Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Vital articles

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

People History and geography Society STEM

Introduction

[edit]

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:

Move some or all 24 articles from "Navigation" section of "Technology" to Geography "basics"

[edit]

As this reorganization effects multiple levels, 24 articles, and crosses categories, I thought I'd bring it up for discussion here.

Technology is over quota and needs some breathing room, and geography has some room. I'd suggest swapping in some or all of the navigation articles in the technology section to geography. We already list cartography and map making technologies in geography, so navigation concepts and technology make some sense. In the navigation section, we have articles like North  5, South  5, East  5, West  5 that I think can be moved without a second thought. We also have Remote sensing  4 technologies like Radar  3 and Lidar  5 under navigation, while remote sensing is under geography already. Finally, we have stuff like Satellite navigation  4 and related technologies, Compass  3 that might be more questionable, although I believe with remote sensing and Cartography  4 in the geography section, these inclusions aren't problematic.

I think this might help take pressure off of the technology section, and help group spatial topics together instead of scattering them between sections. (Note: This proposal is part of a broader concept I have for a reorganization of the geography section. I'm proposing this part now because technology needs the space, but had this in mind already. Please see discussion "Broad reorganization of geography" if you're interested in that.)

Support
  1. As nom GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 05:48, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose some
Oppose all
Neutral
Discuss

While it would free up a little space in Tech, I personally think most of these things belong more in Tech. Besides most of the subject depth being technological, they have many applications that are really only spatial in a very abstract way: military targeting, collision avoidance, meteorology, etc. If anything, I'd say Remote sensing  4 probably belongs in Tech too. That said, I've always particularly disliked us listing social conventions under Tech so I would totally support moving Cardinal direction  4 and the 4 directions to Geography. Since the parent article is at Lv4 though (and so is Remote sensing  4), those should probably be proposed on the Lv4 page. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:11, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this is really three proposals, with the cardinal directions being one (Easiest to include), remote sensing tech being another, and navigation technology like GPS and compass being the third. Some that I proposed in terms of wayfinding and land navigation could also go into a "Navigation" section within geography. Depending on how this goes I think some of the time keeping tech might fit into the history section, especially the type of calendars, months, and days of the week.
Remote sensing is the one that bugs me the most in terms of organization. I teach remote sensing in a geography department and we use both Radar and Lidar, so it isn't unheard of for the discipline to include it. Cartography  4, Geographic information system  5, are also straddling the gap between tech and geography. Both the definitions of cartography and remote sensing, depending on source, start with "Art, science, and technology." I want to add Satellite imagery somewhere, but Radar  3 and Lidar  5 muddy the waters with where that should be. The problem is that geography includes physical and human sciences, and these bits are the "STEM" part of geography. Something I JUST found to further muddy this is that Map  3 is listed as technology at level 3, but geography at level 5. Moving all the maps level 5 articles from geography to tech would add a lot to tech. Geodetic datum  4 is definitely a technology that geographers/cartographers widely employee, and Geoid  4 is as well. Surveying  4 being under geography would start a fight at some schools, and Geodesy  4 is under the Physical sciences section.
As noted in my above proposal, I want to make a section for technical geography separate from physical, and human (cities and countries/regions). It could be called something like "Basics and technical" if needed and absorb a lot of this mess. Similarly, it could have a navigation section. I'd hope such a section could descramble our spatial articles a bit. This mess is why acting on the proposal you closed is a bit challenging, I've been trying to untangle this situation. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 18:24, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the issue found with Map  3 is one of several little organizational quirks we still haven't ironed out. I think it's largely a result of topics subdividing and re-parenting each other as we go down levels; I actually have detecting those as a minor item on my VA bot to-do list.
For Remote sensing  4, after I looked at the article further, I think the ambiguity may be in the article itself (and even some of the citations), not just where we sort it. It's part WP:Broad-concept article (which would almost definitely belong in Tech), part Earth-observation-specific (which almost definitely belongs in Geography).
Funny enough, situations like that are the main thing I believe justifies Lv5; it's very good at bringing out structural issues between topics. Unfortunately, there's still so much churn that I don't think we take the time to actually resolve things on the articles. I've been keeping a to-do list of ideas on my user-page, but I keep finding other things to do myself, and I don't think my "Lv5 is for refactoring" view has caught on. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:53, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've had this turning over a bit in my mind, and I realized that my ideal way to resolve this ties to a longer-term proposal I've had in my notes. Unfortunately, I don't think we have the bandwidth for it right now (if anything, we should prioritize the Life Sciences). Until then, I think it will be simpler to leave most navigation articles (as techniques for solving a problem) with Tech, but anything more general & scientific like cartography probably makes more sense in Geography. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal signature

GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 05:48, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification on NO CONSENSUS rules

[edit]

The article states that “after 60 days it [a level 1-3 vote] may be closed as NO CONSENSUS if the proposal has (a) less than 5 supports, AND (b) less than two-thirds support.” I wonder whether this should be read as “It can be closed if (a) AND (b) both apply simultaneously,” or as “It can be closed if (a), AND it can be closed if (b).” Could someone please clarify? BlazingBlast (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's a really good catch (I mainly participate at Level 5 nowadays), and I suspect it's actually a mistake. I'm pretty sure they're just meant to negate the Passing conditions, but if so, No Consensus conditions should be phrased "(a) OR (b)" (see De Morgan's Laws for the deets).
Honestly though, even that approach doesn't account for the Failing conditions and it's arguably unnecessary anyways. We could probably replace it with a much simpler, plain-English statement like "After 60 days, it may be closed NO CONSENSUS if it doesn't meet passing or failing conditions". Of course, others would need to verify I'm interpreting the spirit of the rule correctly. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:51, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it's meant to be “It can be closed if (a) AND (b) both apply simultaneously”. J947 ‡ edits 22:10, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it's good BlazingBlast brought this up; nobody else is weighing in and we came to different conclusions. I don't have any personal issue with an "(a) AND (b) simultaneously" interpretation, but what does that mean for proposals where only one of (a) or (b) is true? They wouldn't be able to pass or fail, but we wouldn't be able to close them as No Consensus either. Doesn't that defeat the purpose of a rule for closing after 60 days? -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:13, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Levels 4 & 5: Last 2 Thoughts on Quotas

[edit]
DONE
Both points now addressed; will finish filling out new quota data shortly (it will only track the quotas for now, but with automation, can eventually become the source for all tables et al.) -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:31, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi everyone, I'm trying to wrap up some process discussions or changes, this time with the quotas. These should be short & sweet; I don't think they'll even need a vote. Since they technically affect Lv 4 & 5, I just wanted to check if here if anyone opposed.

First point: would anyone mind if I created a JSON subpage (similar to our "data/" subpages) and encoded our quotas there too? For now, it's just a prototype, but this would ultimately be the single source of truth for bots to work from when updating the Lv 4 & 5 tables.

It's just a data format for listing objects: easy for a human to read or edit, but also easy to import for most programming languages nowadays. Apparently it takes an admin to set a page officially to a JSON model though.
@MSGJ: I'm not sure we've every interacted, but I've seen you swing by VA as an admin several times. Would you be willing to create a new JSON page through ChangeContentModel at Wikipedia:Vital articles/quotas.json? I can fill it out myself, but if you see any issues or want to place it somewhere else (like the data/ subdirectory), we can tweak our plans. Thank you in advance. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, no problem. That sounds like a good idea. Perhaps better as a subpage of Wikipedia:Vital articles/data so that all the json pages are in one place? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:57, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of that, and while it makes sense from a human perspective, I don't know for sure how carefully Cewbot grabs all those pages. It's possible a new .json in the folder might confuse the bot or other workflows we may not be aware of.
I'm definitely not opposed to putting it in another (lower-case named) subdirectory though; maybe something like "controls" (in the managerial sense)? -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 13:39, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Second point: can we affirm that the 2% cushions at these levels are just to add slack to the process? And by process, I don't just mean proposals, but also things like updating the summary tables. In other words, they're not an unofficial quota to target, and we shouldn't wait until we hit those guardrails to trim or fill in a section (unless an agreed change programme is in effect). I don't want to update any guidelines or anything, or worry about anything retroactively. I just want to see if we can get on the same page going forward. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:03, 8 February 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.

Random article buttons on every level

[edit]

On each level of the vital articles, there is a random article button on each level as well as each category. Originally, the random article button was for the top-level categories beginning with Category:Wikipedia level-1 vital articles, but the articles are now sorted by article quality and category. I put a temporary solution in to combine multiple categories into one, but I am hoping for a solution that randomizes the vital articles better. I particularly like this feature of vital article for two reasons. Obviously, one is to improve the articles, but I also find it a neat way to read random articles as a reader. Any ideas on how I can do this? Interstellarity (talk) 00:44, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since nobody else has replied yet, I was just wondering what you were picturing more precisely? You mentioned wanting to randomize things better, but I'm guessing you really meant you want to filter on categories more easily? Or do you mean it doesn't actually seem to be fully randomizing things? -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Zar2gar1: When the random articles were created, they were created to randomize categories like these: Category:Wikipedia_level-2_vital_articles. However, when those articles got removed from the category, they are in categories like topics and article quality. I did a temporary solution doing multiple categories at once. I'm currently exploring a tool called WP:PetScan, but I'm not sure how to create a button like the ones we have. How do you feel about removing the buttons for now until we resolve the random article buttons? Interstellarity (talk) 01:18, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't use the buttons much myself so if you want to cut them for now, I'm OK with that. You may just want to wait a few days in case anyone else would be opposed. I actually only tweaked one of them a few months ago when someone mentioned that it was acting buggy. Beyond that, I personally haven't been focused on them. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:02, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

User:MSGJ and User:Kammerer55, I have two suggestions for improvement:

  1. Could we make the template accept multiple (say 20) links separated by pipes with a single deployment for greater efficiency of use.
  2. Is it possible to make it present mouseover options for all levels on which it appears rather than just the highest.

I don't know what others think about these suggestions, but I presume they would be as helpful to others as they would be to me.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:42, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Something to signify non-listed articles as such, like a red X after the VA symbol, would be nice for easily differentiating them from normal wikilinks.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 18:48, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for either of the original template authors, and I agree it would be nice to have something like these at some point. But I think we need to be careful before trying to roll it into the VA link template immediately.
Your first feature probably wouldn't be too hard, but we already have unintended consequences with the existing template. We should probably fix those before adding to it. There are also accessibility issues with the current way we do things (like the icons), even if they don't directly affect me or most editors.
As for the mouse-over feature, that would be helpful too, but I'm pretty sure that would require a separate JS user-script. The template could maybe help preprocess some data for it; then you have to be careful not to clutter up things for those without custom scripts though. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Create a timeline on a subpage

[edit]

This subject has been previously discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 62#Timeline of significant figures.

As @Chaotic Enby pointed out: the timeline could make it a pretty useful reference for articles about famous figures needing improvement, without claiming that these are necessarily the most significant ever.

If you're worried about the eras being too eurocentric, then I made a guideline for different regions to help combat this. You can find it here: User:Wikieditor662/sandbox#Guidelines. You may ignore the rest of that article though, it's similar but not the one I'm proposing here.

The proposed timeline can look something like this: User:Wikieditor662/Vital sandbox, and can be a WikiProject subpage, as @Folly Mox suggested.

What do you all think?

Wikieditor662 (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping! Instead of coloring based on periods, I'm wondering if it could be feasible to make it so the color automatically matches the article's quality class (with a class icon for colorblind people), to help highlight which articles are in need of improvement. Either way, it can definitely be a pretty neat way to visualize our biographical vital articles! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:07, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you like the idea! And perhaps we could have it both colored based on time period AND a class icon for the article's quality class. Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:42, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be willing to assist pbp 16:39, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great to hear! Do we need more approval first, or are we able to implement it now? Wikieditor662 (talk) 21:33, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikieditor662: Do it! Post a link on my talk page when you do! pbp 17:17, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Purplebackpack89 I added it, thanks! You can find it here: Wikipedia:Vital articles/Figures timeline. Wikieditor662 (talk) 20:16, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned it in your talk page too. Wikieditor662 (talk) 01:47, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with it as long as it and especially any discussions are on their own subpage. The only issue I could see is to make sure it's actually adding to Wikipedia and not just diverting effort from existing timelines, as articles or wikiprojects. I think the VA project already loses sight of its purpose way too much (at least at the larger levels) and sometimes actively discourages improving the articles we do list. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:31, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of what point are levels 1 and 2?

[edit]
  1. They do NOT mimic the scope of paper encyclopedias (a multivolume paper encyclopedia has a number of topics more commensurate with Lv 4 than Lvs 1 or 2)
  2. It is impossible to distill all knowledge into just 10 topics
  3. And nearly impossible to distill it into 100 topics
  4. With only 100 slots, there are lots and lots of things missing (not a single biography, not a single nation, none of the other planets of the Solar System, music itself but no genres or instruments, religion itself but no examples of religion)
  5. And many of the Lv 1 and Lv 2 topics, while obviously important, are so impossibly broad that getting them to FA or GA is unlikely. (How do you distill Human history  1 or Music  2 or Earth  1 into a single reasonably-sized article?)
  6. If it WAS possible to get all 10 articles at VA1 to GA or FA, it could be done relatively quickly and we could move on to something else

pbp 16:53, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of the VA project is: "The five nested vital article levels are 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), 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), and to serve as a centralized watchlist of English Wikipedia's most important articles."
Vital 1 and 2 address this goal better then the others. We are not trying to mimic the scope of paper encyclopedias, and not trying to distill knowledge. While it might be difficult to get them to FA or GA status, that would be a good goal and if we could do it quickly we should. That said, the project serves as a Watchlist, so maintaining certain key articles against vandalism. The vital articles are essentially a priority list for attention from editors, articles that the project should focus on improving and maintaining. This is based on the Vital Article criteria, and criteria 1, 2, and 3 are going to be largely why biographies and countries are not included. The list is human and Earth centric, information about the smaller moons of Saturn is not really that important to the other articles on Wikipedia.
The vital article criteria:
  1. Coverage: Vital articles at higher levels tend to "cover" more topics and be broader in their scope. 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.
  2. Essential to Wikipedia's other articles: While Scientific method  3 may be less vital than Science  1, since it is such a critical topic regarding science, covering many science-related topics in Wikipedia, it is undoubtedly a vital article.
  3. Notability: Individuals within the People section represent the pinnacles of their field with a material impact on the course of humanity, such as Albert Einstein  3 in "Inventors and scientists", William Shakespeare  3 in "Authors", and Genghis Khan  3 on "Leaders".
  4. No (Western) bias: While the vitals list is for English Wikipedia, the focus is on the world. For example, the current consensus for Level 3 is to list two cities in China (Hong Kong, Beijing) and India (Delhi, Mumbai), but only one in the United States.
  5. 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.
GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 17:35, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, to be completely honest I never understood V1 and V2. It is somewhat reasonable to come up with a list of the 1,000, 10,000, and 50,000 (maybe 100,000) most important topics to an encyclopedia, even if the vital articles process as a whole can turn into a popularity contest amongst editors. But only 10 and 100 articles just feels like unnecessary categorization that solely exists to give us a smooth number evolution (if that's the right word?). But even then, that ends with V5 (going from 10,000 to 50,000), so eh.
I also have several questions regarding what even makes a topic vital at those levels. We list the Moon  2 at V2; if humanity reaches Mars  3 at some point and starts inhabiting it, would we upgrade it to V2 or even V1 to be alongside Earth  1? I doubt it, but that kind of reflects the issue of only being able to list 10 or 100 topics at one level. There's also the concern about maintaining these articles, which is another big factor of vital articles that most people seem to forget about (myself included). I completely agree with pbp's stance on that.
And the idea that the vital articles process isn't meant to replicate a traditional encyclopedia is wrong, as I believe the vital articles process stems from Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics (plus the "supplements"), which was a selection of Wikipedia articles that were meant to be printed onto traditional book encyclopedias or burned onto CDs. So at its core, yes, vital articles I believe are meant to replicate the scope of a traditional encyclopedia. λ NegativeMP1 17:50, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will say I like the "Elite Nine" better then the 10 at vital 1, if for rather obvious and self serving reasons. While that might be where it stems from (I'm not sure of the history on this), the project page doesn't discuss this goal as far as I can tell. If that IS a goal, we need to state it. If that was the case, the proposal I would have to meet it would likely not be popular, i.e., the top 10 would be the "Volumes," level 2 would be the section headings within those volumes, and each layer would be nested categories within the one above it. This is not really what we're doing here. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 18:05, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that we have (a generous we, I had nothing to do with it) distilled both Human History and Earth into a single article, the first is a GA, the second a FA. CMD (talk) 17:53, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Question: Do you mean one article that distills human history AND Earth that I'm not aware of, or two separate articles for Human history and Earth? GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 18:07, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Separate. In fact, six of our 10 level 1 articles are GAs or FAs! This is by far the highest average quality out of the vital article levels, and if I recall some of the nominations correctly, this is directly due to their positioning as level 1 articles. CMD (talk) 18:11, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification, looking at your original comment I should have been able to figure it out but wasn't reading closely enough. Just a note, while I can't remember the exact dates or timeline, I started to vote on vital articles after contributing on Wikipedia:Articles for improvement/Articles. The reason I mention is that on Articles for Improvement, I and others occasionally used an articles vital article status as part of the nomination. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 18:20, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If six of ten are already GA or FA, that means we could probably get the other four to GA in 2025. If we can't, probably no one can. pbp 19:52, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An admirable goal! My focus is on the page Geography, and I've had an open request for Peer review for a bit more then a month to get further direction, and I'm currently working on finalizing a GA [1] nomination for Technical geography  5, after going through a peer review for it. The process is a lot of work, and requires expert knowledge on the subject in my opinion. If you want to start work on one of the top 10, I'd recommend starting by checking it yourself, then nominating it for peer review. After you address the peer review response, GA is a bit easier. The process is time intensive though, and I've been working on geography for well over a year without feeling like I'm close to nominating it. If you pick one out and want eyes on it, I can try and help. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 20:18, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All of your points are valid, but my impression was always that Lv 1 and 2 exist for slightly different reasons. I think they're essentially supposed to be watchlists for first- and second-level categories of the entire encyclopedia. So the focus is more on maintenance and organization than improvements. IDK for sure but Lv1 may have even been picked to approximate the Dewey Decimal System.
While I know it's not how we officially think of vitality, it makes a little more sense to me if you think of the different levels as grade-appropriate topics in a classroom. Levels 1 and 2 would be the sort of thing a primary school or basic remedial teacher may ask someone to read about. And by the time you get to Level 5, the depth & breadth should probably be the sort of things an undergraduate university student might encounter.
Beyond all that though, I don't have any issue with the top 2 levels. I don't think they do any harm, regardless of whether they're useful or not, and they're by far the lowest maintenance part of the project. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:31, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support votes shouldn't delay the closure of the discussion

[edit]

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]

Proposal: Create a new level called Level 0 that has one article on top

[edit]

I am proposing that include an upper level called Level 0 that includes just one article that is the most important article on Wikipedia. I’m not sure if this will get a consensus or whether we will a consensus on which article belongs on level 0, but my first thought would be Human or Earth with a slight preference for human. What do you think?

Support
  1. Interstellarity (talk) 22:24, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose unless a solid case for utility is made. I don't see how this would be very useful based on the projects goals GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 22:27, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. As if the concerns behind the subjectivity and editorial bias across the entire vital articles process wasn't apparent enough. How do you select one article that represents everything that Level 1 lists. How. I don't even think there's an article on Wikipedia that covers Mathematics, Arts, Human, Human History, Earth, and more. And any one of the ten articles at V1 being listed as the #1 most important on the site would raise so many problems and subjectivity concerns it'd be hard to list them all. Hell, there is currently a still open debate about whether or not Level 1 and 2 were useful at all, and you want an even higher level than that? I mean no offense here, but I can't understand the idea behind this at all. Infact, I nearly replied to this with just "...What?" and would've left it at that, since that was literally the only thing going through my mind for a good five minutes upon seeing this, before realizing I should probably explain why I oppose this idea. λ NegativeMP1 22:36, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Somewhat feels like April Fool's came a few weeks early. As Negative notes, I have concerns about Level 1; I think picking a single most important article is rather absurd. pbp 03:48, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Clear diminishing returns as other have indicated.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:22, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discuss

Make it easier to close move proposals

[edit]

When I have proposed moving entries between different subpages, I have often been told that I don't need as many support votes as for a proposal to add or remove entries, but I don't want to close discussions or carry out the proposed moves without support from the formal guidelines, and I rarely get enough votes. Thus I propose the following guideline for closing move proposals:

  • A move proposal may be closed by any editor when the following criteria applies:
    • The discussion must have run for at least 7 days.
    • To close as passed, it must have at least two support votes and more support votes than oppose votes.
    • To close as failed, it must have at least two oppose votes and at least as many oppose votes as support votes.
Support as proposed
  1. As nom. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:15, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Less stringent criteria
More stringent criteria
Don't introduce criteria for move proposals
Discussion

Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:15, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles&oldid=1278863923"