include levels 1 and 2 since they are on the same level. I have tried to fix this by adding the categories for the higher levels, but I don't think it is a perfect solution and it's not perfectly random, so I am looking for some help on how to fix this. On the subcategories on level 5, it should be fine since I was able to find a category that covers all vital articles from each topic. I hope that someone can provide advice on how I can find a solution that fixes these problems. Interstellarity (talk) 23:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I think that it is okay that if you press the random button on L3, that you only get L3 and not L1/2 examples (i.e. you could always go to L1/2 if you wanted)? One button that I would try to fix is the fact that the top icon on a vital article page only directs to the home page of the Level, whereas the icon on the talk page banner directs you to the specific part of the level where the article resides? (would also be cool to have a number on the top icon to denote their level?). thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 16:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

@Aszx5000: Thank for your input. I get the fact that it would be fine to not include levels 1 and 2 on level 3, but I don't understand what you mean when you say the top icon on a vital article page only directs to the home page of the Level, whereas the icon on the talk page banner directs you to the specific part of the level where the article resides. Can you explain in detail what you mean by that? Thank you. I also encourage you to make the changes necessary to improve the vital article random buttons so that it can be better. Besides, this is a collaborative project, where we work together to build change. When we work together, big changes happen. Interstellarity (talk) 18:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Interstellarity. If I click on the VA top icon for Chris Sharma, I get directed to the general Level 5 list. However, on his talk page, I can click a link beside the icon that brings me to the specific part of the Level 5 list that his is at. It would be cool if I could get that same level of detail in the direction from the top icon on his front page? Does that make sense? Aszx5000 (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

@Aszx5000: How can I find the VA top icon for a particular article? I'm on the talk page, but I only see the link that says This level-5 vital article. Once I know more about the top icon, I'll understand your point better. Interstellarity (talk) 18:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

@Interstellarity, when I say "VA top icon for a particular article", I mean the "target icon" that appears on the top right of his front article page (i.e. above his photograph). thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 18:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

@Aszx5000: I know why I couldn't see it. You actually have a script installed that displays the VA top icon, while I didn't have it installed. I got confused at first, but when I checked your script page, it said it was installed. Interstellarity (talk) 19:08, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

@Interstellarity, oh my bad and sorry for misleading you there :) Must have forgotten that. I assumed that the VA top icon was shown to logged-in editors but not non-logged in readers (unlike the GA top icon). I wonder would the make that script a default on preferences ;) Aszx5000 (talk) 19:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

FYI: Discussion on the Moon  2 on WT:V2

May not be on everybody's watchlist, discussion regarding the Moon  2 on WT:V2. thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 17:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: Create AI generated summaries of each entity on the vital articles page explaining the importance of each individual.

I think it would be helpful for our readers that may question why a particular article is listed. I understand that AI has the potential to make mistakes so I would suggest doing it for a few articles and correct any errors it makes. Rather than directing to the article to figure it out themselves, it would be helpful to have a sentence or two explaining the importance of each one. Interstellarity (talk) 21:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

And how is AI supposed to know why something is considered vital, or why X2 is more vital than X1 in talk page consensus? Don't get me wrong, I see the viewpoint here, but it just sounds flawed. I think manual descriptions for V1-V4 listings are feasible, though V5 would certainly be a whole other beast. λ NegativeMP1 16:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Since the selection of the articles were all made by users, it seems feasible for users to personally write a summation of the reasoning to annotate the vital articles list. isaacl (talk) 18:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I would love to see an 'AI-sense check' on some of our Level 3 sub-sections. For example for Wikipedia:Vital Articles#Leaders and politicians, where I am sure that the AI would rank Constantine the Great  4 on a Level 3-type list of most influential leaders in history, and not some of our existing entries (per below). Aszx5000 (talk) 16:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I am of the same view as User:NegativeMP1. How is any AI supposed to know what Wikipedia considers to be a vital article?! Human editors make that judgement call through discussion. Also, there are Wikipedia guidelines on the use of AI in Wikipedia which must be followed. I will try to find the link to the page. If this proposal is consistent with those guidelines, then I guess you should ignore my objections. Let me look for the link. I'll be back.--FeralOink (talk) 08:43, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't, but as a took it would be a useful tool to sense-check against the sub-sections of Level 3 and Level 4. There might be topics that we have missed in these sub-sections that the AI would highlight, and which we could further look-into to see if the AI was right or not. thanks. 09:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC) Aszx5000 (talk) 09:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Proposal: six-month no-revisit rule

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'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 pbp 01:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 01:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

   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)

2. 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)

Oppose

1. 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)

   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)

2. Per Respublik. We need fewer rules, not more. feminist🩸 (talk) 06:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
3. Having re-considered, it will be too cumbersome to police and probably not needed. Aszx5000 (talk) 17:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
4. I don't think adding and enforcing this rule would be useful. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 02:41, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
5. 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)

Discussion

1. 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)

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.

Potential GA drive

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 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)

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)

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)

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-concept article

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.

---

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)

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.

Categories

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.

---

Currently we are using lots of categories, many of which may be regarded as redundant. For example: the article 1 is in the following categories:

1. Category:Wikipedia level-4 vital articles
2. Category:Wikipedia vital articles in Mathematics
3. Category:GA-Class vital articles
4. Category:GA-Class level-4 vital articles
5. Category:Wikipedia level-4 vital articles in Mathematics
6. Category:GA-Class vital articles in Mathematics

Now 1 is parent category of 4 and 5. 2 is a parent category of 5 and 6. And 3 is a parent category of 4 and 6. So the question is: do we need to populate 1, 2, 3 or can these be left as container categories? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:21, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

If there are no opinions on this, then I propose to stop populating categories of type 1, 2 and 3 — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:26, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:43, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Articles which need attention

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 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 (1) - 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  Done
• Category:Wikipedia vital articles in an unknown topic (0) - all vital articles should be identified with a valid topic  Done

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

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

Update two more have been deleted. The last one remains due to a request from the bot operator — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:52, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Has the VA target icon disappeared from articles

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 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)

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)

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

It was a script, I believe, and yes it is not working anymore :( The Blue Rider 15:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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)

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

Yes, it is working again, thanks! The Blue Rider 19:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Bolding?

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.

---

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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

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.

---

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

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

Reorganization: specific facilities under geography

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.

---

Hi everyone, I initially asked this on the Lv 5 page, but @Makkool pointed out it also applies to some Lv 4 articles so it should go here. If you're not interested in the larger lists, feel free to skip it.

Essentially, we list some specific infrastructure projects and facilities at the lower levels: famous road networks, ports and airports, scientific facilities, etc. For the most part, they're currently listed under Tech, the logic being that they're man-made objects.

However, I'd like to propose moving them all out of Tech and into Geography. They could be allocated to region or city based on scale. For example, an airport goes by the city it serves, while an out-of-the-way facility or something regional (like a road network) goes to the region / country. Or they could be given their own section.

Some reasons:

• We have some topics (like urban transit authorities) that otherwise fall into a gray area: they use transport technology like buses and solve notable logistical problems, but they're really organizations and their built artifacts aren't that noteworthy.
• Even if they have a technical orientation, geography is how we primarily differentiate them on the Tech page anyway
• It might be easier to balance and track them this way
• As individual projects, they're bound up with their surrounding history and culture
• At least at Lv 5, while Tech is over quota, all the Geography sections are currently just below or more than 2% under.

On quotas specifically, I'm completely neutral on whether they should change to reflect this move or not.

Support

1. Support as nom. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Coming over from the other discussion. I'd oppose this proposal as is, but might support individual infrastrcuture articles being moved on a case by case basis. I believe geography needs a complete top down restructuring, as I discussed over there.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

   @GeogSage: After thinking about it, even if I'm not sure about the specifics yet, I sympathize with wanting to restructure the Geography lists. I mainly came up with this proposal to remove some churn from the Technology list, not out of any particular interest. Since your proposal would fundamentally change how the Geo category is organized, I'm going to close this early so we can focus on that. Then after any bigger reorganization shakes out, I or someone else can revisit this down the road with more clarity. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 00:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Discuss

• I guess you could consider them part of human geography. What about specific buildings, that we currently list in Arts/Architecture? Would you think they would be worth considering to be moved to geography as well? Makkool (talk) 19:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

• I honestly hadn't thought of monuments or other landmarks, but I suppose the logic is very similar. They may be listed with their overarching style for now, but maybe they belong with their actual locale?

Yeah, I guess I would support that change too. And if we agree the reorganization makes sense, we may not even need to adjust quotas much. I haven't checked the Geography section in a while, but last I did, there were a lot of residual articles from the pre-voting days that could probably be cut. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 20:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

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