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 ArticlesWikipedia:WikiProject Vital ArticlesTemplate:WikiProject Vital ArticlesVital Articles articles
The purpose of this discussion page is to manage the Level 3 list of 1,000 topics for which Wikipedia should have high-quality articles (e.g. at
WP:FA and
WP:GA status). See the table to the right (on desktop) or above (on mobile) showing the historic distribution of Level 3 articles.
All level 3 nominations must be of an article already listed at
level 4.
All proposals must remain open for !voting for a minimum of 15 days, after which:
After 15 days it may be closed as PASSED if there are (a) 5 or more supports, AND (b) at least two-thirds are in support.
After 30 days it may be closed as FAILED if there are (a) 3 or more opposes, AND (b) it failed to earn two-thirds support.
After 30 days it may be closed as NO CONSENSUS if the proposal hasn't received any !votes for +30 days, regardless of tally.
After 60 days it may be closed as NO CONSENSUS if the proposal has (a) less than 5 supports, AND (b) less than two-thirds support.
Nominations should be left open beyond the minimum if they have a reasonable chance of passing. An informed discussion with more editor participation produces an improved and more stable final list, so be patient with the process.
For reference, the following times apply for today:
I know that there have been RfMs on moving this page to Vital Article Level 3 (which have failed), but I think the issue is that in the absence of a proper Vital Article landing page, this was the best fit, which makes sense.
However, I do find the Vital Article Project at times confusing to engage with and navigate, and the RfC above on the top icon shows that wider members of the Wikipedia community have chequered views of the VA Project.
I think there should be a proper VA landing page that explains the project, it's guidelines (e.g. can a redlink be nominated, must an article start at Level 5 before going higher etc.). There is a lot of good work being done here (and as the academic paper above highlights), but it is very easy to miss it (and even dismiss it, per above).
Aszx5000 (
talk) 16:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Even this
WikiProject Vital Articles page is not right. It is all about how to bring VA to GA/FA status. Instead, it should be about the policies and guidelines about how Vital articles are chosen and how to participate productively in those discussions. It is unusual that some editors from GA/FA (per the top icon RfC above) are dismissive of VA, but according to the VA main page, the sole focus is how to bring VA articles to GA/FA status? Instead, the VA main page should be about the process of adding/removing VAs imho.
Aszx5000 (
talk) 12:29, 31 December 2023 (UTC)reply
I agree that an improved landing page is needed. Separating from level 3 might be the best idea. If you could mock up a proposed page then it might help — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk) 17:55, 31 December 2023 (UTC)reply
I would be willing to try. Can you give me some pointers about how I would do that? I have never done such a thing outside of article creation? Should we set up a sandbox version that we could all have a go at? thanks.
Aszx5000 (
talk) 12:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Final question, I am going to try an draft a page that focuses on the policies/guidelines etc for adding/removing VAs. I thought that the
Wikipedia:New pages patrol front page would be a good template as it lists in detail the policies/guidelines/tools for NPP. Obviously, NPP is a more complex process, however, would such a template/approach work?
Aszx5000 (
talk) 20:02, 7 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I will reserve judgement until I have seen your proposed page :) Then I will comment constructively — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk) 20:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC)reply
That is very helpful and what I would like the landing page to feature prominently. thanks.
Aszx5000 (
talk)
Aszx5000 (
talk) 15:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Any progress with this @
Aszx5000? — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk) 18:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I have been away for a few weeks but going to give this a go in March and see where I get to.
Aszx5000 (
talk) 13:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Haven't forgotten but have been time constrained lately and trying to finish the overhaul of major
climbing articles.
Aszx5000 (
talk) 10:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Finally, I have made a start on the landing page at
User:Aszx5000/Vital articles. Better than I can add tabs and navigation but I thought that a landing page that has the key guidelines and policies (and captures what has been agreed and not agreed historically), and a link to its talk page for VA discussion (and not on Level 3's talk page) would be an improvement? All comments welcome - feel free to edit the draft as needed.
Aszx5000 (
talk) 23:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I think the section "What makes an article "vital"?" could be further expanded with more reasons, right now the criteria seems to have been randomly selected. The
Blue Rider 16:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)reply
"what makes an article vital" is from the existing
Wikipedia:Vital articles/Frequently Asked Questions, that
User:MSGJ pointed me too for content. All of these sections and wordings would need to be collaboratively agreed, but the key is whether we should have a 'VA landing page' like this that summarizes what goes on at VA, and how to get involved, as well as having a separate talk page, instead of this VA 3 talk page for general discussion.
Aszx5000 (
talk) 16:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The FAQ was never agreed upon and there are more criteria worth including, I would strongly recommend using the scientific paper that was done on this project. The
Blue Rider 12:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Agreed, and hopefully this process with improve on that. Where is that paper?
Aszx5000 (
talk) 12:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I think this is a great start! A good definition of a vital article would indeed be useful (if such a thing exists) — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk) 19:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks MSGJ! My expectation that if we can get the a "framework" agreed (i.e. headings and ideas), the rest can flow. Even through my version is crude, hopefully others will find the idea of a 'landing page' useful to VA, which will help collate things in one area and allow others to engage in VA easily? thanks again.
Aszx5000 (
talk) 19:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)reply
New Vital Article 'landing page'
Per
this discussion, I have created a crude draft 'landing page' for VA (and its talk page would be the VA talk page) at
User:Aszx5000/Vital articles. Pinging @
MSGJ: and @
Interstellarity: who were also involved in the discussion. All reactions welcome ! thanks. 11:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Although I encourage you to keep working on the page, I think it is a great start. Take any advice the editors give you and it will be successful.
Interstellarity (
talk) 20:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I would suggest swapping out Hitler for Mandela or perhaps Genghis Khan as an example of leaders, else you run afoul of the very next point, avoiding Western bias (since Einstein and Shakespeare are already "Western").
BD2412T 21:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Done that change. Feel free anybody to make changes directly as you see fit. If we can get a basic version of this up and running, the 'Landing Page 2.0s' will follow soon after I'm sure. thanks.
Aszx5000 (
talk) 22:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I would also recommend that once the page is finalized, we could do away with the FAQ listed at the top since much of the landing page would answer a lot of the FAQs. I don't think the FAQs are updated on a regular basis so it would be great to make sure we get something that is updated and modern for this list.
Interstellarity (
talk) 23:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)reply
That makes sense, and why I think that it is better to have as much as possible on a 'landing page' to avoid material in the 'back pages' that gets outdated.
Aszx5000 (
talk) 10:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
If the article is added to a new VA list (or the Level 5 list for the first time), does the bot automatically update the article's talk page that it is a vital article, or does the closer have do physically it?
If an article is removed from Level 4, should the closer check to make sure that it is still on the Level 5 list (in case it disappears)?
Perhaps @
Starship.paint might be able to look at this and advise? — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk) 08:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
That would be great. If we solved this "Executing a close" section, then I think we are almost there in terms of getting a basic 'landing page 1.0' published, and per TheBlueRider above, we should have a longer discussion about the criteria, and filling out some of the subsections such as Statistics (I have seen some very interesting stats on VAs in various locations). Should we ping a wider group of VA participants now to get their reaction? thanks. 08:57, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Aszx5000 (
talk) 08:57, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
If there are no further comments, shall we move ahead with this? — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk) 09:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Split this talk page. Discussions related to level 3 articles, will be moved to
Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/3. Discussions that relate to vital articles in general, will stay here.
User:Kanashimi: do we need to change Cewbot's configuration to do this? — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk) 12:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Sounds good! thanks MSGJ for executing this.
Aszx5000 (
talk) 17:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Proposal: six-month no-revisit rule
I'd like to propose, at all five levels of VA, that if a proposal reaches consensus, you can't make a counterproposal against that for at least six months. For example, if consensus resulted in an article being added, you can't propose to remove that article for six months. If consensus resulted in an article being added, you can't propose to remove that article for six months. Etc. etc. swaps are a little more complicated though pbp 01:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I think this makes sense, and we should have a page of general guidelines for VA on a VA "homepage" (which I am going to try an construct when I have time).
Aszx5000 (
talk) 13:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC)reply
When I see a nomination that has recently been discussed, I usually ask if they would close the discussion so that we can focus on other stuff rather than rehashing what we have recently resolved. This makes complete sense.-
TonyTheTiger (
T /
C /
WP:FOUR /
WP:CHICAGO /
WP:WAWARD) 20:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose
per Aurangzebra. It would just be an unnecessary bureaucratic hindrance for new members to engage in the project. Links or results of a previous disscusions can always be mentioned in the proposals and hopefully reflected, but mandating this as a rule feels needless.
Respublik (
talk) 17:57, 30 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Just to illustrate the point, I would only support this if the period for auto and manual archiving in all the relevant levels would be extended to six months after a closure.
Respublik (
talk) 17:57, 30 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Per Respublik. We need fewer rules, not more.
feminist🩸 (
talk) 06:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Having re-considered, it will be too cumbersome to police and probably not needed.
Aszx5000 (
talk) 17:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Discussion
good idea in theory but in my experience (aka when I do this), it's primarily an accident and it's infeasible to expect that people search through the archives any time they want to post a proposal.
Aurangzebra (
talk) 19:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Not removed 3-3, nominated three months ago, no votes in a week. Some support a swap with
Smartphone4, can be proposed as a follow-up. starship.paint (
RUN) 15:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose Important in economy and culture. Telephone is more like history topic. --
Thi (
talk) 09:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose - mobile phone covers smartphone, but telephone does not. We need to have either mobile phone or smartphone here. starship.paint (
RUN) 09:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't have an opinion on the swap just yet, But I would fine with it if other people think it would be OK.
Interstellarity (
talk) 01:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I would also support Smartphone at V3, which has had a massive global impact.
Aszx5000 (
talk) 18:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)reply
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.
Not removed 1-3, not added 2-1. Perhaps an individual nomination of Peter the Great, or another swap, can be proposed because two of the opposers seemed open to it. starship.paint (
RUN) 08:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Peter is one of the key rulers that changed Russia totally. There is even such expression "pre-Petrine Russia", there is no such expression as "pre-Catherinian Russia". Russian history is clearly divided into before (with the boyars, without any schools, without navy) and after Peter (with Governing Senate, with Academy of Sciences, with a big navy). His importance cannot be overstated.
Interstellarity (
talk) 13:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose We don't list key rulers of all sorts of countries, but we do need some significant historical women on the list.
Cobblet (
talk) 15:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose per Cobblet (although Russia is a huge country and at times a huge Empire, so perhaps we could have them both)?
Aszx5000 (
talk) 10:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I strongly oppose the removal of Catherine the Great, but I'm very much open to the addition of Peter the Great. Catherine II was a pivotal figure during the European Age of Enlightenment and served during the height of Russia's imperial evolution. Peter the Great would be a very good inclusion as he played an enormous role in Russian history, but that would mean a third Russian/Soviet leader in the list alongside Stalin and Catherine II (Egypt has three so I guess it wouldn't be unprecedented).
Idiosincrático (
talk) 16:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Neutral
Discussion
Going to reserve judgment on Peter the Great because I'm not a huge expert on Russian history but it is worth nothing that a proposal to remove Catherine the Great recently
lost 6-2 and I think Grnrchst's reasoning on that thread is pretty compelling. I would vote again to reject any proposal that wants to remove Catherine the Great.
Aurangzebra (
talk) 05:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Such a distribution between the three sectors is imbalanced, and within the primary sector, hunting is arguably the least important: most animals produced for human consumption (either for meat or animal products) are farmed (i.e., agriculture), not hunted. A case can be made for removing fishing instead, given that it is a subtopic of agriculture and
seafood comprises a minority of meat consumed in most countries around the world, however it is probably a more widespread practice than hunting, so my preference is for the removal of hunting. Given that the tertiary sector is mostly about the provision of services, adding
Service (economics)4 makes sense.
Support per nom.
Gizza(
talk) 04:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Support the original proposal of removing hunting and adding service. Oppose the new swap of removing Bow and arrow (which is both a significant hunting tool and military weapon) and adding service.
Gizza(
talk) 01:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Support removal --
Thi (
talk) 12:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Support. Both removal and swap.
Aszx5000 (
talk) 13:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose
Oppose Bow and arrow should be removed first. --
Thi (
talk) 09:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose, Hunting was the only way all of humanity fed itself for over 90% of its existence, before agriculture was common. Food and Agriculture are at level 2, at level 3 we start listing several animals and food and drink types and crops, I would prefer to keep hunting, seems more vital in the long run than soybean, cheese, tea, chicken, egg. I also agree hunting may be more vital than bow and arrow.
Carlwev 12:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
We are over quota at 1,003, and we already list
Algebra3 which includes abstract algebra. Something has got to go here. starship.paint (
RUN) 09:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)reply
We are over quota at 1,003. Jainism has only around 5 million followers. Compare to
Judaism3 (15+ million),
Sikhism3 (25+ million),
Buddhism3 (500+ million).... starship.paint (
RUN) 14:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Support per nom. --
Thi (
talk) 18:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Support per nom. It's importance has waned sufficiently to downgrade.
Aszx5000 (
talk) 13:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose
Oppose as strongly as possible. While Jainism may have fewer followers today then other major religions, it has major historical significance. It is one of the worlds oldest religions, and had impacts on Alexander the Greats campaign. There are many other articles that could be moved down.
GeogSage (
⚔Chat?⚔) 18:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose per above. All of the world's major religions are key topics that are covered in traditional encyclopedias.
Gizza(
talk) 01:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Discuss
Proposal: Create AI generated summaries of each entity on the vital articles page explaining the importance of each individual.
I think it would be helpful for our readers that may question why a particular article is listed. I understand that AI has the potential to make mistakes so I would suggest doing it for a few articles and correct any errors it makes. Rather than directing to the article to figure it out themselves, it would be helpful to have a sentence or two explaining the importance of each one.
Interstellarity (
talk) 21:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)reply
And how is AI supposed to know why something is considered vital, or why X2 is more vital than X1 in talk page consensus? Don't get me wrong, I see the viewpoint here, but it just sounds flawed. I think manual descriptions for V1-V4 listings are feasible, though V5 would certainly be a whole other beast. λNegativeMP1 16:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Since the selection of the articles were all made by users, it seems feasible for users to personally write a summation of the reasoning to annotate the vital articles list.
isaacl (
talk) 18:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I would love to see an 'AI-sense check' on some of our Level 3 sub-sections. For example for
Wikipedia:Vital Articles#Leaders and politicians, where I am sure that the AI would rank
Constantine the Great4 on a Level 3-type list of most influential leaders in history, and not some of our existing entries (per below).
Aszx5000 (
talk) 16:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Extremely common structure, most of us live in them, many of us work in them, also used for shopping, schooling, airports etc. starship.paint (
RUN) 02:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Since we have
Martin Luther3 on here, I think we should have Ali on here as well. The whole issue on whether he should have succeeded Muhammad immediately is the reason why Islam is mostly split into Sunni and Shia, and unlike the relationship between Catholicism and Protestantism, tensions between the two branches still flare up from time to time.
Per nom. Ali is definitely second to Muhammad in Islam.
Aszx5000 (
talk) 16:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Fair to have a second person for Islam. starship.paint (
RUN) 13:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose
Discuss
@
SailorGardevoir: - can you propose to remove something? We are already over quota. I firmly believe that nominators and supporters should do the work to keep us within the quota, instead of having other editors have to put in the effort to find more articles to remove. starship.paint (
RUN) 07:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)reply
BLPs do not belong at V3, even if they are as notable as Gates, but I am not as opposed to Jobs and would support his addition if Ford must be removed.
Vileplume 🍋🟩 (
talk) 02:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I just want to make this clear, I'm really just doing this so I can get my Ali proposal passed.
SailorGardevoir (
talk) 10:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose there are some business people whose companies changed the course of human history,
Henry Ford3 is definitely one, as is
Steve Jobs4 (who should be at level 3). In contrast,
Bill Gates4 got very rich on an over-priced OS system and is not at the same level.
Aszx5000 (
talk) 16:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
There are plenty of editors that suggested a straight addition rather than a swap with Catherine. My reasoning is in the above discussion.
Interstellarity (
talk) 11:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Meh, weak support; while he is probably fit for this level, we are over quota at V3 and I'm afraid it'd overrepresent Russia in that regard (Peter, Catherine, and Stalin) since we don't have key rulers of all sorts of countries, such as
Mustafa Kemal Atatürk4.
Vileplume 🍋🟩 (
talk) 12:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Joan of Arc would probably come to mind if I was asked for the ten most vital women to world history. She should be kept, especially since we removed
Frida Kahlo4.
Vileplume 🍋🟩 (
talk) 18:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
That makes sense to me.
Aszx5000 (
talk) 18:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Neutral
Discussion
@
Interstellarity: - any other article you would like to propose to remove, or any support for any removals listed above? starship.paint (
RUN) 03:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I think we should remove an article since we are over quota. Calligraphy seems to make the most sense being removed since there are other topics more important.
Interstellarity (
talk) 09:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Removed 7-0, proposed 20+ days ago and no comments in 8 days. starship.paint (
RUN) 03:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article does not compare in scale with WWII, the Industrial Revolution, and the Information Age.
Interstellarity (
talk) 00:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Based on the preview popup image I first thought it'd be about prehistoric development of agriculture, but then I read further and realised this is about events in the 20th century. Far less foundational than
Neolithic Revolution3, redundant to
History of agriculture3 at this level.--
LaukkuTheGreit (
Talk•
Contribs) 08:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We should list
Korea4 over
South Korea3 since we have broad coverage of the whole Korean Peninsula. The broad coverage of the Korean Peninsula and its history is more vital than the country of South Korea itself. At level 4, we list
History of Korea while
History of South Korea and
History of North Korea are at level 5. We should do a similar thing at this level.
Interstellarity (
talk) 16:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Korea has been unified for most of its history; South Korea, throughout its short-history, is most certaintly not a level 3 country. The
Blue Rider 12:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Ukraine is also a relatively recent social construct that was part of Russia or the Commonwealth for the majority of its history in the past millennium. It is also significantly less vital than South Korea.
Vileplume 🍋🟩 (
talk) 17:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose
Strong oppose; South Korea is no doubt a vital country at V3, and I'd much rather add North Korea than Korea.
Vileplume 🍋🟩 (
talk) 23:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose History of East Asia is listed at this level. --
Thi (
talk) 09:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Neutral
Discussion
If we're adding more regions as opposed to countries, let's start with the
Balkans4.
Vileplume 🍋🟩 (
talk) 23:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Contra the supporters, the country list at VA3 is much more from a modern perspective than a historical perspective. If we want to change that fact, first priority is removing
United Arab Emirates3. J947 ‡ edits 22:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Due to the country's geopolitical significance, it seems reasonable to list either the UAE or Dubai at this level. I might support a swap with Iraq, though.
Vileplume 🍋🟩 (
talk) 01:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Move Laozi and Homer to other categories
We moved Moses and Abraham out of people and into religion because they were not placed into people at level 4. As I understand, the reasoning for not placing them there at level 4 is because historians generally consider them legendary figures and not real people. But I can't figure out why this would only apply to religious figures. In level 3,
Homer and
Laozi, in particular, are widely considered to be not real people. Both are generally believed to have been invented to be writers for the works now attributed to them, which were actually written by various other people. I suggest moving them out of the people category because they are not people. As to the new destinations, I suggest under literature for Homer and under Eastern philosophy next to Confucianism for Laozi. I believe those are the only two non-people remaining in the people category, but if I am mistaken let me know and I'll add that to the list.
Ladtrack (
talk) 07:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply