Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 2

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

Synchronizing lists

Please take a look at the suggestion of synchronizing this list with the list on meta.--Abiyoyo (talk) 15:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Article classes?

Why aren't the articles' class (GA, FA, C, B etc) listed like in the other vital article lists? Was there an important reason why not? I think this would be every beneficial as an easy indicator of where there are deficits in quality coverage; anyone reading (like me) could then see a topic of interest and maybe jump on it. Just a thought- Ruby 2010/2013 05:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I think they're just missing because it'd be a huge task to update them all. -Mabeenot (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Other organisms

The subsection Organisms is mostly according to the scientific systematics. But in its subsection Others things go awry. I suspect this is because this article is a bit conservative in a situation where the scientific systematics is very dynamic. Thus, in this article we have the Eukaryotes (excerpt):

  • Plankton
  • Algae
    • Brown algae
    • Diatom
    • Red algae
  • Protist
    • Amoeba
    • Paramecium

I don't think Plankton ever was a taxon. Now that concept rather belongs in ecology. It's a bit like Tree. I suggest it is kept, but moved.

Algae was a taxon, but isn't any more. It should also be moved.

The article Eukaryote lists two alternative systematic trees. Both include Chromalveolate, Rhizaria, Excavata, and Amoebozoa. These should definitely be added. Here is my suggestion, but this is highly subjective. Also, probably some human pathogens should be added. I am confused about where Red algae belongs in the current Eukaryoute main tree (Archaeplastida in the alternative tree).

--Ettrig (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Politics & government

The article Ba'athism is crucial to the understanding of politics in the Arab world, and IMO should be listed at least as a Level 4 vital article (if not a level 3). Comments welcome. Zangar (talk) 20:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Ba'athism isn't even mentioned on the Arab people and Arab nationalism articles, which would seem to rate higher in precedence. I added Arab people to the VA list and put a link to Ba'athism on the Arab nationalism article. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Topics from 2012

Comenius, Vygotsky, Dewey, Montesori, Freire, Buber

Religion articles

In light of the proportionately low representation of religion articles in the list, I'd like to suggest the following topics that have top or high importance ratings from the religion WikiProject:

Most are fairly general in nature. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 04:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I've attempted to incorporate these into the list. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Most of them strike me as likely keepers. I think the list is way off in some areas (check out car models), but adding these will at least hopefully spark a debate as we inch towards 10k. thanks for the contribution.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

African topics

A few items deserving to be included:

  • Harar is of great importance as the major center of Islam in the Horn in Africa, although not one of the largest cities of Ethiopia, population wise.
  • Ahmad ibn Ibrihim al-Ghazi, Muslim general who almost conquered Christian Ethiopia in the 16th century; celebrated as a hero by Muslims in the Horn of Africa, & villified by the Christians
  • Mohammed Abdullah Hassan, whose war against the Ethiopians & British helped to create the nation of Somalia. If any Somali should be on this list, he is the one.

BTW, the list of Modern explorers omits many of the European explorers of Africa, e.g., Richard Francis Burton, John Hanning Speke, David Livingstone to name a few that come to my mind. -- llywrch (talk) 20:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

We're nearing 10,000

...so pretty soon, we gotta start cutting topics. Suggestions? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 15:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Once we reach 10,000, I'd like to suggest that we post a general review discussion, inviting comment from a broader audience in order to check for subject-matter bias. I know I keep seeing groups that are poorly represented when compared to the others, so additional feedback may help to identify and refine those. That step should take us well over 10,000, after which we can start trimming back.
There are some subjects that have unnecessary bloat, so trimming those will be an easy start. Example: a number of the Constellations are not particularly "vital" topics, at least to me. The list of 88 can be trimmed back by 75% to just the 12 zodiac constellations plus, say, ~10 well-known entries such as Orion and Ursa Major. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
i agree specifically on the constellations, and generally on others as well. I think we have too many car models. I like the idea of expanding the discussion to more people, as i suspect not many know of this list.75.61.142.156 (talk) 00:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Good points. I think that the number of constellations and car models could be cut by 60-70%; but that literature needs MORE entries. How would you suggest more eyeballs on the subject? An RFC? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
One area I'm surprised is underrepresented is specific ethnic groups. The only ones with entries are Arab people and Han Chinese. Was this simply an oversight, or was it intentional -- viz., both in agreement that race/ethnic identities are not significant, & to avoid the inevitable WikiStrife over which ethnic groups are "notable"? Otherwise, there are up to 100 entries which could be added in this category alone. :-/ -- llywrch (talk) 18:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Probably just an oversight. I added those two; the first because of an earlier discussion here and the Han Chinese because that's the largest such group. But yes there's some potential for conflict there. China alone has 56 recognized ethnic groups. Perhaps if we just limit it to multi-national ethnic groups (plus maybe a top-10 largest), that would help trim the numbers. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I could see 30-50 ethnic groups or diasporas. And I would include blanket groups (such as Native Americans in the United States instead of any one tribe) and ethnic groups who have a bigger impact in foreign lands than in their home country (for example, the Irish people) Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 22:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
We could probably cultivate a starting set from Category:Top-importance Ethnic groups articles and some from Category:High-importance Ethnic groups articles. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Purpleback, I think you underestimate the size of the oversight by saying the missing articles could be limited to 30-50. Yes, there are cases where we can cover a lot of ground using blanket groups (e.g. European/Caucasian people), but outside Europe/North America we encounter a great deal of ethnic diversity: practically every country has one dominant ethnic group with a clear cultural identity; in the Horn of Africa, for example, there are five important groups -- the Tigray, the Amhara, the Oromo, the Somali, & the Afar -- inhabiting four countries, a number which ignores most of the approximately 77 ethnic groups of Ethiopia not all of which would make the top 10,000 list. Another example is Turkey, where there are three multinational ethnic groups I would argue are worth including: the Turks, the Kurds, & the Armenians. With 206 entries in List of sovereign states, I'd estimate that we'd have about that many -- around 200 -- ethnic groups worth including. On the other hand, some ethnic groups could be better represented in language, history or culture articles, such as the Aztecs, the Mayans & the Incas -- none of whom currently have articles. (Note: I'm not arguing for the inclusion of any subjects I've just mentioned, just explaining the size & nature of this oversight.) -- llywrch (talk) 16:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
So what you're saying is that 2% of the articles on this list should be reserved for ethnic groups? I think that's a little too much Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 17:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

FYI, we're at 9,850, so we again should be thinking about prioritizing/cutting pbp 16:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, what we should probably be thinking about is what essential topics we're missing. I'm still finding a lot of pretty important topics that haven't been included yet. Trimming is the easy part. But there's little reason to perform significant trimming until we're well past 10,000 and we can start prioritizing. That being said, the People and Geography sections have the most bloat. (See Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded#Comparison of trends.) Regards, RJH (talk) 19:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
If and when entries are removed from Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded, please consider holding them in a list somewhere until their possible inclusion in a list of the 100,000 most important articles.
—Wavelength (talk) 19:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
We do have Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Removed available, so I was thinking we could just add it as another table to the bottom of the list. At least until the list content has stabilized. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Astronomy

I see that half the constellations have been deleted. That's fine with me. There is one topic that I'm not sure is on there that I think should be...recently, scientists have found planets in solar systems other than ours. That sounds like a pretty important topic. Could somebody either point me to the article already on the list that deals with it, or add an article to deal with it? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 20:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Extrasolar planet is on the list, but maybe we should add Extraterrestrial life? Would that go under astronomy or biology? Related topics include Methods of detecting extrasolar planets, Habitable zone and Astrobiology, but perhaps we should just stick to the top-level articles. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I propose to add Astrobiology and may be Extraterrestrial life also. I prefer to add under biology sections. --Igrek (talk) 16:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting priorities

By order of size:

  • Philosophers, historians, political and social scientists, 100
  • Religious figures, 124
  • Scientists, inventors and mathematicians, 192
  • Musicians and composers, 196
  • Writers, 201
  • Entertainers, 221
  • Sports figures, 262

Hmm... a less than subtle bias toward entertainment. RJH (talk) 21:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I think we should cut entertainers and sports figures by 70% Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 21:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree, we should remove about 70% entertainers and sports figures. --Igrek (talk) 14:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for the use of div id for WikiProject redirects

I'd like to propose that we use common <div id="Section ID">...</div> style tags in our section headers so that we can add redirects for use by WikiProjects. I.e. for astronomy, the header would look like this:

=== <div id="Astronomy">Astronomy</div>, 225 ===

I can then set up a redirect to point to:

#redirect [[Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded#Astronomy]]

That way, even if the count changes, the redirect should still work. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

No comment? Okay, I'll go ahead and add it in so I can redirect from the WikiProject. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Cut car models to ten?

It has been mentioned that we should drastically cut down on the number of car models on this list. I'd like to formally propose cutting it to ten. I propose the following ten:

  1. Chevrolet Suburban (longest American car still in production; only GM product and SUV on the list)
  2. Chrysler Town and Country (only minivan and Chrysler product on this list)
  3. Citroën 2CV
  4. Fiat 500
  5. Ford F-Series (best-selling truck and second best-selling vehicle of all time)
  6. Ford Model T (first assembly line car, first to 15 million, first affordable car)
  7. Honda Civic
  8. Toyota Camry
  9. Toyota Corolla
  10. Volkswagen Beetle

Breakdown by country:

Breakdown by type of car:

Yes, I'm aware that this list privileges economy cars at the expense of sports car, but the fact remains that that's what people drive. Thoughts? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

At this point I don't think we need to do anything this drastic. We're not even at 10,000 articles yet. I'd probably have at least one iconic representative from each decade of production, plus the top sellers and the key vehicles that revolutionized the business. Hence I'd expect the Ford Mustang to be in there. You might check with Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles. Regards, RJH (talk) 02:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Sounds like you wanna keep it the way it is —PBP89 (Chat)(WP Edits: 999,999,999) 16:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
No, not really. I'm just going by the guidelines at the top of the page. Hmm, a thought occurs to me: we should establish an archive page consisting of those links that were pruned from the list. That way, if the issue comes up in the future, we can review the information. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Now at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Removed —PBP89 (Chat)(WP Edits: 999,999,999) 20:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought about this a little more, and I wonder now whether the list is focusing on the wrong thing. We don't have any entries for important car classes such as Hatchback, Sedan (car), Station Wagon, Sports car, Convertible, Sport utility vehicle, Minivan and Van. Perhaps the individual car models should be subsumed into these higher level topics? This will cover most, if not all of the current list, and we can still have a brief list of top selling and historically important models, such as from List of bestselling automobiles. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

No argument here that those, plus Pickup truck and Coupé belong on the list more than all but a handful of the specific models. Feel free to add them. —PBP89 (Chat)(WP Edits: 999,999,999) 22:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

100 most influential people

These lists may interest editors compiling the entries in Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded and Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/People.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Ironically, the People section is the part that suffers from the most bloat. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Mission accomplished!

The current total is on the order of 10,168 articles! It looks like the initial goal of the expanded list sub-project has been achieved. It check the initial date on this article, and the first edit was dated June, 2006! Regards, RJH (talk) 20:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Now comes the hard part lol...finding the 168+ articles that have to go pbp 20:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I did a massive trim of athletes that didn't have a huge impact in their sport for "vital" consideration to 200 athletes. I removed most of the recentism, and the heavy American centrism of the list to make it more evened out. All the athletes I removed were great players, but we are looking though impact and influence they had on their sport, not statistics. Secret account 23:32, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Re:Secret:
First off, we now have a list for articles that have been removed from the 10,000. It's at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Removed. In the future, please add all removed articles to that list
In baseball, I'd bring back Nolan Ryan (all-time strikeouts leader) and Ricky Henderson (all-time stolen bases leader); but nix Josh Gibson and Marvin Miller. Well granted that Patt Summitt, Phil Jackson and John Wooden are all great coaches, you only have seven actual basketball players. The ratio of baseball players (30) to basketball (10) and football (15) seems a little excessive...maybe cut five baseball people and add back Jerry West, Oscar Robertson and three football players.
Also, in the actors category, one of Will Smith, Denzel Washington and Samuel L. needs to be on there. Not all three, but one of them. Delete someone else instead. pbp 00:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

American football is a sport that is really only popular in the United States (and note I'm a football fan), so 15 listed is proper here considering the lack of global popularity. Honestly I've would have preferred to remove a few more American football and baseball players, and add a couple of rugby, lacrosse, and Canadian and Australian football in the list, but I'm unfamiliar with those sports.

This are having a list of vital articles for a global encyclopedia, not mainly popular American subjects, though I did factor in name recognition (thus the removal of Albert Spalding Harry Wright, and a few others despite their impact to the sport being much greater than several subjects listed), and being restricted to 10,000 articles overall, there had to be many omissions with athletes, and only subjects who made a extremely vital contribution to their profession and has huge name recognition should be listed. With Ryan, despite being the all time leader in strikeouts, he isn't mentioned by historians as one of the all-time greatest pitchers, nor he added a huge impact to the game. Ryan wasn't considered to be a dominant pitcher while he was playing, being overshadowed by Bob Gibson, Tom Seaver, Steve Carlton, and a few others who had shorter careers. The comparison to Bob Feller and Sandy Koufax in the Ryan article is WP:OR from who knows where, as Koufax and Feller are considered among the best of all-time, with much shorter careers. Ryan was also the all-time leader in walks, hit by pitches and has one of the highest batting average against (to be fair he did play for some garbage offensive teams also) for a pitcher in the Hall of Fame. He was a power pitcher who lasted an extremely long time considering how they don't really have long careers because of arm issues by the way they pitch. Considering the impact the rest of the players in the list had on baseball both on and off the field, he doesn't qualify as an extremely vital article. For being the all-time leader in strikeouts, he's in the top 40-50 but not top 30. With Henderson, that was a tough one and he could have easily been on the list, but he wasn't much of a trailblazer in his position as the stolen base reemerged as a key playing skill nearly 20 years. Still he is the all time leader in stolen bases and one of the greatest leadoff hitters of all-time, I need to have more thinking with him. As for the inclusion of Josh Gibson and Marvin Miller, Gibson is considered one of the top two or three greatest Negro League baseball players of all time, and Miller was a key factor on the formation of free agency and the rise of huge salaries in American sports. Miller could be moved to the vital business biographies without a problem as he wasn't a player, had little to do with baseball management, and he impacted sports in general, so if I had to pick a 30th article to replace Miller it's either Spalding, John McGraw, Frank Robinson, Ken Griffey Jr. or Henderson.

With basketball it was tough who to include, I probably going to try to add James Naismith (really obvious, I just don't know who to remove), George Mikan (another rather obvious, first big superstar and a huge impact), Cheryl Miller (first big women's basketball superstar), Dražen Petrović (biggest European superstar, made the sport extremely popular there), and Yao Ming (made basketball the biggest sport in China) on the list also. The 10 people listed on basketball are on a league of their own with their impact on the game history, and ranked near the top among the greatest players/coaches of all time.

Secret account 06:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

200 is probably about right, since we seemingly must have sports figures from every popular sport. If they were numbered in terms of their true historical importance, then 10–20 athletes would probably be more realistic. But I understand that many readers probably like articles on their favorite sports stars. (Yes I am a sports fan.) Regards, RJH (talk) 14:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Removing. Geography

I propose to remove next countries and regions. (Counries - population < 300 000; Regions - population < 3000 000).

Countries, 207-21
North America, 23-7
  1. Antigua and Barbuda
  2. Barbados
  3. Dominica
  4. Grenada
  5. St. Kitts and Nevis
  6. St. Lucia
  7. St. Vincent and the Grenadines
Africa, 54-2
  1. São Tomé and Príncipe
  2. Seychelles
Europe, 44-4
  1. Andorra
  2. Liechtenstein
  3. Monaco
  4. San Marino
Oceania, 13-8
  1. Kiribati
  2. Federated States of Micronesia
  3. Marshall Islands
  4. Nauru
  5. Palau
  6. Samoa
  7. Tonga
  8. Tuvalu
State-like entities, 2-2
  1. Sovereign Military Order of Malta
  2. The Holy See
Politically independent associated states, 2-2
  1. Cook Islands
  2. Niue
Regions and country subdivisions, 219

North America, 50-13

Canada, 13-9
  1. Manitoba
  2. New Brunswick
  3. Newfoundland and Labrador or Newfoundland
  4. Northwest Territories
  5. Nova Scotia
  6. Nunavut
  7. Prince Edward Island
  8. Saskatchewan
  9. Yukon

--Igrek (talk) 14:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

To be consistent, we should also remove Alaska, Hawaii and New Mexico. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree with removing New Mexico. Let us discuss about Alaska and Hawaii. I think in this case the population is not the only criterion. Alaska and Hawaii have historical significance also. --Igrek (talk) 13:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
As does The Holy See. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Lemme get this straight: The only Canadian provinces that would be left are BC, Alberta, Ontario and Quebec? I think that a couple more Mexican states need to be added; states that are 3M+ population. We probably should also have the East Coast and West Coast of the U.S. as regions. I wonder if it might be a good idea to also apply that 3 million criteria to non-capital cities' metro areas; there are a number of cities that would have to be dropped. The Holy See/Vatican City belongs on this list somewhere, but the countries list may not be the right place (and we probably don't need both the Holy See and Vatican City). I oppose removing the small sovereign entities; there are 30-40 countries on the 1,000 list; so even having all 190-some-odd isn't anywhere close to a tenfold increase. The "Unrecognized or largely unrecognized states" and "Politically independent associated states" can be dropped, except for maybe Taiwan-ROC and Kosovo. pbp 18:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes, believe it or not, Canada has a much lower population than the U.S. Only four provinces have two million people or more. We could make the threshold one million then add in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
      There are hundreds regions with population more then 1 mln. I propose criteria about 3 mln. for regions and about 1-2 mln. for cities (Europe and USA - 1 mln., India and China - 2 mln.). For objects that have historical, cultural and other values should be other criteria. --Igrek (talk) 09:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
      True. Including the country article resolves this for most states/provinces. Region articles will have to do for the small nation states. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oh, and Australia is currently listed under "Continents". The article is about the country. Move it to "Countries", and move Oceania from "Regions and country subdivisions" to "Continents" pbp 18:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Class ratings

Hi! Are article class ratings (FA/GA/B/C/Start...) supposed to be updated manually or by a bot?--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Silly question - I should have taken a look at the editing history first, sorry.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

30 000 core topic articles

Let us start the new project - 30 000 top list. My vision of this list is there - User:Igrek/30000/Geography. I have highlighted in bold the articles that included in Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Geography. See Canada there --Igrek (talk) 13:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

At 19:33, 23 April 2012, I suggested a list for the top 100,000 articles. Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/1 has 10 articles. Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/2 has 100 articles. Wikipedia:Vital articles (Level 3) has 1,000 articles. Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded (Level 4) has 10,000 articles. The geometric progression can be continued if Level 5 has 100,000 articles. (100,000 x 40 = 4,000,000)
—Wavelength (talk) 16:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
I propose to start from the level 4.5 - 30,000 articles. The list of 100,000 articles is a very complicated task. --Igrek (talk) 12:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I support your developing a list of 30,000 articles in your own user space and for your own use.
—Wavelength (talk) 15:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I think it may be too soon, for a number of reasons. For starters, a list of 30,000-100,000 links would be way too large to load or navigate. For second, I didn't know we'd even finished this one yet. For third, we haven't finished getting even the top hundred to GA yet...I'd oppose an effort to have a really, really large list (100,000 would be 2-3% of all the articles on the entire Wikipedia) until we've made more headway in milestoning the articles pbp 17:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose – It should be possible to extrapolate how long this would take. The list of 10,000 took around six years to reach its goal. Multiple that by three, mix in a declining editing pool, and it could take a couple of decades or more. We haven't even got the articles in the level 1 VA list up to FA level yet. This idea is impractical and would draw away resources from the current lists. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
    If I'll be working on this project alone (in my workspace), I might be able to do this for a maximum of 3-5 years. The list of 10,000 took about 2 years to enlarge from 4000 to 10000. The list of 10,000 took about 2 years to enlarge list from 4000 to 10000. And the lower the criterion, the less time to do it. --Igrek (talk) 14:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
    It's still not worth it. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Square mile, Square kilometre and Square metre

I don't see why these are here, I don't know how these can be good unique articles and add worth while information past a stub or list, of a lot of information which would be at kilometer, meter and mile. We have articles in this list for kilometer, meter and mile, and these are those measurements squared, there is not much to add past what could be in kilometer, meter and mile and land area in general, and lists of who uses which units (which would be in kilometer, meter and mile anyway) and lists of places that are x amounts of units big. We don't have every cubic measurement. I think these could maybe be removed from this list, what do other users think? Carlwev (talk) 14:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a big need to remove them because they are commonly used units (unlike cubic kilometres, for example), but they probably are low on the priority list. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Robin Hood

I strongly feel Robin Hood has a place amongst 10,000 articles, probably in the list that has King Arthur. Carlwev (talk) 17:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Makes sense to me, at least for English language Wikipedia. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

How about adding...

Some of these are slightly not nice, maybe why they're forgotton

Definately

  • Torture, important, overlapped but distinct from war, injury, crime
  • Pet, important, overlapped but distinct from domestication, and individual animals/breeds
  • Supermarket, maybe an encyclopedia should have this before mentioning Walmart. Large, well known internationally. Arguably one of the most important shop types, changed business and society. They hold a large chunk of the whole economy, and are among the biggest companies/retailers.
  • Insurance, very important and broad topic in the modern world. Plus a weak maybe for a very small number of individual insurance types. Or maybe not, just have the one single inclusive article about insurance
  • body modification, alone or with:
  • Jewellery
  • Flag and/or
  • Robot and/or
    • Robotics, maybe an encyclopedia should have this before mentioning industrial robot. We have electronics, machine, AI but not this.
  • Name, surely a must, maybe even for the 1000 too. plus posibly also
    • Personal name and/or Given name similar things although there are 2 separate articles, at present.
    • Surname and/or Family name similar things although there are 2 separate articles, at present. And if family is in the top 100 I'm sure family name must be in the top 10,000
    • Nickname, maybe, maybe not
    • Toponymy, maybe, maybe not
  • Patent
  • Passport
  • Immigration
  • Hospital, maybe an encyclopedia should have this before mentioning psychiatric hospital.
  • Pain
  • Depression (mood) or Despair, there are many emotions and mental disorders, some of which are even in the top 1000 too. There are also specific types of mental disorder listed which are thought of as types of depression; Bipolar disorder, Major depressive disorder, but we do not have depression itself.
  • Veterinary medicine, we should have this before mentioning animal shelter. Plus I'm sure there is room for this if there are 710 animals species listed plus another 29 animal breeds.
  • Cosmetics a very broad topic, should definately have this before the narrow topic of hairbrush. How did we miss this?
    • Perfume the smelly side of cosmetics, but also covers making things other than people smell nice, like animals and homes, both cosmetics and perfume are important today but have also been around for 1000s of years.
  • Past
  • Present
  • Future ... important to science, time and philosophy. How did we get all the months of the year and all the days of the week listed individually, plus individual entries for second, milisecond, microsecond AND nanosecond but miss past present and future?
  • Hunting we've been doing it for ages, plus it covers more and is broader than hunter gatherer.
  • Pastoralism with or without existing pasture its a better article and is broader concerning the practice as opposed to the land.
  • Exploration, how can we list 31 "explorers" plus space exploration, but not have exploration
  • Waste management something needs to cover this I would think.
    • Recycling probably this too, unique enough from waste management, still quite broad.
    • Landfill posibly this too
  • Theft we have robbery
  • Inflation
  • Violence

Probably

  • Masturbation, distinct enough from sex life, and human sexuality?
  • Puberty, distinct from erm... youth
  • Bank, maybe an encyclopedia should have this before mentioning individual bank coorperations, is bank covered under other economy articles?
  • Kidney, this is in the top 1000, but not the top 10,000, this is a bit odd ins't it. It should probably be the other way round. Or possibly in both or missing from both
  • Urination and/or Bladder and/or defecation. All humans and most animals do it every day, its the other end of eating and drinking. maybe an encyclopedia should have this before mentioning toilet and urinalysis. Although its kind of covered under excretion but that article is more biological. You wouldn't have stove before cooking
  • Sex change and/or Transexual
  • Laundry maybe we should have this before washing maching, and if clothing is in the top 100, the top 10,000 should probably contain an artical about washing them.
  • Robin Hood
  • Hair, maybe an encyclopedia should have this before mentioning hairbrush, and/or possibly have
  • plumbing we have pipe, and bathtub, this seems more important than those, and definately more important than coffee maker?
  • Credit card
  • Debt, or Loan
  • Breast feeding, is this covered by breast?
  • Driving how can we list several car models companies and race car drivers but not have driving. alone or a weak maybe to also
  • Dictionary, should an encyclopedia should have this before mentioning single dictionaries?
  • Encyclopedia, should an encyclopedia should have this before mentioning single encyclopedia projects like wikipedia and britannica?
  • Health system, I thought of this as I originally didn't see health care here, but maybe health system should be here too?
  • Question
  • Candle is in the top 1000 but not 10,000
  • Lighting, in the top 1000 we have candle and light bulb but not what they are, forms of lighting. not in 1000 or 10,000
  • Motion picture rating system, quite broad and important to the film industry, well for comparison there are 187 people in the film industry actors and directors, plus 73 topics in film, which include 53 individual films. Without the 33 TV topics, I'm sure we could squeeze this in
  • Meteor
  • Meteorite
  • Morse Code
  • Paleontology, we have 11 individual dinosaurs, as their long dead, society and science wouldn't know about them at all without paleontology, and that subject is more well known and important to science and culture than most individual dinosaur species.
  • Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event If there's one thing popular culture and the common man knows about dinosaurs, its that they all suddenly died 65m years ago. This topic is more relevant to arts, culture and science than most individual dinosaur species.
  • Plagiarism‎
  • Value added tax, no probably not, now I see sales tax includes this
  • Fairy tale
  • Sleep deprivation if sleep is in the top 100 it makes sense to have more on sleep here in the top 10,000, we only have sleep, dream, bed
  • Sleep disorder
  • Climbing
  • Horses in warfare and/or Domestication of the horse instead of one or two of the breeds
  • DVD
  • Text messaging
  • Television advertisement

Maybe

could even add primary/grade school secondary/high school adult education

I can see how it happened but it's hard to find some things like video games is under anthropology > recreation > toys > games > Video game. But video game console is in a completely different place Technology > Media > video > video game console. Cocaine is far from Cannabis. In the long run is this right or wrong should we move a few things around, restructure another way?

Definately a different approach to animals and life forms

Further ideas, more broad articles and less specific articles, like more about animals in general that aren't an article about one species. Look at the wikiprojects for ideas. There are 148 bird species in this list, but the bird wikiproject "top" importance only has 43 articles. More than 10 of these are broad bird topics not about one species, and are probably more important topics than articles about single species like the wikiproject suggests:

It does seem odd to have 148 species but not some of these. I think a lot of sensible ideas for this 10,000 article list can be gathered from some wikiprojects. And with so many animals, 710, we should probably trim a few and add broader terms instead like

Maybe lose some of the 116 indivual insects and add some other broader things from the 21 top insect project topics (There are also only 29 articles in high importance; totaling 50 topics rated top or high importance to insects a lot less than 116)

less intersting but still rated as "high", above that of over half the species we have here

Same with fish there are 163 fish. Drop some to add

Carlwev (talk) 14:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not surprised there's a few holes in the list; I kept finding important topics that hadn't been included. Most of your listed articles make sense to me, although, as a rule, using a roll-up article for lower priority topics seems preferable. For example, I think body modification would be sufficient. Definitely we should have insurance, torture, bank, puberty, kidney and pornography as they are of widespread societal importance. I'm not sure that Sex change is all that important, but I suppose it depends on who you ask. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Also under video games there is only Mario, Pong and Video game. Interesting that Mario and Pong are not "top" importance in the video games wikiproject, not that that that matters?. I would probably have something from, Personal computer, Video game console, History of video games, or possibly, Platform game, Game controller which are in "top".
I would probably remove some or all of the programming languages, and trim some of the relationship/family articles they are tiny and repetative eg uncle, aunt niece and nephew, Significant others, Husband Wife, Boyfriend, Girlfriend, some look at one relationship but from both sides. Possibly square meter eg like I said earlier. Oh yeah and add Jewellery too. Keep looking at my list I'm thinking of lots more, like flag Carlwev (talk) 16:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the programming languages can probably go. There are none listed in Category:Top-importance Computer science articles or Category:Top-importance Computing articles. Having the Programming language article should be sufficient as a higher level roll-up. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I would probably delete coffeemaker too, we don't have teapot or kettle, Carlwev (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. I agree with removing some articles from Biology section and adding many of the suggested articles. Would you propose articles for removing also? --Igrek (talk) 07:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh my I have written an enormous list. Around 150 entries I will soon start editing the proper list. I will remove and add things I am very sure about and ask others oppinions for some of the others....I will probably start removing all the programming languages, insects that are only mid importance on their wikiproject. I also have a dislike about some random objects like coffeemaker and hairbrush, keep looking here and above at the long list I'll explain what I'm doing. I've just noticed Morse code is not there. probably more importantant than 13 programming languagesCarlwev (talk) 05:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Oral tradition

Somehow oral tradition is so important it is included in the vital 100 articles but is absent from the vital 1000 articles and also missing from the vital 10,000 articles, what?? What should we do about this? It should definately be mentioned in the top 10,000, posibly 1000 but 100? Carlwev (talk) 16:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Add that pbp 22:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Something to cut

Remember that since we're right around 10,000 now, any addition will have to be accompanied by a corresponding cut. Personally, I can see a couple areas where we have too much. We have too many car makes and models, too many condiments, and too much about offal (for example, I don't think Blood (food) and Brain (food) belong on the human 10,000...maybe the vampire or zombie 10,000). Now that we've hit our target, we need to be more disciplined in what we add pbp 22:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I propose to start removing. We can start from the propositions that have at least 2 voice pro, and less than 2 contra. --Igrek (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Another long list

Here is another long list of things I believe are quite important, probably more important than many existing entries. I will add more later busy today Carlwev


(talk) 19:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


You and Igrek certainly have made or proposed a lot of additions, but keep in mind that every addition from hereon out has to be accompanied by a cut pbp 00:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Added and deleted

List so I and others can see what I'm doing, I will try to delete roughly the same or slightly more than I add, to keep it as neer to 10,000 as it is. Carlwev (talk) 11:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Voting for removing

Please, let us vote for removing. --Igrek (talk) 19:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Cut car models to ten

See above "Cut car models to ten"

pro
  • I think car companies, brands and models need to be greatly reduced, especially models, we have loads. The one best selling model ever Toyota Corolla sold 39m. The Playstation 2 sold 152m why don't we have that?....

I've removed nearly all models and all but 6 companies, GM, Toyota, Ford, Volkswagen, Nissan, Honda.

My reasons were, I simply thought there were waaaaay too many. I know people like their cars, but in terms of company size there are many companies with equal or bigger impact and income, in fields of health, telephones, oil, energy, banks, supermarkets, electronics, computers, food/drink, Music, Film. I believe to list 30 car companies but very few if any companies of other fields is not the way this list should be. Maybe a very small number of huge companies in different fields should be added to create a better balance, but I'm not a big fan of adding companies. Carlwev (talk) 17:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


contra

Countries

See above "Removing. Geography"

pro
contra
  • The "Unrecognized or largely unrecognized states" and "Politically independent associated states" can be dropped, except for maybe Taiwan-ROC and Kosovo. But every recognized state should be kept pbp 14:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Regions

See above "Removing. Geography"

pro
contra
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/4/Archive_2&oldid=1142662315"