Wikipedia talk:Vital articles

Introduction
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

Vital article landing page
I know that there have been RfMs on moving this page to Vital Article Level 3 (which have failed), but I think the issue is that in the absence of a proper Vital Article landing page, this was the best fit, which makes sense. However, I do find the Vital Article Project at times confusing to engage with and navigate, and the RfC above on the top icon shows that wider members of the Wikipedia community have chequered views of the VA Project.

I think there should be a proper VA landing page that explains the project, it's guidelines (e.g. can a redlink be nominated, must an article start at Level 5 before going higher etc.). There is a lot of good work being done here (and as the academic paper above highlights), but it is very easy to miss it (and even dismiss it, per above). Aszx5000 (talk) 16:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Even this WikiProject Vital Articles page is not right. It is all about how to bring VA to GA/FA status. Instead, it should be about the policies and guidelines about how Vital articles are chosen and how to participate productively in those discussions.  It is unusual that some editors from GA/FA (per the top icon RfC above) are dismissive of VA, but according to the VA main page, the sole focus is how to bring VA articles to GA/FA status?  Instead, the VA main page should be about the process of adding/removing VAs imho. Aszx5000 (talk) 12:29, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that an improved landing page is needed. Separating from level 3 might be the best idea. If you could mock up a proposed page then it might help &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:55, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I would be willing to try. Can you give me some pointers about how I would do that? I have never done such a thing outside of article creation? Should we set up a sandbox version that we could all have a go at? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 12:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, you could create a page in your userspace (e.g. User:Aszx5000/Vital articles) &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Final question, I am going to try an draft a page that focuses on the policies/guidelines etc for adding/removing VAs. I thought that the New pages patrol front page would be a good template as it lists in detail the policies/guidelines/tools for NPP.  Obviously, NPP is a more complex process, however, would such a template/approach work? Aszx5000 (talk) 20:02, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I will reserve judgement until I have seen your proposed page :) Then I will comment constructively &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Aszx5000 you could incorporate some of Vital articles/Frequently Asked Questions into the landing page &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:05, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That is very helpful and what I would like the landing page to feature prominently. thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) Aszx5000 (talk) 15:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Any progress with this @Aszx5000? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have been away for a few weeks but going to give this a go in March and see where I get to. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Aszx5000: Any updates on the landing page? Interstellarity (talk) 13:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Haven't forgotten but have been time constrained lately and trying to finish the overhaul of major climbing articles. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Finally, I have made a start on the landing page at User:Aszx5000/Vital articles. Better than I can add tabs and navigation but I thought that a landing page that has the key guidelines and policies (and captures what has been agreed and not agreed historically), and a link to its talk page for VA discussion (and not on Level 3's talk page) would be an improvement? All comments welcome - feel free to edit the draft as needed. Aszx5000 (talk) 23:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the section "What makes an article "vital"?" could be further expanded with more reasons, right now the criteria seems to have been randomly selected.  The Blue  Rider  Postal horn icon.svg 16:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "what makes an article vital" is from the existing Vital articles/Frequently Asked Questions, that User:MSGJ pointed me too for content. All of these sections and wordings would need to be collaboratively agreed, but the key is whether we should have a 'VA landing page' like this that summarizes what goes on at VA, and how to get involved, as well as having a separate talk page, instead of this VA 3 talk page for general discussion. Aszx5000 (talk) 16:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The FAQ was never agreed upon and there are more criteria worth including, I would strongly recommend using the scientific paper that was done on this project.  The Blue  Rider  Postal horn icon.svg 12:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and hopefully this process with improve on that. Where is that paper? Aszx5000 (talk) 12:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You will also see per User:Aszx5000/Vital articles/Statistics, that it would be great to capture more of the 'science' behind VA as possible. Aszx5000 (talk) 12:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * These were the conclusions of the paper:


 * I think this is a great start! A good definition of a vital article would indeed be useful (if such a thing exists) &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks MSGJ! My expectation that if we can get the a "framework" agreed (i.e. headings and ideas), the rest can flow. Even through my version is crude, hopefully others will find the idea of a 'landing page' useful to VA, which will help collate things in one area and allow others to engage in VA easily? thanks again. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

New Vital Article 'landing page'
Per this discussion, I have created a crude draft 'landing page' for VA (and its talk page would be the VA talk page) at User:Aszx5000/Vital articles. Pinging and  who were also involved in the discussion. All reactions welcome ! thanks. 11:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Although I encourage you to keep working on the page, I think it is a great start. Take any advice the editors give you and it will be successful. Interstellarity (talk) 20:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I would suggest swapping out Hitler for Mandela or perhaps Genghis Khan as an example of leaders, else you run afoul of the very next point, avoiding Western bias (since Einstein and Shakespeare are already "Western"). BD2412  T 21:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ that change. Feel free anybody to make changes directly as you see fit.  If we can get a basic version of this up and running, the 'Landing Page 2.0s' will follow soon after I'm sure. thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 22:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I would also recommend that once the page is finalized, we could do away with the FAQ listed at the top since much of the landing page would answer a lot of the FAQs. I don't think the FAQs are updated on a regular basis so it would be great to make sure we get something that is updated and modern for this list. Interstellarity (talk) 23:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That makes sense, and why I think that it is better to have as much as possible on a 'landing page' to avoid material in the 'back pages' that gets outdated. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Would be great to have someone look at the User:Aszx5000/Vital articles section as this has been uncertain to me: E.g.:
 * If the article is added to a new VA list (or the Level 5 list for the first time), does the bot automatically update the article's talk page that it is a vital article, or does the closer have do physically it?
 * If an article is removed from Level 4, should the closer check to make sure that it is still on the Level 5 list (in case it disappears)?
 * thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 11:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Perhaps @Starship.paint might be able to look at this and advise? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That would be great. If we solved this "Executing a close" section, then I think we are almost there in terms of getting a basic 'landing page 1.0' published, and per TheBlueRider above, we should have a longer discussion about the criteria, and filling out some of the subsections such as Statistics (I have seen some very interesting stats on VAs in various locations).  Should we ping a wider group of VA participants now to get their reaction? thanks. 08:57, 7 June 2024 (UTC) Aszx5000 (talk) 08:57, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

If there are no further comments, shall we move ahead with this? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I’m all in for the landing page. Interstellarity (talk) 22:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay here's a plan:
 * Move Vital articles to Vital articles/Level/3 over the redirect
 * Move User:Aszx5000/Vital articles to Vital articles
 * Split this talk page. Discussions related to level 3 articles, will be moved to Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/3. Discussions that relate to vital articles in general, will stay here.
 * Minor change to Module:Banner shell and Module:Vital article to effect the change in link. Required changes are already in sandboxes.
 * User:Kanashimi: do we need to change Cewbot's configuration to do this? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sounds good! thanks MSGJ for executing this. Aszx5000 (talk) 17:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This will require a program code change. Please let me know before finishing the deployment to stop the robot. I will test the robot after deployment. Kanashimi (talk) 22:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Could do sometime today, if that works for you. Otherwise let me know when is good? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I've stopped the vital articles part, so you can start the deployment. Kanashimi (talk) 22:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ all actions above and some more updates and tidying. There may be a few other things to do &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Excellent job @MSGJ and thank you so much for getting this done. We should put some kind of marker/banner on Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/3 to redirect here for general discussion and proposals? Aszx5000 (talk) 09:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: six-month no-revisit rule
I'd like to propose, at all five levels of VA, that if a proposal reaches consensus, you can't make a counterproposal against that for at least six months. For example, if consensus resulted in an article being added, you can't propose to remove that article for six months. If consensus resulted in an article being added, you can't propose to remove that article for six months. Etc. etc. swaps are a little more complicated though p  b  p  01:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1)  p  b  p  01:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think this makes sense, and we should have a page of general guidelines for VA on a VA "homepage" (which I am going to try an construct when I have time). Aszx5000 (talk) 13:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) When I see a nomination that has recently been discussed, I usually ask if they would close the discussion so that we can focus on other stuff rather than rehashing what we have recently resolved. This makes complete sense.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) per Aurangzebra. It would just be an unnecessary bureaucratic hindrance for new members to engage in the project. Links or results of a previous disscusions can always be mentioned in the proposals and hopefully reflected, but mandating this as a rule feels needless. Respublik (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Just to illustrate the point, I would only support this if the period for auto and manual archiving in all the relevant levels would be extended to six months after a closure. Respublik (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) Per Respublik. We need fewer rules, not more. feminist🩸 (talk) 06:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) Having re-considered, it will be too cumbersome to police and probably not needed. Aszx5000 (talk) 17:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Discussion
 * 1) good idea in theory but in my experience (aka when I do this), it's primarily an accident and it's infeasible to expect that people search through the archives any time they want to post a proposal. Aurangzebra (talk) 19:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: Create AI generated summaries of each entity on the vital articles page explaining the importance of each individual.
I think it would be helpful for our readers that may question why a particular article is listed. I understand that AI has the potential to make mistakes so I would suggest doing it for a few articles and correct any errors it makes. Rather than directing to the article to figure it out themselves, it would be helpful to have a sentence or two explaining the importance of each one. Interstellarity (talk) 21:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)


 * And how is AI supposed to know why something is considered vital, or why X2 is more vital than X1 in talk page consensus? Don't get me wrong, I see the viewpoint here, but it just sounds flawed. I think manual descriptions for V1-V4 listings are feasible, though V5 would certainly be a whole other beast. λ Negative  MP1  16:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Since the selection of the articles were all made by users, it seems feasible for users to personally write a summation of the reasoning to annotate the vital articles list. isaacl (talk) 18:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I would love to see an 'AI-sense check' on some of our Level 3 sub-sections. For example for Vital Articles, where I am sure that the AI would rank on a Level 3-type list of most influential leaders in history, and not some of our existing entries (per below). Aszx5000 (talk) 16:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I am of the same view as User:NegativeMP1. How is any AI supposed to know what Wikipedia considers to be a vital article?! Human editors make that judgement call through discussion. Also, there are Wikipedia guidelines on the use of AI in Wikipedia which must be followed. I will try to find the link to the page. If this proposal is consistent with those guidelines, then I guess you should ignore my objections. Let me look for the link. I'll be back.--FeralOink (talk) 08:43, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It doesn't, but as a took it would be a useful tool to sense-check against the sub-sections of Level 3 and Level 4. There might be topics that we have missed in these sub-sections that the AI would highlight, and which we could further look-into to see if the AI was right or not.  thanks. 09:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC) Aszx5000 (talk) 09:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Vital article count vs. target
Is there a way of adding a column to the table on our new landing page that shows the current totals at each Level, so that we know the situation vs. target? thanks. 10:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC) Aszx5000 (talk) 10:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes, I can calculate that with a module, or we can ask Kanashimi to get his bot to update that regularly. Which is better I wonder? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Regular by bot would be best imho? Aszx5000 (talk) 13:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It would be pretty amazing if that table on the landing page had the extra column of the actual number of articles, and then further columns that split these actual number into FA, GA, B etc (i.e. the distribution). It would summarise on one table the current status of distribution of quality of VA? Aszx5000 (talk) 10:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That is already at Vital articles/Statistics. CMD (talk) 12:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * But split by Level (as per the table on the landing page), and of course automated if possible? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 12:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I had a go at this myself and filled out the table on the landing page, but couldn't find the statistics for Level 4? I think this is a useful overall table as to the quality level of VA? Aszx5000 (talk) 22:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Finishing the new section on 'Executing a close'
For the Vital articles section on our new landing page, could someone explain what Cewbot does, and does not do, regarding updating the article talk page and list of vital article pages after a change: Would be create to clarify the closing process to avoid problems down the line. thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * For example, if I closed a Level 4 as a "Remove" and deleted the article off the VA Level 4 list (but checked to make sure that it was still on the VA Level 5 list), does Cewbot automatically update the article's talk page banner to Level 5?
 * Another example, if I close a Level 5 as an "Add", and added the article to the Level 5 list, does Cewbot automatically update the article's talk page to say it is now a Level 5 VA, or do I have to do that manually?
 * ... And, if I closed a Level 5 as a "Remove" and deleted it off the VA Level 5 list, does Cewbot automatically take the VA banner off the article's talk page as it is not longer a vital article?


 * Cewbot updates the data files (see Vital articles/data) which are then read by the template. (Not sure how it does this exactly.) &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I wonder if other VA veterans such as @Czar or @User:Sdkb might know for sure? I do think it would be worth making sure we capture what the process is here for future editors on VA. thanks Aszx5000 (talk) 10:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * User:Cewbot shows the bot tasks and links to the original request and source code. I can dig into it more if needed or perhaps the bot maintainer (@Kanashimi) can explain the general closure flow. If I recall correctly, when I've done closures in the past, I've added/removed from the Level list and the bot cleaned up the article's talk template accordingly. But agreed that since it isn't written out, I always have to test it to confirm for myself. czar  14:07, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The bot determines the level and category of an article by the page and section title of the VA, and updates the VA talk page on a daily basis. Kanashimi (talk) 22:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * So, if I add, or move, a VA between the VA lists, the bot will automatically update the VA's own talk page? What if I completely remove an article from the VA lists (i.e. taken off Level 5), will the bot also remove its VA status on the article's talk page? That would mean that in closing VA proposals, once the VA lists are updated, the closer does not have to touch the talk page of the article in question? thanks so much. Aszx5000 (talk) 00:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes. As per the current process, the bot will synchronize the discussion page of the article on a daily basis as long as the proposer updates the link in the list of vital articles. The proposer may not have to add "|vital=yes" themselves. Kanashimi (talk) 09:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That is really helpful - thanks Kanashimi, CZAR and MSGJ for clarifying this. I will update the landing page regarding these steps for future closers. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Archiving
What should we do with archiving - do we create a new archiving for the Level 3 page and leave the old one here? Ultimately, we should take the easiest route imho? Aszx5000 (talk) 13:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't fancy going through all the old archives and dividing them into general discussion / level 3 discussion. I suggest new archiving for level 3 and add a note that older archives are in the different location &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Perfect, I think that works. Aszx5000 (talk) 14:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Redirect Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5 to this page
I think that Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5 should be redirected to this page as we should only have one talk page for discussing non-voting items on VA? I placed a notice on the Level 5 talk page about this. Aszx5000 (talk) 12:13, 20 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I thought this page was for overarching discussions about VA. It would soon be swamped with trivial discussions if merged &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There are quite a few discussion on Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5 that are amending the process for Level 5, that should really be raised here, as these things should be consistent. Aszx5000 (talk) 15:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Four merged articles
Currently (redirects to  list),  (redirects to ),  (redirects to ), and  (redirects to ) are all listed as VAs despite being redirects. Do they need to go through a formal removal process? Two of them redirect to existing lv5s, two do not, so if there is to be a formal process it might be worth suggesting a swap to the non-redirect. CMD (talk) 13:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Redlinks are allowed as vital articles, so in theory, these could be considered as such. However, looking at the list, certainly most of them (if not all), strike me as either weak level 5 candidates (e.g. Amerigame), or needless expansions of existing articles (e.g. Forest Gardening, Stationary-action principle, and probably Limewater). I would put them all up for removal from Level 5. Aszx5000 (talk) 00:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * We've boldly removed re-directs before, like when they made philosopher a redirect to philosophy. If everyone agrees, we could continue as before and just remove those four too without a vote. Makkool (talk) 13:03, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have a problem doing that, and I don't think they are worth keeping in VA. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Cewbot missing sections
I can see on Database reports/Vital articles update report that there are a whole list of Level 5 Geography VAs for North and Central America (e.g. Alcatraz) that Cewbot does not seem to be able to see on the VA lists? Aszx5000 (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @Kanashimi, does this make any sense to you? If you showed us how to fix it, I would happy to do that again if needed in the future? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I modified the code and the robot will try to fix the articles. Kanashimi (talk) 23:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Great thank you for that - much appreciated! Aszx5000 (talk) 08:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I just notices that Cewbot is also leaving update numbers on the new landing page per here? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 08:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I am working on fixing this mistake. Kanashimi (talk) 10:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Great job @Kanashimi - thank you for that :) Aszx5000 (talk) 16:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Improving the random article buttons on each level
I have been testing the random article buttons at each level and found that it is not perfect. On the level 1 page, where the random article button does the category Category:Wikipedia level-1 vital articles, it has all ten articles, but includes the actual level 1 page in the random article page. I also believe that when we do random articles for the lower levels, we should also do the higher levels. For example, level 3 articles should include levels 1 and 2 since they are on the same level. I have tried to fix this by adding the categories for the higher levels, but I don't think it is a perfect solution and it's not perfectly random, so I am looking for some help on how to fix this. On the subcategories on level 5, it should be fine since I was able to find a category that covers all vital articles from each topic. I hope that someone can provide advice on how I can find a solution that fixes these problems. Interstellarity (talk) 23:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I think that it is okay that if you press the random button on L3, that you only get L3 and not L1/2 examples (i.e. you could always go to L1/2 if you wanted)? One button that I would try to fix is the fact that the top icon on a vital article page only directs to the home page of the Level, whereas the icon on the talk page banner directs you to the specific part of the level where the article resides?  (would also be cool to have a number on the top icon to denote their level?). thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 16:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Aszx5000: Thank for your input. I get the fact that it would be fine to not include levels 1 and 2 on level 3, but I don't understand what you mean when you say the top icon on a vital article page only directs to the home page of the Level, whereas the icon on the talk page banner directs you to the specific part of the level where the article resides. Can you explain in detail what you mean by that? Thank you. I also encourage you to make the changes necessary to improve the vital article random buttons so that it can be better. Besides, this is a collaborative project, where we work together to build change. When we work together, big changes happen. Interstellarity (talk) 18:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks @Interstellarity. If I click on the VA top icon for Chris Sharma, I get directed to the general Level 5 list. However, on his talk page, I can click a link beside the icon that brings me to the specific part of the Level 5 list that his is at. It would be cool if I could get that same level of detail in the direction from the top icon on his front page? Does that make sense? Aszx5000 (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Aszx5000: How can I find the VA top icon for a particular article? I'm on the talk page, but I only see the link that says This level-5 vital article. Once I know more about the top icon, I'll understand your point better. Interstellarity (talk) 18:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Interstellarity, when I say "VA top icon for a particular article", I mean the "target icon" that appears on the top right of his front article page (i.e. above his photograph). thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 18:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Aszx5000: I know why I couldn't see it. You actually have a script installed that displays the VA top icon, while I didn't have it installed. I got confused at first, but when I checked your script page, it said it was installed. Interstellarity (talk) 19:08, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Interstellarity, oh my bad and sorry for misleading you there :) Must have forgotten that. I assumed that the VA top icon was shown to logged-in editors but not non-logged in readers (unlike the GA top icon). I wonder would the make that script a default on preferences ;) Aszx5000 (talk) 19:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

FYI: Discussion on the on WT:V2
May not be on everybody's watchlist, discussion regarding the on WT:V2. thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 17:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

"List of articles all languages should have" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_articles_all_languages_should_have&redirect=no List of articles all languages should have] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Interstellarity (talk) 00:19, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

"Vital article" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vital_article&redirect=no Vital article] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Interstellarity (talk) 00:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

"Vital Article" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vital_Article&redirect=no Vital Article] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Interstellarity (talk) 00:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

"Vital articles" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vital_articles&redirect=no Vital articles] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Interstellarity (talk) 00:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

"Vital Articles" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vital_Articles&redirect=no Vital Articles] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Interstellarity (talk) 00:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)