Wikipedia talk:Vital articles

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Vital articles page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcut WT:VAWT:VA

Archives (index): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30Auto-archiving period: 4 months

	This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Vital Articles This page is within the scope of WikiProject Vital Articles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of vital articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and work together to increase the quality of Wikipedia's essential articles.

General Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

Level 5 Subpages

People History and geography Arts and everyday life Society STEM

Introduction

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

The purpose of this talk page is for discussions on over-arching matters regarding vital articles, including making proposals or asking questions about procedures, policies, quotas, or other broad changes to any or all of the five levels. This page is not for proposing whether an article should be added or removed from any vital article lists, and such proposals should be posted on the following pages:

• For proposals regarding a specific individual Level 1 vital article, see Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/1
• For proposals regarding a specific individual Level 2 vital article, see Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/2
• For proposals regarding a specific individual Level 3 vital article, see Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/3
• For proposals regarding a specific individual Level 4 vital article, see Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4
• For proposals regarding a specific individual Level 5 vital article, see the relevant sub-pages of Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5

Support votes shouldn't delay the closure of the discussion

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.

---

According to the guidelines on closing discussions on level 5, discussions may not be closed until 7 days after the last vote. That means that support votes couant against closing discussions as passed, and oppose votes count against closing as failed. I think this is unreasonable. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:34, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you apply the rule rigidly, yes, it could string along proposals that are obviously passing / failing. We often just invoke WP:AVALANCHE or WP:SNOW though to close things early once the margin is overwhelming. There's not a hard guideline, but I usually do it at +5 for support (e.g. 6-1) or +3 for oppose (e.g. 1-4). Once you factor that in, the rule really only kicks in on closer votes, where closing too soon after a vote could be seen as pushing on the scale. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:50, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with headline assertion _pbp 16:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: I propose that the one week rule should only apply to votes necessary to close as passed or failed (respectively) and votes contrary to the outcome. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 15:14, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Zar2gar1. Though I also would like to bring the attention that a lot of proposals are moot (for many months) but don't have 4 participants; I am closing these following the WP:BRD logic. The Blue Rider 11:21, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why? They're not moot, they're two votes away from a result. Now they're five votes away from a result. There's good reason why such discussions aren't being closed – it's pointless! Closing unopposed discussions on unpopular topics because of lack of participation is (a) unproductive due to the previous and (b) reinforces our bias towards changes on popular parts of the list while unpopular parts get left behind. Especially when talk pages aren't overflowing. J947 ‡ ^edits 12:06, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should those proposals (on the STEM page) be reopened? 96.95.142.29 (talk) 19:35, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The page has over 200k bytes, which I think is over the top. Also, not closing proposals which have been stale for many months isn't productive because it makes other more relevant proposals less visible. The Blue Rider 09:35, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there something to vote on here?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:07, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dataset with statistics for the full project

So I've been working on getting the API calls set up to get us a good view of the Vital Articles statistics and think I've made some good progress. For the full table/dataset, see this link to my GitHub repository. I'm working on cleaning up the scripts I used to get access to the API, but for now we have a snapshot of the data. My hope is that this dataset can guide research on the vital articles and help us with quantifiably comparing articles, ultimately with the goal of creating a "Vitality Index" for each article to help in discussion. Updating this will likely not be sustainable, so we would need to figure out a bot that can calculate this once we have the index and calculate things as we go.

From what I can see, the most interesting variables are pageviews, total watchers, total editors, total revisions, links in, site links, and language links. It is important to note that site links is inclusive of the language links, but also includes OTHER Wikipedia affiliated projects like Wikiquotes. I know language links has gotten a lot of attention, but I think site links overall is a better metric for several reasons. Perhaps these can be combined somehow into one weight for an index. Pageviews is a VERY odd metric though, as level 3 has a higher average then level 2. I believe this is because several everyday life topics like biographies and countries begin at this level.

Some caveats:

1. The data list was captured on June 16th 2025. Changes to the list since this are not represented.
2. To get the data, it takes approximately 3 seconds to capture data for each article, and due to the API limits this has to be done one at a time. This means the code takes about 41 hours to run in a perfect world. Therefore, the dataset does not capture every article at the same moment in time.
3. There were 17 errors that interrupted the run. These errors varied, and I'm still working on error handling in the script, so they required me to reset each time. The script exports the data every 100 articles, which avoids losing to much when an error occurs. Some of the errors were due to vital articles being redirected during the run, others appeared to be due to characters in the name of the article. For example COVID-19 Pandemic was the first error, and I think the "-" is the reason. However not every article with a dash had issues. For each of the errors I manually got the data and filled out the sheet, and I have noted these in the column "Error" and given notes to why I think some might have caused an issue. Because these were manually entered, there is an increased possibility of human error on them.

Pinging @Zar2gar1, @QuicoleJR, @LaukkuTheGreit, @Purplebackpack89 @1ctinus, @GauchoDudeas I know they've been involved in discussions involving wanting a dataset like this in the past. If I missed someone who is heavily involved, please feel free to ping them.

Variables:

Variable	Description
Article	Name of the article
Vital_Level	Vital Articles level the article is on.
Vital_Category	The level 5 Vital article sub-field the article is in.
Level_Quota	The quota of the Level 5 category
SubPage_Quota	The quota of the level 5 sub-field
watchers	The number of pagewatchers
pageviews	The number of pageviews over the last 30 days
pageviews_offset	The number of days pageviews are calculated for.
revisions	The number of edits the article has had.
editors	The number of editors that have edited the article.
created_at	The date the article was created.
links_ext	External links to the page.
links_out	Outbound links from the page.
links_in	Inbound links to the page.
redirects	Number of redirects
Site_links	Number of Wikidata entries for topic (Includes other language projects, Wikiquote, Wiktionary, etc. )
Language_Links	Number of other languages topic exists in
Qid	Wikidata Unique ID
Error	Page caused error during run (Yes/No)
Notes	Notes on run.

Example table, values for the ten articles at level 1.

Article	Vital_Level	Vital_Category	Level_Quota	SubPage_Quota	watchers	pageviews	pageviews_offset	revisions	editors	created_at	links_ext	links_out	links_in	redirects	Site_links	Language_Links	Qid	Error	Notes
The arts	1	Arts	3700	3700	583	21756	30	2418	1167	2002-02-25T15:43:11Z	182	537	3265	11	57	55	Q2018526	No
Human history	1	History	3300	3300	1280	40964	30	8233	1962	2004-01-19T05:51:28Z	444	1167	1358	26	99	96	Q200325	No
Life	1	Biology, biochemistry, anatomy, and physiology	5600	1100	1256	63311	30	5321	2274	2001-11-02T16:18:09Z	413	1530	3995	15	227	168	Q3	No
Society	1	Social studies	4000	500	784	33541	30	3079	1609	2002-02-01T05:48:43Z	255	620	4576	7	228	169	Q8425	No
Technology	1	Technology	3200	3200	1282	47692	30	4626	1881	2001-11-08T19:05:33Z	354	958	26163	18	228	189	Q11016	No
Human	1	Animals	5600	2400	2723	195499	30	13719	5074	2001-10-03T18:14:31Z	1121	1155	9897	52	270	225	Q5	No
Philosophy	1	Philosophy and religion	1400	1400	3523	145004	30	10901	3749	2001-10-31T05:49:04Z	495	715	43339	39	307	238	Q5891	No
Science	1	Basics and measurement	4800	300	2324	125614	30	9009	3210	2001-10-15T17:23:57Z	416	888	40021	21	319	244	Q336	No
Mathematics	1	Mathematics	1200	1200	2897	107716	30	7931	3129	2001-11-08T15:31:38Z	539	766	56639	42	328	254	Q395	No
Earth	1	Astronomy	4800	900	2995	258757	30	14733	5406	2001-11-06T03:00:43Z	691	1211	25072	54	362	312	Q2	No

Table showing the average value for each variable by level 5 Sub-class:

Level 5 Sub-Class	Average of pageviews	Average of watchers	Average of revisions	Average of editors	Average of links_ext	Average of links_out	Average of links_in	Average of redirects	Average of Site_links	Average of Language_Links
Animals	15952.06756	145.4537726	1134.716847	555.1592994	96.21851543	313.7326939	1779.461635	9.55087573	50.40075063	47.24770642
Artists, musicians, and composers	36271.473	254.4375332	2449.640055	1035.701431	138.2653438	396.3585602	1197.793724	9.416243655	50.51176742	45.59483156
Arts	24473.75374	246.324806	2062.631565	958.8127891	83.60027211	426.0432653	2376.617415	13.52435374	44.56598639	40.36136054
Astronomy	10437.72667	228.9730392	1053.75	479.9611111	112.7344444	362.2766667	1309.947778	12.40222222	54.48111111	51.71555556
Basics and measurement	10211.1976	228.13	964.9431138	486.9760479	47.71556886	202.0239521	1676.266467	17.55389222	50.78742515	47.83832335
Biology, biochemistry, anatomy, and physiology	14188.2694	273.2917821	1425.531668	729.9482605	129.073149	358.3434434	3533.519179	17.27386262	61.54861731	58.03657449
Chemistry	10428.70992	182.3395486	1034.695505	533.3070399	77.03138253	328.5597964	1067.135708	12.91942324	53.95419847	51.51314673
Cities	21954.63155	188.651464	2315.793851	971.1572581	141.6885081	616.640121	4775.967238	16.66582661	97.86844758	86.85887097
Countries and subdivisions	51955.83884	351.3090164	3359.930818	1388.457547	175.2413522	608.1399371	16902.55503	20.78930818	130.2987421	112.4944969
Culture	21216.36471	303.6987261	2196.46935	989.3826625	116.3318885	530.6668731	5584.586997	27.5244582	64.25263158	59.09907121
Earth science	9332.547059	177.3443902	1065.051261	524.3176471	87.27563025	296.6252101	1639.377311	9.587394958	47.30168067	44.40672269
Entertainers, directors, producers, and screenwriters	59653.56506	251.2201223	2176.108271	1014.322955	133.098513	445.3703532	853.883829	6.400092937	48.09618959	43.26301115
Everyday life	19307.96311	218.4959016	1774.733909	917.7982732	73.69387755	471.755102	1746.574568	14.73312402	50.65384615	45.37990581
Health, medicine, and disease	25385.88692	307.3944604	2103.072897	960.5383178	197.082243	476.4747664	1505.236449	23.11869159	55.71214953	52.09906542
History	25500.17354	273.4237396	2147.439017	869.6556432	113.0288228	699.2906553	1948.382888	15.03822816	42.57979369	40.14896845
Mathematics	11540.36318	261.1965665	942.6686192	455.7740586	37.06610879	235.7790795	705.7539749	15.21841004	42.16569038	39.55732218
Military personnel, revolutionaries, and activists	17044.94218	162.1068702	1356.233405	590.0107066	64.88650964	340.4817987	565.6038544	10.14989293	40.56102784	35.66809422
Miscellaneous	32591.3371	211.6358087	1616.973067	754.3518679	86.02867072	267.4344049	473.1476977	7.791485665	33.71676803	29.81407472
Philosophers, historians, and social scientists	9037.554982	206.568873	982.5335793	466.3335793	91.17490775	425.3298893	749.2162362	7.318081181	47.96236162	38.55793358
Philosophy and religion	25143.71006	466.8438375	2362.358127	1028.5427	85.83471074	694.2603306	2325.819559	18.67630854	61.04476584	55.02410468
Physical geography	14585	167.7325103	972.596519	487.8238397	66.26424051	344.8549578	2370.771097	10.56487342	59.24472574	54.94620253
Physics	10391.46304	257.9637168	1057.46729	523.3831776	55.03738318	226.7434155	821.5683942	11.65335599	45.16652506	42.58963466
Plants, fungi, and other organisms	16378.32819	159.9117998	1040.266461	548.5123457	101.6090535	354.9146091	2490.12963	13.18106996	59.34259259	55.60185185
Politicians and leaders	32130.1608	225.8926366	1990.128885	836.2287609	107.5470369	512.1877331	1165.782014	15.2063821	63.40571902	56.4488189
Politics and economics	24847.90682	364.3700624	2321.187373	1092.486253	133.0947047	565.3416497	4387.528513	20.66089613	54.77800407	49.66751527
Religious figures	21618.61741	246.5364238	1972.218623	814.8987854	89.548583	581.6639676	1370.593117	17.31376518	55.09109312	46.50404858
Scientists, inventors, and mathematicians	9371.04	185.6334975	1074.698039	523.4298039	90.78196078	350.5898039	608.2517647	7.241568627	57.73098039	51.51372549
Social studies	17442.71992	425.1067194	2179.526627	1036.17357	150.408284	563.1400394	2201.885602	18.01775148	58.93885602	49.69230769
Sports figures	38359.0656	157.5982801	2100.796986	876.4326241	151.2180851	699.7925532	1216.524823	5.481382979	38.21099291	34.31205674
Sports, games and recreation	30747.15582	228.6524501	2758.431507	1221.190925	113.8142123	466.2559932	5928.130137	19.12071918	44.4494863	40.72945205
Technology	19237.99721	285.2974039	1790.424186	870.8424806	94.84806202	373.0257364	2642.47969	18.30821705	50.58697674	47.10852713
Writers and journalists	13835.77982	194.7584541	1163.062624	553.4115308	89.7112326	304.1998012	658.8454274	7.26640159	51.8638171	40.33697813
Project verage	23397.98551	249.7303966	1791.74712	814.2076883	105.258721	445.7424108	2479.189337	13.91943894	54.96170015	49.6614657

Table showing the average value for each variable by level:

Vital Level	Average of pageviews	Average of watchers	Average of revisions	Average of editors	Average of links_ext	Average of links_out	Average of links_in	Average of redirects	Average of Site_links	Average of Language_Links
1	103985.4	1964.7	7997	2946.1	491	954.7	21432.5	28.5	242.5	195
2	54173.04396	1111.494505	5726.648352	2574.274725	281.4395604	891.4835165	43217.72527	27	215.9120879	178.4175824
3	77734.34928	960.7741935	6565.539488	2676.528365	252.6340378	938.6529477	24351.03337	32.23692992	170.9321468	147.0433815
4	38252.72648	404.2191289	3129.259553	1411.35162	150.0440223	637.4532961	4879.871285	22.02581006	92.55541899	82.97340782
5	18707.51983	188.1281954	1369.704412	632.0545436	91.26335762	389.9695153	1339.601422	11.6335762	43.39412568	39.57093706
Project average	23397.98551	249.7303966	1791.74712	814.2076883	105.258721	445.7424108	2479.189337	13.91943894	54.96170015	49.6614657

Discuss

So I've done some exploration on these variables and have been playing with weights a bit on variables for an index. I identified a few variables that seem to contain good indicators of "vitalness" based on various factors within the project criteia (Used R and a few different statistics to compare them). I then created bins based on different percentiles to assign scores to articles based on each of these variables, with 10 being 98th percentile, 9 being 90th, 8 being 80th, etc. I then grouped these into four "themes," each weighted the same, which could be added together into a compsite score. The highest possible composite score is 40, which is only possible if an article is in the top 98th percentile across all 7 variables. There are 44 articles that got scores of 40, most of them countries, very high profile people, or other such articles, with the most interesting being Wikipedia in my opinion. I then adjusted the score based on the level the article is at and the level 5 subsection quota for the article to get a "Vital score" that could help with comparison between levels a bit. You can see the raw data here. This made more sense with the list, and 2 of the level 1 articles made it into the top 10. The highest score is Science  1 at 64.1666666666666, which is almost double the second highest value. I think this might help us out a bit more then just looking at language links or page views, but it likely needs more work. I'm still working on getting a sharable version of my code, but with the raw list I provided these numbers took my machine about 1.8 hours to generate. I think this can be improved a bit, but will still be computationally intense to implement.

${\displaystyle V={\frac {{S*}l}{sq}}*100}$

Where:

V = Vital score

S = Theme 1 + Theme 2 + Theme 3 + Theme 4

Theme 1: ((Percentile Watcher) + (Percentile Editors)) /2

Theme 2: ((Percentile Pageviews) + (Percentile Revisions)) /2

Theme 3: ((Percentile Links in) + (Percentile Project links)) /2

Theme 4: Percentile Language Links

l = level the article is at (Artilces at Level 1 are multiplied by 5, Level 2 by 4, Level 3 by 3, Level 4 by 2, and Level 5 by 1)

sq = Subsection quota for the articles section at level 5.

Project links in this case are a variable I created by subtracting language links from site links, which returns projects like Wikiquote that an article is a part of while excluding the foreign language projects. This allows that variable to stand alone in Theme 4. Theme 1 represents broad editor "interest" in a page, theme 2 represents how active a page is and how important it might be to keep on watchlists, theme 3 represents how connected the page is to other articles and projects on Wikipedia, and theme 4 determins how many other languages the term exists in to combat western/English bias.

An example of what this looks like for the Level 1 articles.

Article	Vital_Level	Vital_Category	project_links	Per_watchers	Per_editors	Per_PageViews	Per_revisions	Per_linksIn	Per_sitelinks	Per_projectLinks	Per_langlinks	Theme1	Theme2	Theme3	Theme4	IndividualScore	VitalScore
Earth	1	Astronomy	49	10	10	10	10	9	10	10	10	10	10	9.5	10	39.5	21.94444444
Human	1	Animals	44	10	10	9	10	9	10	10	10	10	9.5	9.5	10	39	8.125
Science	1	Basics and measurement	74	10	9	9	9	10	10	10	10	9.5	9	10	10	38.5	64.16666667
Mathematics	1	Mathematics	73	10	9	9	9	10	10	10	10	9.5	9	10	10	38.5	16.04166667
Philosophy	1	Philosophy and religion	68	10	9	9	9	10	10	10	10	9.5	9	10	10	38.5	13.75
Life	1	Biology, biochemistry, anatomy, and physiology	58	9	9	9	9	9	9	10	9	9	9	9.5	9	36.5	16.59090909
Society	1	Social studies	58	9	8	8	8	9	9	10	9	8.5	8	9.5	9	35	35
Technology	1	Technology	38	9	8	8	9	9	9	9	9	8.5	8.5	9	9	35	5.46875
Human history	1	History	2	9	8	8	9	7	8	6	9	8.5	8.5	6.5	9	32.5	4.924242424
The arts	1	Arts	1	9	7	7	7	8	6	4	6	8	7	6	6	27	3.648648649

Proposal signature

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:21, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've been meaning to give my two cents, but the long post was intimidating. But here's some quick comments. For apple-to-apple comparisons, it may be worth trying to have separate lists by topic/region/era of top & bottom ranking items (Wikiproject Video Games did recently something like this by setting up WP:WikiProject Video games/Popular pages by topic and WP:WikiProject Video games/Popular pages by topic: Games), although getting the metadata to categorise by would likely require extra hurdles.

Musing more on metrics, an additional metric idea I've had in my mind is the amount of different years an article has citations from, to emphasise long-term coverage a subject has received from reliable sources (as opposed to simply being Internet-famous). All Titan submersible implosion's 2023 sources would only add up to +1, for example. Or perhaps weight the years roughly logarithmically based on their citation counts, for more granularity. A possible minor downside however is encouraging excessive citations (even old, obsolete ones); it'd also bias more developed articles rather than strictly subjects with more RS coverage (see also WP:NEXIST). Anyway, more food for thought than a concrete suggestion at this stage.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:26, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LaukkuTheGreit: I'm just seeing this, sorry for the late reply. First, thanks for the feedback, I was hoping for more interest as this was a bit of a passion project for a while. . .

Getting more data is always something worth exploring, the dataset I have here is not necessarily everything available, but everything I could easily figure out how to get with tools available. Looking at the range of source ages is an interesting approach, however you already mentioned the main issue with it. I was once challenged to chase the content to the original source by an advisor, and a few weeks later he was needing to real me back in from the 1930s. With the internet, it is extremely easy to hunt stuff like this down. While it is on its face a great metric, I think you're right, it invites people to find the oldest possible source that relates even tangentially. For example, I could chase the Titan submarine coverage to look at commentary about the Titan while it was being developed, mention other historic submarine disasters, and possibly even find early speculation about submersibles as a going back a few hundred years. These sources might only be vaguely on topic, but if there is motivation, someone will try to do it.

I'm down to include other variables and mechanisms for creating lists, but need help getting that data. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:25, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GeogSage @LaukkuTheGreit I think this is a cool analysis, but I saw it just know (I have way too many pages on my watchlist, and too many wiki areas I am interested in).

Actually, writing an academic paper about the concept of Vital Articles on Wikipedia is on my to-do list (I am a scholar who publishes about Wikipedia for nearly two decades now, see my userpage...), and I think it is something I'd like to do in few months, hopefully. My tentative idea is to make an argument that it is an important collective-intelligence driven and very comprehensive (the most comprehensive) initative to organize encyclopedic knowledge by importance. The paper would engage with literature on knowledge taxonomy etc. Frankly, I need to read up on the relevant lit (do the lit review), what I am wrting here is rather amateurish :) But the fact that the VA project is effectively not noticed in academia has been irking me for years now, and I do want to rectify it.

If anyone here would like to collaborate on such paper (either as an identifiable co-author, or just as a friendly anonymous wiki volunteer), feel free to let me know. I'll certainly make a post here once I have some outline/draft/etc. again. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:36, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Going to ping your talk page. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:40, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How important are VAs for biographical subject infoboxes

I have been looking closely at the distribution of VAs. One thing that I have noticed is that many biographies use the parameter for Notable works with a list of specific works that does not include specific works that we consider to be vital. Surely it is OK for these lists to include items that we do not consider vital, but is it OK for them to exclude items that we do consider vital? Also, if the biography does not use this parameter at all, should I add specific vital works to fill in the parameter.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:13, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What specific cases are you talking about? Despite us try to make vital as objectively was possible, it's always going to partially depend on the participant's perspectives/opinions. The Blue Rider 07:05, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:The Blue Rider, it was about 70-75 articles I will try to isolate some sets of diffs because I did it in at least 3 waves.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:47, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:The Blue Rider, here is one wave-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:51, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:The Blue Rider, another wave-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:57, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:The Blue Rider, another wave-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:00, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

some related edits to the above wave-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:02, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

this edit may have been the one that put this effort in the back of my mind-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:08, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

and this-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:31, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyTheTiger: Just go ahead and boldly add the works. Worst case scenario, you get reverted and go through BRD. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:47, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:QuicoleJR, I eventually did that. I probably added notable works to about 100 pages. I was reverted on a total of 4 pages. Only one of the four resulted in a contentious discussion. Talk:Albrecht Dürer resulted in a suggested compromise, but when I tried to discuss details of the compromise, I got wikilawyered out of the compromise. It was mostly a success, IMO.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:37, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikilawyered" as in you didn't find consensus for your changes, but you were so obstinate about it that it became for some people a reason to oppose your GA topic ban appeal at WP:AN? That kind of wikilawyering and "success"? With a discussion that showed that you don't know much about the subject at all, but still want to impose your VA rule against the wishes of the actual editors of these articles, who in general know more about the subject? Anyway, I've reverted a few other ones as well now. VA may be useful as a starting point or an additional point of information, but it is hardly the definitive authority. Fram (talk) 16:37, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fram, we are not as far apart as I feel you think we are. You stated that ... VA may be useful as a starting point or an additional point of information, but it is hardly the definitive authority. I concur with this. I think you are talking about these 5 reversions. I have edited about 70 or 75 articles with this added content and you have found fewer than 10 to be objectionable. If we are both trying to help guide the content, we may both be doing some good. It seems like you may place little significance to about a dozen VAs, which is less than 5% of all VAs specific works. Even if you are right, I don't think my effort was in vain. I don't necessarily think people in need of direction from a Wikipedia infobox are usually going to be at your level of understanding of art. Many such readers may be closer to my understanding. So we both need to give thought to our contributions in this regard. If 5% of VA specific works of visual art are out of whack, we could use your directional assistance. We could really benefit from your expertise in several active discussions at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4 and Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Arts/Audiovisual arts. E.g., Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/4#Add_remove_museums could use some expertise rather than my quick and dirty evaluations based on who hosts a lot of current VAs. Three discussions starting with Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Arts_and_everyday_life#Add_Bedroom_in_Arles, 10 more starting at Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Arts_and_everyday_life#Add_More_Demi_Moore and 5 starting Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Arts_and_everyday_life#VA4_artists_without_any_VA_works could all use the analysis of people who know art rather than VA generalists.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:21, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don´t take the ones I haven´t reverted as cases where I agree with your changes, but consider them articles where I don´t know enough about to decide pne way or another. Which is what you should do as well. Don´t try to summarize an article without even looking at what´s in the article. Leave this to the editors of the articles. Fram (talk) 04:54, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see discussion on L4 talk page about categories

Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/4#Reorganizing_the_categories_of_the_level_4_and_level_5_vital_articles. Interstellarity (talk) 00:24, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OneClickArchiver bug

At least on the Arts and everyday life talk page, OneClickArchiver moves the archived discussions on the wrong archive page. I noticed that it started Archive 19, when it should have been only Archive 3. It also didn't add the new archive page number to the talk page header, and you are only able to access the archive page through a link in the edit history. Someone who knows how it works should look into it. Makkool (talk) 13:25, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Makkool That’s because when the arts and everyday life talk page was created, Lophotrochozoa copied the header from the society page, which had "|counter=19". If you want to fix it, simply change the counter to the correct number. 96.95.142.29 (talk) 18:16, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question of IP editors: Should Vital Article talk pages be protected?

A while ago I looked into the edit histories of many of our regular and active editors, and found what appeared to be odd behavior related to the vital articles. After getting these checked, most were not identified as socks. That said, there has been some odd activity related to IP editors as well. As the Vital articles are entirely vote based, it invites the possibility of gaming the system with multiple accounts casting votes. Should we request protection on the talk pages to limit votes/proposals to editors with accounts?

Discuss

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:18, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that the pages for levels 1-4 are ECP protected (and IPs can't vote!). The only pages that IPs can vote! on are level 5. I would not be against adding ECP to level 5 either as VA is quite a technical area of WP and not one that would / should attract a casual IP? Aszx5000 (talk) 10:30, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"VA is quite a technical area of WP and not one that would / should attract a casual IP"

I agree, however there are some strange things I've observed that contradict this thought. If you read here you'll see a more complete discussion I brought up on this. You can see the first and second sockpuppet investigations (The first one resulted in 11 blocks, two of which were later appealed. The second one resulted in zero blocks.). In the 2nd investigation was a bit more detailed, but no socks were identified. In this one, I found multiple accounts that almost immediately started with working on vital articles, often times becoming extremely active very quickly. Now that the investigation is finished, assuming good faith, and without further evidence, I have to assume there is something that attracts new editors to the VA space. Whatever this something is attracting new editors might be attracting IP editors as well, but I think having an account should be required here as it is a technical area, and a record of editors involvement in past votes is helpful in collaborating on this area of the project.

"levels 1-4 are ECP protected (and IPs can't vote!). The only pages that IPs can vote! on are level 5."

There is at least one IP editor on the talk page for Level 4. Specifically in the discussion section for Swap 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami for 1976 Tangshan earthquake. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:58, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only the actual list pages are ECP protected, not the talk pages. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:23, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IP editors are human too. Other than the one sockmaster, I haven't seen enough disruption to warrant protection. Some of the IPs have had good ideas, so unless there is evidence of votestacking, I think we should leave the pages unprotected for now. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:23, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From that essay:

On the few occasions when decisions (usually not content-related) on Wikipedia are decided by democracy (e.g. request for adminship, elections to the arbitration committee) unregistered users may not vote; they may participate in the discussions. Rather than being evidence of the untrustworthiness of unregistered users, this is in fact because of the untrustworthiness of registered users. If unregistered users were allowed to vote, disreputable registered users could log out of their accounts to vote twice (or, with use of an anonymizing proxy service, tens or hundreds of times). See also WP:SOCKPUPPET, which is a type of abuse where one human registers more than one username; detecting their underlying IP addresses often reveals such schemes.

The vital article votes are all democracy, so my understanding of this is that while IP editors could participate in discussion, their votes would not count, including on proposals they created. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:08, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know that RfA's are not page protected. They simply move to the discussion section/don't count IP votes. The Blue Rider 18:26, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I get that, shouldn't we implement the same policy and not count IP votes then? GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:28, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, socking isn't invasive enough at WP:VA—I have seen way more constructive proposals of IP editors than disruption by them. Also, there are plenty of users here, me included, that started early in their wikipedia's career editing WP:VA; page protecting would hinder activity of the project, as we already have little participation in my view. I think the best course of action is to do like you and create sock puppet investigations if something is suspicious. The Blue Rider 18:29, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be to sure about socking not being a problem. I've seen some anomalies in the votes, but no hard proof. Could mean nothing, could mean really good VPNs, but I smell Calimari. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:06, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the front page "Nominating or removing a vital article" of VA it says: All Wikipedia extended confirmed editors are welcome to propose an article that should be added, removed, or demoted from one of the Level 1-4 vital article lists (which are ECP-protected from here), and/or !vote or comment on any existing proposal. Any editor can make a proposal at Level 5.. IPs not meant to be proposing or !voting on Level 1-4 VAs? Personally, I am a strong supporter of IP editing on WP (they are a key support in WP Climbing which I work a lot on), however, I do think that IPs in VA is probably a bit iffy imho. Aszx5000 (talk) 18:34, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify my understanding of the disucssion:

1. Should Vital Article talk pages be protected?: Based on existing policy/precedent, no.
2. Question of IP editors: Based on existing policy/precedent, they can make proposals on level 5, and can discuss at any level, however votes from IP editors are not counted, even on their own proposals. For example, the last two proposals on Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/History and geography would require the closer to move the IP editors support to a discussion section, or at least discount the vote when closing.

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:43, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would only support page protection if there is persistent disruption by IP editors on this page. I can't recall any disruption on this page that would warrant it. Interstellarity (talk) 22:55, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vote

Pursuant to this discussion, I think this should be put to a poll. If this proposal succeeds, we can think about barring other inexperienced editors too. Incidentally, if no one objects I think this should be evaluated by consensus rather than as a straight vote, given that there's three options. J947 ‡ ^edits 21:47, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for organizing this J947, which I think is right to check. Aszx5000 (talk) 22:10, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question: should IP editors be allowed to (a) vote or (b) comment on VA talk pages?

Yes, vote and comment

1. There have been several very productive IP editors here and I think not allowing them to vote removes a valuable constituency. Most people have better things to do with their life than logged-out socking at VA. (Even RfA, where the stakes are rather a lot higher, allows IP editors to comment – I don't rate protection for that reason.) J947 ‡ ^edits 21:47, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. If an IP editor wants to vote, but is content without an account, I have no issues with that. If socking becomes an issue, we can consider implementing more restrictions. Interstellarity (talk) 22:48, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. Absent evidence of widespread disruption caused by anonymous editors — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:00, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, but not vote

1. I believe this is the option in line with broader Wikipedia policy. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:06, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   You say, referring to an essay. J947 ‡ ^edits 22:27, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   As opposed to pulling it out of the Luminiferous aether. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:32, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   This is a discussion to determine said consensus. What on Earth do you want me to do? J947 ‡ ^edits 22:48, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2. Because there is no discretion in VA for closers (i.e. unlike WP:AfD) and it is a straight !vote, then I think we can't have IP's voting on Levels 1-4. I'm not even sure that we should have them on Level 5. In addition, VA is an unusual part of WP, and not somewhere that a casual IP would stumble across - I have seen some unusual IP activity in VA but always ignored it knowing (maybe incorrectly) that their !vote doesn't count in closing. I don't mind IPs commenting, but they should also not propose changes on Levels 1-4 (which was also my understanding). thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 22:08, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   When it comes to odd activity in the VA space, we can't work under the assumption that a casual user would not stumble across them. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rjrya395/Archive and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SameOldSameOldSameOld/Archive have some of the evidence I documented. The gist is, as far as we can tell from these investigations, some users almost immediately become very active in the Vital Article space. The advice given by the closer was "You might consider reviewing where VAs are linked today, and I think it's good to note the nature of how VA selection currently functions today makes them easy for someone to "jump in", as it were. (You might consider proposing adjusting who has eligibility to !vote in those discussions, or how the !votes operate, if you believe that this is causing negative end states.)"

   I've been taking some notes to study this and see if there is a broader pattern or need for further investigation, but nothing concrete yet to add to those two investigations. IP editors make this task exceptionally difficult, however. When looking at their edit histories, such as those for IP 96.95.142.29 that was recently active, several jump into the project and focus almost entirely on votes/proposals. It is difficult to keep track of one IP editor from another, especially as IP addresses change, and a single editors contributions will not be kept in the same place. The phenomena of editors diving right into the vital article project is worth looking into. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:23, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   "VA is an unusual part of WP, and not somewhere that a casual IP would stumble across": I think this is wrong. Many people are interested in VA but not other areas of the site – and that's reasonable, because they're so different. It's difficult to track IPs, but here are some examples of very active VA editors who edited VA in some of their first 50 edits: 1 2 3 4 5. Three or four of them would probably never have been able to contribute with a 500-edit restriction. That's pretty damning. J947 ‡ ^edits 22:46, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   If you look at the sockpuppet investigations linked above, you can find a lot of links to editors who started with the vital article space in their first few edits. I'm not sure if it is damning or not, something strange is definitely happening though. It is a strange thing to start with. Asking for a person voting to at least have an account to vote doesn't seem unreasonable. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:35, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

3. Comment not vote. I feel allouwing them to vote is an invitation for SOCKs. I wish I understood what the current status quo is if this does not achieve consensus. If there is no consensus, does VA5 assume the VA1-VA4 stance?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:08, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   The status quo is that IPs (or what unregistered editors are soon going to have, temporary accounts) are allowed to vote. It is only recently that there have been insinuations to the contrary. J947 ‡ ^edits 05:30, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   How is that the status quo? Wasn't VA5 a spinout of VA1-VA4? By default it should be the case that IPs are treated the same way until there is a vote to the contrary?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:26, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   My understand was always that IPs could not !vote in Level 1-4. Given that proposals are passed/failed on straight !votes, and participation is low in WP:Vital, it always made sense to me? Aszx5000 (talk) 11:37, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   I believe in general IPs can't vote on WP. When VA was created with VA1-VA4, I am not aware of any exception to this. Then, VA5 was spun out of the VA1-VA4. Somewhere a vote would have had to have been held for IPs to get voting rights on VA for anything else to be the status quo.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:15, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   Whenever have you seen IPs' votes been removed before recently? Seriously, check some archives: votes from unregistered users are everywhere. To act retrospectively as though those votes were never allowed would have the consequence of requiring the re-opening of hundreds, maybe thousands of proposals. I'm perfectly accepting of banning IP voting from now on (given the unexpected onslaught in bad-faith IP contributions), but to act as though actually all this time the long-term VA editors who made the rules had the rules wrong is an infuriating thing to hear from people newer to the project than me. J947 ‡ ^edits 04:04, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   I think what happens is we all assume everyone knows what they are doing, but in reality we are a collection of volunteers who have read varying amounts of policy and background. The closers here are not admin, are not trained, and have really no credentials other the our familiarity with their signature. People come and go from the project. I think we have a situation where people have been doing what they think is correct because they don't see a reason not to, and then others copy them. Wikipedia is not THAT old in the grand scheme of things, and I think we are starting the loss of institutional knowledge as there isn't a formal process to pass things down and onboard new editors. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:10, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   I think we have a situation where people have been doing what they think is correct because they don't see a reason not to, and then others copy them. ---> that's a very common form of consensus. Especially when it happens many times over many years.

   There's no explicit consensus on this matter. There is clearly doubt concerning the validity of the status quo implicit consensus. But there is definitely not consensus against it. J947 ‡ ^edits 04:19, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

4. The general rule is that IP votes don't count, and I see no reason to make an exception here. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:51, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not vote nor comment

Discussion

• I believe a vote on this would have to be much broader to make sure we are consistent with broader Wikipedia policy regarding straight democracy on the project. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:06, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reduce the protection of the vital articles pages to semi-protection

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.

---

In the previous discussion regarding implement ECP, the protection was done when there hasn't been any recent disruption to the page. I believe that it is warranted to go back to semi-protection since it wasn't done to prevent disruption to the page. If there is disruption on that page (like vandalism or socking), we can consider bringing back ECP. This is how most pages in project space are protected.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 22:53, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per our Wikipedia:Protection policy which says "Applying page protection solely as a preemptive measure is contrary to the open nature of Wikipedia and is generally not allowed." — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:07, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   ECP is appropriate for "Contentious topics authorized by ArbCom, pages where semi-protection has failed, or high-risk templates where template protection would be too restrictive." The vital articles list link to a template on the talk page of approximately 50,000 articles. Very few people are actively closing discussions, and the ones who do are not new editors. This is not a mainspace article, it's a project. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:14, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. We have a lot of IP editors dropping by the project, more so then most other project spaces. I think keeping things a bit more buttoned up is for the best. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:51, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per GeogSage, and given we don't have that many eyes in this area as we maybe once had. Aszx5000 (talk) 11:38, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. Because it isn't a preemptive measure, it's protection that's here for a reason. Not even that long ago I recall vandalism being done to certain pages or unilateral additions by IPs or users without many edits. No diffs but I remember one in particular that spammed electronic music onto the Arts page. I also contest the application of the protection policy here because everyone is still free to vote in discussions and this is meant to be a project process with more scrutiny. Editing the pages themselves to add articles isn't allowed either because non-discussed additions or removals are no longer allowed. The wording of the protection policy doesn't make sense here. I think that any and all editors, including IPs, should be able to partake in the process. But protecting the pages themselves is there for a reason and it should stay that way. λ NegativeMP1 17:19, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
4. There have already been undiscussed additions/removals (some caught pretty late) and I don't think that problem will go away; the list pages should be protected to keep that down.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 18:49, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
5. We have had incidents before where even experienced editors editing the pages has caused a cascade of issues due to the way bots link these pages to article talkpages. Protection here is thus in the spirit of Wikipedia:High-risk templates. CMD (talk) 03:29, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Revisiting vital article criteria 5: Expanding it to include other statistics besides pageviews

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.

---

Per the discussion here, I think criteria 5 needs some modification to reflect the reality of how discussions are being conducted. The current text reads:

Pageviews: The number of views a page receives should be considered (i.e. it is a proxy on its importance to Wikipedia's structure), however, pageviews should be treated with caution as they can be driven by WP:RECENTISM, which is a particular concern at Levels 1-4.

Per the analysis I did still listed above titled Dataset with statistics for the full project, I believe page views are a useful but limited metric that fail to capture the full picture of what quantitatively makes an article vital. Furthermore, editors lately prefer to use what they refer to as "interwiki" links. This generally refers to the number of languages an article has been translated into, and is visible immediately on the articles main page, visible on the top right above tools on desktop. I will refer to these as "Language links" from now on to separate them from "Site links," which is inclusive of languages AND things like Wikiquotes (Example: Geography has 260 language links and 305 site links). Variables I identified in my analysis can be seen in the discussion above, but included things like pageviews, total site links, language links, editors, watchers, etc. I believe we can rephrase vital article criteria 5 to say something like:

Page Statistics: Page statistics such as the number of views a page receives, the number of other languages with a similar page, the number of editors, the number of page watchers, etc. can be considered (i.e. it is a proxy on its importance to Wikipedia's structure). However, these values should be treated with caution as they can be driven by recentism, and other bias, which is a particular concern at Levels 1-4.

I believe this version, or something like it, better reflects the way votes are actually being done. Furthermore, it allows some official flexibility for what metrics we discuss.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:59, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. I do think this is an incremental improvement on what we have - other statistics are as important as pageviews and all existing caveats still apply. Aszx5000 (talk) 08:57, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. About time we update this to reflect practice. And with open-ended wordings like "such as" and "and other", as the current proposed version does. "Bias" shouldn't be capitalised though. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:10, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Fixed capitalization on bias. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:03, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

4. Bluevestman (talk) 03:10, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
5. We're doing this anyway so no reason not to. Kevinishere15 (talk) 07:18, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Statistics like pageviews and interwikis should be described as indications, not criteria. J947 ‡ ^edits 09:01, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   Pageviews are already listed as a key criteria. This is expanding that criteria to cover other statistics, and narrowing the language to say "can be considered" instead of "should be considered." GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:02, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Discuss

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:59, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure we should explicitly include number of editors or numbers of watchers, but generalising page views into broader statistics seems reasonable to better reflect discussions. Another tweak could perhaps frame RECENTISM as just one cause for caution, as other reasons may also be relevant, such as the page being new. (New pages have for example been created for the Core contest, as one subjective indicator.) CMD (talk) 03:25, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• not to be overly redundant, but those variables are really interesting when you do the analysis of the pages included at the various levels (see table). They are actually pretty good predictors of what level an article will be at. I grouped them both together into one "Theme" when I was prototyping an index. Watchers in particular demonstrates the number of editors who think it should be on thier watchlist, and being a centralized watchlist is one of the three project purposes.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:44, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Table showing the average value for each variable by level:

Vital Level	Average of pageviews	Average of watchers	Average of revisions	Average of editors	Average of links_ext	Average of links_out	Average of links_in	Average of redirects	Average of Site_links	Average of Language_Links
1	103985.4	1964.7	7997	2946.1	491	954.7	21432.5	28.5	242.5	195
2	54173.04396	1111.494505	5726.648352	2574.274725	281.4395604	891.4835165	43217.72527	27	215.9120879	178.4175824
3	77734.34928	960.7741935	6565.539488	2676.528365	252.6340378	938.6529477	24351.03337	32.23692992	170.9321468	147.0433815
4	38252.72648	404.2191289	3129.259553	1411.35162	150.0440223	637.4532961	4879.871285	22.02581006	92.55541899	82.97340782
5	18707.51983	188.1281954	1369.704412	632.0545436	91.26335762	389.9695153	1339.601422	11.6335762	43.39412568	39.57093706
Project average	23397.98551	249.7303966	1791.74712	814.2076883	105.258721	445.7424108	2479.189337	13.91943894	54.96170015	49.6614657

• It is very interesting, and I'm glad the research has been done. I'm just not sure they are reflected in discussions. VIT3 seems to do better than VIT2 on a few metrics too, so the predictive power can be overstated as with any statistic. CMD (talk) 04:03, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe the reason for the discrepancy in level 2 and level 3 is because that is where biographies begin. Those pages tend to have a lot of interest/pageviews, but are not broad enough to make the push into level 2. For example, the category "Entertainers, directors, producers, and screenwriters" averages more page views then at least three of the level 1 vital articles. It is one thing I'm attempting to normalize in the index, with varying degrees of success. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:14, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  When you say "project average" I think you mean the average across all vital articles, rather than across the whole encyclopaedia. Is that correct? It would be interesting if a project-wide (i.e. encyclopedia-wide) average could be calculated for any of these metrics. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:17, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes! Sorry for the confusion, these numbers are limited to only the articles in levels 1 through 5. It would be interesting to get a project-wide dataset, however that would require a different approach to what I did. You can read/use my python script linked above, but it took days to run and the bottleneck wasn't my computer or internet, but the built in API limitations. As it stands, these values are a few months out of date and a bit stale, however I'm trying to find a better way to update and host them to integrate with a bot of some sort. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:17, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

An involved closure after 5 days? GeogSage, you're jumping the gun. More time is needed to give more regulars the opportunity to see this change, especially given the importance you place on these "criteria". J947 ‡ ^edits 22:25, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in closure, this is not a vote to add/remove an article, and this is not the first time this has been discussed (as linked above [1]) so I decided to Be bold. That previous discussion was also not a vote, and I tried to account for things brought up here by using looser language that gave permission but didn't insist on the use of a particular metric. Ultimately this is just formalizing what we're already doing, so it already had a soft project concensus, especially as I'm pretty much the only one who consistently pointed out language links are not actually a criteria. I believe the change is an improvement, if we need further refinement to verbiage, that can be proposed or boldly added. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:18, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

).

Level 4 articles not appearing at Level 5

There has been a recurring problem of Level 4 articles not being listed at Level 5. Is it possible for the Cewbot to identify when an article is not being listed at a lower level? There's supposed to be 10,000 Level 4 articles and 50,000 Level 5 articles; that is way too much to expect a human to notice a missing Level 4 article. And that's not accounting for the further divisions at Level 5, and how some articles might be listed in different categories between levels. Bluevestman (talk) 17:27, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• This should definitely be monitored by bot. I did not know this was a problem. How many known past examples are this. How frequently do we discover such listings?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 09:45, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did bring this up earlier, linking to a page where the bot reports some issues but not this one as far as I noticed.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:51, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think we should ping the person who created the Cewbot to this discussion? Bluevestman (talk) 17:14, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of deviations between Level 4 and Level 5

I agree that the bot should do this. Anyway, I did a Python search and found a list of articles that appear on different pages at level 4 and level 5. This doesn't include sections within pages.

• Childbirth  4 is on Everyday life at 4, but Biology and health sciences/Biology at 5.
• Jumping  4 is on Everyday life at 4, but not listed at 5.
• Jericho  4 is on History at 4, but Geography/Cities at 5.
• Causality (physics)  4 is on Philosophy and religion at 4, but Physical sciences/Physics at 5.
  • Causality  5 is on Philosophy and religion at 5. I think the physics version should be under physics, but the unqualified version should be under philosophy.
• Incarnation  4 is on Philosophy and religion at 4, but not listed at 5.
• Mandate of Heaven  4 is on Philosophy and religion at 4, but History at 5.
• History of atomic theory  4 is on Physical sciences at 4, but History at 5.
• Amber  4, Ivory  4 and Pearl  4 are on Physical sciences at 4, but Biology and health sciences/Biology at 5. I don't think these should be listed as biology topics.
• Polyester  4 is on Physical sciences at 4, but Technology at 5.
• Bias  4 is on Society and social sciences at 4, but Philosophy and religion at 5.
• Facebook  4 and YouTube  4 are on Society and social sciences at 4, but Technology at 5.
• Film industry  4 is on Society and social sciences at 4, but Arts/Narrative arts at 5.
• Music industry  4 is on Society and social sciences at 4, but Arts/Audiovisual arts at 5.
• National security  4 is on Society and social sciences at 4, but not listed at 5.
• Space exploration  3 and Exploration of Mars  4 are on Technology at 4, but History at 5.
• Column  4, Door  4, Façade  4, Floor  4, Ladder  4, Room  4, Stairs  4, and Wall  4 are on Technology at 4, but Arts/Audiovisual arts at 5.
  • The others make a bit of sense, but I don't think Ladder fits under arts at all.
• Cybernetics  4 is on Technology at 4, but Physical sciences/Basics and measurement at 5. From looking at the article, it also seems to be in the wrong section on level 4, as it doesn't seem to be a biotechnology-specific topic.
• Means of communication  4 is on Technology at 4, but Society and social sciences/Culture at 5.
• Passport  4 is on Technology at 4, but Society and social sciences/Politics and economics at 5.
• Pixel  4 is on Technology at 4, but Physical sciences/Basics and measurement at 5.
• Podcast  4 is on Technology at 4, but Society and social sciences/Culture at 5.

96.95.142.29 (talk) 19:10, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Feel free to move them wherever you think is more important. Bluevestman (talk) 19:27, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only extended-confirmed users can edit level 4. 96.95.142.29 (talk) 19:46, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, right. I just went through that myself. Just bold the level you think is more appropriate for the article you just listed, and I'll go move them. Bluevestman (talk) 19:52, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added jumping by the way. Bluevestman (talk) 19:54, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I was told that IP editors can't vote in level 4, I'd prefer not to make the decisions myself. Anyone can fix these when they have time. 96.95.142.29 (talk) 18:16, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent analysis, IP. Please register an account, however, so we can remember who you are. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:29, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How can we increase visibility of this page to readers?

Right now, I feel like this page is only visible to the editors who maintain these pages. I could see that the only way people are aware of these lists is that on the Contents page as well as the talk pages that have the banner for vital articles, but I feel like those areas are only visible to editors and not readers, which is supposed to be this list's purpose. What do you think? Do you have any ideas on how we can do this? Interstellarity (talk) 20:55, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed (without a specific format in mind) the contents pages are reworked to use Vital articles as the content breakdown at Wikipedia talk:Contents#Following up on no consensus for removal from main menu. Portals have been raised as another option, but theoretically WP:Contents is meant for readers, not editors. CMD (talk) 01:39, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had workshopped a proposal to somehow merge Vital articles with Wikipedia:Articles for improvement, so the articles in AFI would be drawn from the vital articles list. I opened some talk pages, but don't know where to really start on getting momentum. It would help satisfy the vital articles goals of improving articles. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:14, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To the point of visibility to readers, the GA and FA have a badge that appears on the top of an article page. We could potentially create a similar badge for all level 1 and 2 articles, and in the same way that A, B, and C articles don't get a badge, we could just leave those on the talk page as we currently have them.. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:19, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't. These pages have no importance for readers, only for editors. These are the pages we think should get extra editor attention because they are the most important: but we shouldn't be telling our readers these are the most important pages, that would be patronizing, and what is important in general is not important for specific readers. No reader will be helped by knowing that page X is a vital article level 5 and page Y isn't. Fram (talk) 08:05, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most uninvolved editors place a lot less importance/credence on WP:VA than VA editors. It is considered a hokey self-referential declaration of status that does not mean much. Pushing our project outward to other elements of WP beyond the article talk pages is not likely to meet with favorable reception.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:19, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+1 (both above). For me, VA is a tool to identify to identify the articles that need the most work. I think if we got into wider public discourse about the "most important political leaders" in history (i.e. from Level3), then it would bring Wikipedia into a different space of judging / ranking things vs. chroniciling verifiable quality facts (like WP:AmPol with the dial at 11). I do think that sister-projects like WP:GAN, should split out its GA backlog into VAs / non-VAs as it would optimise the focus of GA work? 16:07, 1 October 2025 (UTC) Aszx5000 (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the vital articles are more or less a full set through the five levels, incorporating it into other projects seems obvious. For example, the importance rankings on projects across Wikipedia are usually only done by one person. As mentioned, I think the ideal candidate would be articles for improvement, but don't know how to get attention/momentum from that project as it has fewer regulars voting on their Article nominations then we do (as only one article can be the article of the week, this isn't a surprise). GAN is a whole can of worms, I've gone through the process once when I got Technical geography  4 through, but the bureaucracy on the back end is not something I've dove into. One function of the VA list that I think could be explored is the "central watchlist." If we could find a way to encourage people to add articles from levels 1 and 2 to their watchlists it could help make vandalism there all but impossible.

@TonyTheTiger, I think that most editors actually are either completely indifferent to the VA project, or just accept it as a feature without giving much thought into how the rankings are done. Broadly, I think there are some admin that are annoyed with the bickering here, and some editors who are salty that the special interest they nominated didn't pass. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:16, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see this as part of the WP:GAN Backlog Drive and WP:CUP, but outside editors don't place as much credence in our list as we would like.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:40, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need some cleanup in house, but I think the only barriers to us being more heavily integrated into other projects is conservative editors on those other projects that don't want to see anything change, and a lack of effort on our part to get the VA integrated. The other Wikiprojects are not much more active then VA when it comes to the people making structural decisions, and there isn't much reason VA regulars couldn't advocate for the lists use on those projects. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:46, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea how you would see this functioning. As an example, Wikiproject Belgium has 73 top importance articles[2]. How would you change the importance for a) articles in that list which aren't vital articles, and b) vital articles which have some connection to Belgium (but perhaps aren't purely about Belgium? Obviously the curreny list isn't perfect either (I see at least 3 articles that should be mid importance), but I don't thing VA would be any help with that.

I see that VA level 5 has 3 "Belgium" articles, only one of them is top importance for Prject Belgium though. I see no reason to e.g. add Guy Verhofstadt to top importance on the say so of VA, and not other prime ministers. Fram (talk) 19:58, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most project importance metrics are just one editor slapping their opinion down and are then never looked at again, it is a fairly useless metric in most of the projects. Like, if you go onto those pages and change them yourself, it is unlikely anyone will say anything. Anything we can do would probably be an improvement, but maybe limit "Top importance" articles to those that have made it to at least level 5 of vital, and let "High importance", "Mid importance", and "low importance" be the current arbitrary designation that they are. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:36, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not. To be honest this project is not useful to readers. --Trovatore (talk) 01:18, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is useful, indirectly, in directing edits. The core contest has used it. What it might also be useful for is creating a snapshot of important articles that cover specific subjects, which is where I think it could be used to update the quite confusing Contents pages. CMD (talk) 04:33, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's your opinion. Personally I think the whole thing should be junked. --Trovatore (talk) 05:32, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well as much as Contents (of which VA is a major linked part) could be junked, the recent RfC found no consensus to even remove it from the main menu, so we have to make do within the current community consensus. CMD (talk) 07:19, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why? We have a qualitative dataset that has allowed people online to rank articles on Wikipedia, why would we ever want to junk the whole project? GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:26, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did some digging and found some fun pictures on Wikimedia here created by User:CheChe. They are described as "'Norro style 1' icon intended to denote vital articles." I have turned one into a topicon you can see in a subpage of my sandbox here if you want to take a look. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:31, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We could easily manually add this onto the top ten articles (one in project space, not my sandbox), and level 2 is probably easy enough. For any other levels we could make an automatic template like the GA header. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:50, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Add topicons to levels 1 and 2 vital articles

Per @Interstellarity above, there could be some ways to usefully make the project more widely known/ useful within project scope. I mentioned adding top icons similar to the ones used when an article is listed as Good or featured. I believe that like a Good or Featured article, our levels 1 and 2 could be noted on the article pages. As noted above, on Wikimedia Commons images already exist that seem made for this purpose, creatd by @User:CheChe. I have made a demo top icon for level one in my sandbox for level 1 here that takes you to the level 1 vital article page if you click it, and I can make one for level 2 just as easily. If acceptable we can make it a subpage of Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/1 instead of my sandbox. I believe top icons for level 1 and 2 can help "Give direction to the prioritization of improvements of English Wikipedia articles (e.g. which articles to bring to WP:GA and WP:FA status)" and "Provide a measurement of quality of overall English Wikipedia (e.g. what proportion of the most important articles are at GA and FA status)" by being next to the where the top icons for FA and GA are. It might also encourage people to add these articles to their watchlist. I think this is fairly unintrusive and would be a good way to make use of the project/lists we have.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:46, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. --Thi (talk) 17:45, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. I'll add my support, but once the outside world (beyond VA) gets wind of this, they will likely come by and negate whatever internal consensus we might establish.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:19, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per nom. Interstellarity (talk) 13:42, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
5. It would be best to do this for every level as the top 2 seem too few to make much difference. But one has to start somewhere and this would be reasonable as a pilot scheme. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:42, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
6. Better than nothing, but it should be for V3-V5 too. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:28, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. • "Hey reader, we consider these 110 articles as being the most important topics". Why should any reader care about this? What do these topicons add? "Provide a measurement of quality of overall English Wikipedia (e.g. what proportion of the most important articles are at GA and FA status)" is not something we should bother readers with. "Vital articles" is of no importance to readers (and most editors). Fram (talk) 08:02, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. as per Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Archive_25#Proposal_for_a_VA_"top_icon".Moxy🍁 14:19, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. I do not support this proposal, as I previously discussed. isaacl (talk) 15:55, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Discuss

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:46, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I am 99.9% sure this would have to be a proposal at the village pump, rather than here. λ NegativeMP1 16:51, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Really? That is frustrating. If you want to start that, feel free. I don't have time to take the lead on a forum that busy this week. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:03, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Well it may not hurt to measure project-specific interest here first before proposing. I too don't really want to propose something to the village pump right now.

  But, if you want my honest opinion, I don't think many editors would be in favor of showing more attention to vital articles when there's been proposals not too long ago (2020 iirc) to axe it entirely. Although maybe they'd be more welcoming to icons for level 1-2 articles? Maybe 3? Not sure. λ NegativeMP1 17:32, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• See the previous, well-attended discussion. Also this prior discussion at the village pump. J947 ‡ ^edits 22:17, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Those discussions are hard to read, yuck. The main point they bring up is that there hasn't been a rigorous check, which is fair for levels 5 and 4, and to a point level 3. Levels 1 and 2 are quite rigorous though, which is what I'm proposing the top icons for. Those two levels are fairly stable, comparatively. I think we can leave levels 3, 4, and 5 out of it for now. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:46, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The main point of the opposes seems to be:

  • "says nothing at all about the article's quality or reliability."
  • "I don't imagine we're doing readers any service by pointing out that they are currently reading an article on a broad/important topic – they'll probably have a decent sense of that on their own."
  • "the assumption that the articles on broad topics are the most important ones."
  • "I'm not sure there's added value for readers"
  • "Telling the 99% of readers who don't edit that Wikipedians have found a specific topic to be important gives no useful information whatsoever."
  • "an editor-focused initiative, and I'm not sure what it provides a reader."
  • "vital articles are not intended to communicate something to readers; they're a tool for editors"

  and so on and so on. So no, the main point is not the lack of checking, but that VA is not intended for readers / has no added value for readers. I see little reason to believe that repeating that RfC from 2 years ago will have a different result this time, even if you could persuade a few of the opposers by restricting it to level 2 or 3. Fram (talk) 13:54, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  99% of readers don't look at the references which are cited by articles but we still include them just in case. Most readers don't go past the lead which usually doesn't have any inline citations but we still include the detailed sections which the lead summarises. So, the general approach of our articles is to be comprehensive and let the reader decide how deep they want to drill down. The topicons are a modest tag, especially when compared with the giant banner tags which are profusely placed at the top of articles to specifically invite people to edit the article. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:14, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  All of which seems to have nothing to do with the post you are replying to? Fram (talk) 14:44, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The VA IS intended for readers in the same way GA and FA is intended for readers. One of the three project purposes listed on the page is to "Provide a measurement of quality of overall English Wikipedia (e.g. what proportion of the most important articles are at GA and FA status)." This measurement of quality would be intended for the readers, allowing them to see a "level 1 vital article" is GA or FA status. Currently, the project is being blocked from it's full potential. We have created a really interesting list here, a qualitative list of the most "vital" articles on Wikipedia, and as someone interested in data, this is the kind of thing corporate organizations dream of. It seems a group of editors actively try to keep it quarantined, making it difficult to actually make practical use of the list. I suspect this is because some editors proposals failed at some point or another. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:58, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The idea is to link a project page that says its "meant to give direction to the prioritization of improvements of English Wikipedia articles (e.g. which articles to bring to WP:GA and WP:FA status)" then talks about "Any addition to or removal from this list..... ". Not seeing how anything on the page is geared towards readers....just a project list of what some editors think are important articles that might need improvements. Moxy🍁 17:15, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The project has three objectives, you named one of them. The 2nd one is reader focused, specifically Provide a measurement of quality of overall English Wikipedia (e.g. what proportion of the most important articles are at GA and FA status). It specifically mentions GA and FA, both of which have top icons on articles. A top icon for vital status would achieve this 2nd objective. Wikipedia:Articles for improvement is another project. I have suggested in the past using the vital article list to narrow down articles included in in this, but get very little engagement. I'm really not seeing an argument not to have a top icon besides a few editors thinking "ew no." GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:22, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah just not seeing it. Your quote above is about improvements. As a reader I would assume every article could be improved even the FA ones. The whole presentation would have to change in my view to be a reader facing page and not a recruitment or take action page. As many already know I'm not a fan of these top icons even for FA and GA articles but at least Wikipedia:Featured articles is an explanation page not a call to action page. Basically the Wikipedia project wants their project advertised on related pages that they may or may not have been involved in. Template:Reader-facing page was created because of the separation between administration and reader facing pages WP:ADMINP. What we need to happen is the separation between the project pages and their wishes and purpose versus listing content pages. We should not be sending our readers to page to what a Wikiproject is about and the goals of the project.Moxy🍁 22:11, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think I see the issue, the link for level 1 is linking to the level 1 list. Maybe it would make more sense to link to the Overview page, which has a section on the "Purpose of Vital articles on Wikipedia." As far as I can tell, the top icons for FA and GA is no different. If a page is level 1 and FA, it demonstrates a success of having our highest priority articles highest quality. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:05, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I would say why are the projects goals, how to and purpose on every page? Keep it simply.... Readers are not going to read paragraph after paragraph of information before they see the relevant links (actual contents of the page)... most only scroll a few times. Example at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/1/Sandbox. What the project will have to do to convince the wider community is not make it look like a recruitment/how to page but a page for readers.Moxy🍁 01:41, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tentatively support this, but icons are mostly invisible. What we should do, both for assessment and for vitals, should be more visible. See Wikipedia:Metadata gadget. We need to tell the readers IN THEIR FACE, LOUDLY what quality an article is, and if it is vital. It's "cool" stuff that makes Wikipedia more fun (and colorful). Which is what people want these days. And it is useful for making folks engage with Wikipedia in general, and assessment/vital discussion in particular. Win-win-win for everyone, except the few folks who for some reason want Wikipedia to be as fun-less as possible. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:28, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Workshopping proposal for village pump

First thoughts on wording below. Please help add/subtract from this.

The vital articles is comprised of three nested levels, with level 1 having 10 articles, level 2 having 100, level 3 having 1,000, level 4 having 10,000, and level 5 having 50,000. To move up a level, an article has to first be on the lower level, and skipping is not allowed. While level 5 is chaotic, for an article to be at level 2, it has to first be added to level 5, 4, and 3, each time with two thirds of a minium number of votes. The purpose of the vital articles are:

1. Give direction to the prioritization of improvements of English Wikipedia articles (e.g. which articles to bring to WP:GA and WP:FA status)
2. Provide a measurement of quality of overall English Wikipedia (e.g. what proportion of the most important articles are at GA and FA status)
3. To serve as a centralized watchlist of English Wikipedia's most important articles.

With this in mind, I believe that a top icon for articles at levels 1 and 2 would be useful to the Wikipedia project overall. Specifically, if articles listed at levels 1 and 2 have a GA or FA top icon as well, it can help to provide an immeidate measure of the projects quality, letting readers know that the articles listed as top priority is highest quality (or that it needs some TLC). To editors, these can be a hint that an article should be improved, and that it would be a good one to add to their watchlists.

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:04, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shortening: "To move up a level, --- number of votes." -> "The vital articles are selected through discussion and voting." --Thi (talk) 06:46, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Major figures at ITN

In the News is a section on the main page and there's regular discussion whether the death of particular famous people should get a headline blurb. For example, there's a long discussion about Diane Keaton currently.

She is level 5 vital and this level is common for such cases. It therefore seems to me that the vital rating should be used to determine this as the current ITN process is regularly criticised as being too subjective.

There's a discussion about the ITN process where I've suggested the use of the vital grading. This project may therefore be interested in this potential use case.

Andrew🐉(talk) 13:54, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Early closing of proposal at level 1: Should we change the rules?

@User:Lophotrochozoa closed Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/1#Swap_Human_history_1_for_History_2 1 to 4 after less then 10 days. At level 1, proposals "must remain open for !voting for a minimum of 15 days," and "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." While it seems a bit of a snowball, the nominator of that proposal didn't include their vote (despite me pinging their talk page). Generally, I'd assume they support their own proposal so it could be 2 to 4, and level 1 doesn't generally get a lot of attention. Kind of seems like a bad precedent to set regardless. Should we change the rules for closing? GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:46, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss

I didn't think to read when the thread started. Sorry. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:56, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It happens, just wanted to bring it up as it can set precedent if not mentioned (such as the issue with how we handle IP editor votes). GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:01, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A VA gadget similar to "Metadata gadget" would be nice

One that would display V-status, if any, at the top of the page when viewing it. I use Wikipedia:Metadata gadget for many years now and it is very nice for editors (frankly, I think it should be part of the basic funcitonality for all readers but... anyway, if you don't use it, enable it in your preferences, folks - it's nice). Anyway, for us VA-fans here, having a similar tool would be helpful. Is there anyone who could code it? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:24, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dead horse, but... we need a subpage and talk page notification structure

If each discussion would be on a subpage, it could be annouced and archived on talk pages. It would include VA visiblity for others, and it would also let is track history of when an article was nominated, failed, etc. In particular, we have no good record of how VA move up and down, and of articles that were proposed, failed, or got delisted. I know it's a ton of work to implement it, but it really should be done... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:38, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We do have a record, it's called the talk page archives. More to the point, this would create an unreasonably large number of new subpages, which is not desirable. I prefer the current approach. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:28, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I too would like to see this included in article history.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:34, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of a backlog

There is stuff at the top of Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/Society that is backlogged (not enough votes) since April or so . I don't want to tout a few of my own proposals (throat clearing, shrug... literally :P), but I think there's a lot of important stuff there proposed by many folks including some of regulars here that is gathering dust there. Take a look, folks. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:48, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VACRIT BRD

WP:VACRIT has the sentence For example, Science  1 is a Vital-1 article, while Scientific method  3 is a lower level of vitality. Determining which articles are vital at lower levels often involves looking at the articles at higher levels. For example, since History  2 is of high vitality, World War II  3 is also a vital article, just at a lower level.

I replaced the link to History  2 with Human history  1, since just like Science  1 introduces the scientific method, Human history  1 introduces World War II. History  2 is not the relevant overview article and as such only discusses the world wars in passing. GeogSage reverted my edit without explanation or reason. I'd like to know why. J947 ‡ ^edits 02:48, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I reverted it because I opposed it and the change was made without discussion. History IS the relevant overview article. Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/2#History is the category at level 2, and Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/3#History is the category World War II is under at level 3. Human History at level 1 is an anomaly, but the category is not "human history," it is history. This appeared an attempt to further entrench human history based on current discussions, and I oppose that. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:57, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was not. Human history / modern era remain the relevant overview articles whether it is at VA1 or VA2. J947 ‡ ^edits 03:26, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Human history is not the name of the categories the broad articles are falling into, we just use the word history. The discipline is history, the product of the discipline is human history. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:32, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is WWII a sub-discipline or sub-productofadiscipline? J947 ‡ ^edits 03:34, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WWII is listed under the category "history." I would support changing World War II to Historiography  4, as that is closer to a one to one with Scientific method  3 and Science  1. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:40, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An article doesn't have to be listed under a category to be a subtopic of it, and we don't want to perpetuate that misconception. J947 ‡ ^edits 03:42, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The point wrt human history over history in that sentence is that History  2 is the article on the study of history, while Human history  1 is the article on what is being studied. World War II is therefore a subtopic of human history as something that is studied, not the study of something. QuicoleJR (talk) 03:42, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bad faith voting

User:GeogSage, I consider it bad form to seek my nominations and vote against them by quoting me. Then when you tired of that you just opposed my votes until you could find a few more nominations. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:17, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't particularly find the way you vote on proposals I've made civil, which has been a repeated problem. If you don't like seeing yourself quoted in votes, don't say them.

I was avoiding voting on things I didn't know or care about, and trying to stick to a strict reading of the vital article criteria. When I learned a metric being used was just what I wanted to see the list "stuffed with," I went back and evaluated proposals I had skipped over, or ones where I was leaning towards the nominator's expertise/interest on topics I was torn on. We have a backlog of votes and can't close until a certain threshold is met after all, so my abstaining wasn't benefiting the project. So I revised my approach, and there are no rules for how our votes are cast (that was the main argument made at ANI when IP editor got mad at you). I was skipping over your proposals because I didn't think I cared enough for my opinion to matter (not that I didn't see them), and was deferring to the noms on these issues as I assumed they knew something I didn't. Effectively, I was working from a default of "neutral, lean support" on all proposals, and if I wasn't interested at all would just be neutral and not vote. In my opinion, other topics like "subtopics of geography" are more "vital and deserving" than any of those, I just didn't think that was enough of a reason to vote against previously. I assure you though, I only voted based on if I wanted to see on the list, like I assume you did when you stated, " I can't believe I am supporting one of these." If I didn't want to see something on the list (based on my interest or opinion), then I either voted against or changed previous support. As you have made clear, we are interested in different topics, I just wasn't using that as my primary guide when voting. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:58, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What does "nah" add to the discussion exactly? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:33, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Same thing that "Aye" adds to it, I use it as a synonym for "nay." The Vital articles nominations are not consensus/discussion based, they are votes. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:39, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A large proportion of the time, I just sign when voting. Another large proportion of the time, I acknowledge I am voting per another previous voter. Some times I make a minimal statement. Of course with nominations, I give explanation. I have never responded to anyone's statements here by seeking out their nominations and voting against them. Clearly, you were referencing this vote when you quoted the verb "stuff" in your first votes against my nominations. Then, you uncharacteristically voted in a manner that seems to mimick my minimal votes. As you know, I think you are in overdrive on getting geography topics included at VA. I think you are going too far. At least you did seem to pick a set of nominations that is mostly WP:WPVA subjects, so you could be interpretted as responding that you think my concentration of participation in Visual Arts nominations is causing an imbalance. You also got involved in some geography votes that I was involved in. So maybe you think about visual arts like I think about geography, but I don't think your actions were in good faith. You seem to be saying that you responded to my vote that you didn't like by changing your standards on how to vote. As much as I am annoyed that so much geography stuff is flooding the nominations, I don't ever go after your nominations. I very often stay out of them.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:23, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also sometimes make minimal voting statements. As said, I was aware of these proposals, but revisited them voting based entirely on if I thought it was interesting or not. When I previously was "not feeling" noms, but didn't have much of a reason, I tried to not vote. I decided to change that approach and skimmed the pages for nominations I wasn't feeling, I had previously been mostly staying away from your proposals because they were not interesting to me, now, based on standards being applied by you, a topic is not interesting me is a reason to vote against them. Again, I voted on multiple proposals I had already seen but chosen to skip over for this reason. Yes, now I'm frustrated at the project and many people involved. No, I don't think applying the logic others are applying to my proposals is "bad faith voting," I literally just decided I wasn't going to intentionally not vote in proposals I was uninterested in when I skimmed the talk pages to see if there was anything to vote on (which I do periodically, sometimes voting twice by mistake over a period of several days/weeks when I don't see my signature right away). People have repeatedly called for more votes to help clear the talk pages, so I wasn't doing anyone any favors by abstaining. I've seen some of those proposals open for almost a year. Yes, I did skim after reading a comment from you that I think was not very nice, and there are a long list of similar comments from you and others (mostly others) that don't just vote no, but actively disparage what I vote on, how I vote, and what I propose we add/remove. You have not gone after my nominations, you've gone after me nominating things in general. You have left multiple comments on various of my proposals implying I should stop, at least that's how I read them. I understand being frustrated with how I vote, but these comments from you and others have not felt civil, and even now feel like attempts to give Wikipedia:No-edit orders. Several editors display ownership behavior, particularly with comments like, "I think you are in overdrive on getting geography topics included at VA. I think you are going too far." I have been trying for over a year to make minor adjustments that are ultimately meant to reduce the number of geography articles listed (especially at higher levels), reduce western bias, and bring the project more in line with geography literature. I have been stonewalled repeatedly by needing to go through the levels in peace meal. Large proposals get blocked with calls to split them up and get more discussion. Editors who vote in one discussion don't show up for another, leading to an inconsistent mismatch of some passing while others fail. I don't think many people are really reading proposals, especially past ones linked within, before voting or they would see this broad restructuring would make room for more paintings or whatever else. However, the system is designed to be extremely conservative and resistant to change, and to implement small change requires a lot of shuffling between levels (even when a simple swap between levels 2 and 4 would be fine, the stop in level 3 makes a mess).

I don't particularly think specific visual art pieces are broad enough or notable enough to warrant one of 50,000 slots, but I don't study art history much, so I don't really have any idea what pieces or topics are extremely influential. That's why I hadn't already voted on them. I referenced your comment that I had just read before skimming that had changed my approach to voting. If my arguments based in the vital article criteria, page statistics, and academic literature are not how we're voting here, and instead just basing it on what we think deserves to be listed, then how is my applying that same logic "bad faith?" I'm not trying to send any message beyond what you send me with sentences like "I think you are going too far," "I can't get over the things that are getting wiped out of VA3-VA5 so that it can get stuffed with geography terms," or "In fact, the more that you come up with, the more pissed I am that so many modestly important cities were stripped because I think they would serve us better than a lot of them. However, if we are not going to readd those, I think geography should give spaces to other subjects. I'd rather see the 3rd or 4th most important painting by Monet or Lichtenstein get the slot than have a geography expert fill them up to the best of his ability." As a "geography expert," I'd rather see the high order concepts and statistics we use added then "the 3rd or 4th most important painting by Monet or Lichtenstein."

I voted while particularly annoyed by the wording in your vote, yes. I'm sorry if it made you feel intimidated, I'm mostly just sick of being the only one trying to strictly follow any of the project "criteria" when voting, and not just voting for what I enjoy reading about. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:36, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have never voted on a subject based on its personal interest to me. If you are suddenly basing your votes on this standard it is a wrong one. When I vote "Not feeling it" it is entirely based on not buying the argument for vitality. No one here should be voting based on importance to self. E.g., I like the Los Angeles Dodgers and dislike the Atlanta Braves. I also like the Buffalo Bills, Buffalo Sabres and New York Knicks and dislike the New England Patriots and Boston Celtics. When I enumerate a list of reasons why I think the Dodgers may be the most important franchise in sports and without much explanation state something like "not really", "not feeling it" for the Braves, but meaning it from the vitality perspective. I would not say something like that about the Patriots or the Celtics. Furthermore, I think casting 30 votes against from a new perspective that you say is inspired by me, is inappropriate because you are misunderstanding what is giving you motivation. From my perspective it seems a whole lot more like intimidation by showing how you will respond if you don't like how i vote.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:57, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Casting votes is perfectly appropriate, we have no criteria on what counts for a vote. It literally is all subjective editor bias. This isn't how I will respond if I don't like how you vote, it's that I'm planning defaulting to voting against stuff I would have previously ignored unless an extremely compelling case is made. If I don't know about it, or think it's deserving of being on the list, I'm just going to vote for removing or not adding. This is in large part because the lists are stagnant, but this and a few other conversations with editors was the push I needed to stop avoiding just voting my gut. If I do see something I like, I'll try to avoid belittling statements like "I can't believe I am supporting one of these" though. There are plenty of editors who are not super warm and fuzzy to me, but the reason there were 30 nominations from you that I hadn't voted on was I had previously avoided them because of lack of interest in the proposals. I don't know anything about the topic, and don't want to dive into educating myself on it, so I didn't vote. I was giving a lot of space for "notability," and assuming that just because I didn't know about it, or care about it, didn't mean it was not vital. That said, individual art pieces are not broad, and are not that essential to other articles, and I think there are other things more deserving. When it comes to sports franchises, I not only think they aren't vital, I actively dislike them as I think they direct public funds (and slots in the vital article list) away from more meaningful and deserving things. Honestly, would be fine with removing all sports teams, athletes, and sports figures from the list, because I don't think they meet the vital article criteria for coverage or no western bias, and really think there are more deserving topics. On sports, I've received such hostility, literally to the point of being told to essentially shut up, from the fandom here that "not feeling it" is about all I'm comfortable saying, check out "Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/4#Remove_Jim_Brown_4_and_Tom_Brady_4" for an example. Sorry if you felt intimidated, your comment made me feel pretty frustrated so quoting it while voting was cathartic, but not the most civil.

On what it means to be "vital," I'm really not sure what anyone means at this point. Trying to quote criteria is not exactly a winning argument, half the time it is outright dismissed if not condescendingly explained back as a "suggestion" or "general guideline." On geography, I've literally done statistical analysis of articles in the project, gone through more then 7 separate discussions on reworking geography, presented the arguments for in the context of the vital article criteria, and have provided outside publications. You responded with how much you thought other articles "deserved" to be on the list, and complained it was being "stuffed with geography terms." I'm not really sure how to make a better argument for vitality at this point, it seems like nothing but a popularity contest. How exactly do you define vitality? Because nobody seems to have any consistency, and trying to make the project even slightly internally consistent gets extraordinary push back. On the quantitative analysis, giving raw values and weighted arguments really doesn't seem to change any minds, people stick with their first gut instinct. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:43, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you intended it or not voting against me 30 times starting with votes refer to a vote of mine you didn't like is indistinguishable from intimidation (in my mind but anyone is free to correct me), which is quite bad form. Voter intimidation is something that should be discouraged whether it by actual lynching, castration, or just digital intimidation. All forms of voter intimidation are forms of oppression. In any forum, people should feel to vote their mind. I respect a lot of your efforts although I oppose them generally. It is a form of wikipassion to promote your specialty. I have no respect for your decision to cast 30 votes against me in response to a vote you don't like. I am quite alarmed that there are no other people with opinions here. Silence in the face of voter intimidation is a form of support for it. Do you feel you are making an example of me by voting against 30 of my nominations?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:23, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You did not answer my questions. My votes are my actual opinion, I had previously with held them because I don't tend to value or respect uninformed opinions (of which I have many). Honestly I didn't think anyone would notice my change in voting, much less think it would be "making an example" or end up with a large post like this. Anyone can vote on anything, it's not a special power I have that others are lacking. Literally, I just went down the lists (like I often do) and saw stuff I previously hadn't voted on that I wanted to vote on. We have a backlog of votes and can't close until a certain threshold is met after all, so my abstaining wasn't benefiting the project. You can see a post above on November 11th calling for people to take a look at old proposals. I don't see a reason to continue avoiding voting on things I'm not particularly interested in, just because I am missing the background knowledge to have an informed opinion on notability. I did vote my mind. Do you want me to withdraw my vote? Are you trying to undo them? Do you want me to avoid voting on your proposals if I disagree with them, or don't find the topic vital? I applied the same logic as you, that I don't wish to see the list stuffed with topics I don't think deserve to be on the list. Should I not feel free to vote my mind? Or should I pace myself and spread my votes out to a certain number per day? What is an acceptable voting pattern if I generally oppose a lot of your efforts? I did quote you as part of my explanation for votes, which was wrong as incivility should not be met with incivility. I apologize for that, and I'm sorry if I made you feel intimidated, that is not my intention.

You, and others, have repeatedly used language disparaging me, my proposals, and my pattern of voting. You definitely were not making it a secret that my proposals were pissing you off, that you think I'm going too far, and that the stuff I'm proposing is broadly less deserving of being on the list then stuff you enjoy/value. Did you ever consider that I feel the same way about a lot of things you (and others) were proposing? 30 votes? You have 24 open proposals at level 5 in "Arts and everyday life" (by my rough count, could have missed one or counted something incorrectly). 4 of my votes were literally on the same bulk proposal for "Other arts institutions" that has been open since January. I voted on a few of the already closed ones almost a year ago, but skipped these intentionally back then and since because I was neutral but giving the benefit of the doubt. I still didn't vote on all of them, leaving out "American Ballet Theatre" because I literally could go either way. I have been biting my digital tongue on a lot of topics/proposals outside my immediate interest.

Again, I apologize for making you feel intimidated. That is not my intention. Your comment made me feel pretty frustrated so quoting it while voting was cathartic, but not the most civil. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 08:09, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No complaints have been levelled about voting on proposals where you lack the "background knowledge to have an informed opinion on notability". 5 minutes of research can easily compensate for and is normally better than background knowledge. Making three copy-pasted votes a minute, on the other hand, rubs people like me and Tony the wrong way since it's clear that the research into the individual merits of each proposal was either extremely minimal or nonexistent. J947 ‡ ^edits 10:12, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As said, I was aware of these proposals, but revisited them voting based entirely on if I thought it was interesting or not. We have a backlog of votes and can't close until a certain threshold is met after all, so my abstaining wasn't benefiting the project. You can see a post above on November 11th calling for people to take a look at old proposals. As you stated, "VA discussions are evaluated by voting rather than by consensus because every vote is subjective. There are no definitive criteria" and "This is exactly how the project is meant to work. Importance and balance are both definitionally subjective. In light of that, relying on a set of rules as the be-all and end-all is neither the status quo, nor has it ever been the status quo, nor would it be a good idea." Decided to revaluate some votes I had not cast based on not knowing exactly how it fit the vital article criteria of "notability", however the project is a zero-sum game when it comes to topics included/excluded as there are a finite number of slots. Voting based on how we want those slots allocated was not really a metric I was relying on to swing my vote one way or another, I have changed that approach. I had thought we were over representing some specific topics that were not broad or essential to other articles. You voted against 12 of my proposals yesterday, 6 exactly 40 minutes after I posted with the same copy-pasted vote "Key word: "tend," " 5 49 minutes after with the same copy-paste vote "I oppose the removals, so I oppose the swaps too." Another editor voted "I don't think that people want to read about classifications instead of real genres." Project is a zero-sum game, adding one article is not possible if we are not okay with excluding another, and what we are interested in is clearly a metric being employed by several editors. I voted against mostly non-swap adds that grow the number of articles in some topic areas. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 14:44, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GeogSage, by this point, this just feels like you are disrupting the VA process just to prove a WP:POINT, and your wall of texts are not helping your case. Lazman321 (talk) 17:26, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GeogSage, I made those votes as a response to your votes. On several occasions I have said I really try not to oppose proposals in bulk without individual consideration because it's antithetical to good discussion and good decision-making. But clearly that message hasn't reached you yet, so I decided I might as well fight fire with fire. I hope it demonstrated to you the detrimental effect on the project that mass opposing proposals has. J947 ‡ ^edits 22:20, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Voting to fight fire with fire and demonstrate a detrimental effect sounds rather pointy. You are free to cast votes for whatever reason you choose though. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:13, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is nowhere else on Wikipedia where it would be acceptable to reject a proposal with "nah" and no further reasoning. If that is the norm at vital articles then it just shows how much out of step it has become from the wider project. Matters should be decided by discussion and consensus, not by purely voting. The likely reason this has been allowed to happen on this project is because you all realise that the "vitality" of a subject is completely subjective and could not be decided by objective decision — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:37, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vital articles is vote, not consensus, based. Votes can be cast with just a signature and no explanation. That has been the overall consensus for how the project runs, and you can see this in an ANI from September here where an IP editor accused TonyTheTiger of voting based on Retaliation. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:34, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• P.S. I was also posting this in case there are other people who you may have sent similar messages to. It is not inconceivable that a lot of your things are passing by the type of intimidation that I feel based on your recent pattern voting.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:32, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Since you stand by your votes, I have taken action at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Voter_intimidation.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:45, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination format

Recently two types of deceptive nomination formats have become prominent. I would like to nominate that we formally discourage two types of deceptive nominations

1. Type 1. Removal nominations listed as move nominations. This muddles edit summaries by mixing in nominations to demote a VA listing with nominations to change how VA listings are arranged. Going forward can we please require that all nominations to demote a VA listing be listed as remove rather than move unless it is part of a swap where it should say swap instead of move.
2. Type 2. groupings without subsections. By nominating groups of nominees in a section without subsection headings that clearly state add or remove, the edit summaries don't remind people that certain types of votes are happening for specific subjects.

P.S. I would like to encourage everyone to leave the section title in the edit summaries. Everyone except User:Kevinishere15 generally does this. Kevin even does it about half of the time. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:06, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously oppose. I switched to using "move" instead of "remove" specifically because I thought there was confusion at one point that a "remove" could mean removing it from all levels, not just moving between levels, so I try to specify "move ____ to level ____" instead. Individual swaps cause problems where people like the add but not the remove, so I try to do batches where it is more flexible. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:10, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Demote would be preferable to move, because move is easily confused with attempts to rearrange the lists.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:34, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair, I can use "demote" instead of "move." GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:52, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I like demote/promote. J947 ‡ ^edits 01:07, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Time to mark this as historical?

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Time to mark "Vital Articles" as historical?. Fram (talk) 10:43, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Got home from FIRST Tech Challenge to see this

What have people been doing in the VA4 talk page, how are there 17 notices for that page

ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 08:10, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Table of VA categories by level and quality

Wikiprojects tend to have assessment statistics tables by importance and quality. I couldn't find one for VA, so I did manually a simple one with current status (according to the reported category sizes):

Level Quality	1	2	3	4	5
FL+FA	2	11	69	381	11+792
A+GA	4	13	1+121	5+647	24+1,669
B	4	60	411	3,385	9,143
C	0	6	289	4,028	15,744
Start	0	0	0	561	12,042
Stub	0	0	0	0	500

(I put some classes on the same row due to their similarities, and excluded non-FL List-class.)

An idea could be that articles in the bottom left, where the difference between the level and quality is the largest, would be most prioritised for improvement in possible edit drives (WP:Discord/Team-B-Vital sadly seems stagnant) or WP:Articles for improvement and such, and then move to the next diagonal as the current one reaches zero (excluding top row which is already Featured-class). In any case, a table like this would be interesting even for passive observation.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 11:55, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]