Wikipedia talk:Vital articles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Vital Articles
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Vital Articles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of vital articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and work together to increase the quality of Wikipedia's essential articles.
 
Vital articles discussion
Level 1     Level 2     Level 3     Level 4     Level 5

Introduction

FA FA GA GA A Total
December 1, 2007 83 45 90 139 25 690 1022
June 1, 2008 88 46 79 140 25 670 999
December 1, 2008 88 50 72 145 24 682 1014
FA A GA B C Total
December 1, 2009 82 7 49 586 146 129 999
January 1, 2011 78 8 60 472 255 113 986
January 1, 2012 76 1 76 454 275 109 991
June 29, 2013 88 3 88 450 289 82 1000
October 13, 2013 90 4 92 446 284 83 999
January 13, 2015 90 2 96 417 333 60 998
December 23, 2016 94 2 107 425 355 17 1000
December 10, 2017 91 3 115 392 376 17 994

The purpose of this discussion page is to select 1000 topics for which Wikipedia should have high-quality articles. All Wikipedia editors are welcome to participate. Individual topics are proposed for addition or removal, followed by discussion and !voting. Since the list is currently full, it is recommended that a nomination of a new topic be accompanied by a proposal to remove a lower-priority topic already on the list.

All discussions will remain open for a minimum of 15 days.

  1. After 15 days any proposal may be closed as PASSED if a) at least five !votes have been cast in support, and b) at least two-thirds of the total !votes support the proposal.
  2. After 30 days any proposal may be closed as FAILED if it has a) earned at least 3 opposes, and b) failed to earn two-thirds support.
  3. After 30 days any proposal may be closed as NO CONSENSUS if the proposal hasn't received any !votes for 30 or more days regardless of the !vote tally.
  4. After 60 days any proposal may be closed as NO CONSENSUS if it has a) failed to earn at least 5 support !votes, and b) earned less than two-thirds support.

Please be patient with our process: we believe that an informed discussion with more editors is likely to produce an improved and more stable final list. When proposing to add or remove a particular topic from the vital articles list, we strongly recommend that you review and compare the other topics in the same category in order to get a better sense of what is considered vital in that area.

  • 15 days ago: 10:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC) (Purge)
  • 30 days ago: 10:08, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • 60 days ago: 10:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Add Folk religion

I'm renominating this, as it had a realistic chance of passing before it was closed.

Support
  1. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 00:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support as before. Gizza (t)(c) 22:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Too academic concept. Main religious practices are listed except for Funeral. Folk religion#Problems and critique. The article is about the definition of a problematic concept which is used in religious studies and other disciplines, not about the practice. Folklore is already listed. --Thi (talk) 14:36, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Thi and too specific and sufficiently covered by religion. RJFJR (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

While I support adding folk religion in principle, I can't support a renomination so soon after the previous proposal was closed. Gizza (t)(c) 01:17, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Ironic, seeing as I renominated it on principle because I believe you closed it too soon, which you have a bad habit of doing. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:36, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  1. It appears to have been opened closed and opened again all within 50 something days which is quick, especially as it was left at 4vs2 support. If I wanted to support this now, the total number of people who have expressed their opinion on adding Folk religion within the last 60 days which is a fairly short time scale, would be 5 in support and 2 in opposition, which is enough to successfully add. (BTW note; with the exception of myself, the only people so far to have reacted in this thread are the same people to have reacted in the first one). I feel it was closed a bit quick, as it had a reasonable chance at success if only one other person supported. I find it, not wrong, but a little odd it was closed by someone who was supporting it.  Carlwev  06:31, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Add Funeral

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 06:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. A type of ritual, which is already listed. And we also list death, which covers funerals. We don't list wedding, which is a more important ritual/ceremony than funeral. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Rreagan007. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per above. Since Rite is a generalization of Ritual, how about adding Rite of passage to level 4? wumbolo ^^^ 09:35, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

@Thi: What do you think about add Veneration of the dead and Folk play to the level 3? If Halloween is listed at the level 4 these articles fit at the level 3 and Mummers play should be at least at the level 4. Dawid2009 (talk) 21:35, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I think that festival is the most general article and maybe vital at this level. --Thi (talk) 08:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Add Republic of Ireland

Relatively small population country, but it is an English-speaking country. And I think its importance culturally and historically to the English-speaking world makes it vital to the English Wikipedia at this level.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Rreagan007 (talk) 17:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 17:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  3. Weak support Likely of higher interest to enwiki readers than, say, Democratic Republic of the Congo or Ethiopia. I would rather add Switzerland, Netherlands or Taiwan first, though. feminist (talk) 16:14, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose The list has plenty of European countries already, and Ireland is nowhere close to being the most vital unlisted European country, and is most definitely not the most vital unlisted country in general. Cobblet (talk) 22:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  2. There are countries 10x the size that aren't on the list. pbp 22:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per above. Also the Netherlands, Malaysia and Sweden are bigger readers of the English Wikipedia than Ireland [1]. Assuming that only first-language speakers of English read and edit here is wrong. English is becoming the global lingua franca. But I also agree with previous comments that it's not even all that relevant. Language is just the medium of the knowledge that Wikipedia sends out to the world. Apart from perhaps a few more articles on the language itself, I'm not convinced of a need of any further tailoring. Gizza (t)(c) 01:12, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Per the FAQ reflecting long-standing community norms: "since this is the English language Wikipedia, the majority of editors come from either the United States or the Commonwealth. This creates a systemic bias towards topics better known in the Western world. To counter this, the list includes a number of important topics less-known to the average American or Brit. The Countries subsection primarily includes countries featuring either one of the highest GDPs in the world, or one of the highest populations." Ireland does not qualify. If someone doesn't like this, it is best to discuss it and reach a new consensus. It is not good to just ignore it. AbstractIllusions (talk) 18:05, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
  • My mistake. I think everyone who has already voted knew that I meant the country of Ireland and not the actual island. I have changed the nomination to the country article. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Add Victor Hugo

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 06:58, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support. Hugo's oeuvre is still used in musicals, plays, and movies. He is arguably the most famous French writer, more than Voltaire currently in the list.T8612 (talk) 10:14, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose without a specific swap proposal I don't think there's quota. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:28, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose the addition, and especially oppose any to proposal to swap with Voltaire. The list would make no sense if it didn't include a French Enlightenment figure, and there are already as many Romantic authors on the list as there are Enlightenment thinkers. Cobblet (talk) 13:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
  • If Geoffrey Chaucer didn't get on the list because of there being too many writers i do not see how Hugo should make it. GuzzyG (talk) 14:29, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
I would swap Hugo with Voltaire, who belongs to the Philosophers section.T8612 (talk) 18:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Generally it seems to me that we have too many compossers and too few writers at the level 3. Composers are often more vital than writers at the level 5 because of readers are more interested in modern pop culture than noblists but at the level 3 I would add Victor Hugo, Geoffrey Chaucer and Hans Christian Andersen before: Louis Armstrong and Igor Stravinsky. These composers I would add rather at the same level what David Bowie and Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky than at level 3 Dawid2009 (talk) 16:00, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
PASSED/FAILED:
5–1, added; 2–2, not removed Rreagan007 (talk) 01:39, 5 November 2018 (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.

Swap Marketing for Market (economics)

More vital. WikiProject ratings agree with me.

Support
  1. Support as nom. wumbolo ^^^ 12:28, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 19:14, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support adding Market, not sure whether Marketing is the right article to swap. --Yair rand (talk) 19:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support addition. Gizza (t)(c) 06:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support addition. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:29, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose We should not be removing marketing unless we're adding advertising back. Cobblet (talk) 17:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose removal. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:29, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

For reference, market was swapped out over 4 years ago and replaced with supply and demand (see archive). Of course that's a long time ago, the shape of the list was different and consensus can change. Gizza (t)(c) 06:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I was just going to write something similar. Marketing was added recently in place of advertising. Market it in the same kind of area as marketing, and contains the same route word, but they are not identical in scope. The closest thing to market I can see is Supply and Demand, I wasn't aware that replaced it, but I might support swapping that back out for market.  Carlwev  16:12, 17 September 2018 (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 Fraction (mathematics)

Covered by Division (mathematics).

Support
  1. Support as nom. wumbolo ^^^ 12:20, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
  1. Support as nom. Dmartin969 (talk) 22:15, 13 September 2018 (UTC)


Oppose
  1. pbp 13:46, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose The rationale makes no sense. One article is about an arithmetic operation. The other is about a set of numbers. Chalk and cheese. Cobblet (talk) 12:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

I'll note that we removed rational number two years ago because of its overlap with this topic. Cobblet (talk) 13:08, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I feel like we should be listing at least one of these at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:49, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Note that fractions and rational numbers each mean only one thing, while "division" would be the vital term which can be applied more generally, also e.g. Fair division. wumbolo ^^^ 19:36, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Add Hans Christian Andersen

Andersen was poet and author. Most famous writer in Europe at the time. His fairy tales have been translated into well over a hundred languages and continue to be published in "millions of copies all over the world".

Support
  1. Support as nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:11, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support. 160 language versions. --Thi (talk) 09:14, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I'm not in favour of adding more people. At this level fairy tale is sufficient. Cobblet (talk) 12:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

What do you think about swap Hans Christian Andersen for Walt Disney? Will Eisner called Carl Barks "the Hans Christian Andersen of comic books."[1]. On that basic I think that Hans Christian Anderssen is much more vital than Carl Barks and more vital than Walt Disney. Some time ago there were discussion about remove all film directors, it has not passed but Walt Disney was the most controversial person Dawid2009 (talk) 22:00, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Why is Laozu listed as a "religious figure" instead of a "philosopher" like Confucius?

Chdlwq (talk) 12:10, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Remove Gender

A proposal to add Third gender to level-4 failed here. Together with listing Transgender at level-4, this means that only two genders are vital at this level. So I propose that Gender is removed because it is redundant to Man and Woman, especially at this level. Notice also that Ageing is level-3, while Old age is level-4. And please don't make the argument that we list Sex at this level. wumbolo ^^^ 19:20, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

The Sex article is currently listed at Level 3. feminist (talk) 13:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Add Hygiene

Part of everyday life. The most vital article absent from Health, medicine and disease section (see Hygiene#Home_hygiene_in_developing_countries).

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 08:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Dawid2009 (talk) 15:46, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:55, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Swap: Remove Submarine, Add Spear

Submarines are no more historically vital than battleships, and less vital than aircraft carriers, both of which aren't listed. The spear is the most-used weapon in all of human history. It deserves to be listed at this level.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support removal --Thi (talk) 07:53, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support removal. wumbolo ^^^ 12:37, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose addition Dawid2009 (talk) 21:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose addition --Thi (talk) 22:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

I am generally oppose addition any weapons and much prefer removing weapons. Currently we list Bow and arrow but we do not have Archery. We do not list Performance art/piano despite fact that Performing arts are at the level 2 and Frederick Chopin is listed at the level 3. @Carlwev: You generally prefer add general articles before people, what do you think about my point? Dawid2009 (talk) 18:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Swap Plato for Socrates

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support addition --Thi (talk) 22:37, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Swap Paul the Apostle for Mary, mother of Jesus

Support

Women are underrepresented and Mary is enaugh vital for inclusion here.

  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose addition --Thi (talk) 22:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose addition Covered by Jesus Bible and Christianity. Sources on her are less historic and more religious, much of what is "known" or written is from the Bible. The article on Christmas is culturally much more important and prominent. (Or choose festival if we want to be culture neutral.)  Carlwev  15:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

Swap: add Francisco Pizarro and Hernán Cortés, remove two weakest military personalities

These two men had significant influence for expansion of Spanish language. On that basic I think that they were more influencial than some listed people here such like like Joseph Stalin etc. But I do not have idea who could be swapped if it is possible

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Dscuss

Unless/until the articles to remove are suggested, this is a non-starter. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Swap: remove Card game and Board game, add Tabletop game

Card game and Board game are covered by Tabletop game. Tabletop game cover also other games such like cue sports, titled games etc. In my opinion better option is have Tabletop game instead card game and board game because of we have mre cue sports players than poker players at the level 5. Beyond that card game historically is fewer significant than sports such like box etc.

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support removal --Thi (talk) 22:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support. wumbolo ^^^ 06:17, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose  Carlwev  15:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Carlwev power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

Even though the article technically covers the others.... I just think table top game is not term used very much. The article is tiny list like, few page views and few other interwiki languages, I just think not many people use the term or would look it up to read or improve the article, even though it is a "parent topic" I think it would be unwise in this case. There was an attempt to have Precipitation instead of rain and snow which failed for similar reasons. One could argue to remove Association Football and add Ball game to "cover" cricket, golf and tennis, but I think this would be unwise and unpopular, probably? other sports are covered by sport, other games are covered by game.  Carlwev  15:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Add Combat sport

This concept cover a lot of sports related with combat/martial arts. These sports historically were significant. Boxing is not the most popular sport in the world but is maybe the most popular among very old sports (outside athletics).

support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
oppose
discuss

Add Swimming

One of the most basic recreation/leisure. It cover also swimming (sport). I think that encyclopedia need this definition at the level 3. Other concept which maybe could be vital at this level is Hiking. It is cobver at the level 4 under athletics despite fact that describtion of the article is more general.

support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Important addition. --Thi (talk) 22:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Almost Internationally, and chronologically universal  Carlwev  15:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
oppose
discuss

remove Video game

I think that in historical context video game is someting littly fewer vital than arcade game and in general context something littly feer vital than social media (we have more articles related with social media at the level 4). Beyond that I also think that video games, board games and card games generally are not vital at this level. More general concepts such like: swimming, combat sport, tabletop game are better candidates.

support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 22:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
oppose
  1. Oppose  Carlwev  15:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose has been a major topic for 30 years. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
discuss

It is young, but not much younger than the Beatles. We have many entertainment/arts articles from the 20th century and after. Jazz, Louis Armstrong, Elvis, Beatles, Hemingway, Picasso, Frida Kahlo, All the film directors. Video game is not as "high brow" as most of these, but is culturally, economically, historically more important than most of these. Many of the articles I listed will possibly get less attention the more time passes but video games are huge and are only continuing to grow. I just cannot see how several musicians, writers, directors, and artists from the 20th Century are all considered each, individually more important to entertainment/arts than a multibillion dollar industry/medium that is growing and a lot more people, work, study, play and are interested in than those artists are each individually.  Carlwev  15:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Add Leisure

Sometime ago recreation has been swapped for play (activity). In my opinion encyclopedia should have described entertainment, leisure and play (but may be not necesary recreation). Leisure is good concept to cover swimming but I am not sure play could coover swimming? (in English language?)

support
  1. AS nom Dawid2009 (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
oppose
discuss

remove São Paulo

Sauo Paulo is fewer famous than Rio de Janerio despite fact that Rio de Janerio is not capital of Brasil. We have bad balance beetwen cities and countries so Sauo Paulo is good candidate to remove it.

support
  1. As nom
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 22:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
oppose
discuss

add Central America

I think that this concept from physical geography is enaugh vital for inclusion here

support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
oppose
discuss

Thinking, Either this or Caribbean, region or sea?  Carlwev  15:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Also unsure. I can see adding an article for the area between the United States and South America, but am not sure this is the right one. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

remove Taj Mahal

How it is more vital than Ganges or even Uttar Pradesh?

support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 22:48, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
oppose
discuss

References

  1. ^ "A Timeless Classic For All Ages - Fantagraphics Books" (PDF). Fantagraphics. 2011. Retrieved May 12, 2017.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles&oldid=868654318"
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia talk:Vital articles"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA