Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Marco Polo

The vital article Marco Polo is currently (for the next week) the focus of the spotlight. Please assist if possible.  Chzz  ►  21:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Windmill, watermill

Should the windmill and watermill articles be included as vital articles? Mankind has used the former for about 1,000 years and the latter for over 2,000 years. Mjroots (talk) 06:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

There's always the question on a limited list like this of what you'd remove to allow the insertion. Also, under technology, hydropower and wind power are already included and the semi-related articles dam and canal are also included. Dam. Smallbones (talk) 13:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
For what it's worth, there's a massive fond of newly contributed archival quality windmill images on commons, still being categorized. The fonds was catalogued in German. It may turn out that Windmill becomes one of our best articles. See de:Windmühle for comparison. LeadSongDog come howl 19:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Fungus is at FAC

This is a big vital article and is at FAC, so all input on how to improve the article welcome. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Of the major groups of living things (kingdom rank or higher) only Archaea and Bacteria have made it to FA. Plant and Animal still have a lot of work to be done before they could be considered, so getting Fungus to FA would be wonderful. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Congrats on the FA! Now I know why Casliber always reminded me of mushrooms. When is it going to be on the main page? Is there a birthday? Smallbones (talk) 20:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Athletes

This page needs some athletes. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The ultimate question is not going to be "Who to include?" That's too easy to come up with names
Michael Jordan, Jesse Owens, Jim Brown, Jim Thorpe, Babe Ruth, Bobby Hull, Wayne Gretsky, etc. etc.
This is going to have to be an extremely short list - see how many 20th century musicians/composers there are - 4!
but who to exclude among the other people on this list (since the list size is limited)
with a quick look all I can see is Salvador Dali that I'd like to get rid of!. Smallbones (talk) 20:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
It would certainly be a long discussion on which athletes to include. I can't even agree with myself! Smallbones (talk) 03:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, looking at the old masters in the artists section, there's too many of them. Someone created and "Artists" section, and now we have two painters from Italy, two painters from the Netherlands, and two painters from Spain. Is painting really that important?
More generally, it looks like the section headers are biasing this big time. If you have a section named "Mathematicians", you get too many math guys. Where are the chemists? I guess they're forced to compete with Einstein, Newton, and Tesla in the "Inventors and scientists" category. I'd also be curious to know how many of the 120 are white males. I'd almost like to see a cateory called "Women and People of Color" since they aren't going to get much play with an actual category.
But that's another story. I agree with Dali, and would also suggest Henri Poincaré. Those two sections have too many people. A lot of the other sections are too big as well, but we have to start somewhere. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't include any Athletes. Of the list mentioned only Jesse Owens would be an educational article. The rest would be a boring articles full of sports statistics. And the comment above "Is painting really that important?" proves the need for articles about that subject. --MarsRover (talk) 22:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
You might want to check out Jackie Robinson for an athlete who changed the world. His contributions to civil rights have been commented on by some as one of the most important people in history.
Not sure what you mean about the painters. Entire classes of people were affected by them how? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Could you really put Jackie Robinson above the Babe? Or would you want to have 2 baseball players in such a short list? Remember, I didn't even put in Pele from the world's most popular sport, football (aka soccer), and what about cricket, swimming (Johnny Weismuller), skiing, sumo, Ancient Greeks, not to mention managers and coaches. I don't think it'll ever happen on this list. Smallbones (talk) 04:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
WP:COREBIO focuses on biographical articles only, and it has a few athletes in there, if anyone is interested. Perhaps there was a previous discussion to try and avoid any overlaps between that and here? Gary King (talk) 06:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Interesting list, which BTW pretty much matches what we have above! Out of about 180 bios, 6+ are sportsmen (no sportswomen). Their list is M.Jordan, Jackie Robinson, Mohammed Ali (should have been above!), Pele, Ruth, and Owens. The + is Bruce Lee, but this is very questionable in at least 2 ways, and I'm not counting G. Marconi, who only briefly played 3rd base for the Pirates. Smallbones (talk) 18:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

So five of the six "greatest" athletes in all of history are from the United States, and four are African-American? I never realized before that other countries don't have great athletes. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, obviously Jim Thorpe should be added, if only for balance. Smallbones (talk) 22:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
So can we add a couple athletes? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
For reasons stated above, I don't think it could ever work out. But if you want to go further, I'd first select 2 people to delete, select 2 people to insert (Thorpe and Pele?) and convince a dozen editors. Smallbones (talk) 22:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
How about Pele and Ali? In any case, what do you mean by convince a dozen people? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

miscat

Anyone know how Talk:Physics is getting into Category:Unassessed Vital articles? Looks like Category:Unassessed vital articles was the intended location. --Pascal666 23:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Virus

I think Virus should be considered a vital article, as it is a subject of central importance in biology. Emw2012 (talk) 22:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

After reading the FAQ for this page, I suggest that Virus replace Homosexuality as a vital biology-related article. While homosexuality is an important subject, I think viruses are more essential to discuss in an encylopedia. Emw2012 (talk) 22:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
What are others' thoughts on this? My rationale is that viruses are a very prominent subject in biology: they are deeply diverse, are a major driver of evolution, and are immediately relevant in the everyday lives of people by virtue of their role in disease. Homosexuality is a topic of significant interest in any encyclopedia, but I don't think it is as vital to include as an article on viruses -- at least in a section devoted specifically to biology. Emw2012 (talk) 21:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not against adding virus, but I would remove on of the four domesticated animals from under mammals. Probably cattle or horse, but not totally sure. Horses have only been important to some peoples at some times. Not sure if we've always been eating cattle (I know I have). I think cats and dogs are pretty universal in recorded history, or maybe cats aren't. Not sure. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
That makes sense; maybe domesticated animals are a bit over-represented. Supporting my original suggestion, however, is the fact that Homosexuality isn't listed as being in the scope of any wikiprojects that readily fall under the natural sciences classification (i.e. LGBT studies, Philosophy, Sociology, Sexuality). The wikiprojects listed for Horse seem to be closer to something biological in nature: Agriculture, Equine, and Mammal -- the last two distinctly so. Emw2012 (talk) 23:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Maybe an article on animal husbandry is better than cattle. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
What about Domestication? Maybe we should look at page views, like below. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Ooh yes. Good idea (to both). Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I'd support removing Cattle, Cat, Dog, and Horse, and then add Animal husbandry and Domestication under Animal. Then we can also add Virus to Biology, plus one new article. Gary King (talk) 05:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I support that. For the one new article, I suggest Genetic drift. It is one of the two engines of evolution. Only having Natural selection under the 'Evolution' sub-category seems lop-sided. Emw2012 (talk) 19:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay that article is fine, unless we come up with a better one. Gary King (talk) 20:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and made the change, replacing Cat, Cattle, Dog and Horse with Animal husbandry, Domestication, Genetic drift and Virus. Emw (talk) 00:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Time has come to discuss expanding this list

At the risk of opening a can of worms, I suggest expanding this list come under discussion. The music section has ten entries, for example, out of a thousand. That's too thin, in my view. Let's consider doubling the overall list of Vital Articles to two thousand. As to timeframe, I suggest six to nine months of discussion, followed by selection of a Nominating Panel of seven to fifteen Judges and a final period of debate and selection. Jusdafax 11:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it has 20, if you count the Musicians articles. Also, did you look at Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Expanded, which is linked in the page header? --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I did. Some of my proposed new thousand could and would come off that list, of course. But I think the current setup makes that expanded list a 'de facto' second-class group. As for 20 instead of ten articles, it is only still 2% of the total. Jusdafax 19:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
The expanded list was probably created to please anyone who believes that a 1,000-article limit is too restrictive. We need the fixed limit, otherwise people will keep wanting to add more articles to the list. The limit helps us to carefully select the 1,000 most important articles that every encyclopedia should have, in theory. You can either add whatever articles you deem is essential to every encyclopedia to the expanded list, or propose new articles to add to this list of 1,000 articles and suggest which articles they should replace that are currently in the list. Gary King (talk) 20:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Your point is noted. I'd submit in return that Wikipedia keeps growing since the 1,000 articles were established, and therefore the list has become a smaller and smaller percentage of Wikipedia as a whole. I think doubling the 'official' list is not unreasonable under those circumstances. I do, however, also admit the process would require effort. Jusdafax 21:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it should be expanded. 1000 is plenty as far as vitalness goes. I wouldn't mind seeing a musician or two replaced by an athlete, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
The number of articles that Wikipedia has has nothing to do with what articles should be considered the most important to any encyclopedia. Gary King (talk) 00:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes I wonder about this list, I mean, how often does someone want to know about the subject History itself? Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Quite often, if its page view statistics can be used to infer something. A list of vital articles seems to be based (also, if not exclusively) on an assumed hierarchy of knowledge that's independent of how frequently users are interested in a given subject in itself. So articles about topics like history are prioritized, even if readers tend to be interested in more granular knowledge within that subject. Emw2012 (talk) 00:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I've wondered about that too. Those huge scope articles are some of our worst. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
If nothing else I've instigated discussion on improving some of the big-ticket 1000. But I still wonder if there is much support for an expanded list. One thing I feel is that the number 1000 is a nice looking one, and may be a factor in some not wishing to change it. A theory, I admit. Jusdafax 00:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
It will not be changed from 1000: that theory is correct.
Using conversation to instigate improvement of the big ticket articles appears to be an incorrect theory. ;-) - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Writing systems

Either the current writing systems listed (under alphabet instead of writing where they probably should be since not all writing systems are alphabets, see abugida) should be reduced or at least one of them should be replaced with Devanagari. It's used to write languages that have a far higher number of speakers than Hangul, Greek, or Cyrillic. If pressed I'd say Hangul would be the one that should be replaced. - Taxman Talk 15:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

2 more

I noticed there was two duplicates (mass and weight) so we need two more articles (preferably science to keep the numbers nice and round). Voxii (talk) 02:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Possible deletions

The following are from the Arts and culture section.

  1. Art museum - Redundant with museum. Other subclasses of museums are not listed. Museum is listed and is sufficient.
  2. Rhyme - Although a major element of poetry it is out of place since other elements of poetry and prose are not listed.
  3. Epic poetry - Perhaps the oldest genre of poetry. Still, no other genres are listed.
  4. Haiku - A popular poetic form but not a particularily vital one.
  5. Sonnet - An important poetic form but other important forms are not listed.
  6. Ballet - Why is this type of performance dance listed and not others? Dance is listed and is sufficient.
  7. Documentary film - Again one specific genre is singled out. Film is listed and is sufficient.
  8. Seven Wonders of the Ancient World - Of these, only the Great Pyramid of Giza possibly merits inclusion.
  9. Illustration - Redundant with painting and drawing which are already listed.
  10. Portrait - Seems like overly narrow subject to me. Somewhat like including religious image or landscape art.
  11. Statue - Redundant with sculpture
  12. Arts and crafts - Just a catchall term for various crafts and creative activities especially when performed by amateurs or children.

—dv82matt 02:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments Matt. Do you have suggestions on which arts and culture articles to replace these with? Cheers,  Skomorokh  02:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps we could add some individual works. Such as maybe:
Painting
  1. Mona Lisa
Literature
  1. One Thousand and One Nights
  2. The Republic
  3. Don Quixote
  4. Epic of Gilgamesh
  5. Iliad
  6. Mahabharata
  7. Odyssey
  8. Shahnameh
Architecture
  1. Colosseum
  2. Angkor Wat
  3. Great Pyramid of Giza
  4. Parthenon
  5. Stonehenge
  6. Taj Mahal
Just spitballing though. I'd like to hear what others think. —dv82matt 03:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The Republic is not exactly an artistic trend setter or world important text.SADADS (talk) 20:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I won't add The Republic. —dv82matt 01:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

As it has been several days and there have been no substantial objections I've gone ahead and made the changes. If there are any objections feel free to revert and discuss. —dv82matt 01:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggested Change in Philosophy and Religion

Why the heck is Haitian Vodou part of this, that article does not have much effect on the rest of human knowledge. I would suggest a change to Animism or Shamanism, two concepts which are fundamental to understanding traditional religions. Thoughts? SADADS (talk) 20:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't object but I will point out that since neither Animism or Shamanism are actually religions this would result in removing the only representative of African religions. (Yes I know Haitian Vodou originated in Haiti but its roots are in West African Vodun.) —dv82matt 01:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't have to be the same sub-category.SADADS (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree. Perhaps you misread my comment? To reiterate Haitian Vodou was probably included so that African religions would be represented. —dv82matt 13:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Right, I did misread... There are not any "major" African religions though. Each one is a regional religion, whereas many of them fall into very broad categories. How about African traditional religion if that is our criterion for inclusion? SADADS (talk) 01:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I think your original suggestion to replace with Animism or Shamanism is better. Just to clarify, I was not opposing your proposal but merely pointing out the likely rational for including Haitian Vodou. I don't think that cultural diversity is the best criteria for inclusion although a lack of it can indicate underlying biases. —dv82matt 02:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
wasn't offended a bit. Will let it set for a little see if anyone else has thoughts.SADADS (talk) 02:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Civilizations and history

imo all ancient civilizations must be included here, i added Phoenicia before reading the "how to add" notice. shouldnt this include all the nations of the world too, how come the koreas dont figure? I dont get why this list is limited to 1000 articles Eli+ 16:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

There is the expanded list if you want a list that has a higher limit. Gary King (talk) 18:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Several suggested changes to Politicians and Leaders

  1. Winston Churchill -> William the Conqueror. I think it's a safe bet to say that William I had more of an influence on British and world history than Churchill did.
  2. I feel the USSR is overrepresented with both Stalin and Lenin, and I'd drop Lenin, especially considering Marx is represented elsewhere.
  3. I'd argue that George Washington was just one of several "founding fathers"; the most feted but not necessarily the most important, and History of the United States might cover all of them adequately. (Lincoln had a singular role in the nation's re-birth, however, and a prominent role in the history of civil rights.)
  4. Is Cleopatra the most important pharaoh? Not Ramesses II? I support trying to maximize female representation on the list, but I'm still not sure her impact on history was that substantial.
  5. Dropping Lenin and Washington would leave us with two vacancies: I suggest Constantine I and... perhaps Muhammad Ali Jinnah.

--Father Goose (talk) 11:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I prefer Churchill - I think recentism would link him with more articles in a CD release. I don't have a problem with your other suggestions. Wizzy…☎ 13:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Agree with a drop of Lenin. Cleopatra is not a pharaoh, she is a Ptolemaic queen and is characteristic of the Greek hegemony over the Mediterranean middle east with the Alexander the Great Successor States, if you were to replace her is should be with one of the other Greek leaders during that period.(She has more impact on both Roman history and popular awareness of this period than most though.) Constantine would make the list too West heavy. Churchill should stay methinks though. Also, Washington should go. Don't know if I like Jinnah.SADADS (talk) 15:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
That hegemony was initiated by Alexander the Great, who is already on the list, and ended by Augustus, who is also on the list. She certainly captured the popular imagination by virtue of her romantic and strategic alliance with Julius and Antony, but what historical changes did she set into motion?
As for the list being too West-heavy, I agree, and I've been hunting down good candidates for rounding it out:
  • Pachacuti, founder of the Inca Empire, is an excellent candidate for representing pre-Columbian society.
  • Deng Xiaoping is an enormously influential figure, having turned China into a market-driven economy; instituting the one-child policy; and overseeing the Tiananmen Square massacre.
  • Baibars or Khalid ibn al-Walid would be my choice for greater Muslim representation -- or Muhammad Ali Jinnah, as I suggested before, who is the founder of the 6th most populous country in the modern world. (While we're at it, I'd like to see Alhazen in the scientists list.)
  • Or now that I think about it, Ali, second only to Muhammad in terms of influencing Muslim history. Definitely Ali.
  • I think Rome is overrepresented by two consecutive leaders, Julius and Augustus. Although Julius Caesar is better known to Western audiences, I'd say Augustus is more representative of Rome at its apex (and more responsible for it).
  • I'd still lobby for Constantine I, however: his reign marks the emergence of the Byzantine Empire, and is probably the single person most responsible for the spread of Christianity throughout Europe (and European government).
I'd also continue lobbying for Ramesses II, as Ancient Egypt is presently unrepresented.--Father Goose (talk) 11:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Nelson Mandela instead of Cleopatra. Represents Africa, and has a world impact more than anyone.
Also, Yes to Pachacuti.
drop Julius.
Lenin should go.
Xiaoping, is too similar to Zedong
Ali sounds good.
Don't know if that leaves room for Constantine.

SADADS (talk) 14:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I like your reasoning regarding Cleopatra -> Mandela. I concede your point about Xiaoping. With the removal of Lenin and Washington, we'd have room for Ali and Pachacuti.
If we remove Julius, that would leave room for one of Constantine or Ramesses. I'm still having trouble justifying Churchill. England already has one representative in the form of Elizabeth. Churchill's greatest legacy is standing up against the Narzis, but anyone would have after 1939, including Chamberlain. Further, about one quarter of the list is 20th-century figures, making it very "recentist", which the FAQ recommends against.--Father Goose (talk) 22:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
(Caesar, Cleopatra, Lenin, Churchill) out, (Ramesses II, Mandela, Ali, Pachacuti) in. I made the changes. Wizzy…☎ 08:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. :-) I also did Washington -> Constantine.--Father Goose (talk) 10:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Add Death to biology subsection

Adding "death" would bring the Science section to 180 articles and the overall list to 1,000. Thoughts? —dv82matt 23:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense to me.--Father Goose (talk) 08:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Cities

  • I'd like to suggest removing Athens from the Cities list. Modern Athens is of limited global significance. Ancient Athens is pretty important, but might be adequately covered via Ancient Greece in the History list.
  • I don't think we should have two American cities (New York and LA). We don't have Mumbai and Delhi, for instance, or Beijing and Shanghai (or Hong Kong).
  • I'm wondering about Istanbul... although it's the fifth largest city proper in the world, it's only about 20th by urban area, and is representative of the 17th largest national economy by GDP. Its significance as Constantinople might be adequately covered via Byzantine Empire. I'm having trouble isolating its importance above other contenders, such as Mexico City, Sydney, Jakarta, Madrid, etc. -- all important in different ways -- so I'd suggest dropping it as well.
  • Dropping two or three from the cities list would create vacancies, naturally... I'd sooner expand Arts or History than shift them elsewhere into Geography.--Father Goose (talk) 09:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't have any strong preferences in this but since no one else has reponded yet I'll give my thoughts. I'd prefer to keep Istanbul in the list. It stands out above Sydney, Jakarta and Madrid in my view. I also have reservations about using any vacancies to expand other sections. I think I'd prefer to add Shanghai and/or Mexico City or possibly other cities to fill vacancies. —dv82matt 22:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
All right, at this point I'd more firmly suggest Athens, Los Angeles out, Mexico City in. I want to avoid having more than one city per country, so 'no' on Shanghai.--Father Goose (talk) 02:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
That's fine with me. Although, I would suggest not rushing to transfer the vacated spot to another section. —dv82matt 03:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm still researching what might be worth adding from the 15+ vacancies that would come from scrapping Measurements.--Father Goose (talk) 06:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

This list is a joke

How are Burma, Ukraine, Finland and Ireland vital articles? The last two don't even have 10 million people. Nergaal (talk) 00:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

4.6% of the list consists of articles on individual countries. It's hard to know where to put the cutoff; I don't think I'd go any smaller than 3% (30 countries). Burma and Ukraine are in the top 30 in terms of population; Finland and Ireland are in the top 40 in terms of GDP and top 10 in terms of GDP per capita. Countries are discrete entities; it's hard to find an article that adequately covers more than one country at a time. So having a somewhat long list of countries helps to mitigate the "first world" bias that would happen if it were only top 10 or 20 by population, GDP, or some combination of both. The core 1,000 list throws its hands up in the air by including every single country, at 25% of the entire list.
You can denigrate the importance of individual countries, but when you study the problem more closely, it's hard to calibrate exactly how many should be on this list, and by what criteria. You can't say "none" and you can't say "all".--Father Goose (talk) 01:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

bodies of water

what about adding sea and lake to this list? 85.65.69.166 (talk) 23:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I could support adding lake. Sea is sort of just an intermediate between ocean and lake (and thus somewhat redundant with them) so I don't think we need to add sea as well. You may (or may not depending on what Father Goose does with cities above) need to propose removal candidate(s) before you can add anything to the geography section though. —dv82matt 00:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Lake is good. Our sea article is really just a list of seas, not really vital content. If there's no opposition, I'll make the changes I proposed to Cities in a few days and add lake at that time.--Father Goose (talk) 03:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Non-duplicates list

I've created Wikipedia:Vital articles/evaluate for merging. It turns out there are about 800 items that were uniquely on one list or the other. I'll start posting some general thoughts on the talk page there.

I see that Wizzy and I have somewhat duplicated each other's work, although my list is a raw dump of uniques, and his is sorted. Both approaches may be useful in evaluating entries.--Father Goose (talk) 09:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Didn't mean to step on your toes - but I will finish my list. Wizzy…☎ 09:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Your approach is much better, and I greatly appreciate your willingness to do it. I approached the task in the laziest way possible, though the raw list may end up having a complementary use.--Father Goose (talk) 09:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
A lot of articles in your "These articles are in L3, but not here :-" sections actually are listed here, just in different sections from the L3 list. —dv82matt 09:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Fixed now, I hope. Wizzy…☎ 11:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Other than the occasional redirect it's fixed I think, thanx for that. Are there no bio articles on the list here that are not on the L3 list? —dv82matt 11:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Pachacuti, off the top of my head. Maybe others.--Father Goose (talk) 12:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I went through the L3 page, and compared it with VA, figuring that that was the 'direction' needed. So it may well be wrong in the other direction. Perhaps I should delete the here, but not in L3 sections. Wizzy…☎ 13:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Not necessarily, unless they're wrong. We'll need to clear space on VA for anything we move in, so this is a good opportunity to reexamine what's on VA already.--Father Goose (talk) 13:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

General thoughts (Father Goose)

  • The list includes 15 or so "measurement" entries that will probably be dropped from VA soon. We could remove them from the "uniques" list now to get them out of the way.
  • I am wary of adding biographies, in general. They tend to have great significance to a specific region, subject area, or historical period (including the present), and often little to no significance outside that specific area.
  • A number of other types of articles have the same problem, such as specific works of art or literature
  • Black and white are pretty silly articles.
  • I'm not sure VA needs more specific chemical elements than it already has. Caesium? Platinum? Meh.

--Father Goose (talk) 09:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge

A discussion of the following lists is taking place at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/evaluate for merging.--Father Goose (talk) 11:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Art merge

The following articles exist here, but not in L3 :-

+Angkor Wat +Baroque +Colosseum +Don Quixote +Gothic art +Great Pyramid of Giza +Hip hop music +History of classical music traditions +History of literature +Library +Modernism +Mona Lisa +Museum +Musical theatre +Novel +Parthenon +Pop music +Postmodernism +Pottery +Prose +Rock music +Romanticism +Shahnameh +Short story +Stonehenge

These articles are in L3, but not here :-

-Akira Kurosawa -Alfred Hitchcock -Andrea Palladio -Art history -Art movement -Ballet -Comedy (drama) -Commercial art -Drum -Fine art -Frank Lloyd Wright -Gong -Harmony -Izumo no Okuni -Marilyn Monroe -Melody -Michael Jackson -Musical notation -Ravi Shankar -Rock and roll -Skyscraper -String instrument -Symphony -Vitruvius -Walt Disney

Geography merge

The following articles exist here, but not in L3 :-

+Argentina +Burma +Caspian Sea +Colombia +Denmark +Ethiopia +Finland +Glacier +Gobi Desert +Grand Canyon +Iraq +Mount Everest +Netherlands +Nigeria +Norway +Panama Canal +Poland +Saudi Arabia +Singapore +Suez Canal +Sweden +Thailand +Turkey +Ukraine


These articles are in L3, but not here :-

-Arctic Ocean -Athens -Baltic Sea -Chicago -Great Lakes -Jakarta -Karachi -Lake Baikal -Lake Tanganyika -Lake Victoria -Los Angeles -Manila -Map -Mississippi River -Mumbai -Niagara Falls -Pangaea -Rocky Mountains -Saint Petersburg -San Francisco -Shanghai -Sudan -Sydney -Toronto -Washington, D.C.

History merge

Deleted this section, innaccurate, I think

These articles are in L3, but not here :-

-Akbar -American Civil War -American Revolutionary War -Ancient history -Archaeology -Aztec -Battle of Hastings -Battle of Marathon -Battle of Tours -Benito Mussolini -Benjamin Franklin -Catherine II of Russia -Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor -Cleopatra VII -Colonialism -Enrique of Malacca -Feudalism -Formation and evolution of the Solar System -Frederick Douglass -Frederick II of Prussia -George Washington -Haile Selassie I -Han Dynasty -Hannibal Barca -Henry II of England -Henry VIII of England -Heraclius -Hernán Cortés -Hirohito -History of agriculture -History of Asia -Ho Chi Minh -Indira Gandhi -Ivan IV of Russia -Julius Caesar -Louis XIV of France -Macedonia (ancient kingdom) -Mahatma Gandhi -Martin Luther King, Jr. -Maya civilization -Mikhail Gorbachev -Modern history -Mother Teresa -Neil Armstrong -Otto von Bismarck -Peace of Westphalia -Peter I of Russia -Philip II of Spain -Political history -Revolutions of 1989 -Russian Civil War -Russian Revolution of 1917 -Saladin -Shaka -Silk Road -Spanish Civil War -Spanish Inquisition -Thomas Jefferson -Timur -Vietnam War -Vladimir Lenin -William I of England -Winston Churchill

As a benchmark, I picked the top 60 articles (we have 60 articles in our list) from WP 1.0 highest scored history articles (all columns on that table are sortable, BTW) and list here those that we do not have (in any section). Many of their articles are about people, who get a separate section in WP:VA.

American Civil War Amsterdam Ancient history Aztec Belarus Cologne Czechoslovakia David Hume Dmitri Shostakovich East Germany Edinburgh Edward III of England First Crusade Glasgow History of Mexico Italian unification Jew King Arthur Knights Templar Liverpool Maya civilization Mercantilism Ming Dynasty Nazi Germany Paleolithic Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth Romania Saint Petersburg Scandinavia Scotland Song Dynasty Tang Dynasty University of Cambridge Viking Vladimir Lenin Yom Kippur War Zionism

Life merge

This is the sections marked Language and Life in L3, and Everyday life in VA.

The following articles exist here, but not in L3 :-

+Adult +Bengali language +Black +Chinese character +Cyrillic alphabet +Drinking water +Greek alphabet +Greek language +Hangul +Hindi +Latin alphabet +Portuguese language +Potato +Video game +White

These articles are in L3, but not here :-

-American football -Babe Ruth -Backgammon -Baseball -Basketball -Beowulf -Birthday -Brothers Grimm -Bruce Lee -Card game -Charles Dickens -Chocolate -Christmas -Communication -Cricket -Dice -Dracula -Drink -Emily Dickinson -Entertainment -Ezra Pound -Furniture -George Byron, 6th Baron Byron -Grief -Henrik Ibsen -Holiday -Human sexuality -Humour -Isaac Asimov -Jackie Robinson -Jane Austen -Jesse Owens -Job (role) -John Milton -Legume -Leisure -Linguistics -Mancala -Marcel Proust -Mark Twain -Michael Jordan -Muhammad Ali -Night -Olympic Games -Pearl S. Buck -Pelé -Pepper -Personal life -Poultry -Race (classification of human beings) -Republic (Plato) -Rugby football -Seafood -Sign language -Soft drink -Spice -Tennis -The Book of One Thousand and One Nights -Tradition -Victor Hugo -Walt Whitman -William Butler Yeats

Mathematics merge

The following articles exist here, but not in L3 :-

+Area +Chaos theory +Combinatorics +Cube +Differential equation +Dimension +Equation +Exponentiation +Infinity +Linear algebra +Logarithm +Mathematical analysis +Mathematical proof +Natural number +Number theory +Percentage +Prime number +Probability +Rational number +Real number +Shape +Sphere +Square root +Topology

These articles are in L3, but not here :-

-Algorithm -Al-Khwārizmī -Fractal -Golden ratio -Integral -Pierre de Fermat

Philosophy merge

The following articles exist here, but not in L3 :-

+Ancient Greek philosophy +Belief +Catholic Church +Chinese philosophy +Christian Church +Contemporary philosophy +Deism +Eastern philosophy +Empiricism +Epistemology +Existentialism +Five Pillars of Islam +Free will +Goddess +Guru Granth Sahib +Haitian Vodou +Hedonism +Idealism +Indian philosophy +Islamic philosophy +Islamic schools and branches +Mahayana +Marxism +Materialism +Medieval philosophy +Meditation +Mysticism +Nihilism +Ontology +Orthodox Church +Pantheism +Philosophical realism +Prayer +Skepticism +Tanakh +Theism +Theravada +Vajrayana +Western philosophy +Worship

These articles are in L3, but not here :-

-Afterlife -Ancient Egyptian religion -Animism -Augustine of Hippo -Ayyavazhi -Columba -David Hume -Dharma -Ethic of reciprocity -Evil -Francis Bacon -Francis of Assisi -Garden of Eden -Henry David Thoreau -Holy Spirit -Hope -Jean-Jacques Rousseau -John Calvin -Karma -Lucifer -Mercy -Monotheism -New Age -Niccolò Machiavelli -Noam Chomsky -Patañjali -Satan -Society of Jesus -Solomon -Søren Kierkegaard -Sun Tzu -Talmud -Trinity -Voodoo

Science and Health merge

The following articles exist here, but not in L3 :- +Acid +Addiction +Alloy +Alzheimer's disease +Amphibian +Animal husbandry +Asteroid belt +Atmosphere of Earth +Autism +Biochemistry +Bleeding +Bone fracture +Botany +Brain damage +Bronze +Burn +Carbon dioxide +Catalysis +Chemical bond +Chemical compound +Chemical reaction +Comet +Common cold +Crystal +Diabetes mellitus +Disability +Domestication +Eclipse +Ecosystem +Electrolysis +Electron +Erosion +Female +Frostbite +Gene +Genetic drift +Glass +Heredity +History of the Earth +Homosexuality +Hygiene +Immune system +Inflammation +Influenza +Inorganic chemistry +Ion +Kinematics +Kinetic energy +Magma +Male +Mental disorder +Natural satellite +Natural selection +Neutrino +Neutron +Newton's laws of motion +Obesity +Oceanography +Oil +Orbit +Organic chemistry +Outer space +Parkinson's disease +Particle physics +Pharmaceutical drug +Philosophy of science +Photon +Physical cosmology +Physician +Potential energy +Proton +Reproduction +Sexually transmitted disease +Species +Speed of light +Steel +Stroke +Strong interaction +Subatomic particle +Supernova +Syphilis +Theory of relativity +Thermodynamics +Tuberculosis +Weak interaction +Zoology

These articles are in L3, but not here :-

-Alfred Nobel -Arsenic -Atomic nucleus -Bear -Boron -Caesium -Calcium -Cat -Cattle -Chlorine -Circulatory system -Cotton -Diamond -Dog -Dolphin -Elementary particle -Ernest Rutherford -Eukaryote -Extinction -Extraterrestrial life -Fluorine -General relativity -Gerontology -Gregor Mendel -Hippocrates -Horse -Iodine -Iridium -James Clerk Maxwell -James Watt -Johannes Kepler -Lead -Lithium -Liver -Louis Pasteur -Magnesium -Max Planck -Mental illness -Mercury (element) -Michael Faraday -Motion (physics) -Natural science -Neon -Nervous system -Nickel -Optics -Phase (matter) -Phosphorus -Photosynthesis -Platinum -Plutonium -Polio -Potassium -Ptolemy -Radiation -Radium -Radon -Robert Oppenheimer -Shark -Skin -Snake -Sodium -Special relativity -Stephen Hawking -Surgery -Taxonomy -Tin -Titanium -Tobacco -Tungsten -Whale -Zinc

Society merge

The following articles exist here, but not in L3 :-

+Broadcasting +Civil and political rights +Company +Conservatism +Corporation +Discrimination +Euthanasia +International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement +Journalism +Justice +News +Poverty +Publishing +Suicide +Tax

These articles are in L3, but not here :-

-ASEAN -Adam Smith -African Union -Arab League -Civil liberties -Community -Currency -Edward Gibbon -Human rights -Indian Rupee -International Monetary Fund -John Maynard Keynes -League of Nations -Management -OECD -OPEC -Pornography -Privacy -Prostitution -Renminbi -Supply and demand -Thomas Malthus -Thucydides -Trade union -World Bank Group -World Health Organization

Technology merge

The following articles exist here, but not in L3 :-

+Abacus +Anesthesia +Biotechnology +Calculator +Camera +Canal +Candle +Capacitor +Compass +Cryptography +Dam +Diode +Dome +Dynamite +Electrocardiography +Elevator +E-mail +Explosive material +Gasoline +Genetic engineering +Geothermal power +Glasses +Global Positioning System +Gyroscope +Helicopter +History of technology +Hubble Space Telescope +Hydropower +Inclined plane +Information technology +Integrated circuit +Internal combustion engine +International Space Station +Jet engine +Knife +Laser +Lever +Machine gun +Magnetic resonance imaging +Mechanical engineering +Microphone +Microscope +Moon landing +Motorcycle +Nuclear power +Nuclear weapon +Pasteurization +Pendulum +Printing +Pulley +Radar +Refrigerator +Rifle +Solar energy +Sonar +Space Shuttle +Space station +Stove +Submarine +Sword +Tank +Tower +Typewriter +Vehicle +Wind power +X-ray

These articles are in L3, but not here :-

-Adhesive -Alexander Graham Bell -Assembly line -Automation -Axe -Cai Lun -Canoe -Charles Babbage -Concrete -Construction -Disruptive technology -Engineering vehicle -Glassblowing -Guglielmo Marconi -Henry Ford -Hydraulic machinery -Innovation -Johannes Gutenberg -Louis Daguerre -Masonry -Metalworking -Navigation -Paper -Plough -Pneumatics -Refrigeration -Robotics -Saddle -Ship -Stirrup -Transmission (mechanics) -Wright brothers

Art section

Comments on articles in the L3 list but not in the WP:VA list (excluding biographies). Thanks to Wizzy for compiling the list.

—dv82matt 13:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


So in the art section, I personally wouldn't change anything for now.--Father Goose (talk) 09:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good too me. —dv82matt 10:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge

A discussion of the following lists is taking place at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/evaluate for merging.--Father Goose (talk) 11:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Art merge

The following articles exist here, but not in L3 :-

+Angkor Wat +Baroque +Colosseum +Don Quixote +Gothic art +Great Pyramid of Giza +Hip hop music +History of classical music traditions +History of literature +Library +Modernism +Mona Lisa +Museum +Musical theatre +Novel +Parthenon +Pop music +Postmodernism +Pottery +Prose +Rock music +Romanticism +Shahnameh +Short story +Stonehenge

These articles are in L3, but not here :-

-Akira Kurosawa -Alfred Hitchcock -Andrea Palladio -Art history -Art movement -Ballet -Comedy (drama) -Commercial art -Drum -Fine art -Frank Lloyd Wright -Gong -Harmony -Izumo no Okuni -Marilyn Monroe -Melody -Michael Jackson -Musical notation -Ravi Shankar -Rock and roll -Skyscraper -String instrument -Symphony -Vitruvius -Walt Disney

Geography merge

The following articles exist here, but not in L3 :-

+Argentina +Burma +Caspian Sea +Colombia +Denmark +Ethiopia +Finland +Glacier +Gobi Desert +Grand Canyon +Iraq +Mount Everest +Netherlands +Nigeria +Norway +Panama Canal +Poland +Saudi Arabia +Singapore +Suez Canal +Sweden +Thailand +Turkey +Ukraine


These articles are in L3, but not here :-

-Arctic Ocean -Athens -Baltic Sea -Chicago -Great Lakes -Jakarta -Karachi -Lake Baikal -Lake Tanganyika -Lake Victoria -Los Angeles -Manila -Map -Mississippi River -Mumbai -Niagara Falls -Pangaea -Rocky Mountains -Saint Petersburg -San Francisco -Shanghai -Sudan -Sydney -Toronto -Washington, D.C.

History merge

Deleted this section, innaccurate, I think

These articles are in L3, but not here :-

-Akbar -American Civil War -American Revolutionary War -Ancient history -Archaeology -Aztec -Battle of Hastings -Battle of Marathon -Battle of Tours -Benito Mussolini -Benjamin Franklin -Catherine II of Russia -Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor -Cleopatra VII -Colonialism -Enrique of Malacca -Feudalism -Formation and evolution of the Solar System -Frederick Douglass -Frederick II of Prussia -George Washington -Haile Selassie I -Han Dynasty -Hannibal Barca -Henry II of England -Henry VIII of England -Heraclius -Hernán Cortés -Hirohito -History of agriculture -History of Asia -Ho Chi Minh -Indira Gandhi -Ivan IV of Russia -Julius Caesar -Louis XIV of France -Macedonia (ancient kingdom) -Mahatma Gandhi -Martin Luther King, Jr. -Maya civilization -Mikhail Gorbachev -Modern history -Mother Teresa -Neil Armstrong -Otto von Bismarck -Peace of Westphalia -Peter I of Russia -Philip II of Spain -Political history -Revolutions of 1989 -Russian Civil War -Russian Revolution of 1917 -Saladin -Shaka -Silk Road -Spanish Civil War -Spanish Inquisition -Thomas Jefferson -Timur -Vietnam War -Vladimir Lenin -William I of England -Winston Churchill

As a benchmark, I picked the top 60 articles (we have 60 articles in our list) from WP 1.0 highest scored history articles (all columns on that table are sortable, BTW) and list here those that we do not have (in any section). Many of their articles are about people, who get a separate section in WP:VA.

American Civil War Amsterdam Ancient history Aztec Belarus Cologne Czechoslovakia David Hume Dmitri Shostakovich East Germany Edinburgh Edward III of England First Crusade Glasgow History of Mexico Italian unification Jew King Arthur Knights Templar Liverpool Maya civilization Mercantilism Ming Dynasty Nazi Germany Paleolithic Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth Romania Saint Petersburg Scandinavia Scotland Song Dynasty Tang Dynasty University of Cambridge Viking Vladimir Lenin Yom Kippur War Zionism

Life merge

This is the sections marked Language and Life in L3, and Everyday life in VA.

The following articles exist here, but not in L3 :-

+Adult +Bengali language +Black +Chinese character +Cyrillic alphabet +Drinking water +Greek alphabet +Greek language +Hangul +Hindi +Latin alphabet +Portuguese language +Potato +Video game +White

These articles are in L3, but not here :-

-American football -Babe Ruth -Backgammon -Baseball -Basketball -Beowulf -Birthday -Brothers Grimm -Bruce Lee -Card game -Charles Dickens -Chocolate -Christmas -Communication -Cricket -Dice -Dracula -Drink -Emily Dickinson -Entertainment -Ezra Pound -Furniture -George Byron, 6th Baron Byron -Grief -Henrik Ibsen -Holiday -Human sexuality -Humour -Isaac Asimov -Jackie Robinson -Jane Austen -Jesse Owens -Job (role) -John Milton -Legume -Leisure -Linguistics -Mancala -Marcel Proust -Mark Twain -Michael Jordan -Muhammad Ali -Night -Olympic Games -Pearl S. Buck -Pelé -Pepper -Personal life -Poultry -Race (classification of human beings) -Republic (Plato) -Rugby football -Seafood -Sign language -Soft drink -Spice -Tennis -The Book of One Thousand and One Nights -Tradition -Victor Hugo -Walt Whitman -William Butler Yeats

Mathematics merge

The following articles exist here, but not in L3 :-

+Area +Chaos theory +Combinatorics +Cube +Differential equation +Dimension +Equation +Exponentiation +Infinity +Linear algebra +Logarithm +Mathematical analysis +Mathematical proof +Natural number +Number theory +Percentage +Prime number +Probability +Rational number +Real number +Shape +Sphere +Square root +Topology

These articles are in L3, but not here :-

-Algorithm -Al-Khwārizmī -Fractal -Golden ratio -Integral -Pierre de Fermat

Philosophy merge

The following articles exist here, but not in L3 :-

+Ancient Greek philosophy +Belief +Catholic Church +Chinese philosophy +Christian Church +Contemporary philosophy +Deism +Eastern philosophy +Empiricism +Epistemology +Existentialism +Five Pillars of Islam +Free will +Goddess +Guru Granth Sahib +Haitian Vodou +Hedonism +Idealism +Indian philosophy +Islamic philosophy +Islamic schools and branches +Mahayana +Marxism +Materialism +Medieval philosophy +Meditation +Mysticism +Nihilism +Ontology +Orthodox Church +Pantheism +Philosophical realism +Prayer +Skepticism +Tanakh +Theism +Theravada +Vajrayana +Western philosophy +Worship

These articles are in L3, but not here :-

-Afterlife -Ancient Egyptian religion -Animism -Augustine of Hippo -Ayyavazhi -Columba -David Hume -Dharma -Ethic of reciprocity -Evil -Francis Bacon -Francis of Assisi -Garden of Eden -Henry David Thoreau -Holy Spirit -Hope -Jean-Jacques Rousseau -John Calvin -Karma -Lucifer -Mercy -Monotheism -New Age -Niccolò Machiavelli -Noam Chomsky -Patañjali -Satan -Society of Jesus -Solomon -Søren Kierkegaard -Sun Tzu -Talmud -Trinity -Voodoo

Science and Health merge

The following articles exist here, but not in L3 :- +Acid +Addiction +Alloy +Alzheimer's disease +Amphibian +Animal husbandry +Asteroid belt +Atmosphere of Earth +Autism +Biochemistry +Bleeding +Bone fracture +Botany +Brain damage +Bronze +Burn +Carbon dioxide +Catalysis +Chemical bond +Chemical compound +Chemical reaction +Comet +Common cold +Crystal +Diabetes mellitus +Disability +Domestication +Eclipse +Ecosystem +Electrolysis +Electron +Erosion +Female +Frostbite +Gene +Genetic drift +Glass +Heredity +History of the Earth +Homosexuality +Hygiene +Immune system +Inflammation +Influenza +Inorganic chemistry +Ion +Kinematics +Kinetic energy +Magma +Male +Mental disorder +Natural satellite +Natural selection +Neutrino +Neutron +Newton's laws of motion +Obesity +Oceanography +Oil +Orbit +Organic chemistry +Outer space +Parkinson's disease +Particle physics +Pharmaceutical drug +Philosophy of science +Photon +Physical cosmology +Physician +Potential energy +Proton +Reproduction +Sexually transmitted disease +Species +Speed of light +Steel +Stroke +Strong interaction +Subatomic particle +Supernova +Syphilis +Theory of relativity +Thermodynamics +Tuberculosis +Weak interaction +Zoology

These articles are in L3, but not here :-

-Alfred Nobel -Arsenic -Atomic nucleus -Bear -Boron -Caesium -Calcium -Cat -Cattle -Chlorine -Circulatory system -Cotton -Diamond -Dog -Dolphin -Elementary particle -Ernest Rutherford -Eukaryote -Extinction -Extraterrestrial life -Fluorine -General relativity -Gerontology -Gregor Mendel -Hippocrates -Horse -Iodine -Iridium -James Clerk Maxwell -James Watt -Johannes Kepler -Lead -Lithium -Liver -Louis Pasteur -Magnesium -Max Planck -Mental illness -Mercury (element) -Michael Faraday -Motion (physics) -Natural science -Neon -Nervous system -Nickel -Optics -Phase (matter) -Phosphorus -Photosynthesis -Platinum -Plutonium -Polio -Potassium -Ptolemy -Radiation -Radium -Radon -Robert Oppenheimer -Shark -Skin -Snake -Sodium -Special relativity -Stephen Hawking -Surgery -Taxonomy -Tin -Titanium -Tobacco -Tungsten -Whale -Zinc

Society merge

The following articles exist here, but not in L3 :-

+Broadcasting +Civil and political rights +Company +Conservatism +Corporation +Discrimination +Euthanasia +International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement +Journalism +Justice +News +Poverty +Publishing +Suicide +Tax

These articles are in L3, but not here :-

-ASEAN -Adam Smith -African Union -Arab League -Civil liberties -Community -Currency -Edward Gibbon -Human rights -Indian Rupee -International Monetary Fund -John Maynard Keynes -League of Nations -Management -OECD -OPEC -Pornography -Privacy -Prostitution -Renminbi -Supply and demand -Thomas Malthus -Thucydides -Trade union -World Bank Group -World Health Organization

Technology merge

The following articles exist here, but not in L3 :-

+Abacus +Anesthesia +Biotechnology +Calculator +Camera +Canal +Candle +Capacitor +Compass +Cryptography +Dam +Diode +Dome +Dynamite +Electrocardiography +Elevator +E-mail +Explosive material +Gasoline +Genetic engineering +Geothermal power +Glasses +Global Positioning System +Gyroscope +Helicopter +History of technology +Hubble Space Telescope +Hydropower +Inclined plane +Information technology +Integrated circuit +Internal combustion engine +International Space Station +Jet engine +Knife +Laser +Lever +Machine gun +Magnetic resonance imaging +Mechanical engineering +Microphone +Microscope +Moon landing +Motorcycle +Nuclear power +Nuclear weapon +Pasteurization +Pendulum +Printing +Pulley +Radar +Refrigerator +Rifle +Solar energy +Sonar +Space Shuttle +Space station +Stove +Submarine +Sword +Tank +Tower +Typewriter +Vehicle +Wind power +X-ray

These articles are in L3, but not here :-

-Adhesive -Alexander Graham Bell -Assembly line -Automation -Axe -Cai Lun -Canoe -Charles Babbage -Concrete -Construction -Disruptive technology -Engineering vehicle -Glassblowing -Guglielmo Marconi -Henry Ford -Hydraulic machinery -Innovation -Johannes Gutenberg -Louis Daguerre -Masonry -Metalworking -Navigation -Paper -Plough -Pneumatics -Refrigeration -Robotics -Saddle -Ship -Stirrup -Transmission (mechanics) -Wright brothers

Categories

You appear to have two category trees, Category:Vital articles and Category:Wikipedia vital articles. The name of the latter would appear to be tautologous so perhaps you should merge it into the former. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 13:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, done. I'll tag Category:Wikipedia vital articles with {{db-c1}} in a few days. —dv82matt 21:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
And probably a bulk-rename at WP:CfD to remove all the "Wikipedia"s. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 22:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I believe many editors feel that any category that is project-related should have "Wikipedia" in its name. The issue should be brought up at CfD preemptively, in case they want us to move everything back.--Father Goose (talk) 03:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I thought it was the norm that categories didn't have Wikipedia in the title as they are only on Wikipedia anyway.

Art section

Comments on articles in the L3 list but not in the WP:VA list (excluding biographies). Thanks to Wizzy for compiling the list.

—dv82matt 13:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


So in the art section, I personally wouldn't change anything for now.--Father Goose (talk) 09:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good too me. —dv82matt 10:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge

A discussion of the following lists is taking place at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/evaluate for merging.--Father Goose (talk) 11:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Art merge

The following articles exist here, but not in L3 :-

+Angkor Wat +Baroque +Colosseum +Don Quixote +Gothic art +Great Pyramid of Giza +Hip hop music +History of classical music traditions +History of literature +Library +Modernism +Mona Lisa +Museum +Musical theatre +Novel +Parthenon +Pop music +Postmodernism +Pottery +Prose +Rock music +Romanticism +Shahnameh +Short story +Stonehenge

These articles are in L3, but not here :-

-Akira Kurosawa -Alfred Hitchcock -Andrea Palladio -Art history -Art movement -Ballet -Comedy (drama) -Commercial art -Drum -Fine art -Frank Lloyd Wright -Gong -Harmony -Izumo no Okuni -Marilyn Monroe -Melody -Michael Jackson -Musical notation -Ravi Shankar -Rock and roll -Skyscraper -String instrument -Symphony -Vitruvius -Walt Disney

Geography merge

The following articles exist here, but not in L3 :-

+Argentina +Burma +Caspian Sea +Colombia +Denmark +Ethiopia +Finland +Glacier +Gobi Desert +Grand Canyon +Iraq +Mount Everest +Netherlands +Nigeria +Norway +Panama Canal +Poland +Saudi Arabia +Singapore +Suez Canal +Sweden +Thailand +Turkey +Ukraine


These articles are in L3, but not here :-

-Arctic Ocean -Athens -Baltic Sea -Chicago -Great Lakes -Jakarta -Karachi -Lake Baikal -Lake Tanganyika -Lake Victoria -Los Angeles -Manila -Map -Mississippi River -Mumbai -Niagara Falls -Pangaea -Rocky Mountains -Saint Petersburg -San Francisco -Shanghai -Sudan -Sydney -Toronto -Washington, D.C.

History merge

Deleted this section, innaccurate, I think

These articles are in L3, but not here :-

-Akbar -American Civil War -American Revolutionary War -Ancient history -Archaeology -Aztec -Battle of Hastings -Battle of Marathon -Battle of Tours -Benito Mussolini -Benjamin Franklin -Catherine II of Russia -Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor -Cleopatra VII -Colonialism -Enrique of Malacca -Feudalism -Formation and evolution of the Solar System -Frederick Douglass -Frederick II of Prussia -George Washington -Haile Selassie I -Han Dynasty -Hannibal Barca -Henry II of England -Henry VIII of England -Heraclius -Hernán Cortés -Hirohito -History of agriculture -History of Asia -Ho Chi Minh -Indira Gandhi -Ivan IV of Russia -Julius Caesar -Louis XIV of France -Macedonia (ancient kingdom) -Mahatma Gandhi -Martin Luther King, Jr. -Maya civilization -Mikhail Gorbachev -Modern history -Mother Teresa -Neil Armstrong -Otto von Bismarck -Peace of Westphalia -Peter I of Russia -Philip II of Spain -Political history -Revolutions of 1989 -Russian Civil War -Russian Revolution of 1917 -Saladin -Shaka -Silk Road -Spanish Civil War -Spanish Inquisition -Thomas Jefferson -Timur -Vietnam War -Vladimir Lenin -William I of England -Winston Churchill

As a benchmark, I picked the top 60 articles (we have 60 articles in our list) from WP 1.0 highest scored history articles (all columns on that table are sortable, BTW) and list here those that we do not have (in any section). Many of their articles are about people, who get a separate section in WP:VA.

American Civil War Amsterdam Ancient history Aztec Belarus Cologne Czechoslovakia David Hume Dmitri Shostakovich East Germany Edinburgh Edward III of England First Crusade Glasgow History of Mexico Italian unification Jew King Arthur Knights Templar Liverpool Maya civilization Mercantilism Ming Dynasty Nazi Germany Paleolithic Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth Romania Saint Petersburg Scandinavia Scotland Song Dynasty Tang Dynasty University of Cambridge Viking Vladimir Lenin Yom Kippur War Zionism

Life merge

This is the sections marked Language and Life in L3, and Everyday life in VA.

The following articles exist here, but not in L3 :-

+Adult +Bengali language +Black +Chinese character +Cyrillic alphabet +Drinking water +Greek alphabet +Greek language +Hangul +Hindi +Latin alphabet +Portuguese language +Potato +Video game +White

These articles are in L3, but not here :-

-American football -Babe Ruth -Backgammon -Baseball -Basketball -Beowulf -Birthday -Brothers Grimm -Bruce Lee -Card game -Charles Dickens -Chocolate -Christmas -Communication -Cricket -Dice -Dracula -Drink -Emily Dickinson -Entertainment -Ezra Pound -Furniture -George Byron, 6th Baron Byron -Grief -Henrik Ibsen -Holiday -Human sexuality -Humour -Isaac Asimov -Jackie Robinson -Jane Austen -Jesse Owens -Job (role) -John Milton -Legume -Leisure -Linguistics -Mancala -Marcel Proust -Mark Twain -Michael Jordan -Muhammad Ali -Night -Olympic Games -Pearl S. Buck -Pelé -Pepper -Personal life -Poultry -Race (classification of human beings) -Republic (Plato) -Rugby football -Seafood -Sign language -Soft drink -Spice -Tennis -The Book of One Thousand and One Nights -Tradition -Victor Hugo -Walt Whitman -William Butler Yeats

Mathematics merge

The following articles exist here, but not in L3 :-

+Area +Chaos theory +Combinatorics +Cube +Differential equation +Dimension +Equation +Exponentiation +Infinity +Linear algebra +Logarithm +Mathematical analysis +Mathematical proof +Natural number +Number theory +Percentage +Prime number +Probability +Rational number +Real number +Shape +Sphere +Square root +Topology

These articles are in L3, but not here :-

-Algorithm -Al-Khwārizmī -Fractal -Golden ratio -Integral -Pierre de Fermat

Philosophy merge

The following articles exist here, but not in L3 :-

+Ancient Greek philosophy +Belief +Catholic Church +Chinese philosophy +Christian Church +Contemporary philosophy +Deism +Eastern philosophy +Empiricism +Epistemology +Existentialism +Five Pillars of Islam +Free will +Goddess +Guru Granth Sahib +Haitian Vodou +Hedonism +Idealism +Indian philosophy +Islamic philosophy +Islamic schools and branches +Mahayana +Marxism +Materialism +Medieval philosophy +Meditation +Mysticism +Nihilism +Ontology +Orthodox Church +Pantheism +Philosophical realism +Prayer +Skepticism +Tanakh +Theism +Theravada +Vajrayana +Western philosophy +Worship

These articles are in L3, but not here :-

-Afterlife -Ancient Egyptian religion -Animism -Augustine of Hippo -Ayyavazhi -Columba -David Hume -Dharma -Ethic of reciprocity -Evil -Francis Bacon -Francis of Assisi -Garden of Eden -Henry David Thoreau -Holy Spirit -Hope -Jean-Jacques Rousseau -John Calvin -Karma -Lucifer -Mercy -Monotheism -New Age -Niccolò Machiavelli -Noam Chomsky -Patañjali -Satan -Society of Jesus -Solomon -Søren Kierkegaard -Sun Tzu -Talmud -Trinity -Voodoo

Science and Health merge

The following articles exist here, but not in L3 :- +Acid +Addiction +Alloy +Alzheimer's disease +Amphibian +Animal husbandry +Asteroid belt +Atmosphere of Earth +Autism +Biochemistry +Bleeding +Bone fracture +Botany +Brain damage +Bronze +Burn +Carbon dioxide +Catalysis +Chemical bond +Chemical compound +Chemical reaction +Comet +Common cold +Crystal +Diabetes mellitus +Disability +Domestication +Eclipse +Ecosystem +Electrolysis +Electron +Erosion +Female +Frostbite +Gene +Genetic drift +Glass +Heredity +History of the Earth +Homosexuality +Hygiene +Immune system +Inflammation +Influenza +Inorganic chemistry +Ion +Kinematics +Kinetic energy +Magma +Male +Mental disorder +Natural satellite +Natural selection +Neutrino +Neutron +Newton's laws of motion +Obesity +Oceanography +Oil +Orbit +Organic chemistry +Outer space +Parkinson's disease +Particle physics +Pharmaceutical drug +Philosophy of science +Photon +Physical cosmology +Physician +Potential energy +Proton +Reproduction +Sexually transmitted disease +Species +Speed of light +Steel +Stroke +Strong interaction +Subatomic particle +Supernova +Syphilis +Theory of relativity +Thermodynamics +Tuberculosis +Weak interaction +Zoology

These articles are in L3, but not here :-

-Alfred Nobel -Arsenic -Atomic nucleus -Bear -Boron -Caesium -Calcium -Cat -Cattle -Chlorine -Circulatory system -Cotton -Diamond -Dog -Dolphin -Elementary particle -Ernest Rutherford -Eukaryote -Extinction -Extraterrestrial life -Fluorine -General relativity -Gerontology -Gregor Mendel -Hippocrates -Horse -Iodine -Iridium -James Clerk Maxwell -James Watt -Johannes Kepler -Lead -Lithium -Liver -Louis Pasteur -Magnesium -Max Planck -Mental illness -Mercury (element) -Michael Faraday -Motion (physics) -Natural science -Neon -Nervous system -Nickel -Optics -Phase (matter) -Phosphorus -Photosynthesis -Platinum -Plutonium -Polio -Potassium -Ptolemy -Radiation -Radium -Radon -Robert Oppenheimer -Shark -Skin -Snake -Sodium -Special relativity -Stephen Hawking -Surgery -Taxonomy -Tin -Titanium -Tobacco -Tungsten -Whale -Zinc

Society merge

The following articles exist here, but not in L3 :-

+Broadcasting +Civil and political rights +Company +Conservatism +Corporation +Discrimination +Euthanasia +International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement +Journalism +Justice +News +Poverty +Publishing +Suicide +Tax

These articles are in L3, but not here :-

-ASEAN -Adam Smith -African Union -Arab League -Civil liberties -Community -Currency -Edward Gibbon -Human rights -Indian Rupee -International Monetary Fund -John Maynard Keynes -League of Nations -Management -OECD -OPEC -Pornography -Privacy -Prostitution -Renminbi -Supply and demand -Thomas Malthus -Thucydides -Trade union -World Bank Group -World Health Organization

Technology merge

The following articles exist here, but not in L3 :-

+Abacus +Anesthesia +Biotechnology +Calculator +Camera +Canal +Candle +Capacitor +Compass +Cryptography +Dam +Diode +Dome +Dynamite +Electrocardiography +Elevator +E-mail +Explosive material +Gasoline +Genetic engineering +Geothermal power +Glasses +Global Positioning System +Gyroscope +Helicopter +History of technology +Hubble Space Telescope +Hydropower +Inclined plane +Information technology +Integrated circuit +Internal combustion engine +International Space Station +Jet engine +Knife +Laser +Lever +Machine gun +Magnetic resonance imaging +Mechanical engineering +Microphone +Microscope +Moon landing +Motorcycle +Nuclear power +Nuclear weapon +Pasteurization +Pendulum +Printing +Pulley +Radar +Refrigerator +Rifle +Solar energy +Sonar +Space Shuttle +Space station +Stove +Submarine +Sword +Tank +Tower +Typewriter +Vehicle +Wind power +X-ray

These articles are in L3, but not here :-

-Adhesive -Alexander Graham Bell -Assembly line -Automation -Axe -Cai Lun -Canoe -Charles Babbage -Concrete -Construction -Disruptive technology -Engineering vehicle -Glassblowing -Guglielmo Marconi -Henry Ford -Hydraulic machinery -Innovation -Johannes Gutenberg -Louis Daguerre -Masonry -Metalworking -Navigation -Paper -Plough -Pneumatics -Refrigeration -Robotics -Saddle -Ship -Stirrup -Transmission (mechanics) -Wright brothers

Categories

You appear to have two category trees, Category:Vital articles and Category:Wikipedia vital articles. The name of the latter would appear to be tautologous so perhaps you should merge it into the former. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 13:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, done. I'll tag Category:Wikipedia vital articles with {{db-c1}} in a few days. —dv82matt 21:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
And probably a bulk-rename at WP:CfD to remove all the "Wikipedia"s. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 22:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I believe many editors feel that any category that is project-related should have "Wikipedia" in its name. The issue should be brought up at CfD preemptively, in case they want us to move everything back.--Father Goose (talk) 03:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I thought it was the norm that categories didn't have Wikipedia in the title as they are only on Wikipedia anyway.

Science and health

Comments on articles in the L3 list but not in the WP:VA list (excluding biographies and excluding most of the elements).

—dv82matt 20:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussing with non-WP friends in South Africa, they mentioned Tik. I see these lists as being the basis for offline collections, and we should put things in that people will want to look up. Teenagers would be happy to ask their parents about Photosynthesis, but they want a quiet place to look up Tik. While we are at it, do we talk about redirects ? Wizzy…☎ 12:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Redirects as in the small number of pages that both lists have, though via different links? There are very few, we'll discover them as we comb through the lists.--Father Goose (talk) 12:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Actually I mean we should include all redirects to our list, for free. Then if there is a subject index, the redirects would appear. But that discussion is orthogonal to the list itself, so sorry for bringing it up. Wizzy…☎ 13:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I think I understand -- redirects that would be included on a CD distribution? That's a detail specific to CD implementation.--Father Goose (talk) 10:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
At this level of detail (1000 articles), it's hard to justify adding individual drugs (outside of perhaps smoking and alcohol). We have addiction and drug; if kids need detailed information on awkward subjects, we'd need about 50 articles on such subjects, which is hard to justify adding to a list whose focus is breadth. What could be done, however, is to create a "kids' list" that supplements VA.
The expanded list could probably fit enough in to be useful, though, and depending on how many images are included, the expanded list is still CD-sized (or DVD-sized with images).--Father Goose (talk) 10:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


Now, on to evaluating the list:

My list above (including the "drop" recommendations) would be +10, or +17 including "want"s. Additional drop candidates: comet, eclipse, asteroid belt (we already have asteroid); alcohol in favor of alcoholic beverage, suggested above; remove mantle (geology), crust (geology), magma, and fault (geology); all well covered by Earth#Internal structure, plate tectonics, and volcano; also remove tornado. That's -8. Do we need kinematics in addition to classical mechanics? Space: one of those weird catch-all subjects that doesn't cover anything that well. Visible spectrum: already well-covered by electromagnetic radiation and light. -11.--Father Goose (talk) 10:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good overall. Regarding Atomic nucleus I was thinking of it replacing proton and neutron not adding it in addition to them. I don't object to adding Eukaryote but I just want to point out that since its subtypes Plant, Animal and Fungus are listed there is a certain amount of redundancy there. I'm not sure about removing tornado and I don't see how we can drop space. —dv82matt 23:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Atomic nucleus is heavily redundant with atom, and removing proton and neutron would break the supersymmetry with the other particles electron, photon, and neutrino on the list. Eukaryote has very different content from plant, animal, and fungus, so, no redundancy. I withdraw tornado and space.--Father Goose (talk) 05:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll summarize the changes I believe we have agreed upon so far, for the sake of clarity. Speak up if I've overlooked anything or have any other comments. I'm leaving out calcium for now, as it's not clear to me if anyone still wants it.

Woot. That evens out perfectly.--Father Goose (talk) 05:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done I had to make some guesses as to where some of the above items should go.--Father Goose (talk) 06:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Wizzy…☎ 08:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Transport

Concerning the section on transport, it seems to me that the articles chosen are one notch down from the vital articles. In addition to transport, there is vehicle and then seven specific types of vehicles: aircraft, automobile, bicycle, elevator, helicopter, motorcycle and train. Interestingly enough, there is nothing about water transport. All seven vehicle articles are subarticle of their respective mode of transport article: aviation (for aircraft and helicopter), road transport (automobile, motorcycle and bicycle), water transport (ship), rail transport (train), cable transport (elevator and many other similar contraptions, such as escalator and gondola), pipeline, animal-powered transport, human-powered transport (bicylce and of course walking) and space transport. To look at for instance rail transport, that article covers all aspects, not just the train (which are the actual vehicles running on the rails), but also the infrastructure and the system of operation. These two areas are just as "vital" to rail transport as the vehicles themselves; similarly, the same triple dividing between vehicle, operations and infrastructure can be found with most of the modes. In general, aviation, road, rail and water are considered the four main modes, while the other five are considered secondary (they are still essential and unique, but are significantly less common and occupy a notably smaller proportion of this encyclopædia. Arsenikk (talk) 09:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it was noticed about a week ago that we missed water transport altogether. The current watercraft article sucks... water transport is better, but boat and ship are better still, so we might go with them as a pair instead. Rail transport looks better than train, so that's a good candidate for switching. The cable, human, animal, and space transport articles are all pretty much just lists, very underdeveloped. They might be vital subjects, but they're not vital articles in their current form. Pipeline transport's not bad, but I wonder if there isn't something even more vital than that, like utility or infrastructure or something. Automobile has more vital content than road transport, IMO. Same thing for the aircraft vs. aviation articles (though we can drop helicopter, since it's covered by the aircraft article). We can also drop motorcycle, though the bicycle article's got a lot going for it.--Father Goose (talk) 10:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Definitely need to add something about watercraft.
Not interested in elevator, pipeline, cable.
Infrastructure is a good suggestion. Maurreen (talk) 02:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Automate archiving?

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days.--Oneiros (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

30 days seems about right.--Father Goose (talk) 20:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 Done The bots should start in the next 24h.--Oneiros (talk) 17:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added Vital articles to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 03:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Very useful, and quite suprising, results. Wizzy…☎ 14:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed switch

Now I know that there are certain topics that no one wants to touch, but I just happened to notice that homosexuality is on the list but human sexuality is not. I'm all for being tolerant, but I would imagine the latter is more general (well, I guess animals can be homosexual, but...). Going by hierarchy we should switch the two, although page views may suggest the opposite. Just an idea. HereToHelp (talk to me) 18:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Maurreen (talk) 18:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
One of the current proposals relating to the merger is to add human sexuality. I don't think homosexuality needs to be removed -- it's less vital than human sexuality, but still pretty vital.--Father Goose (talk) 00:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
If you can find something else to take out, that's fine. I just thought it was an easy switch. HereToHelp (talk to me) 02:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
We've actually got some empty slots right now, and we'll have more soon with the pending removal of the entire Measurement section. Human sexuality is slated to go in as one of the proposals above, so rest assured that it'll be added soon enough.--Father Goose (talk) 03:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Is everything in Measurement getting removed, or just moved to math and science? HereToHelp (talk to me) 01:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
The specifics are at the end of the #Measurements thread. Incidentally, I did a recount and I believe we are at exactly 1,000 right now, so I misstated "current empties". However, the removal of Measurement will produce 15 empties. 11 are slated to be removed from the Technology section as well. Implementing everything proposed so far in relation to the merger will put us at 993 total, I believe. We've still got some slack to play with.--Father Goose (talk) 06:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Clarify merge?

I'm not clear about the proposed merge, can you give it to me in a nutshell?

Also, my understanding was that the levels of vital articles were designed like a tree, to indicate descending order of importance. I've been away for a while, and maybe that has changed, but I agree with using the tree concept. Maurreen (talk) 19:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but more general articles (i.e. Science) are very difficult to write and attract a certain kind of audience. (I've been lobbying for guideline on how to write such articles but no luck yet.) The idea is to have one, hopefully definitive list of both very general articles (country) and some common specific examples (France) but not the general riff-raff of the encyclopedia (Sealand, no offense). By the tree metaphor, we're looking for both the trunk and the major boughs. There are probably specific articles that we can discuss (see above post), but there might also be a difference in philosophy. In which case, I/we would need to spend some time figuring out what that difference is. HereToHelp (talk to me) 19:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
So, we would still have levels, but the idea is to swap out many of the items in a level, is that right?
I was the instigator of WP:CORE (which is no longer active), and I'm glad to see that the trunk and major branches have gotten much stronger in the past few years. Maurreen (talk) 20:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean. "Swap out many items in a level," as in from one list to another? I just skimmed both, but for the most part they seemed fairly similar. As for levels, it still has assessment levels, but as far as a top ten, top 100, being bolded, I don't think that carries over. It appears to me that every item on the list is equal, although that does not mean it will get equal attention (by page views, and some areas have stronger coverage than others - check out the solar system articles). HereToHelp (talk to me) 21:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

One section at a time?

I think I get it now. But I'd like to suggest handling one section at a time. That would be easier to give each topic the proper attention. Maurreen (talk) 21:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I just realized how late I am to the party. Don't know how far along you are. No biggie. Maurreen (talk) 23:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Check out the "to add" and "to remove" tables in all the above sections (and the discussion that led up to them). Only a couple of them have been implemented as yet. Weigh in as you like.--Father Goose (talk) 00:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Level 2

As long as we're at it, I'll suggest a few changes over at Level 2. Maurreen (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I Confess

I confess to the fact that last month, I added United States to the Vital 100 list without discussing it. I noticed that Earth was in the list twice, and I wanted to fix it immediately without it being vandalism, so I convinced myself that the problem was too serious to discuss on the Vital 100 talk page, where I figured a response would take months, if not years, because of its extremely slow response rate. I then decided that United States was the most vital article not on Vital 100, so I decided to add it to the list in the place of Earth. I also have a question: should I revert my own edits? Us441 (talk) 22:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Your action was reasonable, but I have slight disagreement with the result.
I suggested deleting USA at Level 2, along with some other changes. Why don't we talk about it there. Maurreen (talk) 23:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

What does "vital" mean anyway?

So we're compiling a list of the 1000 most vital articles, but I haven't seen much dicussion on what vital means, or what the rubric is for selection. Is it for overview articles, or a sample of specific articles? Is it by page views, or is it getting the best sample of content into 1000 articles? Is it by what articles are already of good quality, or which ones should be improved? Is it something else entirely? I'd just like everyone to weigh in on what they consider most important - I know we haven't had any real arguments here, but a little clarification and exchange of ideas never hurts, especially on the internet. HereToHelp (talk to me) 01:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

My thinking is that the list is generally for the "most important" topics -- which set of 1,000 articles would be the most comprehensive.
There's also Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Frequently Asked Questions, which, of course, is subject to change. Maurreen (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Ah, thanks, didn't see that. It does need to be updated though, as far as examples and the article assessment/status icons. HereToHelp (talk to me) 03:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Holding area

Here we can list "maybe" items. That is, borderline articles to consider adding or subtracting if needed. Maurreen (talk) 06:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Consider adding

Life: 93/95

When I look at the life section in VA3, it says 93/95. Which 2 are mising? Buggie111 (talk) 16:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea. But a few of us are discussing a number of changes. Please chime in if you have any suggestions. Maurreen (talk) 21:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Measurements

Second? Litre? Ton? These are amongst the 1,000 most important articles found in an encyclopedia? No.

I generally agree. Most of the articles in this section could be deleted and the rest redistributed to other sections. However I do have some suggestions. Perhaps we should add Imperial units as the other major measurement system. I think Degree should be deleted as it doesn't seem any more significant than the other units of measurement to me. Day and Year should be kept however as they are not merely units of measurement but important in their own right. —dv82matt 21:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with all of your counter-suggestions.--Father Goose (talk) 02:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Replacing weight with the imerial units? Way to go downhill wikipedia. People allready don't understand the difference between weight and mass, and you want to replace that with a system of units which is legally only used in 1 country + Burma? Nergaal (talk) 17:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
You may have a point with regard to weight. Although mass is the more fundamental concept, weight is the more familiar one and arguably the more important one for most people. With regard to the imperial system it is still widely used even in most countries that have officially switched to the metric system. Anyway it is not correct to suggest that weight is being replaced with Imperial units. Many articles have been suggested for removal not just weight. —dv82matt 23:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I'd like you to look at the weight and mass articles and suggest what properties of weight that are "vital to an encyclopedia" are not also described at mass. There's a lot of overlap, and it's nice to consolidate topics where possible to allow for the greatest possible breadth in the overall list.
It's not unreasonable to include Imperial units, which are used at least part of the time by some hundreds of millions of people worldwide. However, that still leaves out United States customary units. So, on second thought I'd recommend conversion of units instead of Imperial units.--Father Goose (talk) 02:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Conversion of units is mostly just a list of conversion factors. United States customary units are similar to and share roots in common with Imperial units. Both were developed from English units. I think Imperial units is the most general article of the three. —dv82matt 03:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
It is just a list, but on some level, that's the most important information about units one can include in an encyclopedia. The inside cover of my Random House Unabridged Dictionary, for instance, has a lengthy conversion table. The bulk of the information contained in Imperial units is about the metrication of the UK, Canada, and Ireland.--Father Goose (talk) 06:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think Conversion of units should be listed. Conversion tables are useful but I just don't see them as vital encyclopedic content. I do take your point with regard to the content of Imperial units. I think perhaps it also needn't be listed. —dv82matt 03:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


So, to summarize where I think we left things at (and getting more specific about exactly where things will be moved.):

  • Mass will be moved to the Physics section.
  • Measurement and Metric system: although they're not strictly limited to physics, physics deals with the physical properties of objects, so I figure the Physics section is the best place for these two.
  • Day and Year will be moved under Earth within the Astronomy section.
  • The remaining 15 entries from the Measurement section will be removed.

--Father Goose (talk) 05:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add Imperial units. Maurreen (talk) 08:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
We did discuss Imperial units in the paragraphs above; I'm not sure if you spotted that. My biggest problem with the Imperial units article is that it only covers the Commonwealth system, not United States customary units, which is in use by about as many people. If we had one article that covered everything, I'd agree to it without reservation. Could comparison of the imperial and US customary measurement systems fit the bill?--Father Goose (talk) 20:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

All right, I've finally implemented this. I added comparison of the imperial and US customary measurement systems as the nearest article that covers, well, the imperial and US customary measurement systems.--Father Goose (talk) 10:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

More suggestions

History:

Everyday life:

Society and social sciences:

Science:

Technology:

Mathematics:

In addition I suggest that all of the articles that were and will be dropped from this list will be mentioned in a new section below. 85.65.69.166 (talk) 20:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting ideas definitely. I have never been thrilled about the whole concept of this page as I could never figure out who'd look up a page about history itself...Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
2500 hits per day, more then History of the United States or City. 85.65.69.166 (talk) 21:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Hits is a very poor metric for vitalness. I suspect a lot of people do google searches for basic topics, and since our page is usually at or near the top of the results, people click on it even though they aren't necessarily looking to read an encyclopedia article about the subject. For instance, amongst the top 50 Wikipedia articles are things like YouTube, Facebook, Google, and even Wikipedia. Are people simply trying to visit those sites? Are they trying to find content related to those sites? Technical information? How many are saying "I want to read an encyclopedia article about YouTube"? Or do they just click on our link because it's the 3rd on the page when searching for "youtube"?
That said, "history" is potentially a pretty important topic unto itself: what is history, and who writes it? It has the same primacy as science, math, art, etc. Our article on the topic, unfortunately, is pretty dull. We tend to do the "big picture" articles very badly, because they take a great deal of work to write well and don't attract topic-specialist geeks.
But I see this list's purpose as a way to identify what articles we should be striving to do as well as possible. Something like "if you could only read 1,000 articles on Wikipedia, which would they be?" This isn't an entirely hypothetical question: it should be shaping what articles we want in future CD selections, for instance.--Father Goose (talk) 23:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The proposal to drop the Measurement sections, above, will leave about 15 "empties", so some of your suggestions could be straight additions, not substitutions. I'll comment with that in mind.

Overall, I like your suggestions very much. My feedback so far would result in a net change of about +7, well within the +15 or so dropping Measurements would give us. There remain many other areas that could stand to be consolidated or expanded.--Father Goose (talk) 03:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it is important to ensure that we are not replacing a well-written article with a stub just on the basis of generality. Do we need Ship and Boat ? I also think people are more likely to look up Black hole or Dinosaur than mechanics or factory - does that mean we should be swayed in our choices ? Maybe not. Wizzy…☎ 07:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Many of the entries already on the list aren't terribly good quality anyway. I do pay attention to the quality or focus of an article when evaluating proposals (or pitching my own). I think part of the value of this list is that it helps identify which really important articles are badly in need of improvement.
I agree that breadth of coverage should be emphasized over popularity (I believe that's the point you're making), though popularity helps to boost the importance of a topic (as is the case with dinosaur).
We obviously overlooked watercraft in general, so at least one of ship or boat is needed. In terms of their usage, they're about as different as cars and trains, so I'm inclined to say we need both. If we had a better watercraft article, we could rely on that instead. Taking a closer look at that section, I'd say vehicle isn't doing much for us, being full of miscellany and lists, and helicopter is reasonably well covered by aircraft.--Father Goose (talk) 08:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
There is discussion on wikipedia strategy regarding offline releases, and they have a scoring mechanism that combines the articles Importance and Quality (currently extracted from a template on the Talk page and hand-updated) with popularity (from hit statistics). That provides the 30,506 articles used by at least two offline projects as a collection basis. I don't know if any of their tools can be used - but the 30K articles came from a score threshold of 1,250 - perhaps we could ask them to run a couple of higher thresholds that bracket our 1000 articles, to see if we have missed anything dramatic ?
Hmm - it seems that that data is quite old, and work is instead towards version 2. So - scratch that idea for the moment. Wizzy…☎ 10:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
There still might be something of use there. Their data is sorted by wikiproject, and most wikiprojects won't cover any articles of vital importance. But if we look at some of the more vital subject areas, such as the History wikiproject's selection, that could give us a few ideas. The tables are sortable by importance, hits, quality, etc., which should help us to spot a few interesting candidates.
Doing further exploring on this subject, I've noticed that we're maintaining a redundant list: Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/3. Plus there's Wikipedia:Core topics - 1,000, which is overweighted with biographies, countries, and chemical elements. Maybe we ought to work on consolidating these lists first and foremost. We can also page through Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded to see if there are any there that deserve to be "promoted" to this list.--Father Goose (talk) 11:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


So. The merge with L3 put this thread's proposals on hold, although a few of the above suggestions have now been implemented (or are due to be implemented) via the merge. Here's the changes from the above conversation I'd lobby for at this moment:

Net +6 (or +4 if we remove wine and beer).--Father Goose (talk) 06:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, so many. I'd give up Aaron Sorkin and Christina Applegate for Alban Berg and Miles Davis. Sandy Koufax for Francis Bacon (painter)? Gareth E Kegg (talk) 23:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
None of those names are on VA at this time, so what is it you are proposing?--Father Goose (talk) 03:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Just that Sorkin, Applegate and Kouax were on the expanded people list. Is the expanded people list still policy? Gareth E Kegg (talk) 20:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Just go ahead and add the ones you want to the expanded list -- it's still far short of the target 10,000 entries.--Father Goose (talk) 04:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Finally implemented the "+6" table, and also added one I had overlooked from earlier in the thread, playing card.--Father Goose (talk) 11:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Art section

Comments on articles in the L3 list but not in the WP:VA list (excluding biographies). Thanks to Wizzy for compiling the list.

—dv82matt 13:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


So in the art section, I personally wouldn't change anything for now.--Father Goose (talk) 09:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good too me. —dv82matt 10:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good.
But as long as we're at it, I'll suggest a different change -- swapping Mahabharata (on both lists) for Indian epic poetry (on neither).
The article says, "The Mahābhārata is one of the two major Sanskrit epics of ancient India, the other being the Rāmāyaṇa." If we use Indian epic poetry, that would cover both. Maurreen (talk) 14:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
But for article quality, I would take Mahabharata any time. You learn more about Indian epic poetry by reading the Mahabharata than reading its own article. Wizzy…☎ 17:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
OK. Maurreen (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

How about replacing Comics with Cartoon, which would also include Animation? Maurreen (talk) 06:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Cartoon is a pretty minimal article at this time, so no.--Father Goose (talk) 11:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed switch of Athletics for Olympic Games in Sports section

Hello, I'd like to propose adding the Olympic Games to the Level 3 list and replacing Athletics in the Sport sub-section of the Recreation and entertainment section. My reason for this is because the Olympic Games is a much broader subject encompassing Athletics and a wide variety of other sports over both summer and winter seasons. Also the Olympic Games gives almost every sport it features (except for perhaps Football, Basketball, Hockey and a few others) it's highest level of popular exposure. Since an athlete can only compete in an Olympic Games once every four years an Olympic title is highly coveted. In other words an argument can be made that an Olympic gold medal and the title of "Olympic champion" (in most Olympic sports) is the pinnacle award and title that can be acheived in that respective sport. When compared with Athletics I feel as though the Olympics is more "vital". I chose Athletics over Association Football given the existence of the World Cup, which I would consider the only global sporting event that even comes close to the scope and scale of the Olympics. I'm not sure if this factors into the decision but the Olympic Games article is FA while the Athletics article is currently at B class. If the argument for vitality is how important the subject is to the topic of "Sport", I feel that the Olympic Games deserves one of the two spots currently devoted under Sport. I would contend that there are few subjects more intrinsic to sports than the Olympic Games. Certainly these arguments are primarily opinion and I welcome discussion on the subject. H1nkles (talk) 23:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree.
But we're working on revamping the list overall, so this might happen a little later. Maurreen (talk) 00:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Ok I'll look forward to seeing how this is determined. Thanks! H1nkles (talk) 17:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I changed Athletics to Olympics. Maurreen (talk) 15:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Yeah thanks! H1nkles (talk) 03:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
By the way the Olympic Games is an FA, I made the change. H1nkles (talk) 03:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
And thank you! Maurreen (talk) 05:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Merge with Wikipedia:Vital articles Level 3

As I noted at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/3#This is a fork of WP:VA, we're now maintaining two different "Vital 1000" lists (three if you count Wikipedia:Core topics - 1,000, although I'll deal with that list next).

Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/3 appears to be a fork of this list, which has existed for far longer than /Level/3 and had much broader editor participation, so I'd like to suggest closing /Level/3 and refocusing the community's attention on maintaining a single list.

That's not to say that I want to abandon the work that has gone into /Level/3, but it'll probably take quite a bit of work and discussion to consolidate the two. How I propose to do that is to generate a list of entries that are on this list but not on WP:VA, and then see which entries generate the most support. After that we can discuss which entries on WP:VA should be swapped out for entries from this list that are retained.

Please offer your ideas on the general proposal to consolidate the lists, and add any ideas you may have about how to approach the task.--Father Goose (talk) 07:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

You might want to post a comment to WikiProject Vital Articles as well. I believe that was the project that created the "leveled" forks of Vital articles. I don't think it's currently active but it couldn't hurt to post a comment. —dv82matt 07:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Done.--Father Goose (talk) 09:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Support idea of merging, and thoughtful navigation laid out below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Why dont you look at the discussion about the same merge going on at the Level 3 Vital Articles talk page, and see what you think about the proposal that I, Us441, made. Us441 (talk) 19:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Let's hold a vote until 21:30 UTC on April 30, 2010. Put Support FG if you support the merge, put Support U if you support the idea only on the Wikipedia:Vital 1000 talk page, Oppose if you want to leave the page the way it is, and Neutral if you choose not to take any side. Us441 (talk) 15:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Support FG. It's not an overview of the whole process unless you put the top 10,000 articles in there too, which is totally unrealistic. Sir Robert "Brightgalrs" Schultz de Plainsboro (talk) 21:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Technology section

(removing people)

What could come out of VA ?

Wizzy…☎ 14:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree with adding Concrete, Navigation, Paper, Refrigeration and Ship; and removing Refrigerator, Semiconductor, Inclined plane, Dome, Glasses and Typewriter.
Between Radar and Sonar sonar should go. Between Firearm and Handgun and Rifle I'd keep firearm and drop the other two. For Explosive material, Dynamite and Gunpowder I'd drop Explosive material. Between Printing and Printing press printing press is less vital. —dv82matt 22:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Inclined plane, lever, and pulley should be swapped out for simple machine. An overview of the "classical simple machines" will probably be added to simple machine sooner or later -- maybe even by me.--Father Goose (talk) 10:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


So, putting it in list form, here's what I'd do. Give feedback on what you disagree with, or if there's anything new you'd want to add in, since this list is +9 -20. We can also save the spares for other sections/later discussions.

--Father Goose (talk) 01:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Just endorsing this discussion - changes look fine. Wizzy…☎ 05:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I like most of that. But I would:

Remove:

Maurreen (talk) 08:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm okay to remove those three. Instead of retaining Semiconductor, though, I'm thinking Semiconductor device would be better.--Father Goose (talk) 10:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Good point. Semiconductor device is more appropriate. It hadn't occurred to me that there would be two separate articles. Maurreen (talk) 17:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

All right. The revised list I just implemented was:

In retrospect I decided to add only Ship, not Boat, as the "vehicles" list got very sparse with the removals and it seemed wrong to have two watercraft articles. Boat is fairly stubby compared to Ship.

History of agriculture and Factory went in under "Business and economics" within the "Society and social sciences" section.--Father Goose (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Geography section

Comments on articles in the L3 list but not in the WP:VA list.

—dv82matt 19:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


--Father Goose (talk) 11:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes to Pangaea, definitely yes to Sudan. I like the idea of adding Great Lakes, Lake Baikal, and Lake Victoria. Wizzy…☎ 11:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. (and noting that I changed my comment on Rocky Mountains. Thanks to Father Goose for the catch)
So currently 11 possible articles to add to this section: Arctic Ocean, South China Sea, Caribbean Sea, Navigation, Great Lakes, Lake Baikal, Lake Victoria, Mississippi River, Yangtze River, Pangaea, Rocky Mountains and Sudan.
And currently 1 removal candiate: Black Sea.
If we need other removal candidates perhaps Panama Canal, Suez Canal, Gobi Desert and the list of countries might be whittled down some. —dv82matt 20:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Lose Panama Canal, maybe Gobi Desert? And some countries - I chop Ukraine, Norway. Wizzy…☎ 20:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Replace the two canals with canal. I'd be willing to lose Gobi Desert. If we start stripping out countries, I'd rather double-check which are the largest by GDP and population, and fudge things from there. However, I'd sooner strip entries from other sections. We'll be gaining about 15 from the removal of Measurements; I earlier suggesting removing black and white; we might get rid of Hangul, considering we don't have Katakana -- things like that. I'd rather remove weak entries from the list at large than prioritize keeping all the sections within their current, somewhat arbitrary sizes. Oh, by the way, when I said "Navigation, definitely!", I meant definitely yes.--Father Goose (talk) 07:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Canal is already listed in the technology section. Removing black and white seems reasonable to me. I don't know anything about Hangul so my opinion doesn't mean much but I'll note that it is rated "top importance" by two wikiprojects. I tend to agree with you that additions don't need to balance deletions in each section as long as they balance out overall. Finally I'll just clarify that I struck out Navigation in my comment above because it has also been proposed for addition in the technology section below and was therefore redundant. —dv82matt 08:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Ah, didn't spot it there. We can remove Suez and Panama outright, then. Hangul is one of 35 pages in the relevant category, Category:Top-importance Writing system articles. I'm inclined to omit all alphabets which are used in only one or two countries, which means Hangul and Greek alphabet should go, although I'd like to add Phoenician alphabet in place of Greek, as it is the predecessor of practically every Western (and some Eastern) alphabets.--Father Goose (talk) 09:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to mention that we should also strongly consider adding Southern Ocean; having only 4 of the world's 5 oceans (as recognized by the International Hydrographic Organization) is flaky.--Father Goose (talk) 06:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so here's a concrete list of what I'm proposing. Speak up if you think it needs further tweaking:

That's +9.

I'm also proposing:

  • Removing black and white from the "Everyday life" section (-2)
  • Removing Hangul and Greek alphabet from the "Language" section and adding Phoenician alphabet (-1)
  • Adding Navigation to "Navigation and timekeeping" under Technology (+1)
  • Removing the "Measurement" section along with 15 of its entries; moving 5 of its entries to Science (detailed at #Measurements, above). (-15)

--Father Goose (talk) 05:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's my thoughts for just geography.

  • Add from L3 --

-Arctic Ocean -Great Lakes -Jakarta -Karachi -Map (or Navigation) -Mississippi River -Rocky Mountains -Mumbai -Niagara Falls -Shanghai -Southern Ocean -Pangaea

On neither list

  • Add --

- North Korea

  • Consider --

- Philippines - Sahara - Switzerland - Venezuela

  • Remove --

+Denmark +Argentina +Burma +Caspian Sea +Colombia +Ethiopia +Finland +Gobi Desert +Netherlands +Norway +Panama Canal +Poland +Suez Canal +Sweden +Thailand +Turkey +Ukraine

That's +13 (or 17) and -17. Maurreen (talk) 08:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm wary of adjusting the list of countries until we adopt a general GDP/population-based selection process (with a fudge factor). Otherwise the concept of which country is more "vital" than another is pretty arbitrary.--Father Goose (talk) 11:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, I'll work on that. Maurreen (talk) 11:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

We went over the cities list in December, I think (check the archives). I'd sooner reserve space for more countries than more cities. We decided against having more than one city per country, which is why we don't have Mumbai, Shanghai, or Los Angeles. Jakarta and Karachi are both possibilities, but again, I'd sooner include another country instead of another city.

I definitely wouldn't add Niagara Falls, or even Waterfall. But now that I think about it, Tourism might be a good add. I'll stick it in the maybe-laters.

In earlier discussion, we seemed to settle on including 4 lake/lake systems total -- Caspian Sea, Great Lakes, Lake Baikal, Lake Victoria. I wouldn't add Great Lakes and remove Caspian Sea.--Father Goose (talk) 10:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I realize I was late. Maurreen (talk) 17:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


All right, I've implemented it as suggested earlier, with the following differences:

  • Not adding Sudan -- a re-think of what countries we are including has since taken place. (That will be implemented later.)
  • Not adding South China Sea -- In retrospect, adding any marginal sea is a slippery slope -- we'd have to start considering Arabian Sea, Bay of Bengal, Bering Sea, etc., which are really just portions of oceans already on the list.
  • Removing Black Sea, since it falls far outside the list of the world's largest seas.

Although this section wasn't the most meaningful place to propose it, I also implemented the following changes, as suggested here and in other sections:

--Father Goose (talk) 07:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. You're actually doing the work and I'm just sitting here opining. Maurreen (talk) 08:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
And I like the new organizaiton for bodie sof water. Maurreen (talk) 08:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, you did a good job with the reanalysis of our countries list, plus opining is a big part of refining the list anyway.--Father Goose (talk) 09:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Mathematics section

What could we lose from VA ?

Wizzy…☎ 15:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


I've also included the math-related proposals from #More suggestions above.

--Father Goose (talk) 10:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Given Polygon and Trigonometry, can we get rid of Triangle too? And (re)add Golden ratio; it shows up in art and nature a lot. HereToHelp (talk to me) 02:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Our Polygon and Trigonometry articles don't seem to cover much of the same information as Triangle, so that's an argument for keeping all three. I'd be fine with readding Golden ratio -- there's room.--Father Goose (talk) 03:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
OK with me. Maurreen (talk) 02:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Three of the swaps above plus the addition of Algorithm were already performed, so here are the remaining exchanges I just implemented:

--Father Goose (talk) 08:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

History section

(I was hoping someone else would do this, but here goes ..) Taking out people, cities, leaving in places that belong in Geography


What can we lose from VA ?

Wizzy…☎ 10:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)



So here's a tentative list, speak up to change it:

Net +3. We've got lots of empties coming from other sections, so we can definitely fit three new ones. --Father Goose (talk) 04:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Revolutions of 1989 does look like a nice article. Wizzy…☎ 05:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I would keep The Holocaust. Maurreen (talk) 08:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
In addition to, or instead of, Nazi Germany? That's a broader article and it has a good overview of the Holocaust within it.--Father Goose (talk) 11:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I can go along with Nazi Germany instead of The Holocaust. Maurreen (talk) 11:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done, per the +5/-2 list proposed above.--Father Goose (talk) 08:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Should we remove Congress of Vienna as redundant to Napoleonic Wars? We don't have Treaty of Versailles, and I don't think adding a few lines about Vienna to the war article should be much of a problem. HereToHelp (talk to me) 03:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I'd agree to removing Congress of Vienna for the reasons you cite.--Father Goose (talk) 04:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Country guidelines

My suggestion:

Maurreen (talk) 11:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

That would give us 22:

Maurreen (talk) 12:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


These countries now on the list would fall outside the guideline above but could still be considered for inclusion: +Denmark +Argentina +Burma +Colombia +Democratic Republic of the Congo +Egypt +Ethiopia +Finland +Greece +Iran +Iraq +Israel +Hong Kong +Netherlands +Norway +Poland +Saudi Arabia +Singapore +South Korea +Thailand +Turkey +Ukraine +Vietnam

Just FYI, I was struck that the current list includes Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, Norway and Sweden, but not Switzerland. Maurreen (talk) 13:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Or if we want more, we could go with the top x number in each category. Maurreen (talk) 14:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
That's a pretty good-looking "core" list. The inclusion of New Zealand is something of a surprise, but it does make sense to include all the most major English-speaking countries on the English Wikipedia vital list.
I'd adjust it slightly to include more countries from the top 20 GDP, namely South Korea, Turkey, Netherlands, Poland, and Iran.
  • South Korea is solidly with in the top 15 by GDP and also 25th by population.
  • Turkey is in the top 20 both GDP- and population-wise.
  • The Netherlands has a comparatively small population (#61), but it does have the 13th-largest English-speaking community in the world (87% of their population), and they are #16 by GDP (PPP)/#20 by nominal GDP.
  • Poland is just on the edge, GDP-wise, at #18-21 (nominal) and #19-21 (PPP). They're not huge population-wise (#34), though they do have the 17th-largest English-speaking community (29% of their population).
  • Iran: #26-29 GDP nominal, #16-17 by PPP. 17th largest population world-wide. They're the best candidate for Middle Eastern representation.
One last one I considered but ultimately believe I would omit is Belgium, at #20 GDP nominal, but #29 by PPP. They do have a large English-speaking population (#24, 59% of their population), but are very small overall (#76).--Father Goose (talk) 05:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good. Maurreen (talk) 07:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Re-examining the list, I believe South Africa doesn't actually meet any of the proposed criteria (GDP, population, total English speakers).--Father Goose (talk) 11:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
South Africa is #6 on list of countries by number of native speakers of English, the second criteria on the list. Maurreen (talk) 14:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done Implemented as discussed.--Father Goose (talk)

Macropedia?

I just stumbled across Wikipedia:List of 2007 Macropædia articles, which we might or might not want to consider as a factor in our list here. Wikipedia:List of 2007 Macropædia articles lists articles in a certain small encyclopedia. Maurreen (talk) 14:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Life section

From L3, I'd import:

From VA, I'd remove:

And switch Hindi to Hindustani language, as the latter seems to be a superset of the former.

From the #More suggestions thread, above, two additional good candidates for the Life section are Nut (fruit) and Egg (food). For the time being, I'd like to hold off on removing Wine and Beer unless we get pressed for space.

Summarizing:

Net +4.--Father Goose (talk) 09:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. Maurreen (talk) 02:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done, although I didn't add Race, since I noticed we had Racism under the Society section.--Father Goose (talk) 10:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

We have Chess, so why not Checkers? HereToHelp (talk to me) 13:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
We do have Draughts, the British word for Checkers. Maurreen (talk) 17:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh excuse me. I'm going to put checkers in parenthesis then. HereToHelp (talk to me) 17:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Couple of ideas for after the merger

--Father Goose (talk) 22:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe?

--Father Goose (talk) 06:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Can I suggest Talmud to go under Judaism? HereToHelp (talk to me) 01:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Maybe, though we do have Tanakh.--Father Goose (talk) 06:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Some ones I forgot to follow up on from #More suggestions:

--Father Goose (talk) 05:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Of those weapons, I would just keep Firearm.
I don't have a preference between Sugar and Carbohydrate.
The rest sound good. Maurreen (talk) 17:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


Missing 20

We're at 980 for some reason. Did we lose 20 somewhere? Voxii (talk) 08:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

We're slowly merging. Maurreen (talk) 09:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
989 now.--Father Goose (talk) 10:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
970 following the implementation of the revised countries list.--Father Goose (talk) 00:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
972 following merge of philosophy and society sections.--Father Goose (talk) 06:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
971 after removing Congress of Vienna.--Father Goose (talk) 10:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Philosophy section

So, we never took a look at the philosophy section as part of the merge, nor society. I'll give 'em a look in next few days, or someone else can get it started if they want. Check #Philosophy merge and #Society merge first for the comparisons of what was in the L3 list and what's in this list.--Father Goose (talk) 10:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


Okay, here's what I'm pitching for the Philosophy and religion merge:

Philosophy section -- I'd remove all the specific philosophical movements that have little impact outside of the academic realm. I'd leave in:

Religion -- There are several candidates for removal:

Good ones from L3:

Additionally, I'd suggest adding Shamanism in place of Vodou, and possibly Polytheism as well. Instead of Empiricism/Rationalism/Skepticism, I'd add Reason under Epistemology.

Tentative list:

That'd be -9. I'm sure we can always find new stuff to slot in elsewhere.--Father Goose (talk) 09:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I second that. Good choices, good rationale. Maurreen (talk) 10:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Father Goose (talk) 06:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Society section

After reviewing #Society merge and our current list of topics, I think:

--Father Goose (talk) 23:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Privacy and Colonialism are good additions. Most of your list sounds good. A couple exceptions I would keep:
  • I think Mining or something similar should be included somewhere. It's an important industry; most fuel depends on mining. Maybe the Technology section would be better?
  • I think the Red Cross is one of the most important nonprofit institutions in the world. It's widely recognizable. Its activities include disaster aid, services for POWs, and safety training. Maurreen (talk) 00:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Red Cross -- from the article: "National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies exist in nearly every country in the world. Currently 186 National Societies are recognized by the ICRC (international committee). ... In many countries, they are tightly linked to the respective national health care system by providing emergency medical services." Maurreen (talk) 00:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay. I'd still want to add Humanitarianism, though. We've got room.
Mining kind of sticks out -- most of the other industry listings we have are more general. We could amend the problem by rounding out our industry/business list. I'd add:
While I'm at it, I'm going to suggest adding Property.--Father Goose (talk) 05:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Tentative list:

--Father Goose (talk) 05:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. All good points and good suggestions. Maurreen (talk) 11:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Looking over my "suggestions for after the merge" thread, there's two more I'd like to consider adding to Society: Terrorism (next to War) and Environmentalism. Thoughts?--Father Goose (talk) 03:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Those are good. Maurreen (talk) 04:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Father Goose (talk) 06:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Biographies

Arts

These articles are in L3, but not here - - Akira Kurosawa - Alfred Hitchcock - Andrea Palladio - Frank Lloyd Wright - Izumo no Okuni - Marilyn Monroe - Michael Jackson - Ravi Shankar - Vitruvius - Walt Disney

Artists on VA but not L3 -- Diego Velázquez - Hokusai - Rembrandt - Salvador Dali

NOTE: Some items may be listed under a different topic in the other list.


Considering just fine art and architecture for now ...

Artists --

Keep
Consider adding; not on either list
  • Andy Warhol -- listed as Core bio, article says he is one of only five artists who have had a work sell for $100 million or more. (The others are Jackson Pollock, Pablo Picasso, Gustav Klimt and Willem de Kooning.)
  • Rodin -- GA, a Core bio, "generally considered the progenitor of modern sculpture."
I could go either way on these.
Delete


Architects --

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maurreen (talk • contribs)

Biographies are tricky -- there are a lot of important people out there, but their importance can be very narrow in scope. We can only cover so many topics with 1,000 articles, so in general I prefer including articles like Modern architecture over Frank Lloyd Wright. It's also really easy to slip into cultural bias with biographies, or even just personal favorites. For instance, I've never heard of Shitao, nor Hokusai -- although I sure have seen Hokusai's work. But which artist is more "vital" than another? It's pretty subjective.--Father Goose (talk) 06:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Objectivity and bias

A way to make the biography selection less subjective is to use other "lists of people" as a factor. Here is a comparison across six such lists, showing the number of lists that include various people.

About any cultural bias -- I think some bias toward the English-speaking world is appropriate in the English Wikipedia. And I would expect Wikipedias in other languages to be biased in regards to their audiences. Maurreen (talk) 07:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Bias is inevitable, yes, but we still want to take steps against it where we can. Even worse than English-language bias is general Western bias. For instance, of those lists of people you linked to, only one cites Muhammad as one of the millennium's most influential people. Despite that, it does seem to be a decent, if imperfect gauge.--Father Goose (talk) 08:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Ther's a good reason for that - the same reason Jesus is only in one list - wrong millennium. Rich Farmbrough, 03:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC).

Bios 2

5+ lists

OK, here's a work area to start re-doing our list of bios. The numbers indicate how many of the above published lists each person is on. Maurreen (talk) 09:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Of those, we're missing Rousseau. I guess it wouldn't be bad to work our way down the list and note which they have that we're missing and which we have that they don't. Not unlike the L3 merge.--Father Goose (talk) 10:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

4 lists

The following are each on four of the lists. ... A caveat: I'm belatedly wondering whether our representation of one of the lists is complete. But if not, it's still helpful. Maurreen (talk) 07:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Arts

Leo Tolstoy -- Ludwig Van Beethoven - Michelangelo - William Shakespeare -

All included on main list.
Invention
Leaders
Religion and philosophy
Science
Unclassified

I've just subcategorized this section according to whether we already include these people in the main list. Maurreen (talk) 06:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

3 lists

These are each on three of our published lists. Maurreen (talk) 06:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Arts
Cultural miscellaneous
Explorers
Leaders
Technical fields
Unclassified
Don't archive this yet. Maurreen (talk) 08
54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Now what?

I'm still a little confused with how much of the proposed refinements on the talk page have been implemented, or whether the counts in the headers (970 by my addition) reflect the actual articles, but I'd like to make a list of what's next, and to get everyone on the same page as far as what is left to do. Perhaps list every marginally thrown out article, count them, and then decide who makes the last 30? I'm eager to finalize (to what extent anything here is ever final) one list of 1000 articles so we can begin improving these articles instead of listing them. As for cleanup, we need to add assessment symbols to many of the articles (could a bot do that, and keep them updated?). I'm also tired of having different lists; it's very confusing. But these are all just suggestions from my vantage point, namely that we're pretty close to done, and if we're not, and you have other ideas, please let me know. HereToHelp (talk to me) 18:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the main next thing is to consider the biographies, which were not considered with the other sections. But we did start discussing them above. I have some extra stuff going on lately, so I'm not sure how much I'll be able to contribute for the next week or so. Maurreen (talk) 18:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
#Philosophy section and #Society section are pending. I figure I'll give people about two weeks total to look them over and implement them if there are no further comments. As Maurreen says, an examination of the Biographies section is coming up after that. There also a few ideas from #Couple of ideas for after the merger that I'd like to formally introduce.
As for the "blanks", I think we're more likely to find better candidates amongst articles not yet proposed for addition than from those removed. In the course of this merger, we've come across dozens of worthy omissions and dozens of less-worthy inclusions that were removed. Meanwhile, there's nothing stopping any of us from improving any of the articles on the list. It's going to continue evolving (though hopefully more slowly) after the merger is done, and even the entries that have been removed are important to the encyclopedia (though maybe not 1,000-most-important important) and deserve improvement.
If you want to focus on improving the articles instead of the list, pick a Start or C that seems unlikely to be removed and get to work.--Father Goose (talk) 15:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

At Template:Core topics I've added an extensive listof all the related and historic pages (that I'm aware of). Hopefully that's a good location for it, and it proves useful somehow. I kept noticing the overlapping but non-uniform lists of SeeAlso links in some of the top level pages. Do with it what you will :) -- Quiddity (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's helpful. I assume that Core Topics is getting merged into Vital Articles/retain for historical interest with a link to VA? HereToHelp (talk to me) 00:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that's been brought up yet, but it's probably a good idea.
By the way, I originated Core Topics. Part of the purpose had been to get more work done on those articles. We made some progress, but there wasn't enough interest to sustain that purpose after a while. Maurreen (talk) 00:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
You don't mind that it's being resigned to a predecessor of VA, do you? As for quality improvement, I was thinking about striking a deal with the organizers of the WikiCup to give more points for VAs than other articles. HereToHelp (talk to me) 01:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm OK with it. It seems like VA gets a little more attention.
Also, by the way, Core Topics falls under WP:1.0, but I don't think anyone will mind. I think Core Topics has had negligible activity for a few years. Maurreen (talk) 01:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Ooh, a VA improvement drive via the Cup. That's a very appealing idea. Like I said before, even the ones that get removed are usually pretty important, although maybe more Vital 10,000 than Vital 1,000 important. Anything that's been on this list deserves attention.--Father Goose (talk) 06:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
HtH, it is a great idea. Maurreen (talk) 06:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you *broad smile*. Naturally they would need a fixed (unchanging) list, probably a diff, to go off of. So I'm fine letting this take as long as it needs as long as that's where we're headed (see previous section). HereToHelp (talk to me) 00:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
The philosophy/religion and society sections are about to be revamped. That's the biggest concrete change that's slated for now. It'll leave us at 972, and I don't think we're in a rush to bring it back up to 1,000. Just grab a diff from any time after those two are implemented. All additional changes are likely to dribble in over the course of months.--Father Goose (talk) 05:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
The WikiCup points could be based just on the main list of about a thousand items. Or they could be based on level. That is, a person could get more points for a Level 1 article, and fewer points for a Level 4 article. Just food for thought. Maurreen (talk) 06:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Firstly, I think the WikiCup is on a calendar year cycle, so there's no rush. Secondly, Level 4 is a whole other mess that none of us are really ready to deal with, so I don't think giving (extra) points for those would be worthwhile. As for more for level 1 and 2, sounds good to me, but our initial proposal to the WikiCup organizers (date TBD) should stay simple. HereToHelp (talk to me) 00:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk pages for other levels

I'm wondering whether at some point we should redirect talk pages for the other levels to this page. The other levels get less participation and maybe less watching. If we redirect those talk pages here, it's more likely anyone would get a response in a timely manner. Maurreen (talk) 05:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It could cause confusion -- further up this page, someone was talking about removing Aaron Sorkin, who isn't on VA. Turned out he was referring to L4. At the same time, I agree that a centralized place to discuss all levels would probably be a good idea. So I dunno.--Father Goose (talk) 07:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I like the idea, and perhaps the best way to address Father Goose's concerns would be to archive most of the above conversation. Assuming, of course, that there isn't a reason for keeping it visible. HereToHelp (talk to me) 23:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Further improvements

I would like to suggest following changes:

  • Argentina to be included in the countries list. Argentina is the 8th largest country by area, and is member of G-20, so it should fit in the top 27 list. It could replace Republic of Ireland which has nearly 10 times less population, and the replacement would lead to a better geographic diversity (currently only one country from South America in the list).
  • Egypt to be included in the country list. It is the 16th most populous country, and highly notable in history. It could replace New Zealand with a much lower population, geographic area, and recorded history. The replacement would lead to a better geographic diversity (currently two countries from Africa and one from Middle East in the list).
  • In architecture, Machu Picchu to be added, for its importance as a World Heritage Site, recently voted as one of the New Seven Wonders of the World and better geographic representation (currently no building from America on the list). It could replace Stonehenge.

Hope the proposals will get support. --Elekhh (talk) 23:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

For countries, please see our guidelines. I should move the guidelines to a better location. Maurreen (talk) 00:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't really understand the guidelines and don't see how it would be consistent with the FAQ criterias of Geographic diversity, and Chronological diversity. Particularly I disagree with (a) GDP - this changes each year, and has limitations (does not measure many aspects of an economy, such as non-monetary economy), therefore chronological and political bias; (b) over 3 mil/ top 8 native English speakers - this introduces a cultural bias. I don't think native English speakers should be overvalued at a ratio of 6.67:1 over non-native English speakers. --Elekhh (talk) 01:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I'll think about Machu Picchu. But I can't see it replacing Stonehenge. Maurreen (talk) 00:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Why does it have to replace anything? At my count (just the headers, from the table of contents) we have 972 articles. How should we fill the remaining 28 slots? HereToHelp (talk to me) 00:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I just read the intro which states that it is a list of 1,000, but if that's not correct than of course the above proposals could be simply added. --Elekhh (talk) 01:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Machu Picchu and Wonders of the World

There are several lists of Wonders of the World. Do you think New Seven Wonders of the World is better than any of the others? Do you think Machu Picchu is more worthy of inclusion than the six other New Seven Wonders of the World? Maurreen (talk) 01:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

  • No, probably not. Sorry if as a newcommer to this page I am not aware of all the previous discussions. I followed the FAQ, and proposed a change which would have improved the geographic representation of the topic, as explained. I don't think agreement could be achieved for such a short list, nor that it would be any objective criteria available. However, I agree with the principle of trying to achieve a good global representation of all topics, and reduce current Northern Hemisphere bias. Elekhh (talk) 01:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Not to worry.
We can consider reducing the bias in other ways (other than Machu Picchu). Maurreen (talk) 01:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Also, there is an expanded list, shooting for 10 times as many entries. It's pretty much open season there. Maurreen (talk) 02:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Country guidelines

These are the current country guidelines:

  • Note: The Netherlands, Poland and South Korea currently in the list would only qualify if the above criteria for GDP is lowered to top 20. --Elekhh (talk) 03:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

If you disagree with these, what would you suggest for guidelines? Maurreen (talk) 01:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

  • I agree that the guidelines should consider both the importance of the article's content and the number of potential readers. Country articles typicaly include information on History, Geography, Government, Economy, Culture, but the importance of these is certainly impossible to perfectly quantify. Therefore I would suggest that, while selecting most of the countries based on some objective criteria, it should be possible to add countries which do not meet numeric criteria, but there is consensus that are vital. In terms of measurements, the criteria should set a top number, rather than specify a numeric thresshold, as population numbers will continue to increase, while the list would needs to remain at a certain number (currently 27, maybe 30). My proposal is:
  • Total population, top 10 countries, see List of countries by population.
Currently: China, India, US, Indonesia, Brazil, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Russia, Japan
Currently: Russia, China, US, Canada, Brazil, Australia, India, Argentina, Kazakhstan, Algeria (duplicates in italics)
Currently: Italy, Spain, China, France, Germany, Mexico, UK, India, Russia, US
Currently: US, India, Nigeria, UK, Philippines, Germany, Canada, France, Australia, Pakistan
  • Countries which are in top 20 in at least 2 of the above 4 criteria.
Currently: Iran (pop+area), Turkey (pop+English), P.R.Congo (pop+area), Sweden (WHS+English), Poland (WHS+English), Total so far 27
  • The remaining countries to fill-in the top 30 list would be agreed by consensus, considering relevance according to History, Geography, Government, Economy, Culture, etc.
Could be from those which are currently in the list but would not qualify with the new criteria: Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa (native English speakers), Netherlands, South Korea (GDP). I would also consider Egypt and Greece for Historic relevance (no quantitative criteria).

Not a perfect system, but I believe more comprehensive as it adds some objective criteria regarding Geography and Culture, while eliminating cultural and geographic bias. --Elekhh (talk) 03:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

My thinking was generally that inclusion should be based on number of potential readers and influence or importance of the country (in contrast to importance of the article, which is a littel confusing to me). Maurreen (talk) 13:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
That's what I acctualy meant, except with a stronger emphasis on "importance of the country" and a democratic approach to "potential readers". --Elekhh (talk) 15:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
By "set a top number, rather than specify a numeric thresshold", do you mean the top X number of countries ranked according to Y? If so, I'm open to that. Maurreen (talk) 13:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
That's right, and I am happy you agree. --Elekhh (talk) 15:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't see how you figure land area would be a good criteria for this. Maurreen (talk) 13:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, is relevant for geography, natural resources, etc., that's why is in the country infobox. --Elekhh (talk) 15:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm open to using number of World Heritage Sites. Maurreen (talk) 13:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Happy to hear that. --Elekhh (talk) 15:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I can't see dropping criteria based on native English speakers. If people of a given country are most likely to use the English Wikipedia, that's important. Maurreen (talk) 13:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Hm, but Indians or Pakistanis will also use the English Wiki as it has much more articles... I have to repeat the previous argument, 1 native speaker = 6.7 non-native speakers appears pretty arbitrary. --Elekhh (talk) 15:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I'd rather keep GDP criteria. The size of a country's economy is a gauge of its global importance. But I am open to adding G20 countries. Maurreen (talk) 13:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I thought about that, and now agree to include GDP as indicator for trade power, however shouldn't be higher valued than other criteria. --Elekhh (talk) 15:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm also open to adding countries with nuclear weapons. Maurreen (talk) 13:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I wonder if there is an indicator of military power in general... --Elekhh (talk) 15:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure any one indicator would take predominance. So we can skip this. Maurreen (talk) 16:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
And the guidelines are just guidelines. Not all of our currently included countries fall within the guidelines. But their inclusion was based on those factors. Maurreen (talk) 13:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
For historical influence, I'd generally prefer to consider historical civilizations (see section below) instead of countries. Maurreen (talk) 13:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Accept the rationale. --Elekhh (talk) 15:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
OK, to summarize, Elekhh and I accept these aspects (leaving aside for now the numbers) and are discussing others:
Maurreen (talk) 16:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Also, just a note, there are a few GDP tables. I don't know whether one gauge is more relevant than another. Maurreen (talk) 17:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I am OK with using the top 10 as a guideline. That is, it need not be definitive on either side. Also open to diversity as a secondary factor. Maurreen (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Also, we could consider Composite Index of National Capability. Maurreen (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Land area

  1. I don't see any correlation between land area and global importance. As an analogy, consider Alaska and Wyoming. They are two of the larger U.S. states, but they have little influence on the rest of the country.
  2. Importance of geographical features would be accounted for with criteria of number of World Heritage Sites.
  3. Considering natural resources has some merit. But not more merit than other types of resources. And less merit if those resources are not being used. Also, I doubt area is a good gauge of natural resources. Maurreen (talk) 17:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, these are the three you list that we don't already include: Argentina, Kazakhstan, Algeria. How does their land area make them more important to the rest of the world? Maurreen (talk) 19:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

  • I agree to a certain extent that land area is not directly proportional with the global (geographic) importance of a country, however unfortunately nor is the number of World Heritage sites proportional with the richness of the natural enviroment. Argentina is an example of a large (8th) and diverse geographic region which I would find strange not to see in the top 30. Kazakhstan and Algeria, are both resource rich (uranium and natural gaz).
In the USA, Wyoming is a leading producer of coal and gas. That doesn't make it among the most influential in the country. Maurreen (talk) 14:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Native-language English

  1. I'm not sure what you mean by "1 native speaker = 6.7 non-native speakers appears pretty arbitrary."
  2. A replacement could possibly be percentage of native English speakers.
  3. About "Indians or Pakistanis will also use the English Wiki" -- but isn't there a wiki for the first language of the typical Indians or Pakistani? The typical New Zealander, for example, has no analogous wiki substitute. Maurreen (talk) 17:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC) And we already include Pakistan and India anyway. Maurreen (talk) 19:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
The current guidelines set thressholds of 3 mil native speakers and 20 mil non-native speakers. That means that for a country with non-native English speakers to qualify it would take 6.7x larger population than a country with native English speakers. --Elekhh (talk) 02:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Ultimately the question would be, is it more vital for Wikipedia to provide an article to 4 million New Zealanders about their own country, or provide an article to all 900 million English speakers (native + non-native) about a country which is much more significant on a global scale, such as Argentina (10x size, 10x population, 2x WHS, 2.4x GDP, G20, etc.). --Elekhh (talk) 02:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Diversity

If part of the point is more diversity, that might be served by methods other than the criteria either of us listed above -- such as by considering G20 countries, maybe as a secondary criteria. Maurreen (talk) 17:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Next step?

For the current guidelines, there was agreement at the time. We accept adding a factor for the top 10 on the Table of World Heritage Sites by country.

I doubt Elekhh or I will change the other's mind about land area or number of native English speakers, and nobody else has weighed in.

So I would suggest just adding the criteria for WHS sites. Maurreen (talk) 14:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Also we agreed to change population thressholds to top x, and we agreed on top 10 English speaking countries. For native English, as we do not agree, I would suggest only changing wording from 3 mil to top 8. And we should clarify the arguments for countries which do not meet these guidelines but are currently in the list: Iran, Netherlands, Poland, South Korea, Turkey. My former proposal of top 20 in two of four categories (Population, WHS, English and GDP) would deliver: Netherlands, Poland, Turkey and Sweden. That leaves Iran and South Korea out. --Elekhh (talk) 00:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
About clarifying the arguments for countries now on the list, please see the discussion from when those countries were decided. I don't see any need to delete any of these. But I'm open to addition. Maurreen (talk) 02:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
uf, when I advanced my first suggestion I did not imagine this will become such a lenghty discussion... :) So back to that, I suggest Argentina to be added, given that (a) it is a very significant country (8th largest in the World - diverse geography, political influence - G20 member) (b) better geographic diversity (currently only one country from South America in the list), (c) more "vital" in global educative terms than the tiny English speaking countries of Ireland and New Zealand already in the list. --Elekhh (talk) 06:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I just spent a few hours compiling a table with various rankings. If we add the rankings for GDP, population and WHS, Egypt and Argentina are #21 & 22, and the first 21 are all on our current list.
So I accept Egypt and Argentina.
Granted, that was a long way to get what you wanted. But now there is rationale that fits better with the others. Maurreen (talk) 06:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! --Elekhh (talk) 07:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Implementation ? --Elekhh (talk) 23:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
We need 1000 definitive articles first... HereToHelp (talk to me) 02:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Elekhh, go for it. Maurreen (talk) 05:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Dividing lines

Actually, I didn't agree to change the thresholds to the top x number. I had said I'm open to that. By "open to", I meant that I hadn't decided against.

For List of countries by population, 100 million is as natural a breaking point as top 10. For List of countries by English-speaking population, over 20 million is a better break point that top 10. For native English speakers, 3 million is a good break point, but I'm open to 1 million or 2 million. Maurreen (talk) 02:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, I misremembered that. OK, I accepted top 10 ... Maurreen (talk) 05:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Archive_3&oldid=1142662356"