Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Archive 24

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27

Proposal to merge the vital article banner into the talk header

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 May 4 § Template:Vital article. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 05:51, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Proposing elevation of article Policy to a level 1 or 2 within the VA project

Given that policy is at the center of many of our lives, and that the concept of policy is the fundamental blood to all organizations, societies, etc, I would propose that the article Policy be elevated to levels 1 or 2 within the Vital Articles project. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 03:37, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Policy isn't actually listed on any of the levels right now. Typically we only consider promoting articles that are already on a lower level. Public policy and public administration are listed on level 4. On this level, I think the listed articles on politics, government and ideology sufficiently capture the less nebulous aspects of political decision-making. Cobblet (talk) 14:19, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Is there's a way to find all low-resolution images in the Vital list?

see above question - CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Looks like you figured this one out? https://quarry.wmcloud.org/query/73829 the wub "?!" 23:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, thanks to the helpful people at the Help Desk. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:27, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Why are we here then?

Guys, the reason that the Vital list exists is for us to improve them, not for shuffling around entries and entertaining which articles are supposingly more vital. Should we work on something together to improve these articles? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

@CactiStaccingCrane: "Shuffling around" is still important, how else would we be able to maintain a list? Please consider that not everyone has the free time to substantially improve articles all the time before leaving accusatory messages on other people's talk pages. 〜 Festucalex • talk 17:43, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
It's completely useless if no one uses it for anything useful. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Disparaging what other people do is an interesting way of getting them to collaborate with you. Cobblet (talk) 05:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vital Articles § TfD follow-up: Fate of the vital article talk banner

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vital Articles § TfD follow-up: Fate of the vital article talk banner. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:40, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Is there a way to get the list of L3 Vital FAs?

In the summary section of the Vital Articles Level 3 page, there is a table showing how many are FAs, as well as other classes. For example it shows there are 71 Level 3 Vital FAs. But if you click through the link that is that "71", it shows an auto-generated lists of FAs for all vital articles (i.e., any level including 4 and 5 -- a total of 1233 articles), not just the 71 FAs. Is there a page somewhere that shows those Level 3 FAs specifically? I.e., just has the list of 71 articles? Same question as to GAs, FFAs, etc. morrisjm (talk) 16:01, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia FA-Class level-3 vital articles, although that only has 62 articles. The comment in the summary table says that it should get updated by a bot, although I don't see any of the recent bot edits doing that. the wub "?!" 23:38, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Okay I forgot that the Level 2 and Level 1 articles should also be counted in Level 3, which gives 68 and matches the number of FA icons on the page. Still not sure what's going on with the table updates though. {{Count vital}} could be used to automate the counting for standard classes (FA, GA, B, C etc) but it can't do the fancier stuff like Delisted Good Articles which don't have specific vital article subcategories. the wub "?!" 22:53, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
I noticed that Cewbot was still updating the summary table on Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/2, and then that comment ending the table was slightly different. I edited the comment on the Level 3 page, so hopefully next time Cewbot runs it will work again. the wub "?!" 23:12, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Thank you! morrisjm (talk) 23:09, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Add Cai Lun and James Watt

NO CONSENSUS
1-1, no consensus. --Thi (talk) 09:42, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

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 am surprised that these two people are not on the list. We all agree that paper and steam engine are two key and really important inventions in the course of history. Cai Lun and James Watt were not the first to invent paper and the steam engine, but Cai Lun's innovative papermaking method is still widely used even in the 21st century. Certainly, a large part of our modern knowledge owes to his papers. Also, Watt's steam engine caused a huge transformation in factory machinery, and this mass production influenced by his innovative steam engine became the basis of the industrial revolution and our modern world today.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Ilya O. Sarvar (talk) 19:30, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Cai Lun is famous for his invention, and that's pretty much it. I've said numerous times that people at this level cannot just be individuals who have done or made important things, but individuals who are famous as people, that is to say as historical figures. Since we already list paper, that should be sufficient to cover him, since he is reputed for nothing else and is little known as a person. James Watt is perhaps a better choice, but the truth is that we have too many biographies as it stands, and our goal should be to cut them down and not add them up. Zelkia1101 (talk) 20:21, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Discuss

In my opinion Cai Lun and Gutenberg should be equally vital: historical figures famous for a single invention crucial to the dissemination of information. Adding Cai Lun has been discussed several times, and removing Gutenberg has also been discussed several times, without result. The status quo reflects an unfortunate Western bias. Cobblet (talk) 19:42, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Exactly Ilya O. Sarvar (talk) 18:31, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
As the FA author of Cai Lun, I can say that Cai's improvements would have been largely inevitable by anyone—the Chinese were actively looking for a better writing surface. This being said, it is typical in East Asian culture to avoid attributing such inventions so strongly to individuals; much of Cai's innovation has been credited to the Han dynasty or China as a whole, so his place in history has been rather skewed against him. Not that he doesn't often get credit, but not even close to the extent that Edison, Tesla etc. are associated with their inventions. I don't know how comparable he really is with Gutenberg, although Thomas Francis Carter often drew parallels between them. The movable type printer had been in existence for many centuries before Gutenberg's version of it, which was the first to spread across the world. As such, it was really his individual initiative that created it, rather than a more general impetus from Cai.
I won't give a formal support or oppose, but I urge participants to see more nuance than "Western figure gets less attention than Eastern figure" Aza24 (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. I may not agree with them, but I appreciate all thoughtful contributions to the discussion. Your work on the Cai Lun article is also appreciated. Even if I don't think Gutenberg necessarily belongs on this list, it would be still of course be fantastic if somebody improved his biography into a featured article.
I don't think it makes much sense to compare coverage of Cai's legacy to that of Edison's and Tesla's, who lived much more recently and in a world where independent journalism and the mass media allowed the contributions of individual people to be precisely and extensively documented. Let's see how well Edison and Tesla are remembered in 1900 years' time.
As for Cai's improvements being "inevitable", every invention can be said to be obvious in hindsight. If Cai's invention were in fact so obvious, one would expect others to have independently come up with the same invention in other places, but that didn't happen, and it was Chinese paper that gradually spread across Asia and Europe over the next millennium. That Cai's name is uniquely associated with Chinese paper, and in an age when most inventors remained anonymous, would suggest that he really did contribute something vital to its development as a practical material. It's not clear to me why we would ascribe individual initiative to Cai any less than we would to Gutenberg, whose place in history is similarly substantiated by the spread of German printing technology. Cobblet (talk) 11:28, 14 July 2023 (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.

Add some more women

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.

While I was working on the Women in Green edit-a-thon, I figured it might be worth having a wee look at the gender gap in Wikipedia's vital biographies. As it stands, of the level 3 and 4 vital articles on people, roughly 90% are about men and only 10% are about women. Obviously pushing for complete parity is probably not the right call, as it could amount to an attempt to right great wrongs, without historical backing. What I think would be a better call would be to bring it closer to the Wikipedia-wide ratio, of which roughly 20% of biographies are about women. This way, Wikipedia's vital articles would closer reflect the demographics of the project as a whole.

There was a similar discussion about this last year, but it sadly didn't result in any consensus forming on the subject. However, it did highlight some names that I thought would be worth considering for adding to our level-3 vital articles. The suggestion that received the most support was Hypatia, while other recommendations included Mary, mother of Jesus, Queen Victoria and Cleopatra. This seems like a good place to start, and I would certainly support their addition. (Honestly I'm particularly surprised that Mary isn't on there already) -- Grnrchst (talk) 20:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

This issue has been worked on for years. Many people would like to see more women listed. The difficulty is deciding on what to remove from the list to make room for them. Plus this is not the only bias exhibited by the list. For instance, all the women you mention are from Western civilization. Cobblet (talk) 23:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that this wasn't being worked on or that this was the only bias in the list. You made some very good points in that thread. If I was to think about what to remove from the list, I would probably start with some of the 20th-century pop culture figures we have here, or one or two of the explorers. They're certainly important people, but I don't think I'd rank them in the 100-or-so most important people in history, certainly not above Mary or Cleopatra for instance. -- Grnrchst (talk) 08:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
According to Pantheon.World, the strongest HPI among women missed on the level 4 has Pocahontas and among women on the level 3 has Mary, Mother of Jesus. I nominated both but did not passed thse nomination so for now we are still witout Pocahontaws on the level 4 and Mary, Mother of Jesus on the level 3. Dawid2009 (talk) 04:25, 1 July 2023 (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.

Notice of relevant discussion

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.

Posted at Template talk:WikiProject banner shell#Problems with vital article lists about the lists being broken by the recent banner shell change. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:06, 17 July 2023 (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 Electric light

NO CONSENSUS
1-1. --Thi (talk) 19:47, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

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.

Covered by light which never was level 2 artile (per other stuff exit currency got removed after we moved money from level 2 to level3). I am not sure it is more needed than lighting or Light fixture, se also Czar's comment on the level 4 in the arhives: Being an everyday item doesn't make it high importance in its field.. Dawid2009 (talk) 04:25, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support [nominator]
Oppose
  1. Oppose. Electric light or Lighting is common topic in my encyclopedias. Lighting has important effects on the health, safety and environment. --Thi (talk) 18:21, 1 July 2023 (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.

Remove Knife

FAILED
1-3, not removed. --Thi (talk) 19:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

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.

As everyday item why level higher than all other Cutlery, as weapon why higher than Spear? Dawid2009 (talk) 04:25, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support [nominator]
Oppose
  1. Oppose. Knife is the most important tool of all time (for example here). Swap with Handicraft is possible. Bow and arrow represent weapons and hunting instead of Spear. --Thi (talk) 18:21, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. We need some sort of cutting-edge tool at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:24, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
  3. Oppose although maybe it should be listed under Tool instead of under Weapon? the wub "?!" 14:59, 9 September 2023 (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.

Good article reassessment for Telecommunications

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.

Telecommunications has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:39, 16 July 2023 (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.

Merge talk pages

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 do we have separate talk pages here and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vital Articles? Could they be merged? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay no response ... so let us proceed with the merge of the talk pages. This page is the older of the two so would it make sense to merge in that direction? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:17, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
One could say that no response means it should be left alone the way it is. Some people like myself watch all level talk pages 1-5. I know some people have explained that they only watch some of the levels, not all of them.... I could see some benefit of merging, like discussing whether a specific article should be in level 3 or 4 and which section it should be in. But there are also cons as well, people having to look through talk threads they may not be interested in, and being harder to navigate, even for people that wish to look at all threads. The single talk page would presumably be split into sections for each level, while it may be more simple to keep the sections about different levels on different pages as they are now. I know sometimes it is good to be bold and make changes on one's own, I do myself on occasion. But in this case, in my opinion, I think it is better left the way it is now. But I don't feel super strong about it, if multiple people agree and consensus was to change it, it wouldn't be terrible, and I probably wouldn't spend any time and effort opposing it.  Carlwev  14:42, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Merging all the talk pages together sounds like a bad idea to me. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:04, 13 September 2023 (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.

Good article reassessment for Philosophy of science

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.

Philosophy of science has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 23:17, 21 July 2023 (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.

Question about adding and removing 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 would like to know if the rules for adding and removing articles for the lower levels 4 and 5 are more lenient than the first three levels. The reason why I am asking this is because I found this edit which added Tom Brady to the level 4 list, however, I could not find a discussion where there was consensus to do so. It was there since January of 2023 so it's been over 6 months now and no-one has cared. It seems like that for the first three lists, the rules are actively enforced, but for the last two, it seems to be inactive since the pages are not monitored that often. I would like to raise the question of whether we can relax the rules a little bit for the last two levels to give more users the freedom to add articles to the list since there are not heavily monitored or should we step up our game to make sure that the rules are actively enforced? I hope we can discuss this and then come up with a solution. Interstellarity (talk) 18:05, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

When I was active on level 4, I actively enforced our rules. Now that this has been brought to my attention, I have reverted the addition of Tom Brady. Cobblet (talk) 23:14, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
I used to do the same thing. Any article added without discussion to Level 4 or higher should be automatically removed. I just found an article (Ramcharitmanas) on Level 4 that was added without a discussion over a year ago and I have removed it. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:14, 31 August 2023 (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.

Include page count

Resolved

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 each vital articles page should include a statement of how many articles exist in the encyclopedia. Telling people that there are 6.7 million articles improves the context of these as the most important articles. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:05, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I am thinking of adding a sentence like "There are currently 6,912,384 articles on the English Wikipedia." to the top of each vital articles level page.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with that. BD2412 T 04:19, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Added.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:00, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Resolved
-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:00, 8 September 2023 (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: add History of life, remove Dinosaur

FAILED
--Thi (talk) 19:57, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

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.

AFAIR History of life was proposal for this level as evolutionary history of life (currently redirect). Dinosaur should be covered at this level by birds and reptile. I am not sure does it make much sense to list dinosaur and bird but not crocodilla on the other hand reptile are not deeply covered in comparison to mammals for which we list specific rodent. Dawid2009 (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support [nominator]
  2. Weak support addition, there's overlap with Evolution but since that is Level 2 that is not as big a concern for me. Fritzmann (message me) 00:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose removal. Dinosaurs are too central topic in encyclopedia and important in nonfiction and fiction in general. --Thi (talk) 15:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
  2. Oppose removal. Even though they were extinct I would argue that the importance of Dinosaurs is at least on par with most of the extant animals we list at this level. Fritzmann (message me) 00:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
  3. Oppose removal. Too important to remove from this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:29, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
  4. Oppose The Earth has existed for ~4.5 billion years, and life has existed on Earth for ~3.5 billion years. IMO that's too much overlap between history of life and the currently listed history of Earth. Not only that, but abiogenesis is also already listed on this level. Cobblet (talk) 20:57, 8 September 2023 (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.

Remove Stove

PASSED
5–0; removed stove, added oven. --Rreagan007 (talk) 04:47, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

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.

Few pageviews. In fact, at this level not many articles other than important topics foundamental to Eastern civilisation gets much less hits than stove. Stove seems be added rather as random item of everyday life. Yes thank to stove we can eat everyday so life but already there are food and cooking which are less technical object to describe. Dawid2009 (talk) 04:25, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support [nominator]
  2. Support. It's definitely not neede at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:18, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support. Comparing it to refrigeration is not apples to apples, the latter is applicable in many more fields than just food preservation (science, air conditioning, general cooling) Fritzmann (message me) 00:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support. Generally think we should prefer broader articles about processes (cooking, refrigeration) to specific devices used for them (stove, fridge). Also as pointed out this has an unclear overlap with oven which is the more popular article. the wub "?!" 16:41, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
  5. Support. Historical but very vital. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:38, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
    Your comment that this topic is "very vital" seems at odds with your !vote to remove the article. Could you please clarify, thanks. Cobblet (talk) 12:56, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. Not uncommon in encyclopedias and it is reasonable to include it along with Refrigeration. --Thi (talk) 18:22, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Discuss

I'm sympathetic to including something related to cooking/heating technology. How about swapping this for oven, which has twice the number of page views? Cobblet (talk) 01:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Comment I would like to procedurally withdraw this nomination but if someone start two discussions: "swap refrigeration for fridge" and "swap stove for oven". As these discussion probably would be more helpful than straight removal of stove. That should not be problem as this nomination de facto does not have 5 supporters (and I would ask to involved !voters not close this discussion them as it would not be consensus) Dawid2009 (talk) 04:23, 14 September 2023 (UTC) And create new nomination about "Swap fishing for food industry". Dawid2009 (talk) 04:49, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Just to clarify: it is proposal for removal the article but I have point to we discuss two broad concepts (Stove and Fridging) vs two articles which are more specific but they have more pageviews (oven and fridge). Stove is broader article than oven because of oven does not cover cooking for dring. So I would prefer to swap both two articles, for two diffrent ones or swap none of them for another, just to claroify: do we want more broad concepts with less pageviews or do we want specific articles but with more pageviews? Dawid2009 (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Swap: remove Stove, add Oven

Per previous discussion and Cobblet comment, I will also think about it to keep more arguments, though I see that stove (which was proposed by me to removal and got 4 supports) is broad topic. Dawid2009 (talk) 05:01, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. [nominator]
  2. Support. Important invention and tool. My paper encylopedia includes it among basic articles. Important in households and industry (metallurgy, pottery). --Thi (talk) 11:14, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
  3. Weak support per my previous comments. Cobblet (talk) 22:41, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support Wider uses, in addition to cooking has more focus on pottery and covers metallurgy as well. The numbers are also in Oven's favour, with more language versions, pageviews and page watchers.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 13:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 22:34, 28 October 2023 (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 American Revolution, French Revolution, Add Age of Revolution

NO CONSENSUS
Proposal from 2 months ago, 2 votes in favour and 3 opposing removals; no consensus was reached. — The Blue Rider 10:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

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.

American and French Revolutions, while they are emblematic of the trends of the Age of Revolution leave out the many other revolutions of the period that were not instigated by white Western Europeans. There was overlap in the reasons behind, say, the Haitian and American Revolutions, but the latter does not represent the staunchly anti-slavery character of the former. I believe this change will better represent the trends that were actually taking place in the period, instead of giving the impression that the American and French Revolutions were somehow more important than others that were inspired by them.

Support
  1. Support as nom Fritzmann (message me) 21:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
  2. Support Dawid2009 (talk) 11:46, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose removals. I don't think this is a wise idea to remove these. The American Revolution and French Revolution individually are much more important than this general article. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:32, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
  2. Oppose removals Basic topics in history books and encyclopedias. --Thi (talk) 11:07, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
  3. Oppose removals. The Atlantic Revolutions, particularly the French and to a lesser extend the American, are the single most important event in the modern era. The Blue Rider 15:09, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Discussion

Age of Revolution is not on any of the vital article lists. Generally we only consider articles from level 4 for promotion to level 3. But I agree with the thrust of the proposal. Maybe get it added to the lower levels first? Cobblet (talk) 23:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I can see the advantage of reducing two entries to one, but those two entries are world history definining nonetheless. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:39, 30 September 2023 (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.

Add Physiology

PASSED
5–0, added. --Rreagan007 (talk) 22:42, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

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 was recently added to Level 4 with unanimous support. I think it's a broad and important enough topic to also be in Level 3. WikiProject Physiology has nearly 4000 articles, and there's even a Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.

Support
  1. As nominator. the wub "?!" 20:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
  2. Support Anatomy studies structure; physiology studies function. Both are equally important and should be on level 3. (For those not aware, there is currently a proposal to remove Anatomy from level 2.) Cobblet (talk) 13:36, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support per above. --Thi (talk) 14:43, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support a good add per above. Gizza (talk) 21:50, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 22:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

@The wub: What would you cut from the level 3 list so that we stay at 1000 articles? Cobblet (talk) 13:36, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Is it a requirement to nominate something for removal to add anything? Maybe space station? Or stove as discussed above. But I don't feel strongly about it. the wub "?!" 15:12, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
It's not an absolute requirement, but it is strongly encouraged. People are generally more interested in proposing additions than removals – if everybody behaves the same way you do, the lists get longer and longer. Level 2 has had more than 100 articles for over two years now because we can't agree on what to remove. Cobblet (talk) 16:17, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
I've mainly been involved in Level 4 so far, so am well aware of the problem of the list growing and have been trying to push against it in my comments there. However I don't think it should necessarily be on the person proposing an addition of a missing article to also come up with a removal, the pruning should be done on an ongoing basis by the community. the wub "?!" 16:32, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Well, now that you're here, you are also part of the community :) Activity here has slowed down recently, so your continued participation would be welcome. Cobblet (talk) 16:45, 9 September 2023 (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: remove Fishing, add Food industry

FAILED
1–3, not swapped. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

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.

Support
  1. Food insury is broader concept and is plausible to add if we reconsider to swap other few watched pages related to food industry for stove or refigerator. Dawid2009 (talk) 05:01, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Hunting and fishing are both important historically. --Thi (talk) 19:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Food ought to cover the food industry at this level. That kind of overlap (human activity vs. industry centered around said activity) is worse than the overlap between fish and fishing (biology vs. human activity). Cobblet (talk) 22:41, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
  3. Not every article needs to be substituted to a broader one. The industry of food only surfaced with the First Industrial Revolution; fishing is thus by far more encompassing historically than the proposed article. The Blue Rider 15:20, 17 September 2023 (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 Mesoamerica, add article on North American indigenous history

FAILED
Not added, per VIT3 terms: <33% support with three opposes after 30 days czar 16:29, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

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.

Looking at the history section, I couldn't help but notice that the pre-Columbian history of North America is entirely neglected. The Inca and Andean civilizations represent South America, while Maya civilization and Aztecs represent Mesoamerica. Thus, I feel that we should remove Mesoamerica (which is more a geography topic anyways), which is covered by the Maya and Aztecs. We should then replace it with a civilization or concept that represents indigenous peoples in North America. I'm open to ideas, but perhaps Mississippian culture, Clovis culture, or even Paleo-Indians.

Support
  1. Support as nom Fritzmann (message me) 21:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Mesoamerica is a cradle of pre-Columbian civilization (the equivalent Britannica article is Mesoamerican civilization; the geographic term would instead be Middle America (Americas)) and should be listed alongside Mesopotamia, Ancient Egypt, Indus Valley Civilisation, and Andean civilizations (regrettably we still do not have a standalone article on Ancient China). There is some focused coverage of North American civilizations in Pre-Columbian era and History of North America. I'd suggest that a specific example of a West African civilization (e.g., Mali or Songhai) or a Southeast Asian civilization (e.g., Srivijaya or the Khmer) should be a higher priority. Cobblet (talk) 01:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Cobblet. Gizza (talk) 21:55, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
  3. Oppose removal per Cobblet. Jusdafax (talk) 21:25, 4 November 2023 (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.

remove Trade Union

NO CONSENSUS
No response in 30 days and not on track to pass czar 16:29, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

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.

Corporation and Employment which we list are more important topics.

Support
  1. Support [nominator]
Oppose
  1. Oppose. Corporations are collectives of capital working in their own self-interests, trade unions are collectives of labor doing the same. I think we need both. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:28, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per above and previous discussion. --Thi (talk) 19:54, 13 September 2023 (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.

add E-commerce

FAILED
2–3, not added. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

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 we could swap trade union for one wide and popular article related to trade. Online shopping, E-commerce payment system and many other things are very common in modern everyday life Dawid2009 (talk) 04:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support [nominator]
  2. Support. Top level topic in modern economy. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:41, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Part of Retail. --Thi (talk) 09:43, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
  2. Concerns of recentism, plus the 'traditional' commerce is still more prominent. Most certainly not level 3 vital. — The Blue Rider 12:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  3. czar 16:29, 9 November 2023 (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.

Last Start Classers

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 are currently 7 articles listed here that are assessed as start class

  1. History of North America
  2. Man
  3. Masonry
  4. Electric light
  5. nth root
  6. Skeleton
  7. Strong interaction

Of these, skeleton seems to have been reassessed as C-Class.

The other 6 should probably be reassessed if they should be C-Class or not. 115.188.126.180 (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

This is obviously somewhat subjective, but all of those articles are very short given the nature of there subject matter. I would personally assess all of them as Start class. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:26, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
I'd remove History of North America from the vital list. It is not relevant to word history outside history of the United States. Ditto for South America and Oceania. Africa, Asia and Europe is what matters outside modern era. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:43, 30 September 2023 (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: remove Refrigeration, add Refrigerator

NO CONSENSUS
No response in 30 days and not on track to pass czar 16:29, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

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.

After adding very broaded article: Food industry I think we can swap not popular article with more popular one, Food insutry can cover things mentioned in refrigeration other than these at refrigerator. Dawid2009 (talk) 05:01, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support [nominator]
Oppose
  1. Oppose The history and concepts behind refrigeration as a process seem a lot more vital to me than details about modern fridges work. Cobblet (talk) 22:46, 14 September 2023 (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.

Add Travel

FAILED
Not added, per VIT3 terms: <66% support with three opposes after 30 days czar 16:29, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

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 this one should be added. If we can have small overlap with game, sport and play (activity) then how travel is not article which do not have too much overlap with tourism and transpotrt? I believe this subject is underrepresented at the levels 4-5 and could say that there why I think so. We are 100/100 but we could drop one article (perhaps Paul, the Apostle, one explorer, not biography or whoever/whatever). Dawid2009 (talk) 05:01, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. [nom]
  2. Support. Broad concept. Sure, there is some overlap with travel and tourism, but not full. Travel can be related to exploration, education, trade, etc. It is effectively an entry for "humans moving", although arguably human migration (Vital-3) is also relevant - but again, scope is not the same. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:46, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose What do you want the article on travel to cover that isn't already covered by the articles on tourism or transport? The difference in scope between game, sport and play (activity) is a lot more obvious to me. Cobblet (talk) 22:54, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
    Surely much more than play (activity) which is also redundand to toy. There is nothing what article play (activity) cover apart from game/sport/toy. Dawid2009 (talk) 05:45, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
    Play does not have to be structured. A child in a playground is not playing a game or a sport. Animals play, but they do not play games or sports. Cobblet (talk) 12:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
    Many languages/Wikipedias (including German) does not have article/word on play due to redundancy for wide meaning of word game at all, child very much overlap titles of sections with play article, and play does not mention animals nor behaviour at all. Dawid2009 (talk) 17:07, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
    Play (activity)#Other animals exists; and "activity" ("the quality or state of being active: behavior or actions of a particular kind") is literally in the title. Other languages surely have articles on recreation or leisure; we chose to list play instead. I get that "humans playing" might not seem like a more vital topic than "humans moving", but this list contains a lot of topics that answer the question of why humans move, and not so many that answer the question of why humans play. Cobblet (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. I agree that transport and tourism adequately cover this topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:14, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Covered by tourism. --Thi (talk) 09:45, 30 September 2023 (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.

COVID-19 pandemic vs COVID-19

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 was wondering why Covid-19 pandemic (according to the templates on the talk page at least) is listed twice: in history section and in medicine section. Covid-19 is not on th level 4 at all, Coronavirus is. I am not sure why there is no disambiguation page for COVID-19 if COVID-19 pandemic is more important so. Can level 5 article be wp:primarytopic over article from level 4 so? Dawid2009 (talk) 05:11, 14 September 2023 (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: remove Birth control, add Birth

NO CONSENSUS
No response in 30 days and not on track to pass czar 16:29, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

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.

What do you think about it so, what is more broad or more important topics to cover things deeply or not? Death is level 2. Dawid2009 (talk) 05:16, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Deciding if and when to have children is an essential human activity. Birth does not cover human childbirth (but we list pregnancy which does) and is less vital than stuff like reproductive system or sexual reproduction. Cobblet (talk) 23:03, 14 September 2023 (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.

100,000 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.

Is level 5 ever going to be expanded to 100,000 or is a level 6 ever going to be added?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:07, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

The current level 5 at 50,000 articles is still kind of a hot mess even though it's currently around the overall target number. But if we ever did want to make an official 100,000 article list it should be separate from the current 50,000 list. So either make a new Level 6 or move the current Level 5 to Level 4.5. There could also potentially be a level 3.5 with 5,000 articles, a level 2.5 with 500 articles, and a Level 1.5 with 50 articles. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
So it sounds like nothing is in the works.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:14, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Not that I am aware of. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
I wouldn't have ".5" levels. Just make the list go from level 1 to level 10. BD2412 T 04:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
On second thought, I think that would just create work to no great benefit. I would support adding a level 6 with 200,000 articles. BD2412 T 04:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
There are a lot of subjects that I think are more than regular that could potentially be in 200,000 or 250,000. I am pretty sure I would have little involvement in such a list, but would find it interesting and maybe instructive for editors. I don't see us getting to level 10. 200,000 is already about 3% of the encyclopedia.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
User:BD2412, Would you expect that creating a list of 200,000 0r 250,000 would put us in a position where we are presenting redlinks and redirects.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
I am hard-pressed to believe that out of the 6.7 million articles currently in the encyclopedia, the 250,000 most important subjects are note already covered. BD2412 T 04:31, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
If we go from 50,000 to 250,000 some fields are not going to expand 5 times. I think most countries are already in the 50k. So there will be new fields that suddenly get the attention of this list and expand much more than 5x. Off the top of my head fictional characters, songwriters (non-performing), even less glamourous fields in the arts (say sound editors, set designers, costume designers), specific works of art, and so forth would probably expand much more than 5x. Half of the VAs that I have gotten promoted to WP:FA and WP:GA articles account for 3 of the 10 contemporary art works. Of the other 7 articles one was started in 2016 and one in 2018. I would not be surprised that if this list went from 10 to 100 , we would see some redirects and redlinks. This is even more true of the sculpture and photograph lists. I am just not sure if the list would extend in a direction to lead people to work on articles that are less essential.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:58, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Would support adding a level at 100k, 200k, or 250k. More the merrier, no? Hyperbolick (talk) 12:11, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
This attitude – people who think it's fun to have more lists to discuss, but refuse to put in the effort it takes to improve them – is what led to the creation of level 5, and why it still stinks years later. I'm still in favour of deleting level 5. Cobblet (talk) 14:32, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
I am inclined to agree with Cobblet. I mostly use the list as a gauge for article importance and improvement ideas, and even Level 5 is borderline useless for that. Unless some empirical data can show that a level 6 would lead to an improvement in the quality of included articles, there is no reason to create it. It's just making more work without actually doing anything. If y'all need something to stay occupied that actually helps the wiki, feel free to drop by my talk page and I'll send some ideas your way. Fritzmann (message me) 19:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
I think there is, to a degree, an encyclopedic indexing function that is being overlooked here. If we could classify all 6,712,664 articles currently in the encyclopedia in order of encyclopedic importance within their field, I would do exactly that. These lists, irrespective of the number, help to prioritize articles for improvement, translation, and various other functions within the encyclopedia. BD2412 T 19:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
"Encyclopedic importance within their field" − aren't Wikiproject assessments already supposed to determine exactly that? Cobblet (talk) 19:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Some people just like making lists. And if that's what they want to spend there time doing, I see no reason to try to stop them. I think there is value in organizing these hierarchical lists. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:30, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
People can make lists all they want, but if they can't be bothered to put in thoughtful effort, they should make them in their own userspace. Cobblet (talk) 21:46, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
There's no time limit in completing these lists. And like Wikipedia itself, these lists may never be "finished", though levels 1 trough 4 are pretty stable at this point. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The bottom line is there's a vast difference in quality between levels 1–4 and level 5, and based on my ten-ish years of working on these lists, I don't expect level 5 to catch up within the next twenty years. I think it would be helpful to warn editors of the difference. For example, the talk-page banners for level-5 articles could make clear that their status on level 5 is tentative and subject to review. Cobblet (talk) 03:17, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Level 5 is definitely a work in progress. I started working on Level 4 back in 2008 and it was a bit of a hot mess at that time, but now it's in fairly good shape. If Level 5 takes another 20 years then that's just what it takes Rreagan007 (talk) 04:02, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
I agree that Level 5 is too large and most of the articles too niche to motivate content improvements to individual articles. However, after looking at the lists some, I realized that Level 5 is actually really good for drawing out structural issues between articles (gaps or imbalances in coverage, topics that should be merged or split, redirect cruft, etc.)
So I've been working on brainstorming several of the incomplete Level 5 sections. It definitely still needs work, and probably some different processes from the other levels, but I think it has a place. I agree another level beyond 5 seems like it would be way too unwieldy to add value, I wouldn't work on it myself, and we should arguably get Level 5 to a more refined state first.
But like Rreagan007 suggested, some editors really like making lists, and if they did start up a Level 6, I don't think I'd actively vote to delete it. Personally, instead of adding another level, I'd prefer to see a separate "Current, Interesting, and Popular" list, then shunt off a lot of the churn in the Level 5 articles to that. Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:24, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Fair enough. There's hope for level 5 if people like you feel like working on it. Cobblet (talk) 22:31, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
  • I thought that I saw a list of Level 5 articles at start class or lower. I believe having a level 5 has encouraged people to make most of these articles somewhat encyclopedic. Having a level 6 would expand the ground for this type of encyclopedic pursuit.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:23, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
  • User:Cobblet and User:Fritzmann2002, your responses make so little sense to me that I am sure WP has decided to create a level 6.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:10, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
    I'm not sure what you mean by this. From what I can see, there is not overwhelming consensus one way or the other. Just because someone's arguments don't make sense to you does not invalidate them. I hesitate to apply tone to written text, but the implication of condescension in your reply does not seem constructive. Fritzmann (message me) 13:23, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
    If you want to talk about not being constructive. Here are issues with both of your comments. "that list of contemporary paintings is total garbage. It appears to have been created by someone who's had little exposure to contemporary art besides reading the List of most expensive paintings" this quote implies that the contemporary art paintings is basically derived from the list when in fact the 10 contemporary paintings at V5 have little relation to the list. I would dare to say that they are in fact highly correlated with actual vitality to WP. I doubt you could swap out 5 of the 10 for 5 that would seem more vital. You in particular with your explanation of "...why it [V5] still stinks years later" is also annoying.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:56, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
    My initial reaction was based on me not seeing works like Christina's World or Girl with Balloon or anything by someone who isn't white or male in that section of the list. As it turns out, at least those two works are listed elsewhere on the list, so it isn't as bad as I thought. Nevertheless there is a ton of room for improvement, not just in the list of contemporary artworks, but in visual arts more generally. I have responded to you more fully on level 5. Cobblet (talk) 22:31, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
  • The reason higher-numbered level list are hard to deal with is that we are dealing with the fat part of the curve. The difference between what belongs in that level and what belongs out is a very small element of vitality. The last 1000 in and the last 1000 out are of almost identical vitality. In addition, we have current affairs moving things in and out at the 5 and up levels very frequently. Things that didn't belong in V5 10 years ago are now solidly in. Things like "Girl with Balloon" or Misty Copeland are constantly causing the list to be in a state of flux. Also as you go down in levels the emphasis changes. You are further from the trunk on the tree of knowledge. We are analyzing vitality of remote branches.
    1. Level 1 is the top 10 of 6,713,287 articles (the top 0.000149%) 4.6723 z-score
    2. Level 2 is the top 100 of 6,713,287 articles (the top 0.00149%) 4.1751 z-score. We moved down almost a half a standard deviation (.4972) to add 90 articles
    3. Level 3 is the top 1000 of 6,713,287 articles (the top 0.0149%) 3.6171 z-score. We moved down .558 standard deviations to add 900 articles
    4. Level 4 is the top 10,000 of 6,713,287 articles (the top 0.148958%) 2.9699 z-score. We moved down .6472 standard deviations to add 9500 articles
    5. Level 5 is the top 50,000 of 6,713,287 articles (the top 0.744792%) 2.4398 z-score. We moved down .5301 standard deviations to add 40000 articles.
    6. Proposed Level 6 is the top 250,000 of 6,713,287 articles (the top 3.723958%) 1.7837 z-score We would move down .6561 standard deviations to add 200,000 articles.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:56, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
  • I did some research. While Campbell's Soup Cans was created (by me) in October 2006 and Water Lilies (Monet series) was created in July 2007 as the last of the 17 paintings at Level 4, several of the 156 level 5 paintings were not created until at least 2016: Interchange (de Kooning) (2016-02-25), The Love Embrace of the Universe, the Earth (Mexico), Myself, Diego, and Señor Xolotl (2016-04-19), Luxembourg Gardens, Paris (2016-05-04), No. 6 (Violet, Green and Red) (2016-02-23), Composition with Red Blue and Yellow (2016-12-09), Girl with Peaches (2016-12-26), Black Iris (painting) (2017-01-16), Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan (2018-05-30), Portrait of an Artist (Pool with Two Figures) (2018-11-16) based on revisions since dates. Of course some painting pages may have been created as redirects to the painter or some other subject and have a later content availability date. If we went to a 1000-1500 painting level 6 list, I would bet that list would not be complete until at least 2 years after its presentation. That is just a microcosm of what a level 6 could point out. The 1965 multi-colored Campbell's Soup Cans set could deserve its own article if we went to 1000-1500 paintings out of 250,000 articles at level 6.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:48, 14 September 2023 (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.

Summary of interest

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 terms of understanding interest in expanding to a level 6, the feedback seems to be to expand enough to make it worth it if at all and the discussion should probably be about a 250,000 list. I infer the following

  1. support from myself, User:Rreagan007, User:BD2412, User:Hyperbolick
  2. opposition from User:Cobblet, User:Fritzmann2002
  3. neutral from User:Zar2gar1 (would not delete it)
  • How do I create a proposal and bring something to a formal vote.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:15, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
    Just do it here, I suppose. For what it's worth, I would not actually oppose your other suggestion, which was to expand level 5 to 100,000 articles. To me it never made sense to deviate from powers of 10, but I believe when level 5 was created, the thought was to see whether we could even get meaningful discussion on 50,000 articles, and expand level 5 to 100,000 in the future if there was interest. Perhaps that moment has arrived. Cobblet (talk) 22:35, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
    User:Cobblet, I too recall an original intention of 50k being a stop on the way to 100k. I don't think it is the right thing to do now. If we had done it quickly then it would have been the right thing. Now, we have expended a lot of energy over several years attempting to refine the border of what is in and out in each field/category. We have made progress. If we are going to 100k or 250k, we should view that as a completely different excercise of refining a 6th set of borders for each field/category and not throw away the work we have done. It is no longer a continuation of building a bigger list from a well-defined 10,000. It is a new expansion from a somewhat well-defined 50,000. If we get to 100k or 250k and like it we can throw away the 50 list, but the next list (100k or 250k) will be harder to refine than the 50k list. But we should do it as a separate list.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
    I would actually not be opposed to expanding level 5 to 100,000 and filling that out before adding a new level. BD2412 T 01:34, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
    User:BD2412, your 04:22, 7 September 2023 statement against 100k was instructive "I think that would just create work to no great benefit. I would support adding a level 6 with 200,000 articles." That made me realize that 250k was the way to go. No reason not to adhere to your cogent and logical thoughts before.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
That sounds like a better idea to me. The prospect of a 250,000 article list feels a little overwhelming to me. Starting with the 50k list as a base to build out a 100k list sounds more realistic. At 250,000 articles we would probably be listing a majority of articles that even exist in each category. At that point it would be easier to start with every article tagged by each wikiproject category and just start subtracting the less important articles to get down to the desired target number. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:46, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
User:Rreagan007 If we go to 250k we would expand to child categories. Whereas at 100k Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences/Culture might expand the list of television shows, at 250k we might have a list of specific episodes and/or seasons that are vital. In other fields, I am not sure what the difference is. We are already maxing out some categories. We have all continents and countries already. Also, reworking 50 as 100 will mess up 50. Either way, we should add a level 6. Although we all feel 50k needs more work. It has a lot of stuff fleshed out. Although I am trying to push for something that would put burden on others, I think we should bite the bullet and go to 250k. At 250 there is a better chance of getting editors in various fields to think about creating new sets of articles.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting getting rid of the 50k list. Too much work has gone into that. Whether the new list is 100k or 250k, it should be a new and separate list from the 50k list. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:35, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
I also wanted to clarify that while I wouldn't oppose if other editors initiate a new Level 6 list, I would be against expanding the current Level 5 list's size.
Even at 50k, there are guidelines and process issues that Level 5 needs to work out, and personally I think a lot of trivial articles are already slipping in. That's also why I wouldn't actively support a Level 6 list; if the scalability issues at Level 5 haven't even been worked out yet, they would just be much worse in an even larger list. Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:24, 16 September 2023 (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.

Counter-proposal: contemporary list to parallel VA

NO CONSENSUS
1-2, further refined concepts for a parallel list. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 08:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

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'll apologize up-front if this should be given its own section, but it seems to dovetail well with the 100k list discussion. Instead of expanding Level 5 or adding another level under it, how would people feel about a parallel list for articles that are definitely noteworthy, but more for reasons of popularity, current events, or recency?

I have no opinion on how large it should be, or how much it would be arms-length from the VA lists.

I mainly picture hard guidelines for separating whether an article goes into the VA lists or this new one. For example, any living person or someone that was actively working in their field within the past N years goes into the Contemporary list. Likewise for company establishment, publication of media works, etc.

After working on the Level 5 list some, there are definite biases that slip in easier than at Level 4: recency, internet-centric, consumer products, pop culture, Anglo-American, etc. For example, the Technology section is massively over-weighted to personal-computing, and it seems a lot of the churn on the Talk page is for recent people or specific media. I don't think it's any fault on the list editors' part, but Level 5 is just much larger so that it becomes more of a brain-storming exercise.

If we could distinguish more clearly between vital (as in centrality and completeness) vs high-interest though, I think that would help stabilize and refine Level 5. At the same time, it would give editors an opportunity to expand a larger, more open list like TonyTheTiger suggested.

Support
  1. Support as proposer. Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:42, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I don't really see what the list would do. We already have WP:BLP policies. Maybe we could set new policies more broadly for contermporary subject matter if they don't already exist. Vital articles call attention to what is core to the encyclopedia. I don't think we should distract editorial efforts in this direction.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:00, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Discuss
  1. This is an interesting idea but I think it needs a bit more clarity. For example, is it 'contemporary' or 'high-interest'? If something stops being recent do we remove it? I like the idea of having time-boxed lists like "vital articles for understanding the 2020s" and "vital articles for understanding the 2010s", etc. We don't have to have a limit on number of articles and an article could be on more than one list. As examples: the Space Shuttle would be on the list for the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s, Desmond Tutu would be on the lists for the 1980s, 1990s, ChatGPT would be on the 2020s list, etc. Lorax (talk) 20:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
    There didn't seem to be much interest in this one either way, but I was sort of picturing it as a grab-bag of contemporary, high-interest, pop culture, etc. Maybe another way to think of it is like a staging area for VA.
    If the actual editors want to make the list very free-wheeling, that's fine. We would just want more rigor on moving articles from staging into VA.
    So if a new pop star's career blows up, for example, and editors want to list them in staging, that's fine. Even beneficial to the extent it doesn't take up any process bandwidth. It's only if that artist has cultural staying power, say after N years, that VA would consider a proposal to move them from staging. Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
    1. To me this sounds like instead of expanding to a level 6 we would focus only on up level 6 type stuff that is contemporary with a good chance to rise to Level 5. Say a list of Patrick Mahomes, Luka Dončić, Yellowstone (American TV series), Lil Nas X. If this is the case, what do we do when we see that someone is less important than they might have become such as Fetty Wap or The Chainsmokers because they never got that second big album , or someone who looks like they are as important as a 6 but doesn't have as good a chance to move up as we might have thought like a Halsey (singer) because she did not get an album with a high multiplatinum cert or multiple number 1s.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:51, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
      So after thinking about it more, I'd even let go of the idea of associating it tightly with VA at any level.
      You could probably still discuss it here as a spin-off project; if someone does though, maybe wait a few months or more until the current proposals have run down. But if there's support for it and it goes live, it would be its own thing. There would be some simple eligibility rules for VA (and maybe other ones for the parallel list), but otherwise, both projects would just keep following their own processes. And if an article is eligible for both lists, and both lists agree to add it, that's fine.
      As for the intent, you could look at it this way: VA is for prioritizing Wikipedia as an encyclopedia while this other list (or lists?) could be for Wikipedia as other references (yearbook, almanac, gazetteer, etc.) And yes, WP:5P explicitly affirms those things can have a place on Wikipedia while WP:NOT has intentionally evolved to not prohibit them.
      So even though I almost definitely wouldn't participate in those spin-off lists, I'd support the idea. Not only because there's legitimate demand for it, but I think it would help focus VA with more clarity of purpose. Zar2gar1 (talk) 01:08, 25 October 2023 (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.

Proposed Vital Articles Level 6

FAILED
Per VIT3 terms: <66% support with three opposes after 30 days czar 16:29, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

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.

Above I attempted to feel out the vital articles editors on their interest/intention toward future expansion of vital articles beyond a list of 50,000. Some editors, myself included, recall that level 5 was suppose to start at 50,000 and eventually move toward 100,000. I believe expanding the 50,000 list to 100,000 now would be counterproductive in some respects because we have finally gotten some sort of agreement for each subcategory where the borderline is for what belongs in and what belongs out of the most expansive level of vital articles after years of having the 50,000 limit. Throwing away this to move the borders to 100,000 is sort of counterproductive. In addition, it is a lot of work expanding the subcategory lists as we move further out on the tree of knowledge, rationing out target counts for subcategories towards the desired totals and more work determining the actual subjects. The current list have 10x, 10x, 10x, and 5x expansions. 250,000 is 3.72% of the current count of articles on English wikipedia (6,715,162). So I feel that expanding the vital articles to less than 4% of the articles is still a core group of higher priority subjects and yet enough of an expansion to be worth the effort. It will bring us to further branches on the tree of knowledge. Rather than seeing a section on Sports teams at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Everyday life/Sports, games and recreation as the furthest branch on the tree of knowledge, we might be able to point toward the most important seasons like the 1972 Miami Dolphins season or 1927 New York Yankees season. In television, I have mentioned that we could expand fictional characters to eliminate some important redlinks like those that are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Fictional characters for creation and maybe point out and direct people in a way on specific episodes or season articles that might eliminate some redlinks on lists like these: Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Episodes for creation Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Seasons for creation. The long and the short of it is that I think the 5 levels have helped direct editorial efforts at the highest levels. We have seen enough good results in terms of article improvement to feel that expanding 5x again to 250,000 is a good aspiration for where Wikipedia is now. I propose a new Vital Articles Level 6 with 250,000 articles. I am calling for a formal decision from my previous discussants User:Rreagan007, User:BD2412, User:Hyperbolick, User:Cobblet, User:Fritzmann2002 and User:Zar2gar1 and welcome all parties to opine.

Support
  1. Support It is time to expand and 250k is the proper amount of expansion.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:41, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
  2. Support. I support this, with the caveat that we should not assume that we will just be taking every article in the 50,000 list and adding five subtopics. I think there are many in that list, particularly with individual biographies, that are the bottom level of their rung. BD2412 T 21:42, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support, yes, why not. I think I’ve seen it proposed before to have a top 50K bios or top 50K tech topics. Could do a direction like that. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:49, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support. Level 5 should be kept at 50,000 at least for now. I really don't care that much if "Level 6" is set at 100k or 250k. I'm not sure if it will be possible to build a 250k list, given the challenges such a large list will entail. But if people would like to try, I see no good reason to try to stop them. And if 250k turns out to be too much of a challenge, Level 6 can always be reduced to 100k. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:46, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Expanding level 5 to 100K would be more than enough. Topics like 1972 Miami Dolphins season or 1927 New York Yankees season are what I would call trivia – the very opposite of vitality. Cobblet (talk) 20:41, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Television episodes are used as examples of non-traditional encyclopedic concepts. Other projects work with those, this project is more like keeping Wikipedia on par with paper encyclopedias (and modernizing them by countering their Western bias, for example). List of 100,000 articles is needed in principle because of 10x and the largest printed encyclopedias contain about 100k articles. Practical way to achieve this would perhaps be listing another 50,000 articles about contemporary topics or about anything and leaving the old 50k list mainly for more time-tested topics. 250k project would also be good, but I think that we must choose the solution which is the most useful for this project. --Thi (talk) 21:06, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
  3. Strong oppose. As vitality gets expanded it'll get diluted; we'll get lower-pageview articles and articles considered non-vital to an encyclopedia by independent observers. We'll also get more debates (and bikeshedding) about what to include, because arguments get worse the lower the stakes are (and the fuzzier the vitality, the more arbitrary/subjective the debates); but these debates are the opposite of what VA needs. The main purpose of VA classification is prioritization, and prioritization requires selectiveness; and the end goal is to prioritize/incentivize article improvements, not debate about their inclusion. In several recent discussions outside this page, quite a few editors didn't take this project seriously due to the low scrutiny and low usefulness of level-5, and called this page just another "WikiProject"/fiefdom as opposed to something of Wikipedia-wide relevance; some called it useless. I already think level-5 is a bikeshed-magnet and of questionable value; expanding level 5, or adding a level 6, would divert lots of editor efforts to something with very low value and impact (not just diverting the efforts of editors directly interested in an expansion, but of other editors who will feel a need to "clean up the mess" which shouldn't exist in the first place). Lastly, I don't think it would be a great idea to make this change only based on input from pagewatchers and pinged users, if VA aspires to be something more global than a WikiProject. DFlhb (talk) 07:26, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
  4. Oppose: The focus should be on improving the quality of the existing vital articles at this stage. This is the purpose of the vital article platform, and until it has been demonstrated as making gains in this area, there is little obvious advantage in further expanding the listing to even less vital material, which would only further dilute the emphasis on existing vital articles in need of expansion and improvement. The task is already monumental. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:34, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per above. The larger lists already contain articles which are not truly vital. I may support an expansion if we reach a particular target (e.g. 20% of Level 4 articles become FA/GA). Level 5 at the moment is very low quality, both in terms of the state of the articles listed, and the choice of articles listed, and it takes a huge amount of time and effort to debate the changes for very little gain. Gizza (talk) 21:49, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
  6. Oppose per above. I think the level 5 should be deleted, though it is a lot of work and discussion to re-integrate with level 4. Level 5 is unfinished, so assuming 5 stays, it should be completed before we add another level. Adding a Level 6 makes the current problem even worse. Jusdafax (talk) 21:35, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Discuss
  1. Like I mentioned above, I won't actively oppose a Level 6, and I'd personally prefer that to just expanding Level 5 to 100k. Barring some huge and previously unnoticed coverage gap, I agree with BD2412 that we're already hitting a lower-limit on "vitality" for a lot of the categories at just 50k.
Also like Thi mentioned and I suggested with the counter-proposal above, a more open-ended list in parallel with the VA levels might add more value from both angles. The VA lists could stabilize more around time-tested subjects that center entire clusters within the wiki, and the parallel one would allow people to list articles they want to prioritize more freely, without debates on recency or what's more vital or trivial.
Regardless of how much and where you add them though, I'll just warn one more time that at the scale of Level 5, things seem to evolve differently from the other VA lists. I feel like there are still several process questions that haven't been worked out at Level 5 yet, and I suspect if you add another 50k or 100k article list before doing that, it will be kind of a hot mess for a long time. Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:41, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
If certain categories on level 5 have articles that don't seem really vital, that's a clear indicator that those categories are too big. Cobblet (talk) 02:57, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Agreed, completely.
And honestly, it would depend on the People & Geography sections, but if somehow people agreed to cut those in aggregate (not that it's likely), I think we could also make cuts elsewhere and shrink Level 5 even further. If the ultimate goal of the VA list is sort of a "consensus curriculum" of articles a theoretically well-rounded person would look for, there's definitely redundancy and bloat in the list already.
That kind of gets into some of the process issues with Level 5 though, like setting quotas. Talk-page discussions for many categories, like math or the sciences, will essentially go unanswered. So if you're working on those, you kind of have to make changes boldly and ask for forgiveness before permission.
Obviously, that's not sustainable if you want VA to become Wikipedia's main prioritization scheme. Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:08, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
  • There are all kinds of directions that this project could take to expand to 250,000 articles. Much like the more focussed levels have some countries and level five has a broad array of geographic regions, things will expand. It might be the case that all major league sports teams are among the 250k, we might expand to neighborhoods, many more cities, states, and provinces will be included, more songs, albums, TV shows, art works. Although one opposer has described team season articles as trivia, I think many championship team seasons from professional and college sports will make an expanded list. Famous TV episodes like the I Love Lucy episode at the factory or the Who Shot JR. episode, Luke and Laura's wedding. Maybe real royal weddings will make the list. If we get to expand to 250k there are many dimensions of vitality.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:00, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
    The only suggestions I'm hearing for what will go on a 250K list revolve around pop culture. So much for "many dimensions of vitality." Wikipedia's pop culture articles inherently get a lot of attention. Such articles do not suffer from editor neglect at all, and they are the very opposite of what these lists should be highlighting. It seems that level 6 (or the pop culture list that's being suggested as an alternative) will be nothing more than an excuse to endlessly debate the significance of various TV episodes and the like. Isn't that kind of thing WP:NOT what Wikipedia is for? Cobblet (talk) 07:17, 20 September 2023 (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.

Proposal 2 Expanding Vital Articles

FAILED
Per VIT3 terms: <66% support with three opposes after 30 days czar 16:29, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

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.

For a few weeks I have been attempting to determine interest in expanding WP:VA. Most recently, I proposed a 5x expansion of level 5 to form a new level 6 with 250,000. Half of the opposes seemed to be in favor of more modest expansion to 100,000. I am a strong supporter of expanding VA. The original intention was to expand to 50,000 on our way to an eventual 100,000 article level. Although I would prefer a larger expansion of VA, going to 100,000 is better than not expanding at all. It is not clear to me whether we should replace the current level 5 with a new larger level 5 or create a new level 6, but this proposal will only address whether we should make the most expansive VA list have 100,000.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:21, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support As I compromise, I would support expanding VA to 100,000 despite my belief that a larger expansion would be better. I think there are many vital topics that could be more fully presented in this format with a larger list.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:21, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
  2. Support We need more vital article slots, and a level 6 would provide that. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:25, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
    Unstruck. I have decided that a Level 6 would be a net positive to the encyclopedia. I am neutral on expanding Level 5. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:19, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
  3. Support. As I said above, I'm not that concerned right now about whether Level 6 is 100k or 250k, but it should be separate from Level 5. Just leave level 5 alone at 50k and make a new level 6 at 100k. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:04, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support to speed up the development of Level 5. --Thi (talk) 17:05, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
  5. Leaning support, as proposed. BD2412 T 19:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
  6. Support. Look, Level 5 is not in good shape right now. If the ultimate goal is to bring it to 100k, which I think is fine if somewhat frivolous, then it would probably better to do it now than later. My reasoning is that increasing the quota to 100k will throw the list into chaos for a while, regardless if it is mostly complete or a long way from it. Fritzmann (message me) 19:08, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
  7. Support. Understanding implementation details need to be addressed, I think a larger list has value. I believe the "least vital" list will always have substantial churn because of human nature and the idea of "what is vital" versus "how vital is this." I think even at 100k there are items to be captured that are not currently, that expansion will encourage editors to explore broader areas of knowledge and identify more items that really are "vital," and generally help shape wikipedia's coverage of concepts that are important. I understand the argument from those who oppose this that there needs to be efforts to refine processes. However, I don't think that expansion is counter to that if focus is put towards it during the surge in interest and while working out the details of that expansion. - Darker Dreams (talk) 01:37, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
    Expanding my thoughts above; one of the concerns is that there is insufficient active participation in the vital articles to support expansion. I think that logic is backwards. I view expansion as a recruiting drive and means to make VA more relevant to the Wikipedia community, wikipedia readership, and individual editors. @TonyTheTiger said "200,000 is already about 3% of the encyclopedia." Again, turning that around, that means the current VA system is currently engaged with (and linked from) less than 1% of existing articles. And, let's be honest, it's not the 1% of articles most editors need - by the time we're writing/editing wikipedia we're probably pretty clear on what the Earth is. By expanding, VA becomes more visible, relevant to more people, and provides entry points for engagement with lower barriers. - Darker Dreams (talk) 22:48, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Level 5 at 100k, but neutral on a Level 6, and would support a separate non-VA list. Thinking carefully though, this proposal is essentially for 100k articles no matter what, which I don't support. I'd rather just stop at Level 5 with 50k than dilute things, at least without a process in place that leads to doubling Level 5 organically. Zar2gar1 (talk) 21:24, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
  2. Oppose At 50 000 I feel maintaining the list is already cumbersome with this few active participants (although activity seems to have gotten better recently). With more and more topics more and more will be unknown to editors and fewer of them will know enough to give opinions in add/remove discussions, which will be cluttered with so many topics to consider. Better tools such as a vitality estimator of some sort (to e.g. catch probable omissions such as the recently brought up Ford Model T) would IMO be required first to increase productivity.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 22:38, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
    Furthermore, vitality probably more or less follows a Pareto distribution: the few most vital items in a subject area will be obvious (e.g. most will agree among the most vital composers are Bach, Mozart and Beethoven), but go down a hypothetical ranked list and ordering increasingly becomes a case of splitting hairs. With larger lists what to include becomes increasingly arbitrary as the items at the cutoff point become more equal. Finally, vitality changes over time, as new things begin influencing the world and others are forgotten – and the more items listed, the more items have to be replaced in the long run.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 12:35, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
  3. Opppse Unrealistic goal, I would also remove/endorse rule of rigoristic !votong at level 5 due to not stability of contents there, and cpirage for elastic processes about quotas.etc. Dunno 100 000 is ever realistic goal, perhaps with far more various participants who could dedicate plenty time. It is enough to correct 10 000 and 50 000 list (or lower lists 1-3).Dawid2009 (talk) 17:16, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
  4. Oppose, strongly. Let's consider logistics wise. VT5 is manned by only an handful of somewhat active editors; bear in mind that it recently got a surge of activity which is by no means indicative of the typical operations. As it stands, not a single sublist within VT5 is meeting its quota, with some being over/underbudgeted by hundreds. VT5 averages less than one proposal per day and consensus-building often takes various weeks, if not months. Given all this; it's more than apparent that advancing this proposal would place an insurmountable burden on VT5. Even if we anticipate an initial boost of activity, it will likely wane over time and the herculean job of expanding the colossal list will be in the hands of a few. I appeal my fellow colleagues at VT5 if we are really ready to push ourselves trough this task. Please see DFlhb's (on the VT6 proposal) and LaukkuTheGreit's comments, for two very compelling argumentations on why expanding VT5 is the last thing we need. The Blue Rider 00:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
  5. Oppose (and also reduce the added bureaucracy around removing VA5s while we're here). The VA5 list already includes articles that are only very, very questionably "vital." Continuing to expand the VA list blurs its meaning. Already, I'd say that VA3 is the "real" vital article list. If there's a desire to highlight articles that are "important" but don't currently qualify for VA5, that sounds more like something for a focused Wikiproject which can maintain an internal list of vital articles, or an importance parameter, or whatever. Although from experience, I doubt that this would have much impact, but it's there. (And... I think there may be too much love of multiplying levels, when the absolute amount of articles being added is gigantic. If VA5 was ever whipped into a really, really good shape, and we're confident it actually meant something.... maybe in 2027... then we can consider making a VA6 of the next 50K articles. But no need to expand the current VA5, and certainly no need to do the enormous proposed expansion above.) SnowFire (talk) 05:34, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
  6. Oppose largely per similar points as those raised by SnowFire. The VA5 lists are clearly not that well polished yet at all, and the process for improving this remains clunky. I don't see why discussions are two weeks long, as opposed to one week, as per most discussions on Wikipedia. If there are not the requisite numbers of responses or if the votes are evenly then sure, discussions could stay open longer or be relisted, but even snow-voted discussions currently loiter for two weeks here. It's bureaucratic and unresponsive, and this could also be one reason why there's reduced participation in this forum. I think the improvement of this process and participation rates is a more pertinent discussion to be had than any discussion of expansion. Alongside this, the project needs to work on how it actually tracks and helps promote the improvement of listed articles. The class of the pages in the VA4 and VA5 lists do not seem to be being tallied at the moment, but the volumes of start-class and C-class articles are high. This project really needs to gear itself more towards the improvement of the standing lists, such as through greater collaboration with Wikipedia:Articles for improvement. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:42, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
  7. Oppose, per my comment in the discussion immediately above. Editor TCO criticized VA (p.11) for focusing too much on cataloguing, and not enough on what VA is for: improving important articles. He said that in 2011, and it's gotten worse since the creation of level-5 in 2017, which has put off some editors enthusiastic about VA (one example among several). Level-5 receives such low scrutiny that it harms VA's reputation among the wider community. It's trivial to find non-vital articles in level-5, and again there's little scrutiny, because we don't have the amount of editors to sustain even current levels, let alone an expansion. Low vital caps help us stay focused and minimise busywork. Think about it: the vital lists themselves are only useful insofar as we use them to coordinate article improvements. So is it rational to dedicate even more energy to the lists, when we have no such ongoing coordination efforts, haven't had any in a while, and when the last coordination revival attempt, in late 2022, failed? DFlhb (talk) 06:47, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
  8. Strongly oppose expanding Vit5, per above comments. Level-5 is still in a constant state of flux and needs stabilisation, not more added chaos. I'm hoping the recent surge in interest will help contribute to that, but proposing expansion at this stage is just asking for trouble. Least of all, it would insultingly render all of our discussions completely moot with only a couple key strokes. I would also oppose adding a level-6 for now. The English Wikipedia hasn't even reached 7 million articles yet, so the proposed 100,000 level (1.5% of articles) and especially the proposed 250,000 level (3.7% of articles) would effectively be a free for all. Personally I don't think we should even be thinking about a 100,000 level until we approach 10 million articles, which would be a tier for the top 1% of the total articles. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
    1. Comment We probably won't see 10 million EN WP articles in our lifetimes. According to the data, content is being added at a relatively constant rate, but more and more of it is being added to existing articles. I don't know if we will even get to 7 million by the end of this decade.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
      Then I see absolutely no need for expansion or a new level. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Discuss
The good it will do is the same as all the other Levels. There is lots of information on Wikipedia, but information is much less useful if it is unorganized. These hierarchical lists help bring structure to Wikipedia, which is beneficial for a number of reasons. It allows us to easily access related articles, track their quality, target articles for improvement, and identify where there are holes in quality or coverage. It can also be useful for creating things like offline versions of Wikipedia, such as Wikipedia Version 1.0. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:57, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
I understand that, but it feels like Level 6 gets to the point where it is too big to be useful. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:06, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
  • User:Zar2gar1, the intention was to have a discussion of whether VA should be expanded to 100,000. A separate discussion would be held on whether to do it by 1.) taking over the level 5 platform, 2.) creating a level 6 platform or 3.) moving 5 to 4.5 and creating a new level 5. This is a question of whether it would be helpful to expand the list of articles covered under the VA model. You are opposing if the current level 5 list is expanded to 100,000, but are neutral if the level 5 remains at 50k and a new more expansive list is created.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:14, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
    I understand, and that's why I primarily opposed it. If there's no qualification, I'd rather let the entire VA list top out at 50k than expand it willy-nilly. Like I've said though, I'm fine with a distinct Lv6 insulated from Lv5, and I'd even support Lv5 eventually growing to 100k if it follows organically from an improved process. Zar2gar1 (talk) 14:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Bored with the bureaucracy of this discussion. Add a level, make it whatever. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:43, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
  • I think we need to focus on getting a 50K list stable before going to 100K. I know some believe it is impossible. I think it possible...if we steel ourselves to the task. I also believe we should have the intermediate step of 20K, 25K, 30K and 40K article lists. pbp 00:25, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
    • User:Purplebackpack89, The 50k (and potentially 100k) level can not be stabilized. They will always be in flux based on modern history. 5 months ago I'd have said Nikola Jokić is outside of 50k (I argued with User:Purplebackpackonthetrail against him in November 2022), I'd support his nomination now just based on what happen in 12 days in June 2023, which tipped the scales. Olivia Rodrigo is a product of pandemic era success and already a Level 5 listing. This does not mean the list is unstable. It is an ongoing and evolving list that will change. That does not mean trying our best to make a list of 50k or 100k is not worth doing.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:58, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
      I would argue that because of the way people think about "vital" versus "more vital" adding a level 6 is likely to help stabilize the level 5 list. My expectation is that whatever the lowest/least vital list is will always have significant churn. Adding a new layer is likely to initially create churnin higher layers as missed items are identified, but over time a new "outer" layer will reduce the churn of levels immediately above it. - Darker Dreams (talk) 22:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
      I voted to oppose expanding without qualification, but this is exactly my thinking. This is also why I'd actively support a separate list, parallel to but not under the "vital" umbrella, explicitly for high-churn articles (recent events, BLPs, pop culture, etc.)
      I also just want to point out that, so far, all of us that oppose and some supporters mentioned process issues at Lv5. Whatever the result of this proposal, I think that might be a fruitful direction for future ones (with a little break after this one settles). Zar2gar1 (talk) 23:53, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
      I understand the appeal of a seperate list, but I don't think it'll get some of the benefits desired - because it's seperate. It will be evaluated in parallel and won't create the "more vital" evaluation in the same way. And it will require additional maintenance overhead in a way any VA expansion just won't. But, yeah, these conversations and other process conversations should be had on their own. - Darker Dreams (talk) 03:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
  • At some point, the vital hierarchy should map onto other similar concepts and constructs such as WP:IMPORTANCE. Some analysis is needed to discover whether top and high importance assessments correlate with some level of vital. Otherwise, extending the vital hierarchy would just be re-inventing the wheel and generating inconsistency. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
    Since it's a distinct issue, I wouldn't want to raise it here, but I agree 100% that harmonizing vitality with assessed importance would be a huge improvement. It could probably even be partly automated. I've already done it manually on some unfinished Lv5 lists, and the article counts even roughly seem to match (Top at Lv4, Top High at Lv5).
    The only complication would be regulating how changes flow between VA and other WikiProjects. Importance assessments don't typically involve any consensus, and VA (at least as I've interpreted it) emphasizes "breadth" more than individual WikiProjects seem to. Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:56, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment Please note that at I attempted to withdraw this nomination at 13:10, October 22, 2023, but was reverted by User:The Blue Rider at 13:29, October 22, 2023 one minute before my final proposal for a VA expansion below.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:38, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
    TonyTheTiger, just like at AfD you can't withdraw proposals that get supportive votes or vice-versa, when the proposal is about removing an article. To be honest, you shouldn't have closed the previous VT6 expansion proposal either. The Blue Rider 18:03, 22 October 2023 (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.

Final WP:VA Expansion proposal

FAILED
1-4, Level 5 not expanded procedurally or by admins. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 08:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

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 propose that every year Level 5 be expanded with new quotas to represent the top 1% of articles. This would reduce the need to create a separate important recent articles list. This would facilitate accommodation of newly arising topics without suddenly declaring past topics to be no longer vital. This would enable those parties interested in administrating these list to have more flexibility in adjusting the quotas to modify the emphasis in response to vital article removal/approval demand. This would accommodate expansion without increasing the number of levels to administer. Late in every year we could hold revised quota discussions. E.G., by November 15, we will be somewhere around, 6,750,000 articles. So we would hold discussions on a new set of quotas for 67,500 Level 5 quotas. The discussion could be in 1 or 2 rounds. If we have 2 rounds one round could be for top level and the other for sublevel. There could also be discussion as to whether new sublevel sections need to exist. The project could decide to have a formal set of administrators who make these decisions or we could have a free-for-all open discussion.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:30, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Support

  1. as nom -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:30, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose Not reasonable approach. --Thi (talk) 13:35, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Still don't think expanding Lv5 by quota is the right tack, plus I'm leery of other details in this one. Also, I understand the desire to expand VA, but you may want to be patient and let these proposals wrap up. I think we're taking up oxygen from other discussions now, including some that could position VA for future expansion. Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
    Comment User:Zar2gar1, I must say that as a proponent for a process to accommodate contemporary topics, I thought you would be a supporter of a process that adds new slots every year for new topics.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:59, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
    1. Ah, so that's the thing. I'm actually not a proponent of bringing contemporary topics closer into VA; it's kind of the opposite. I'd be OK with a Lv6 (and actively support a parallel list) precisely because that would siphon off contemporary topics and the corresponding churn from the existing levels.
      While I don't take them as definitive, I feel like "centrality" and "timelessness" are pretty good criterion for deciding what's vital, and for several reasons. But Wikipedia is pretty dynamic and I'm mostly an expansionist (not a deletionist) so I'm sympathetic to a compromise that still has that siphon effect. Zar2gar1 (talk) 21:55, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
      Above many of the objections point to the scarce resource of attention to the vital articles topic. So I don't view adding a separate level as a possibility that could achieve consensus. You seem to want both a VA6 and an additional siphoning of attention toward a contemporary topics list. That is not going to scare up much support, IMO. I don't see a way to allow for the editor with contemporary interests to highlight such articles in a spinoff project, but have carved a path toward adding contemporary topics that does not interfere with the proponents of "centrality" and "timelessness" that would be more comfortable with a more permanent vitality that would not have to surrender space for contemporary topics. Given that we can't have both a stable set of central and timeless topics and ongoing contemporary articles being featured within VA with a constant count list, I chose to accommodate both a stable set of central and timeless topics and ongoing contemporary article considerations with a gradual proportionate expansion. Honestly, I don't see an additional separate contemporary topics list as a consideration for VA because they would be a separate thing.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
      Just to clarify, I'm only neutral on Lv6 so I'd be OK if others wanted it. But honestly, if it were just up to me, I'd probably shrink Lv5 some; I expect there's very little support for that though.
      As for a parallel list, is it really a bad thing if it's mostly separate from VA? You mentioned editors with contemporary interests wanting to draw attention to articles, which is fine. But isn't the attention given to recent events, characters, local history and facts, etc. already fundamentally different from what VA is aiming for?
      The ultimate intent of VA, after all, is to focus contributions on core reference topics, which probably don't get nearly the TLC they should considering their prevalence. The other articles OTOH probably already get a lot of attention because they're in current news sources, have an associated fandom, etc.
      I have another way of thinking of it that I'll mention in the other discussion. Zar2gar1 (talk) 00:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
  3. The basis of this proposal is expanding VT5 so all the problems raised in the previous discussions still apply. The Blue Rider 18:00, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
    Comment It is not true that all problems above remain. Many discussants in the above set of discussions want stability and a way handle all the new topics that seem to get support. We could pursue stability with new topics getting most of the new quota slots each year. Instead of a lot of back and forth about what to yank to put the newest thing in, we could have stability. You can't have stability at the most expansive level without flexible quotas to allow for new topics. I.e., you can't have both stability and a process for the contemporary topics without a flexible quota.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:45, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
    Comment Furthermore, there are a bunch of process inefficiency type qualms listed above. Converting this to a project with admins would certainly shake up the process in many ways that have a shot at improving things.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
    Expanding VT5 is always going to be disruptive, even if that expansion is only periodically. Plus, who is going to choose all those contemporary topics? We would still need to create votes for each of them and that would be too laboriously. Vitality is something that had lasting effects throughout society, very few recent topics are that impacting so quickly. Even taking logistics aside, I don't think VT5 should be expanded because it would dilute the vitality of the current articles. I most certainly don't oppose setting project coordinators though. The Blue Rider 09:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

  1. User:Thi, What is unreasonable about this? If we elected VA administrators, the new quotas would fairly straightforward.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
It's illogical, all other levels have fixed quotas. You can't describe complicate structure with one sentence in an elevator pitch. If it is not applicable to all language versions, it is not practical. --Thi (talk) 14:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
It was illogical to have all other levels expand 10x and this one expand 5x. So I think there is room for an open mind.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:40, 22 October 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Archive_24&oldid=1186601016"