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.
 

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: 06:56, 09 September 2018 (UTC) (Purge)
  • 30 days ago: 06:56, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
  • 60 days ago: 06:56, 26 July 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)
Discuss

Need new/better method for further considering instead of reopen

We need a better method to handle requests to reopen something closed as undecided. Folk Religion sat at 4-2 for thirty days with out a change but now it is reopened. Some people who voted previously won't bother to vote again so there will be even fewer votes and if it is decided this time it will be on a less comprehensive base.

Can we just agree that if someone thinks a just closed item could have been decided with more time they can request it be reopened instead of opening a new vote for the same item? RJFJR (talk) 15:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Something that's closed should not be re-opened for at least a year. pbp 23:21, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
    • There is no rule against it, and I don't think there should be. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
      • @Rreagan007: Why? We don't mess up very often. pbp 03:35, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
        • Because the ones I renominated I don't think the nominations should have been closed when they were. We have a long-standing convention of leaving nominations open that have a reasonable likelihood of success, and I'm really not sure why Gizza felt the need to close them so soon. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:58, 15 August 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)

Mythology

I already posted this on the Level 4 talk page, but it hasn't seemed to spark any interest over there. An editor has taken it upon himself to merge Mythology into Myth. I have had a bit of a discussion with him about it on the Myth talk page. "Mythology" was a Level 2 article, but "Myth" isn't even currently listed at Level 5. Should we simply swap out mythology for myth at all levels, or should we remove mythology from one or more levels? For some reason, "Myth" doesn't seem as worthy of an article for Level 2 to me as "Mythology" did. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted the merge as it's clearly out-of-process. That said, there's something to be said for the proposal, and for Myth being the merged article's title. I'm not sure if it's a level-2 article (and would prefer not to consider it until the merge proposal is done), it should be swapped at lower levels if the merge happens. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:56, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. I agree that a merger of this scale should go through a proper discussion process. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
After more discussion, I've undone my reversion. I'll wait until Tuesday before doing anything more. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:13, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
So it looks like the merger is going to stand as is. As I say above, Myth just doesn't seem like it's worthy of being a level 2 Vital Article. The myth article says that "myth is a folklore genre" so maybe we should swap out Mythology for Folklore at Level 2. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:06, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
PASSED:
Swapped, 6–0 Rreagan007 (talk) 19:18, 4 September 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: Remove Fishing industry, Add Fishing

Maybe i am missing something but in my opinion the activity is more vital then the industry of that activity. The pageviews and different wikidata languages back that up. I understand it's listed under "Industry" but i just don't believe something that is just a certain aspect of the larger topic should be listed before the larger topic itself; especially considering the fact we didn't add farm because of agriculture being listed and we removed factory because we listed manufacturing.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 05:15, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 08:04, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support The broader subject matter is what should be listed here. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:26, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support This article covers the industry plus others like recreation, sport, history. Many languages don't have separate article specifically for the industry, all info appears to be at fishing.  Carlwev  18:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support good find. A clear anomaly which needs to be rectified. Gizza (t)(c) 12:21, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support Seems to go along with the other articles. AbstractIllusions (talk) 01:48, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. 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.

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)
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)

Add Malaysia

One of the biggest countries not listed.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 06:58, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  07:20, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. English-speaking countries like Ireland and New Zealand should be added first, as they are more vital to the English Wikipedia. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:41, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I'd pick Myanmar as the next most vital country from Southeast Asia to add. I also think Southeast Asia is already quite well represented – we list Indonesia, Vietnam, the Philippines, Thailand and Singapore which account for >80% of the region's population. Cobblet (talk) 05:30, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose how about Taiwan instead? Similar population with larger economy and it may be more interesting to readers as a disputed state. feminist (talk) 03:43, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose if we're adding ten more countries, sure, but I don't think this is the marginal addition right now. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:28, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

I think we should add more nations. Malaysia just over 30 mil. Tanzania is the highest missing nation at about 55 mil pop. There are 10 missing nations with higher populations. (see here). Morocco, Algeria, Ukraine, Iraq, Kenya and Myanmar (Burma) and 4 more. Many of these had under 10 million in 1950 and doubled in population every 20 something years to being between 30 and 55 mil today, recent boomers. Not that that makes them any more or less vitl alone. Malaysia is quite important I still support, I just think other nations I listed are worthy of consideration also. We also list smaller pop nations, like Israel, and Singapore (in cities I think) and Australia.  Carlwev  07:20, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

It's not just about population. Israel is a tiny country but it makes the news much more often than Malaysia. I support moving Singapore to cities though.T8612 (talk) 23:05, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
PASSED:
Removed, 5–0 Rreagan007 (talk) 17:36, 8 September 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.

Remove Worship

I am not convinced that it is vital at Level 3. Seventeen interwikis are not much at this level and it is covered by Ritual.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 06:58, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support. Ritual should also be reassessed, it is currently start-class while being longer and more detailed than Worship, which is C-class.T8612 (talk) 10:08, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support another form of a ritual. GuzzyG (talk) 14:21, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support. We don't really need both ritual and worship at this level, and ritual is the brodar subject. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support. While Ritual covers many non-religion items, Worship is not a vital aspect of Religion. Belief is much more vital. wumbolo ^^^ 08:10, 8 September 2018 (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.
PASSED:
Added 6-3 Cobblet (talk) 20:58, 10 September 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.

Add Tanzania

Africa is underrepresented in the countries list.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 06:21, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Tanzania happens to be the most populous country in the world currently not listed. This in itself makes it the logical next country to add; we last added Colombia which has a smaller population. I also think it is important to have a list of countries that is representative of the world's diversity, and adding Tanzania would help achieve that in several ways. Tanzania is a least developed country, of which we currently list only three (out of 35 countries in total), even though they comprise about a quarter of the world's countries and 13% of the world's population. East Africa is also underrepresented – from this region of over 400 million people we only list Ethiopia, which accounts for only a quarter of the region's population. Tanzania is of exceptional interest both geographically (Kilimanjaro, the Rift Valley, the Great Lakes, the Serengeti) and culturally (Olduvai Gorge, Kilwa, Zanzibar). And I wouldn't describe Tanzania as not an English-speaking country: English remains widely used in academia, in the media, and in the legal system. Cobblet (talk) 22:03, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support pbp 20:56, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support a good nomination. Per above though I would be tempted to add at least one of Tanzania and Kenya onto the list even if they had a smaller population or lacked a English-speaking heritage, simply because they are home to the oldest hominid fossils in the world and IMO punch above their weight in importance. Gizza (t)(c) 23:11, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support East Africa is under-represented on the countries list, and there are good arguments above for picking this before Kenya. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:28, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support  Carlwev  18:19, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. English-speaking countries like Ireland and New Zealand should be added first, as they are more vital to the English Wikipedia. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:31, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. First of all, Africa is not underrepresented in the countries list: Africa is one-seventh of the world's population, and is currently represented by precisely 5 out of 34 countries: DR Congo, Egypt, Ethiopia, Nigeria, and South Africa. (Note that the listed number 35 includes the Country article itself.) Regarding underrepresented regions in general: The 200 million inhabitants of the state of Uttar Pradesh are only represented by a single entity with a larger population than Africa as a whole. I don't think that the 5% of the world's population that lives in East Africa being represented by only one country-level article is a big deal, especially when we have other, much more underrepresented regions. By continent-level, though, if we were trying to make everything even by population... (Done quite imprecisely, may be some errors.)
    • Africa: Currently 5, should be 5.
    • Americas: Currently 6 (North America 3, South America 3), should be 5 (North America 3, South America 2).
    • Oceania: Currently 1, should be 0.
    • Europe: Currently 7, should be 3.
    • Asia: Currently 15, should be 21.
      • South Asia: Currently 4, should be 9.
      • East Asia: Currently 3, should be 8.
      • Southeast Asia: Currently 5, should be 3.
      • Western Asia: Currently 3, should be 1.
      • Central Asia: Currently 0, should be 0.
    We probably want to keep some of the region imbalance to preserve some countries that are important beyond their populations, but balancing things does not mean adding more African countries in particular. --Yair rand (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Tanzania ranks 109 on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries/Popular pages list. The fact that Tanzania is a least developed country is likely a reason why reader interest is lower than countries currently on the Level 3 list. Because fewer readers are looking at the article, there is less of a need to maintain its quality compared to countries that receive more views. I'd also note that Tanzania's high population is a relatively recent phenomenon. According to its article Tanzania's population grew from 44 million to 55 million between 2012 and 2016. In fact Tanzania in 2012 had a smaller population than Ukraine (not listed at L3) had in 2001. There is a need to avoid WP:RECENTISM in this regard. feminist (talk) 17:24, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

Yair Rand is right...but... China and India account for 2.7 billion people and have two representatives on this list, while the other 33 representatives are divided among the world's other 4.9 billion people. That's roughly 150 million people per representative, which comes out to:

  • The rest of Asia: Should be 12, currently 13
    • Middle East (anything from Iran west, excluding fmr. USSR and Egypt): Should be 2, currently 4 (Turkey, Iran, Israel, Saudi Arabia)
    • SE Asia (anything from Myanmar to Indonesia and the Philippines): Should be 4, currently 5 (Indonesia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam)
    • Elsewhere in Asia: Should be 6, currently 4 (Bangladesh, Japan, S. Korea, Pakistan)
  • Africa: Should be 9, currently 5 (Congo DRC, Egypt, Ethiopia, Nigeria, South Africa)
  • N. America: Should be 4, currently 3 (USA, Canada, Mexico)
  • S. America: Should be 3, currently 3 (Argentina, Brazil, Colombia)
  • Europe: Should be 5, currently 7
    • E. Europe: Should be 2, currently 2 (Poland, Russia)
    • W. Europe: Should 3 currently 5 (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, UK)
  • Oceania: Should be 0, currently 1 (Australia)

pbp 20:56, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Removing a continent from having a rep no matter how small is the wrong move. Every G20 country should be on here. GuzzyG (talk) 03:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I have no intention of removing Australia or any other G20 member. But it must be noted that Australia is one of the least-populous countries on the list, and one of the newer ones as well. pbp 13:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion Swahili language should be added [2] before Tanzania Dawid2009 (talk) 05:32, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Recentism concerns things that happened recently that have no lasting significance. Africa's population growth is expected to continue throughout this century, with profound global consequences. The growth of Tanzania's population is not a dank meme, but a serious social and economic issue. Prejudice on the basis of the youthfulness of a country's population or its lower level of economic development are forms of bias we should be avoiding on this list. Cobblet (talk) 07:30, 8 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.

Add Taiwan

We don't list any disputed states on the list. Taiwan is the largest non-UN state in terms of both population and economy. It's a political hotbed, similar to Israel, another relatively small country that we list, which adds to reader interest: Taiwan is one of the top viewed articles on Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries/Popular pages. Also, Taiwan has contributed a lot of technology to our world: TSMC for example is the largest semiconductor foundry in the world, without whom most smartphones and computers would have been impossible.

Support
  1. As nom. feminist (talk) 17:38, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support All countries are vital at this level. --Thi (talk) 17:56, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  3. I'm a Taiwanese, however the reason why I sanction the proposal is not because of my identity but because of Taiwan's high strategic value and semiconductor industry, and the controversies whether Taiwan is indeed a country, and whether Taiwanese form a nation.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:05, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  4. Not including this is actually shocking. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support Dawid2009 (talk) 19:56, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose without swap (Bangladesh?). 35 countries are enough imo, unless there is a discussion to increase the limit (and remove other articles).T8612 (talk) 08:23, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose In Asia, I think Myanmar, Iraq, Afghanistan, and North Korea are all just as geopolitically interesting as Taiwan, and I'd consider the first three to be more significant from a historical and cultural point of view. Taiwan is not only smaller in population than all of these countries, but it's even smaller than a city like Shanghai, which I think I'd prefer listing first as well. Cobblet (talk) 17:55, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

@Thi: To clarify: Do you think that every country on Earth (~200 articles) should be on the list? That countries should make up 20% of the list? I just want to make sure I didn't misunderstand your statement. --Yair rand (talk) 18:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I think that all 196 independent countries are potentially vital. Limitations are arbitrary, or can we explain briefly to some outsider why his or her country is not listed? Why Lake Victoria and why not Tanzania? We have reached the consensus of 34 countries. Now editors are in disagreement what to add next. We list 132 people because of diversity reasons, but not more countries to cover more Earth's land area and cultures. Perhaps it is a good thing, because biographies add weight to the arts and humanities area. --Thi (talk) 09:05, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it's "arbitrary" to only list 34 countries or 132 people at Level 3, but it's also arbitrary to only list 1,000 articles at Level 3. The reality is that we simply don't have room at Level 3 to list all 200+ countries, which is why we have Level 4. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:07, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I've wondered if our balance between countries and other geographic features is wrong at this level. Most countries are more vital than all but a few dozen cities. I would support having about 50 countries at this level. pbp 13:52, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Countries tend to be the most popular articles on Wikipedia by a mile. Over the last 20 days, the least viewed country article on the list was DR Congo but it was still the 162nd most viewed article, more popular than 80% of the list. 14 of the top 30 most viewed articles are countries. A similar pattern emerges if you look at pageviews over a longer period of time. A case can be made to increase to number of countries, though I'd prefer to not remove any of the non-country geography articles, apart from a few cities. All traditional encyclopedias cover natural geographic topics like rivers, seas and mountains in depth and Wikipedia should be no exception. Geography as a whole should have 100 articles at least. Gizza (t)(c) 04:45, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
In my opinion if we try add more countries or states to level 2, we also should add more languages. Swahili language and Hebrew language have littly fewer pageviews than Tanzania and Jerusalem but these languages also should be describe in encyclopedia at the level 3. According to global language system Swahili certainly is one of 13 the most important languages ([3]) and Hebrew is historically important language. Dawid2009 (talk) 16:43, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
It would be interesting to see a complete list of countries by page views. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:11, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Remove Garden

An article about planned spaces for plants just doesn't seem like a Level 3 article to me.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:10, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose per previous discussion. --Cobblet (talk) 19:46, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Garden or gardening is one of the most important topics. [4] --Thi (talk) 21:52, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose I think gardening or park are slightly better choices but I won't support an outright removal. Gizza (t)(c) 23:53, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

Garden was added 2 years ago, the discussion is here [5]. I know consensus can change, just wanted users to be aware of the previous discussion.  Carlwev  19:04, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Move proposal at Talk:Hegira

A move proposal is open regarding the correct title/spelling for the article on the prophet Muhammad's journey to Medina. Participants in this project may be interested in participating at Talk:Hegira. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:35, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

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)
Oppose
  1. Oppose We should not be removing marketing unless we're adding advertising back. Cobblet (talk) 17:00, 17 September 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)

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)
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
Discuss

Add Los Angeles

Second largest city in the world's largest english speaking country, and in the top 20 urban and metropolitan areas of the world by population.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Dmartin969 (talk) 22:15, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support. No brainer. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:34, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support But If we add Los Angeles, Washington should be added too. Anyway in my opinion cities from USA should be more favorized before small English-language countries. We make encyclopedia for readers of ENwiki (we do not favorize English-language concepts/concepts from English-language world, we favorize concepts for readers of ENwiki). ~~40% readers are from USA and ~~30% are from non-English language countires. Based on it I could say that American who is known only in USA still can has more pageview than American who has more influence worldwide than USA. But person from small English-language country always will has more pageviews if she/he has influence for worldwide. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I think the better add is 'California': Captures Hollywood, LA, Silicon Valley, San Francisco, etc. We don't have any subnational units that aren't cities despite the fact that states and provinces are a major organizational form of the modern world. And when we talk about subnational units like states or provinces: California is probably the most vital in the world (regardless of language being spoken...and if India isn't counting as an English speaking country then LA certainly isn't an English speaking city). Adding California captures much more important aspects of human existence than just LA does and diversifies our list by adding the most important sub-national unit in the world which is a class that is glaringly absent. AbstractIllusions (talk) 01:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
    If we're adding subnational units, I would think that Uttar Pradesh with its population of 200 million people would make a better choice. --Yair rand (talk) 18:58, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. --Yair rand (talk) 18:58, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose I support reducing the number of cities slightly per previous discussion. Otherwise I agree and think that Los Angeles is definitely a top 20 city. Maybe not top 15 though. Gizza (t)(c) 06:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose It's not a terrible choice, but I would take at least Dubai, Karachi and Shanghai ahead of LA. And if we had to add more North American geography articles I think Caribbean and Central America should be added before we include LA (or California, for that matter). Cobblet (talk) 16:58, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per Cobblet. RJFJR (talk) 19:32, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

I live near Los Angeles, but b) I think there's probably already too many cities and too few countries. pbp 01:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

So if states are more vital than cities why New York (state) is not before New York City? Dawid2009 (talk) 08:26, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Because San Diego, San Jose and San Francisco are all more vital than Buffalo, I suppose. California is twice the population of New York and has a lot more going on outside of its largest city. There are 34 million Californians that live outside of the CITY of Los Angeles and only 11 million New Yorkers that live outside the CITY of New York. There are 21 million Californians that live outside the LA Metro Area (25 if you consider San Bern/Riverside to be a separate metro) and only six or seven million New Yorkers that live outside the NY metro area. pbp 13:41, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
I never said that "states are more vital than cities". I said that we don't have any states and that states can be vital as a separate category from cities. I think including 'California' is the better addition and would render LA largely redundant. I did consider Uttar Pradesh too (amongst others), but beyond population, California is the 5th largest economy in the world (UP is #2 in India and above 50 if it was an independent country), it generates almost 1/15th of the world's patents, and then we include Hollywood, the music industry, and the higher ed system and I really don't think anything compares to California. But once again, much of this is outside of L.A. Hence, why 'California' is more vital to a comprehensive list than L.A. AbstractIllusions (talk) 00:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
California is the country subdivision with the largest economy on a nominal basis in the world as per List of country subdivisions by GDP over 100 billion US dollars. Not sure if it would be as high on a PPP basis but that's another matter. Another region that stands out is England. There is overlap with the United Kingdom and London but I'd still consider it more vital than say, Ireland. California is arguably more influential than England right now but historically England was much more influential than California over the past few hundred years. Having said that, my preference within geography is to either boost the number of countries or natural geography like another river, lake or desert. The Ganges should be in before Uttar Pradesh. Gizza (t)(c) 06:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles&oldid=860546755"
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