Wikipedia talk:Vital articles

General Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

Level 5 Subpages

People History and geography Society STEM

Einführung

FA FA GA GA A - Total December 1, 2007 83 45 90 139 25 690 1022 June 1, 2008 88 46 79 140 25 670 999 December 1, 2008 88 50 72 145 24 682 1014 FA A GA B C - Total December 1, 2009 82 7 49 586 146 129 999 January 1, 2011 78 8 60 472 255 113 986 January 1, 2012 76 1 76 454 275 109 991 June 29, 2013 88 3 88 450 289 82 1000 October 13, 2013 90 4 92 446 284 83 999 January 13, 2015 90 2 96 417 333 60 998 December 23, 2016 94 2 107 425 355 17 1000 December 10, 2017 91 3 115 392 376 17 994 January 22, 2019 92 4 122 389 380 12 999 December 20, 2019 88 2 121 390 383 17 1001 November 25, 2020 83 1 127 373 402 15 1001 March 19, 2022 73 2 127 387 406 5 1000 January 11, 2023 71 2 128 299 471 27 998

The purpose of this discussion page is to select 1000 topics for which Wikipedia should have high-quality articles. All Wikipedia editors are welcome to participate. Individual topics are proposed for addition or removal, followed by discussion and !voting. When the list is full, it is highly recommended that a nomination of a new topic be accompanied by a proposal to remove a lower-priority topic already on the list. Please see the table to the right (on desktop) or above (on mobile) describing the percentage of articles as FA, GA, etc. for a history of the list.

All proposals must remain open for !voting for a minimum of 15 days, after which:

1. After 15 days it may be closed as PASSED if there are (a) 5 or more supports, AND (b) at least two-thirds are in support.
2. After 30 days it may be closed as FAILED if there are (a) 3 or more opposes, AND (b) it failed to earn two-thirds support.
3. After 30 days it may be closed as NO CONSENSUS if the proposal hasn't received any !votes for +30 days, regardless of tally.
4. After 60 days it may be closed as NO CONSENSUS if the proposal has (a) less than 5 supports, AND (b) less than two-thirds support.

Nominations should be left open beyond the minimum if they have a reasonable chance of passing. An informed discussion with more editor participation produces an improved and more stable final list, so be patient with the process.

• 15 days ago: 06:53, 22 August 2024 (UTC) ()
• 30 days ago: 06:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
• 60 days ago: 06:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Add Contemporary history

We have five historical periods listed: Prehistory, ancient, post-classical, early modern, and late modern. This article, depending on the definition used, is either a part of late modern history, or comes after it. I think it is worth a discussion on whether this article should be included or not. It doesn't seem to have been discussed before in the archives, so I propsed it. Interstellarity (talk) 00:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 00:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
2. Support The article offers a look at contemporary world. Better choice than Information age. --Thi (talk) 10:52, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
3. Strong support great suggestion. This article could even be Vital-2. LightProof1995 (talk) 06:56, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
4. Support. Per nom. Yes. contemporary is always less stable/recentism, but it is also richer and more intensively edited and therefore vital at level 3. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 12:51, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
5. Support Good addition to cover the general eras consistently. Crazynas ^t 19:32, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose as I don't feel this is distinct enough from Late modern period. We actually only have four historical periods (prehistory, ancient, post-classical, modern), we just split the modern period in two because there's a lot more content. I don't think there's enough of a distinction between the late modern and contemporary history to justify having both. OliveYouBean (talk) 02:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

For those saying this isn't distinct enough from Late modern period, I respectfully disagree. The two articles have almost nothing in common as the Late modern period article covers history from the 1700s, 1800s, up to WW2, while the Contemporary history article covers everything from 1945 to present, and also focuses on the "current" era, which in my opinion is the most important one. LightProof1995 (talk) 06:04, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

• I would conditionally support this if we decided to split things so that Late modern period covered 1800-1945 and Contemporary covered 1945-present. If Late modern covers 1800-present, this is harder to justify. (Also that article is... problematic, currently, but I get that it's tough.) SnowFire (talk) 01:56, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Add Carbohydrate and Lipid

These are probably the two most vital articles currently not listed at this level. Important topics in biochemistry and nutrition.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 10:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
2. Support per my previous comments. These are fundamental building blocks of life, and are far more essential than the currently listed hormone. Cobblet (talk) 14:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
3. Support adding carbohydrate. I'm neutral on lipid, though. I feel like they should be separate proposals. OliveYouBean (talk) 02:41, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
4. Support Per nom. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 12:44, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Respectfully Oppose -- Out of the 11 sections on the Vital-3 list, Science is the largest by far, at 209 articles. Other sections are lacking in comparison.

   EDIT: I'm now only opposing Lipid and I'm Neutral on Carbohydrate -- see discussion. LightProof1995 (talk) 17:16, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

2. VIT4 is sufficient czar 20:34, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

   @Czar: Why is level 4 not sufficient for Hormone then? Cobblet (talk) 17:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

Sugar is a carbohydrate, and possibly needs to be moved from under "Food and drink" in the "Everyday Life" section, to a sub-article of Molecular biology in the Biology section, to match its placement in the Vital-4 and Vital-5 lists. (We could also move its placement in Vital-4/5 to under Food and drink, but I'm not sure that fits as well, at least for Vital-4. For Vital-5 it would be fine, but we can discuss). LightProof1995 (talk) 18:01, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I changed my vote of Carbohydrate from Oppose to Neutral because I decided that while the fact the Science section is the largest and others are lacking definitely needs to be considered, that by itself isn't reason to promote an article, especially when we are under quota. I feel if a Science article is proposed and it stands out as Vital-3, e.g. has a view count in the past 30 days of 100,000+, it should be considered. Carbohydrate views in past 30 days: 71,052. Lipid views in past 30 days: 34,566. For Carbohydrate, I feel even though it would go under the Science section, it is important in Nutrition, which is under the Health, medicine, and disease section, which is the section with the lowest count. So, that plus its high-ish view count, is why I am changing my vote on it to Neutral. LightProof1995 (talk) 02:56, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Replace simple machine by machine

Yes, the former is vital, but not as vital as the latter, which is a much more frequently used word. Keeping the former while excluding the latter is illogical, and in order to make room for more articles vital at this level, removing some less important articles is absolutely needed.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:04, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
2. Excellent proposal, thank you. LightProof1995 (talk) 03:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 06:08, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
4. Support Dawid2009 (talk) 18:41, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
5. Support The fact that simple machines are also covered inside the machine article. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 12:59, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose Machine is completely redundant to mechanical engineering and is a less coherent topic than the latter. Simple machines are a basic topic in scientific education; amorphous subcategories of tools (which is already listed) like machines are not. Cobblet (talk) 07:25, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

  Comparing the two articles, I don't think Machine is redundant with Mechanical engineering... Headers for Machine include Simple machine (which only has subsections for three of the six simple machines, possibly pointing to how this article needs work), Mechanical systems, Mechanisms, Machine elements... Mechanical engineering has Headers like Education, Subdisciplines, Job duties... The Mechanical engineering page doesn't even have the words "Mechanization" or "Controller", both of which are headers on the Machine page. Similarly, Machine doesn't even have the words/phrases "Structural analysis" or "Mechatronics", which are both subheaders on the Mechanical engineering article.

  We also should consider that the Wheel and axle is one of the six Simple machines, and Wheel is on the list under Tool. The second paragraph on the Machine article suggests "Simple machines" are indeed types of "Machines". LightProof1995 (talk) 03:18, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

  Point taken, but I still do not think we should list both machine and mechanical engineering. Given the overlap in coverage between machine and both tool and simple machine, I prefer keeping the status quo. Cobblet (talk) 16:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you for your response :) I'm not sure I understand your reasoning with the coverage. I feel the coverage is redundant across having both "simple machine" and "tool", or having both "simple machine" and "machine", but not "machine" and "tool", which is what RekishiEJ proposed. All simple machines are tools, and all simple machines are machines. However, not all machines are tools, and not all tools are machines. So isn't the only combination that allows maximum coverage having both "machine" and "tool", and not "simple machine"? LightProof1995 (talk) 17:49, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

  As far as I understand, all machines are in fact tools. Can you explain why you think "molecular machines" are not tools? I don't mind the redundancy between simple machine and tool any more than the redundancy between, say, book and printing. But adding a third redundant topic in machine seems unnecessary, particularly if the mechanical engineering article could be expanded to cover mechanical concepts. (I don't see why the mechanical engineering article has to be limited to coverage of the academic discipline. Other articles like chemistry or physics cover both the basic concepts underpinning the field and the academic study of that field.) Cobblet (talk) 18:04, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

  Molecules are not tools because they are not handheld devices used to accomplish a particular task :) While I see where you are coming from with "we can add whatever is in machine to mechanical engineering akin to the chemistry and physics articles", the same exact thing could be said for simple machine, and in fact, that would be a lot easier to accomplish. One of the headers for Machine is Simple Machine, because simple machines are a type of machines. If we moved everything from Machine to Mechanical engineering (a difficult task), then both Simple machine and Machine would be redundant with Mechanical engineering. So we might as well choose the broader article to list here... right? LightProof1995 (talk) 15:49, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

  Not all tools are hand tools. Tool#Types goes so far as to say that even spreadsheets are tools. As I said before, "Simple machines are a basic topic in scientific education" – they represent the basic principles from which more complex mechanical systems are derived, and warrant specific treatment. By your logic, every article on the list that is a subtopic of another article on the list should be removed. Cobblet (talk) 19:37, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

  The "handheld" part of the definition of "tool" refers less to it having to be held in the hand, and more with the tool being separate from the body. The "Hand tool" article states non-hand tools are powered with a motor, but they are still separate from the body, and are still operated with hands, even if hands don't provide them their power. Spreadsheets are tools because they are separate from the body; they are also used with hands. No, I did not say every article that is a subtopic of another should be removed; that's ridiculous. I simply said Machine is a more broad topic than the specific concept of a Simple Machine, so all importance placed on "Simple Machine" can be extended to "Machine". LightProof1995 (talk) 20:26, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

  A person without hands cannot operate a computer or a spreadsheet? I don't think so. Nor would I say that Stephen Hawking was incapable of tool use. By your logic, doesn't engine cover the four types of engines we list, so shouldn't we remove all four articles on specific engines? It's still a mystery to me as to why you think simple machines are specifically not vital. 02:42, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

  Again, you're putting emphasis on the "hand" part when obviously the "separate from body" is the important part. Yes, tools can also be operated with feet, or in Stephen Hawking's case, his mind? Once again, no, I am not saying we should remove all sub-topic articles. Simple machine, to me, is not as vital as Machine. You're saying I would want to remove the four types of engines, but if we were to use the Engines as an example, then the equivalent would be the four types of engines are listed, and not Engine itself, so I would advocate to add Engine along with the four types of engines. LightProof1995 (talk) 11:22, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

  But if "separate from body" rather than "handheld" is the key, aren't molecular machines also separate from the body of the user? So why aren't they also tools? I'm not following your explanation on the analogy with engines – it looks like we'll have to agree to disagree on simple machine vs. machine. Cobblet (talk) 15:24, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. I agree with Cobblet. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Also agree with Cobblet. OliveYouBean (talk) 02:48, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Archive_8#Machine? - Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Archive_10#Replace_simple_machine_by_machine - Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Archive_16#Add_Craft_and_Machine. Machine has been discussed several times before, including an identical proposal, it was never accepted. I used to think it was vital, many others did not, so I moved on. On one hand it seems vital universal umbrella term, covering many things across the globe and through history, but on the other hand, it seems too generic a word covered by other articles, and a fleshed out dictionary definition. Off topic but... Industry is a vaguely similar topic I thought was vital, that was in for years, then got removed from levels 2 and 3  Carlwev  08:26, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

It should be noted that Industry (manufacturing) redirects to Manufacturing, which is Vital-2. LightProof1995 (talk) 03:04, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Also, I don't think the three archive links you list here are enough to show Machine shouldn't be added. It seems like there was general support, but not enough for consensus on whether to add it or not vs other articles. LightProof1995 (talk) 06:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I found another discussion I previously missed Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/2/Archive_2#Add_Machine. At this time I have not voted yes or no. I didn't give this information as an argument in opposition to adding machine, just to make people aware of the previous discussion on this topic, to consider before voting/commenting. There are times in the past where I was sure something was a good idea, and sure I was right, but after seeing others comments, realised many thought differently and were unlikely to change, and sometimes my view was changed, sometimes it wasn't. In the past I was more sure of machine than I am now, due to others comments. I am more inclined to agree with adding machine than remove simple machine. I haven't made up my mind. But if I did, I would explain in detail, probably too much detail, my reasoning, especially on this one, due to the past and present dividing nature of this topic.  Carlwev  08:37, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

The only reason it was suggested to not vote for Machine in this proposal you link, was because it wasn't on the lower level of Vitality (3) yet. Also, note the vote you linked is for "Machine" to go up to Level 2, while this discussion is for getting it to Level 3. LightProof1995 (talk) 14:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Add Vincent van Gogh

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This man definitely should be added, since its HPI 2022 and 2020 are higher than Pablo Picasso's, Pablo is listed, and Vincent is one of the most famous and influential figures in Western art history.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:40, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
2. Support Very well-known, inspirational artist. The only artist listed with more views in the past 30 days is Da Vinci, who has 251,074 views compared to Van Gogh's 237,647 views. LightProof1995 (talk) 07:12, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
3. Support - An artist of supreme renown world-wide. His article should be considered vital at this level. Jusdafax (talk) 04:57, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
4. Support. Per nom. His is the biggest figure of that period. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 12:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I stand by my comments in the last discussion. As I discussed with Dawid on my talk page, I'm very skeptical of HPI's methodology and don't think it should be relied on at all. I would take both Chanel and Monet before van Gogh. Cobblet (talk) 15:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose. While yes he's a very well-known and influential artist, I think there are others in his vein who should be considered more vital. Including Monet would be better imo, but I already think that having 4 out of 6 artists as European is skewed enough so there's no need to add another. OliveYouBean (talk) 02:57, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
3. Oppose per above. Gizza (talk • voy) 22:20, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

How did Frida Kahlo become a Level 3? 78.18.228.191 (talk) 12:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Swap out several artists for their major works

The swaps I am specifically proposing are:

Swap out Miguel de Cervantes, swap in Don Quixote

Swap out Murasaki Shikibu, swap in The Tale of Genji

Swap out Dante Alighieri, swap in Divine Comedy

Support:

1. As nom LightProof1995 (talk) 06:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
2. Per nom. In those three specific cases, the work is far more notable than the creator. Best to be clear on why something is Level 3. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 13:01, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Oppose per previous consensus, as explained by Carlwev below. Cobblet (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose I would like to say that I sympathise with the argument being made here, namely that each of these three writers are famous for single works, as opposed to William Shakespeare, for instance, who is famous for 39 plays, 154 sonnets, and various other poems. The problem, as I see it, is that when we open the door to specific works of art, we will inevitably get into discussions about what other works of literature deserve a place here, because they are arguably equally as important, if not more important. For instance, if you're going to add The Divine Comedy, Don Quixote and The Tale of Genji, someone might well ask why you've left off The Iliad, One Thousand and One Nights or the First Folio. Those three works are equally as important, if not more important, to world history, culture, civilisation and so forth. Why do they get to be represented through their authors? With a mind to avoiding this kind of quandary, I'm going to have to oppose the inclusion of discrete works of art. The inclusion of religious texts is, I feel, a special case whose presence can be justified in part by religion's profound influence on human history, and in part by the fact that these are not per se works of "fiction" like the First Folio is. Zelkia1101 (talk) 14:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Discuss:

Reasoning/Effects: This would: 1. Reduce the number of people on the list to 109. I don't think we should worry about target counts at this level, but if anything for people it would be an even 100. 2. Reduce the number of writers from 11 down to 8 -- the same number of Mathematicians and Religious figures currently listed. 3. Open the way for additional specific works of art to be added, e.g. The Mona Lisa (I wouldn't support per redundancy with Da Vinci, just an example), The Wizard of Oz (a good choice if we were to add a film but there are other contenders), and The Art of War (I'm surprised Sun Tzu isn't listed, but The Art of War itself is a better choice in my opinion anyway).

Additional Thoughts: I'd put the articles under a new header under Arts titled "Specific works". I picked artists that seemed to me to be known mostly for their one magnum opus. For example, I was also thinking of proposing we swap out Hokusai and swap in The Great Wave off Kanagawa, but then read that Hokusai was a big inspiration for Monet and Van Gogh, and after reading his article more decided he made plenty off art beyond The Great Wave off Kanagawa (over 30,000 pieces of art total) that he should be listed here, plus if we swap in The Tale of Genji we'll already have one Japanese work of art listed.

I also used view counts to determine the major works I propose swapping in are potentially more vital than their artists, i.e. the view counts in the past 30 days for all art proposals here are greater than their respective artists:

Miguel de Cervantes: 25,366 views. Don Quixote: 101,214 views.

Murasaki Shikibu: 8,301 views. The Tale of Genji: 20,885 views.

Dante Alighieri: 69,488 views. Divine Comedy: 74,942 views. LightProof1995 (talk) 06:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Consensus can change, and often does, but I want to link to some previous discussions to remind people of previous opinions. There may be more, but ones I remember off the top of my head are below, the discussions are quite old though. In the past, myself and several others have had the opinion that works of art are not vital enough for the 1000 most important topics ever, the current exceptions being works of religious literature, eg the Bible, Talmud, Quran, Vedas and Bhagavad Gita, some of which have been questioned, and now only two works of architecture, The Great Wall of China, and the Great Pyramid of Giza. We had more buildings/structures in the past, and more works of literature, and the Mona Lisa, they all went, usually but not always with strong consensus. I think I would still hold the opinion most of the time works are simply not important enough. I could not bring myself to believe the Wizard of Oz, Great Wave of Kanagawa or even the Mona Lisa were more important than missing topics, like countries/regions such as Morocco, Sweden or Scandinavia, Papua New Guinea, Afghanistan, or other topics like Palaeolithic, Neolithic, irrigation, artillery and many more, but that's just me.

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]

 Carlwev  18:42, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and sharing these links :) Summarizing these links for others -- First is a swap where unanimous consensus to replace Don Quixote with Miquel de Cervantes because all individual works were being swapped out. Second and third are removing Mona Lisa and Iliad. Reasoning for removals of the last two was primarily redundancy with Homer and da Vinci, which I agree with.

For the record, I'd potentially support swapping some "History of..." articles e.g. History of agriculture is already covered by History of technology and irrigation could replace that; History of film, architecture, literature, music could all be swapped out for being covered by History of art. I personally feel Old Stone Age/Neolithic is covered by Stone Age/Neolithic Revolution, but I'd support adds/swaps for Morocco or Scandinavia. LightProof1995 (talk) 07:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Name of the Level 3 talk page

Why is the Level 3 talk page titled "Wikipedia talk:Vital articles" and not "Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/3" like the others? Is there a general talk page for the Vital Articles project? 78.18.228.191 (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Question 1: Because Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/3 redirects to Wikipedia:Vital articles, as a result of this merge in 2010.

Question 2: Yes, if you mean Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vital Articles. --DB1729^talk 17:12, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for that - should this talk page be "moved" to the "Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/3" to be more consistent? thanks. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Well it would be if its associated main page is moved. You're focusing on the talk page which, in a way, is irrelevant to the point. All talk pages are directly associated with their main pages. At one time years ago, this talk page's title was Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/3 and its associated page was Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/3 which was turned into a redirect 13 years ago because of a merge, and so the talk page was automatically redirected along with it as usual.

The question then really becomes, should the main page Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/3 have been merged / redirected to Wikipedia:Vital articles? And I don't know the answer to that. Maybe someone else can chime in here and explain better why it is how it is.

Adding you're free to look through the archives as I have done, about the time of the merge Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Archive 3, but it seems the pages that contained the actual discussions about the merge Wikipedia:Vital articles/evaluate for merging and Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/evaluate for merging were deleted a couple years ago. --DB1729^talk 00:53, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

A little more digging and I found the discussions that led to the merge:

• [4] at the section "This is a fork of WP:VA"
• [5] at section "Merge with Wikipedia:Vital articles Level 3"

Make of all that whatever you will. DB1729^talk 01:54, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that, very helpful. I would guess that the original move/merge was not made by expediency (i.e it worked), then by someone with the technical skills to do it properly. I wonder if we should like this on the technical section of WP:MOVES (per WP:RM#TR) to get it done, and have consistency amongst the set of Talk Pages names amongst the levels? 78.18.228.191 (talk) 10:43, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to collapse the vital article tag into the project banner shell

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Talk page layout § Vital tags should be placed with WikiProjects. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:05, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Add Zinc

It's an important element since it is essential for plants and animals and one of the abundant elements on Earth. Interstellarity (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support per nom.--Treetoes023 (talk) 20:13, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose There is no reason to add a thirteenth chemical element when two fundamental classes of biomolecules (carbohydrate and lipid) are still not listed. Nor do we individually list fundamental states of matter which I also think are more vital. Cobblet (talk) 16:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

Requested move 19 March 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus against the move as proposed. A future discussion could be held to determine whether a landing page at the base title would be ideal, but that is out of scope of this RM. (closed by non-admin page mover) Elli (talk | contribs) 06:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

---

• Wikipedia:Vital articles → Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/3
• Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/1 → Wikipedia:Vital articles

– It makes more sense for the level one page to be the main page rather than the level three page. Treetoes023 (talk) 20:10, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

• Partial support. Wikipedia:Vital articles should be a landing page, with all the levels as subpages. There was a past proposal to do this that failed, so I'm not holding out hope here, but it would be a marked improvement. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
• Moral support I agree with the landing page suggestion above. Jclemens (talk) 22:00, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. This has been brought up before. I think the Level 3 list is a better landing page than Level 1 or some other place. However, if someone wants to make a draft landing page that gives an overview of the Vital Articles Levels, I'm open to changing my mind in the future. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:29, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support I agree. However, it's better to move Wikipedia:Vital articles to Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/3, and create a new page called Wikipedia:Vital articles to summarize all Vital Article levels. The person who loves reading (talk) 22:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Current set-up is fine. The VA1 list is basically a curiosity, it certainly isn't very relevant or important. VA3 is the most important list (along with maybe VA5), so why not land there by default? I don't see the benefit in requiring an extra click by having a new top-level page that "forces" readers to click in to which VA level they want; an unfamiliar reader will have no idea what the difference is, and it's much easier to simply start with showing them a level and letting them click to a new level if desired. SnowFire (talk) 01:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose List of 1000 most vital articles is the most useful project page, it gives an overview. --Thi (talk) 18:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.