Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 1

Note
Per discussion on Wikipedia talk:Vital articles, have added Gilbert and/or Sullivan to the expanded list. Adam Cuerden talk 12:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Are both of them important enough to merit inclusion? You gave the impression on the VA talk page that Gilbert was primarily the one who merits listing. -Silence 12:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Gilbert is probably a little more important than Sullivan, due to his influence in other fields - The Bab Ballads, say, or his preparing the way for George Bernard Shaw and so on, but Sullivan's enduring popularity and constant performance - few cities in the Western world don't have G&S performed at least every couple years, and also being one of the fathers of modern musicals - do make at least as good of a case for him as The Beatles or Aretha Franklin, in my opinion. However, if you disagree, how about just putting a note about "See also Gilbert and Sullivan next to W. S. Gilbert? Adam Cuerden talk 13:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I have added Dhaka, a featured article. It's the capital of Bangladesh and home to over 10 million people, making it one of the mega cities of the world. --Ragib 08:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Stars
Should we also add featured stars and GA symbol to the expanded lists' articles that have already reached those qualities? OhanaUnited   Talk page   09:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It's probably not worth the trouble unless it's to be regularly maintained by a bot. —dv82matt 12:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

=Topics from 2008=

Calculation
Biography : 409 History : 172 Geography : 162 Arts : 84 Religions : 117 … Alexander Doria (talk) 17:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

suggested additions

 * information theory to Mathematics (either as a major topic or a subtopic of probability) Kevin Baastalk 20:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Amsterdam to Cities, no reason why this city should not be on the list; also listed on m:List of articles every Wikipedia should have. – Ilse@ 13:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * note, both have been added since this post.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Retrofit topic year headers
20-Oct-2008: I have added subheaders above as "Topics from 2007" (etc.) to emphasize the dates of topics in the talk-page. Older topics might still apply, but using the year headers helps to focus on more current issues as well. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Changing a few obvious vital entries
20-Oct-2008: I have been editing Wikipedia for 3 years, and I am changing the list to remove mere grouping articles (such as "Shape") and to add a few highly-important articles, as follows: As a computer scientist, I am troubled by the September-2008 coverage about computer technology, which I believe needs more analysis. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * For computers: "Compiler", "Spreadsheet", "Numerical integration"
 * For OS: combine "Unix/BSD" & add "Multics", "MS-DOS", "OpenVMS".
 * For languages: "HTML", "FORTRAN", "COBOL", "Ada", "Pascal".
 * For geometry: "Ellipse"
 * For medical/diseases, move STDs under "Infectious diseases".

Expand to allow 10,000 vital articles
20-Oct-2008: Expanding to 2,000 articles does not seem a significant increase. The expansion should be an order of magnitude, multiply by 10. Expanding to only double would be like expanding 2 talk-show hosts (Carson, Letterman) to become 4 (+Leno, Conan O'Brien) but leave out recent or daytime hosts such as Dick Cavett, Oprah, Tyra Banks, Geraldo, Phil Donahue, Ricki Lake, and Sally Jesse Raphael. Instead, expand to at least 10,000 articles, so a group of 2 would become 20, from 2 talk-show hosts to 20. Also, leave room to expand groups/hosts to others from outside the USA. Whereas Oprah has been broadcast daily in Africa, other English-speaking hosts not well-known in the USA could be included (in the analogy of hosts as an article group).

Housing-price analogy: Another analogy would be housing prices in the USA: consider a survey of homes priced below US$200,000 then doubled to include houses < $400G; at that doubled price, many famous celebrities would be omitted from the survey. However, when expanding price by an order of magnitude (x10), homes up to $2 million would include many movie stars (at least their prior homes). Celebrity homes have such magnitude-higher prices (not just double); similarly, vital ("celebrity") topics are 10 times more rare than the typical famous names in the area of study. In a sense, the 1,000 "vital articles" represent a celebrity status, and are not representative of "famous" but rather the "uber-famous" of topics.

Ranking by magnitude: Thus, the relative ranks are: about 20 celebrity scientists would be recognized on the street; about 200 are quite famous (for any encyclopedia); over 2,000 would be highly notable (but not listed in every encyclopedia); and even 20,000 scientists should rank for Wikipedia.

The expansion applies to all vital articles: a group of 10 notable actors would become 100 actors, just as 20 scientists becomes 200. In the sciences, 5 major sciences would expand to 50 sciences, including: archaeology, geology, meteorology, mineralogy, paleontology, etc. and pseudo-sciences as "astrology" & "phrenology". Otherwise, a group of 2,000 articles would be almost as limited as 1,000, hence not a significant expansion, not worth the effort of maintaining the list. Another obvious advantage: larger lists avoid the arguments of squeezing large groups of 100 major topics into just 20 each. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 21-Oct-2008: Today, I added several hundred highly-notable article links, as much more representative of typical encyclopedia articles; see below: Groups expanded now. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Overcoming biases with 10x expanded list
21-Oct-2008: Up until October 2008, the expanded list omitted large groups of topics, such as sports figures, dancers & opera. While adding a new section "Olympic/sports figures" (for perhaps 150 athletes), I also added a new section as "Performing artists" for a list of dancers/ballet, opera singers, and such. Evidently, there had been some kind of bias against sports & the performing arts: there was no place for Michael Jordan, Mark Spitz, Mickey Mantle, Margot Fonteyn or Luciano Pavarotti or anyone similar. Perhaps the artificial limit of 1,000 total articles had produced an impossible situation, like cooking vegetable soup in a tablespoon: beyond peas and corn kernels, not many vegetables fit in a tablespoon. For that reason, I have recommended the expanded view as 10,000 vital articles, to allow including the "top 100" articles in numerous categories, such as 100 actors, 100 composers, 100 Nobel winners, 100 major battles, etc. Attempting a list ten-times smaller (1,000 articles) had led to try shrinking the world view into the top 10 battles in history, top 10 composers, top 10 transport vehicles (etc.), while omitting athletes and others entirely. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Groups expanded now
21-Oct-2008: I have begun adding several hundred highly-notable article links to the list:
 * expanded to include AFI's top 50 actors & high-paid;
 * added 20 directors (such as those with 2 Academy Awards);
 * put 90 more top scientists/inventors (need another 50+);
 * new section "Olympic/sports figures" for perhaps 150 athletes;
 * new section "Performing artists" for dance/ballet & opera;
 * listed several horse/dog/cat breeds (beyond just "horse+pony");
 * listed specific major dinosaur names (Allosaurus, Brontosaurus, Triceratops, etc.);
 * added mythical animals (Centaur/Chimera/Unicorn...);
 * expanded computer terms (Spreadsheet, Compiler, COBOL, MS-DOS, etc.);
 * listed at least 10 birds, 10 snakes, 25 flowers, 25 trees.

Formerly, the list of "1,000 Vital Articles" focused at more of a dictionary level, where animals were: bird, horse, dog, snake, etc. Now, those include: Ostrich, Appaloosa, Dalmatian, Cobra (etc.) as more likely to need an encyclopedia to give details. As a result, the expanded list not only includes new groups, such as athletes and opera, but also pinpoints specific other articles that are more likely found in an encyclopedia rather than a dictionary. Overall, I strongly believe that an expanded list of 10,000 articles will be more useful, and easier to decide, than debating which ultra-simple topics can squeeze into the 1,000. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

List of 1000 was like eye/hand/toe
21-Oct-2008: For years, I have been studying the core list of 1000 Wikipedia articles, but expanding to 10,000 has revealed the true problem of a 1000-article limit: it was hopelessly small, like limiting anatomy to 3 body parts (the eye/hand/toe). Consequently, people burned many hours/weeks debating the core 1000, somewhat like debating whether "liver" or "finger" should be a core body part (rather than list 50 parts). When the list was expanded to 10,000, the problem was reversed: it was hard to find enough items to fill the list, as for example, most people know only about 40 flowers total. To widen the scope, expert lists of the Top 100 (in each area) have been combined to cover a broad range that almost no single person could have known. The challenge has been to seek more diversity rather than slash & ax entries to stuff the universe into 1,000 forced slots. Contrary to the myth that "any size list would be too small", the 10,000 limit has generated a breathtaking scope of information for the general reader. None the less, the true scope of articles is endlessly vast (as Wikipedia already has 2.6 million articles), so the 10,000 list is still a tiny sample of the whole. The difference is that the 10,000 list acts like a magnifying glass of 10x power, revealing sufficient detail to see a much clearer view of reality. At that expanded level, the anatomy is no longer "eye/hand/toe" but about 40-50 parts, where both "liver" & "finger" could be listed. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Expansion is not book of lists
21-Oct-2008: Despite the scope provided by increasing the limit to 10,000 articles, there is still a need to prioritize: there is ample space to list 100 composers, 100 singers, 100 rock bands, but not enough to list all songs performed by The Beatles, ABBA, and the Boston Pops Orchestra. It cannot be a "book of lists" showing 50 items in 3,000 different lists (or such). However, such capability is provided by Wikipedia's revised policy to keep lists in articles, such as with the English Wikipedia Wikipedia:Featured lists. Each of those hundreds of listing-articles can be seen as a more detailed focus into various sub-branches of the 10,000-article list. Also, many lists are totally outside a general view of the entire encyclopedia. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Aristophenes
Is this just a spelling mistake? Is Aristophanes meant? He is listed under Authors, while Aristophenes is listed under Directors, producers & screenwriters. Wikijens (talk) 13:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Ho Chi Minh
Ho Chi Minh is listed twice Wikijens (talk) 19:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Possible job for a bot? Marking article quality
The header for the project page states "This page is a list of important subjects for which Wikipedia should have a corresponding high-quality article, and ideally a featured article.", and I am sure many visitors here would love to be able to use the list to quickly find an article in need of some work and devote some time to improving it and bringing it up to GA/FA status. Currently, however, articles are simply listed by name, and it is left to the reader to investigate the article quality. Marking article quality would be an impossible task by hand, given the goal of listing 10,000 articles. On the other hand, it would be trivial for a bot to check the articles (and their talk pages) and mark entries. A bot would also allow this to be kept up-to-date, and could even warn of various issues with any articles. What do people think? LinaMishima (talk) 18:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems that Core topics - 1,000 already does as I propose, even including rankings according to wikiproject groups.I do feel sorry for the editors there, though, as they seem to manually keep it up to date! There is a proposal that said list be merged in here, and I think that could work out quite nicely for everyone. LinaMishima (talk) 19:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Split into subpages
Split this site into subpages and include them, so when editing happens, only the subpage gets edited. --84.44.179.252 (talk) 05:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

= Topics from 2009 =

1000 per subject
Maybe we should be looking at creating lists of the 1000 most critical pages per subject: The 1000 most critical pages in sports, the 1000 most critical pages in automotives, the 1000 most critical pages in American history, the 1000 most critical pages in cooking, et multiple cetera. Overlap would be permissible, of course. The different wikiprojects could create the actual lists. Almafeta (talk) 18:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Additions?
You don't seem to have anyone working from the comics field on the list. I appreciate it is a small field, but I'd like to ask you to consider Herge, Alan Moore and Charles Schulz. Hiding T 20:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * added. entirely reasonable suggestions. "artists" needs to be broken up into subsections.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Who can add articles?
It seems 10'000 is now the accepted goal... is there a process for nominating an article? Almafeta (talk) 04:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add anything that you think is appropriate; if someone disputes it, it can be discussed further. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Authors
I found it odd that Samuel Johnson was not listed, but found it very odd that John Milton wasn't. Milton has been called the greatest English Epic poet, and the greatest English poet by thousands of scholars. I also found it odd how John Keats is missing and yet is more anthologized than Lord Byron, who is on the list. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I have added John Milton and John Keats, I think they are quite important.--Icesea(talk) 10:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Additions?
Does anyone think that this could use Bede, Thucydides, and Xenophon? I think Thucydides should definitely be added, as the list has Plutarch, Herodotus, and Sima Qian. Bede is also important for his history of the church in England. Anyone else support this? --15lsoucy (talk) 21:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. Maurreen (talk) 12:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Added. seem reasonable, though i wonder where we will stop with classical authors. too soon to tell.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

=Topics from 2010=

People guidelines?
I'd like to suggest that anyone listed here either:
 * Be dead for at least a year, or
 * Have won the most major award in the relevant field.

That doesn't mean that everyone meeting either criteria should be listed. But it should help ensure historical perspective. Maurreen (talk) 12:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Further, they should meet the standard for high importance established by WikiProject Biography/Assessment: Must have had a large impact in their main discipline, across a couple of generations. Had some impact outside their country of origin.
 * This might be met by at multiple major achievements, such as major awards or records. Maurreen (talk) 16:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe in the long term that'll prove to be a good rule of thumb, but for the time being, this list needs a lot of populating, so I wouldn't put any limits on it just yet. We can always purge the Britney Spearses later.--Father Goose (talk) 00:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Fodder
For potential fodder, see Category:Top-importance articles. Maurreen (talk) 22:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Still more suggestions
As a raving Egyptomaniac I would like to suggest some changes—not necessarily additions—in my area of expertise. There are ancient Egyptian subjects I would like to see here eventually (like art and religion), but they belong in areas that still need a lot of populating with subjects from other parts of the world, and I'm not comfortable pushing my area of expertise ahead of all others. Instead, I'm suggesting changes to the ancient Egyptian articles already listed. In "Politicians and leaders", I don't believe that Seti I belongs; his rule was fairly prosperous and stable but doesn't particularly stand out in Egyptian history. I can think of several pharaohs who I believe were more important (Amenhotep III, Thutmose I, Thutmose III, Khufu), but I favor Akhenaten to replace Seti. Not only is he still well-known and controversial today, but his religious revolution, though short-lived, did significantly affect the traditional religion and severely weaken the pharaoh's prestige and religious importance.

In "Religious figures", Osiris and Ra are at least as important as Horus and Hathor, and much more important than Anubis. A. Parrot (talk) 01:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Go for it. Please make any changes among ancient Egypt articles you see fit. Maurreen (talk) 01:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Could I also suggest adding the Rosetta Stone to this list under the Ancient Egypt section? It's certainly one of the most significant objects to come out of that civilization, largely due to the significant role it played in the decipherment of the ancient Egyptian language. (It also just made FA status, though the quality of the article is arguably not a factor for placing it in this category). Captmondo (talk) 01:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And for the record, as another "raving Egyptomaniac" I agree with A. Parrot's suggestion of replacing Seti I with Akhenaten for the reasons he mentions.Captmondo (talk) 01:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Symbol for this list
I would recommend an image of Laozi be used as a symbol for this list. He wrote of the "10,000 things" that make up reality. i will suggest or add some articles here as well.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

History of radio
Umm.. History of radio? Why is this not on the list? -- &oelig; &trade; 05:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * added. seems appropriate.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Level 3 excluded from Level 4?
I just noticed that, under Musicians and Composers, several members of the level 3 list (1,000 articles), were also listed here. (e.g. Bach, Beethoven, Beatles in the B's - but not Louis Armstrong) I'd have assumed that the level 3 members should not be in level 4 as well. Random thoughts:
 * Why not look through the most viewed articles list for fodder - obviously not all frequently viewed articles are important, but many of them should be important to many people. i.e. rather than have this list all "top down" dictated by "self-appointed experts", why not have some of it "bottom up" suggested (numerically) by readers?
 * Why not have topics decided by wp projects?

Smallbones (talk) 18:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Count
Current count of articles is not correctly indicated. If you want to know correct count, I can do it by program (Errare humanum est). --Igrek (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

No offense, but ...
Shouldn't Statue of Liberty be on the list?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree and I put it on the list. I also took the Aswan Dam off. While it had a lot of controversy, stopped flooding on an ancient river and flooded an old ancient site, it wasn't intensely remarkable when compared to other dams around the world. I could think of a few more dams that should be on that list before the Aswan.--NortyNort (talk) 03:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Statue of Liberty and Aswan Dam are listed in List of articles every Wikipedia should have. I think, all articles in this list (1000) should be included into Expanded (10 000) list. --Igrek (talk) 12:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Deleted, Biology
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Igrek (talk • contribs) 12:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Horses -
 * 2) Byerley Turk
 * 3) Bucephalus
 * 4) Darley Arabian
 * 5) Godolphin Arabian
 * 6) Traveller
 * 7) Trigger


 * I disagree. Bucephalus may well have changed history, and was very important in the campaigns of Alexander the great. I am adding him back. Wwm101 19:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that Bucephalus was important in history, but not more than generals of Alexander. I think, we can add Bucephalus after adding the generals of Alexander, but in section "History". Do you agree? --Igrek (talk) 07:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Wwm101 22:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I am, if no-one complains, going to delete these on July 1st.
 * I. 	Weevil
 * II. 	Archaeopterix
 * III. 	Egret
 * IV. 	Kiwi
 * V. 	Moa
 * VI. 	Peafowl
 * VII. 	Tern
 * VIII. 	Codfish
 * IX. 	Cobia
 * X. 	Spanish and King mackerels, replaced with Mackerel
 * XI. 	Mullet
 * XII. 	Pompano
 * XIII. 	Redfish
 * XIV. 	Sailfish
 * XV. 	Sea mullet
 * XVI. 	Snook
 * XVII. 	Tarpon
 * XVIII. 	Yellowtail
 * XIX. 	Wahoo
 * XX. 	Brahman (cattle)
 * XXI. 	Hereford (cattle)
 * XXII. 	Reticulated Giraffe
 * XXIII. 	Tapir
 * XXIV. 	Caiman
 * XXV. 	Boidae
 * XXVI. 	Rat Snake
 * XXVII. 	Toadstool
 * XXVIII. 	Antherium
 * XXIX. 	Lantana
 * XXX. 	Gumball

Wwm101 19:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

At this moment I agree with removing these articles:


 * IX. 	Cobia
 * X. 	Spanish and King mackerels, replaced with Mackerel
 * XII. 	Pompano
 * XIII. 	Redfish
 * XIV. 	Sailfish
 * XVI. 	Snook
 * XXII. 	Reticulated Giraffe
 * XIX. 	Wahoo
 * XXVI. 	Rat Snake
 * XXVII. 	Toadstool
 * XXIX. 	Lantana
 * XXX. 	Gumball

In the future I can support removal of other articles. --Igrek (talk) 13:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Duplicates
There are duplicates in the list:


 * 1) Cary Grant
 * 2) Fred Astaire
 * 3) Jean-Paul Sartre
 * 4) Maimonides
 * 5) Martin Luther
 * 6) Allah
 * 7) Shiva
 * 8) Vishnu
 * 9) Beowulf
 * 10) Centaur
 * 11) Leprechaun
 * 12) Pollux
 * 13) Unicorn
 * 14) History
 * 15) History of Australia
 * 16) History of the European Union
 * 17) Legal history
 * 18) History of literature
 * 19) History of music
 * 20) Archaeology
 * 21) History of science
 * 22) History of technology
 * 23) Geography
 * 24) Panama Canal
 * 25) Suez Canal
 * 26) Book
 * 27) Poetry
 * 28) Experience
 * 29) Brahman
 * 30) Sugar
 * 31) Dandelion
 * 32) Cricket
 * 33) Day
 * 34) Week
 * 35) Month
 * 36) Year
 * 37) Hour
 * 38) Minute
 * 39) Second
 * 40) Nanosecond
 * 41) Economics
 * 42) Radio
 * 43) Television
 * 44) Nova
 * 45) Radiology
 * 46) Electrocardiogram
 * 47) Magnetic resonance imaging
 * 48) Black hole
 * 49) Botany
 * 50) Flower
 * 51) Organic compound
 * 52) Alcohol
 * 53) Cat
 * 54) X-ray
 * 55) Force
 * 56) Electromagnetism
 * 57) Temperature
 * 58) Mass
 * 59) Speed
 * 60) Gasoline
 * 61) HTML
 * 62) Angle
 * 63) Area
 * 64) Volume
 * 65) Ampere

--Igrek (talk) 14:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Rosetta Stone for Level 4?
Can I suggest that the Rosetta Stone article (recently promoted to FA status) be added to this list under the ancient Egypt section? It's certainly one of the most significant objects to come out of that civilization, largely due to the significant role it played in the decipherment of the ancient Egyptian language. Cheers! Captmondo (talk) 02:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * added, to the languages section, but i dont care if its moved to egypt. seems appropriate either way.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Writers
(this comment was left on the subpage version vital article/expanded/people by another editor, and i think it should have been placed here. I do agree with the deletions, though).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Jim Lehrer
 * 2) Bill Moyers
 * 3) Charlie Rose
 * 4) Tavis Smiley

Possible adds (to be debated?)
i just added a number of writers, mostly US. here are some more than im not sure should be added, either for notability reasons or the quality of the articles: Willa Cather, Ralph Ellisons invisible man, Robert Anton Wilson, Tennessee Williams, John Irving, Christopher Isherwood, Derek Walcott(Omeros), Ursula LeGuin, H. P. Lovecraft, Sinclair Lewis, Richard Matheson, Peter Matthiessen, James Michener, Herman Melville, Anais Nin, Henry Miller, Sylvia Plath, Ayn Rand (personally, i would say no, but thats pure POV), Ann Rice, Philip Roth, Dan Simmons, Isaac Bashevis Singer, Upton Sinclair, Wallace Stegner. i used the list List of novelists from the United States as a memory aide.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * more debatable names that i would ask others to help evaluate for inclusion. out of respect for the process, there may be questions about the article quality or their notability (note: i didnt remove them, just want them listed here as an aid to other editors thinking of adding names) :Arthur Koestler, Tom Stoppard, William Golding, Ted Hughes, Doris Lessing, J. G. Ballard, the Bronte sisters, George Eliot, Robert Graves, Graham Greene, A. A. Milne, Mary Shelleys Frankenstein, Anthony Trollope, Octavio Paz, Carlos Fuentes, Julio Cortázar, Isabel Allende. I dont think margaret mitchell should be on the list, but its debatable.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * some more names whose notability or article quality mean they might not qualify (i think they do): Kōbō Abe, Kenzaburō Ōe, Natsume Sōseki, Zhuangzi, Walter Benjamin, Heinrich Böll, Bertolt Brecht, Meister Eckhart, Günter Grass, Heinrich Heine, Theodor Herzl.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Is article quality a criteria? A number of these writers are certainly influential, and several are Nobel Prize Winners in Literature. That's not to say that all Nobel Prize Winners should be included, as several have virtually dropped off the radar as tastes change, but I for one would not advocate dropping the likes of most of the people you cite. The articles here may be sub-par in many cases, but that wouldn't diminish their "vital-ness". Captmondo (talk) 02:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, but you also misunderstood what im doing here, and ive cleaned up my language, as it was very ambivalent. None of these names are currently on this list, and i think they should be, regardless of article quality. I actually dont know if its established policy to only list them once the article is good enough, but i think it would be a silly policy if so. iIf we have consensus to add them regardless of whether their articles are "start" or "c" class, or even "stub", then i will do so. I agree precisely with your thoughts on nobel laureates. Some of them have passing notability, thus they dont need to automatically be included. after all, there are many authors who wrote before the award, and one could argue that our age suffers from "awarditis". Its easy to point to an award to show importance, harder to evaluate critically using all our faculties.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Removed
OK, im putting my foot in it now: ive removed matt damon, leonardo di caprio, halle berry, marg helgenberger (who the heck thinks shes that notable?), ellen degeneris, kim basinger, and tim mcgraw. Nothing in their articles shows that they are either critically acclaimed enough, or popular enough. This list will inevitably suffer from recentism, and i think thats the case here. i left names that i suspect are not notable enough, but are debatable, such as the Bollywood actors.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Religious figures and Religion
I dont think we should list names in the "people" section that are not considered people by most authorities. god, satan, adam, lilith, and many other mythological figures are here. also, in mythology, is the baal shem tov, who did live. If i dont see any objections, i may be bold and regroup mythological religious beings with their respective religions, and keep actual people here.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have now done some of this work. i also considered, but did not add, Ananda Coomaraswamy, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Pope Gregory I Pope Pius XII.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Problems with this list (as of Sept 8th)

 * 1) ABC   is disambiguation page (fixed)
 * 2) Albert Ellis   is disambiguation page (fixed)
 * 3) Dup found: Apple == Apple tree (fixed)
 * 4) Bactrian   is disambiguation page
 * 5) Beechnut   is disambiguation page
 * 6) Cardinal   is disambiguation page
 * 7) Cartagena   is disambiguation page
 * 8) Cavity   is disambiguation page
 * 9) Cedar   is disambiguation page
 * 10) Charles Wilson   is disambiguation page
 * 11) Dup found: Cherry == Cherry tree
 * 12) Chimera   is disambiguation page
 * 13) Circuit   is disambiguation page
 * 14) Dup found: Cod == Codfish
 * 15) Comodo Dragon   is disambiguation page (fixed)
 * 16) Constant   is disambiguation page
 * 17) Copperhead   is disambiguation page (fixed)
 * 18) Cottonmouth   is disambiguation page (fixed)
 * 19) Currant   is disambiguation page
 * 20) Córdoba   is disambiguation page
 * 21) Daisy   is disambiguation page (fixed)
 * 22) Date   is disambiguation page
 * 23) David Warren   is disambiguation page
 * 24) Diogenes   is disambiguation page (fixed)
 * 25) Dup found: Chemical dependency == Drug addiction
 * 26) Dup found: Energy == Energy (physics)
 * 27) Fig   is disambiguation page
 * 28) Flame tree   is disambiguation page (fixed)(deleted as too ambivalent)
 * 29) Frisian   is disambiguation page
 * 30) Fruit fly   is disambiguation page (fixed)
 * 31) Dup found: Gamma Radiation == Gamma ray
 * 32) Geber   is disambiguation page
 * 33) George A. Miller   is disambiguation page
 * 34) Gladiola   is disambiguation page (fixed)
 * 35) Gopher   is disambiguation page (fixed)
 * 36) Group   is disambiguation page
 * 37) Hackney   is disambiguation page
 * 38) Dup found: Ancient China == History of China
 * 39) Indian Paintbrush   is disambiguation page (fixed)
 * 40) Dup found: Baby == Infant
 * 41) Dup found: Integral == Integral calculus
 * 42) James Wright   is disambiguation page
 * 43) Juno   is disambiguation page
 * 44) Keyboard   is disambiguation page
 * 45) Dup found: Gigawatt == Kilowatt
 * 46) Kodiak   is disambiguation page
 * 47) Lamb   is disambiguation page
 * 48) Las Vegas   is disambiguation page
 * 49) Lilliput   is disambiguation page
 * 50) Lime   is disambiguation page
 * 51) Longhorn   is disambiguation page
 * 52) Macedonia   is disambiguation page
 * 53) Manx   is disambiguation page
 * 54) Marigold   is disambiguation page
 * 55) Martini   is disambiguation page
 * 56) Medlar   is disambiguation page
 * 57) Dup found: Gigawatt == Megawatt
 * 58) Melville Island   is disambiguation page
 * 59) Michael Wallace   is disambiguation page
 * 60) Mole   is disambiguation page
 * 61) Monitor   is disambiguation page
 * 62) Morgan   is disambiguation page
 * 63) Mullet   is disambiguation page
 * 64) Dup found: Electron Neutrino == Muon Neutrino
 * 65) Nasturtium   is disambiguation page
 * 66) Dup found: Electron Neutrino == Neutrino
 * 67) Newton   is disambiguation page
 * 68) Orange   is disambiguation page
 * 69) Dup found: Nectarine == Peach
 * 70) Dup found: Pecan == Pecan tree
 * 71) Pepper   is disambiguation page
 * 72) Dup found: Iran == Persia
 * 73) Dup found: Philippine Islands == Philippines
 * 74) Phoenix   is disambiguation page
 * 75) Dup found: Dove == Pigeon
 * 76) Hognut   is disambiguation page
 * 77) Pollux   is disambiguation page
 * 78) Ponce de León   is disambiguation page (fixed)
 * 79) Power   is disambiguation page
 * 80) Primrose   is disambiguation page
 * 81) Processor   is disambiguation page
 * 82) Purslane   is disambiguation page
 * 83) Dup found: P'yŏngyang == Pyongyang
 * 84) Dup found: Radiologist == Radiology
 * 85) Reactance   is disambiguation page
 * 86) Red Snapper   is disambiguation page
 * 87) Redwood   is disambiguation page
 * 88) Richard James   is disambiguation page
 * 89) Rock   is disambiguation page
 * 90) Sadi Carnot   is disambiguation page (fixed)
 * 91) Salvador   is disambiguation page
 * 92) San José   is disambiguation page
 * 93) San Juan   is disambiguation page
 * 94) Santiago   is disambiguation page
 * 95) Scotch   is disambiguation page
 * 96) Scott Hamilton   is disambiguation page (fixed)
 * 97) Sea bass   is disambiguation page
 * 98) Seal   is disambiguation page
 * 99) Snapper   is disambiguation page
 * 100) Soyuz   is disambiguation page
 * 101) Square   is disambiguation page
 * 102) State   is disambiguation page
 * 103) Dup found: Stellar association == Stellar kinematics
 * 104) Strasburg   is disambiguation page
 * 105) Dup found: Sour Cherry == Sweet Cherry
 * 106) Dup found: Chard == Swiss Chard
 * 107) Dup found: Electron Neutrino == Tau Neutrino
 * 108) Dup found: Gigawatt == Terawatt
 * 109) Truffle   is disambiguation page
 * 110) Ulysses   is disambiguation page
 * 111) Valencia   is disambiguation page
 * 112) Variable   is disambiguation page
 * 113) Vector   is disambiguation page
 * 114) Violet   is disambiguation page
 * 115) Dup found: Violet == Violets
 * 116) Vulcan   is disambiguation page-fixed
 * 117) Water snake   is disambiguation page- fixed to sea snake
 * 118) Dup found: Gigawatt == Watt
 * 119) Whitefish   is disambiguation page- fixed to Haddock
 * 120) Wide World of Sports   is disambiguation page-fixed
 * 121) Wilhelm Weber   is disambiguation page- removed as nonnotable
 * 122) William Hamilton   is disambiguation page-not found
 * 123) Wineberry   is disambiguation page-fixed
 * 124) Dup found: Witch == Witchcraft
 * 125) Yellowtail   is disambiguation page-fixed
 * (MarsRover (talk | contribs) )
 * How did you get this data? is there a program for spotting links to disambigs? thanks, and i will try to correct some of this in time. I do recognize, however, that fixing and reworking this list is a sisyphian task, but as long as i am enjoying it, i might as well try. it keeps me off the streets.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Almost certainly from the DABlink tool: http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py. Put in the name for the page in the entry field and wait for the results to come back. Note that there is also a "DAB Solver" tool to the left, which ought to help you in your efforts. Cheers! Captmondo (talk) 12:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I wrote my own tool. I think it has more logic (follow redirects, check for either {disamb} {hndis template). Also, it finds duplicate articles after following the redirects. I ran that tool in the "meta expanded" list and fixed all the problems. --MarsRover (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Kudos to you for that! It definitely would have taken a person a while to tackle that long list. Are you planning to release this tool you've developed? Captmondo (talk) 18:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't planning on releasing it since the program is command-line script and not web tool. But if someone is interested I can post the Python source. --MarsRover (talk) 15:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Formatting
I'll be going through the list to ensure every entry is numbered separately. It makes counting more straightforward and the list look more like an IT Thesaurus, which is clearly the model we're following. Circéus (talk) 21:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've ended up overhauling/expanding the following sections (more will be done as I go through thelist checking the math):
 * Land reliefs: America
 * Visual arts
 * Medicine
 * Earth Science
 * I'll probably do work to create a "Mechanical engineering, tools and machinery" section, which would bring together stuff spread all over the place, but first I wanna do an updated count. Circéus (talk) 23:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Structure
Categories I intend to add: Other stuff to do: Circéus (talk) 21:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Mechanical engineering, tools and machinery (the stuff belonging there is strung a bit everywhere)
 * Industry (split and expanded off "business and economics")
 * Subcategorise "Philosophers and social scientists" (prob. by years) as well as "Directors, producers & screenwriters" (prob. by nationality)
 * Split off "Organism" as at least a level 2 category, possibly not under "Science", and revise its membership and organisation
 * I agree these need better divisions, esp philosophers. I like all your proposals, as well as i understand them. Organisms need so much work, anything you do will probably be a step forward.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I originally started this mostly as a maths update (the maths is rather out of date). The expanding/restructuring came as an aside. my logic is that around the 50~60 members mark, there are probably some obvious subdivisions, a category at 100+ members should almost certainly have some sort of subdivision. In general though this entire project has been pretty much forgotten, so it's not really a big deal. Still, add another needed category:
 * Add "Everyday items" under "everyday life" (subcat for clothes, furniture and other usual items).
 * Circéus (talk) 19:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Fictional people/characters
There is now some dispute or debate on where to list various fictional characters and people. my preference is to split out fictional, but demonstrably human, characters, and have them in the "people" list, and have fictional, nonhuman, characters in the mythology section. However, this is in some ways arbitrary, and i will not revert recent changes. Does this matter? where will people look for either? examples: don quixote=person, mickey mouse=nonhuman, hercules=human, grendel=nonhuman. superman is humanoid? i guess there is, as in many categorizations, a spectrum. Plus, they could both probably be expanded. i had trimmed out some regional american folk heroes with minor notability. It would be nice to have a more international list.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there really a "dispute"? AFAICT we've mostly been the only ones editing since this summer. I'm sure we can figure something out :) I basically considered that "(named) individual"=character and "creature"=fictional creation. In any case, with the exception of Winnie-The-Pooh (which I suspect is now better known through its animated version—it's certainly the case outside the anglosphere), most of the characters I moved were NOT literary characters. They were cartoon or television characters. The others were mostly human (whereas "Mother Goose" and "Easter Bunny" arguably do NOT below to "creatures". They are characters, even if nonhuman ones). Circéus (talk) 19:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Since we may be two of the only editors, and we are far from having any of the sections being complete, I agree this cannot be called a dispute. i was being rather uptight in my wording. Having said that, i do see your logic, and I'm quite fine with leaving it as is, until or unless other people chime in.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

=Topics from 2011=

Actors and Popular Music
This may seem like a petty concern in comparison with all that must be done to this page, but perhaps the "actors" section could use some heavy reforming. Though there may be good arguments for all the persons listed, I find it unlikely that such actors as Samuel L. Jackson and Johnny Depp, however good they may be, should be included in the top 100 or top 50. These examples aside, it is interesting to note that while Laurence Olivier and Michael Redgrave are listed, their well acknowledged counterparts John Gielgud and Ralph Richardson are not. Paul Scofield is also a name not to be found, and where are stage actors? Henry Irving, Ellen Terry, Edmund Kean, and David Garrick were considered unparalleled in their times, and where are they now? Thanks for all consideration. -- 15lsoucy salve.opus.nomen 23:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Many of these are now added: gielgud, richardson, scofield, irving, kean, garrick. ellen terry was not, which i agree with (but not strongly).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Baseballers and association footballers
It cannot be that there are more than double as many important baseballers than footballers. Globally, football has much more players and spectators. --Ettrig (talk) 12:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I dont think youll get an argument from anyone on this. Bias towards american culture does exist here. I would recommended adding football figures before trimming baseball figures for now, although im sure there are some figures that wont make the final cut (if we ever have one)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Important mathematicians
Here are some mathematicians who are often ranked among the most important in history. I think they could be merged into the "Mathematicians and computer scientists" list to balance it up with the much longer Astronomers and Physicists list.


 * Niels Henrik Abel
 * Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī - listed on vital articles page
 * Brahmagupta
 * Bernoulli family - not certain about this, but it was an important family.
 * George Boole
 * Augustin Cauchy
 * Arthur Cayley
 * René Descartes
 * Johann Peter Gustav Lejeune Dirichlet
 * Pierre de Fermat
 * Leonardo Fibonacci
 * Joseph Fourier
 * Evariste Galois
 * Alexandre Grothendieck
 * William Rowan Hamilton
 * Charles Hermite
 * Carl G. J. Jacobi
 * Sonja Kowalewski
 * Leopold Kronecker
 * Joseph-Louis Lagrange
 * Nikolai Lobachevsky
 * Gaspard Monge
 * Jean Victor Poncelet
 * James Joseph Sylvester
 * Karl Weierstrass

Is there an approval process I have to go through, or should I just insert these? Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Astronomy
The Astronomy section of this article has included all of the constellations, but it is not so clear to me why those would be considered vital. There's a perhaps a few constellations that are notable (Orion, Ursa Major, Sagittarius, Taurus, &c.), but many others are obscure. Perhaps a better list of important topics may be found at "Category:Top-importance Astronomy articles". That category includes important missing topics such as Brown dwarf, Cepheid variable, Molecular cloud, Orion Nebula, Quasar and Stellar kinematics. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's a list of the delta's for your convenience:
 * 1) Absorption spectroscopy
 * 2) Age of the universe
 * 3) Angular resolution
 * 4) Brown dwarf
 * 5) Celestial coordinate system
 * 6) Cepheid variable
 * 7) Cosmic distance ladder
 * 8) Dark energy
 * 9) Formation and evolution of the Solar System
 * 10) Galaxy formation and evolution
 * 11) Gamma-ray burst
 * 12) Hertzsprung–Russell diagram
 * 13) Hubble's law
 * 14) Molecular cloud
 * 15) Nebular hypothesis
 * 16) Observable universe
 * 17) Observatory
 * 18) Orbital elements
 * 19) Parallax
 * 20) Photometry (astronomy)
 * 21) Planetary nebula
 * 22) Pulsar
 * 23) Quasar
 * 24) Redshift
 * 25) Stellar nucleosynthesis
 * 26) Supermassive black hole

Specific examples of object types:
 * 1) Centaurus A
 * 2) Cygnus X-1
 * 3) Eta Carinae
 * 4) Halley's Comet
 * 5) Hyades (star cluster)
 * 6) Large Magellanic Cloud
 * 7) Messier 87
 * 8) Mira
 * 9) Omega Centauri
 * 10) Orion Nebula
 * 11) Pleiades
 * 12) Sagittarius A*

Regards, RJH (talk) 21:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the update. But, regarding the section titled "Astrometry": I'd like to suggest using "Celestial cartography" or "Star charts" instead. Astrometry has more to do with tracking individual stars and other objects. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks better now. Thanks.&mdash;RJH (talk)

Architectural types
I added an "Architectural type" section with words like house, building, etc. I am not so sure how to organize it or what should be included. There should also be an urban planning section with words like Street, Road, Highway, Park. I will let people who know more about this area than me fill these in.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Military, War & Weapons
Here's a few suggested fundamental topics for "War and military":
 * Armed forces
 * Armoured warfare
 * Blockade
 * Casualty (person)
 * Civil war
 * Combat
 * Command and control
 * Conventional warfare
 * Declaration of war
 * Defense (military)
 * Desertion
 * Duel
 * Fortification
 * Invasion
 * Laws of war
 * Medal
 * Military campaign
 * Military education and training
 * Military logistics
 * Military organization
 * Military reserve
 * Military strategy
 * Military tactics
 * Military technology
 * Offensive (military)
 * Operational mobility
 * Prisoner of war
 * Rebellion
 * Refugee
 * Siege
 * Soldier
 * Surrender (military)
 * Terrorism
 * War crime

and for "Weapons":
 * Artillery
 * Biological warfare
 * Bomb
 * Capital ship
 * Ship of the line
 * Chemical weapon
 * Land mine
 * Melee weapon
 * Missile

Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding these into the list. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Physics suggestions
Here's a few suggestions for the empty physics topics:

Atomic physics:
 * 1) Atomic nucleus
 * 2) Atomic orbital
 * 3) Atomic physics
 * 4) Atomic spectral line
 * 5) Atomic theory
 * 6) Auger effect
 * 7) Binding energy
 * 8) Bremsstrahlung
 * 9) Electron configuration
 * 10) Electron magnetic dipole moment
 * 11) Electron shell
 * 12) Excited state
 * 13) Hydrogen-like atom
 * 14) Hyperfine structure
 * 15) Ion
 * 16) Plum pudding model and Bohr model (history)
 * 17) Principal quantum number
 * 18) Relativistic quantum chemistry
 * 19) Stimulated emission

Molecular physics: Much of this topic is covered by the 'Chemical bond' and its sub-sections
 * 1) Molecular orbital
 * 2) Molecular orbital theory

Optics: Much of this topic is covered by 'Optical' and 'Waves'.
 * 1) Holography
 * 2) Kerr effect
 * 3) Light-emitting diode
 * 4) Nonlinear optics
 * 5) Optical fiber
 * 6) Optical physics
 * 7) Photodetector
 * 8) Photoelectric effect (or possibly in 'Electromagnetism')
 * 9) Photonics
 * 10) Physical optics (!= Optical physics)
 * 11) Polarization
 * 12) Refractive index
 * 13) X-ray optics

Physics related: — Preceding unsigned comment added by RJHall (talk • contribs) 30 June 2011 19:58
 * 1) Dielectric
 * 2) John Dalton
 * 3) J.J. Thomson
 * 4) Metamaterials
 * 5) Quantum electrodynamics
 * Thanks for your suggestions. Regards, --Igrek (talk) 07:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Count
Current count of articles is not correctly indicates. If you want to know correct count, I can do it with help of program. In any case, thanks for your help. --Igrek (talk) 07:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Household items
Here are some suggestions for topics under Everyday life/Household items:

Houses,

See also "Architectural elements"
 * 1) Back garden
 * 2) Basement
 * 3) Bathroom
 * 4) Bedroom
 * 5) Closet
 * 6) Dining room
 * 7) Garage (house)
 * 8) Great house
 * 9) Home office
 * 10) House
 * 11) Kitchen
 * 12) Living room
 * 13) Pantry

Furniture and decoration,
 * 1) Bed
 * 2) Bench (furniture)
 * 3) Cabinet (furniture)
 * 4) Carpet
 * 5) Chair
 * 6) Chest of drawers
 * 7) Couch
 * 8) Desk
 * 9) Drapery
 * 10) Fireplace
 * 11) Furniture
 * 12) Home appliance
 * 13) Pillow
 * 14) Table (furniture)

Clothing,
 * 1) Belt
 * 2) Button
 * 3) Cloak
 * 4) Coat
 * 5) Clothing
 * 6) Dress
 * 7) Gloves
 * 8) Hat
 * 9) Necktie
 * 10) Pants
 * 11) Shoes
 * 12) Scarf
 * 13) Shirt
 * 14) Skirt
 * 15) Swimsuit
 * 16) Socks
 * 17) Velcro
 * 18) Zipper

Other items,
 * 1) Bedding
 * 2) Cookware and bakeware
 * 3) Cutlery
 * 4) Dishware
 * 5) Linens

Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Earth Science
This section is a little slim (compared to its neighbors), so here's a few suggestions: These may belong under Geography, Basics: Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Air mass
 * Atmospheric pressure
 * Barometer
 * Fertility (soil)
 * Fold (geology)
 * Formation (stratigraphy)
 * Fossil
 * Freshwater
 * Geological unit
 * Geomorphology
 * Global climate model
 * Hadley cell
 * Humidity
 * Metamorphic rock
 * Pedogenesis
 * Polar vortex
 * Speleology
 * Stratigraphy
 * Stratum
 * Thrust fault
 * Thunderstorm
 * Walker circulation
 * Water cycle
 * Weather front
 * Weathering
 * Butte
 * Cliff
 * Escarpment
 * Gorge
 * Mesa
 * Promontory
 * Stack (geology)

Comparison of trends
I thought it might be interesting to make a side-by-side comparison of the VA lists by percentage:

If one were assume that the ratio of topics stays roughly constant as the list branches further, then it appears that some topics are seriously underrepresented. Likewise it is interesting how the People category has ramped steadily upward. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Added an update column. RJH (talk) 06:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Added a couple of new columns. It looks like the most serious imbalances have at least been partly corrected now, at least in terms of making level 4 look more like level 3. In addition, the People category looks like the best target for whittling down, after we cross 10,000. Regards, RJH (talk) 02:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Mathematics
In the spirit of attempting to address one of the above mentioned trends, I've put together a list of the top-rated articles from the mathematics wikiprojects' that appear to be missing from this VA list. Nearly all of these appear to be appropriate for a vital articles list. I'm not sure why Imaginary unit wasn't rated among these (as a constant), but I think it should be included.


 * 0 (number)
 * 1 (number)
 * −1 (number)


 * Abelian group
 * Algebraic geometry
 * Algebraic number field
 * Algebraic number theory
 * Algebraic topology
 * Algebraic variety
 * Analytic number theory
 * Applied mathematics
 * Atiyah–Singer index theorem
 * Axiom of choice


 * Bayes' theorem
 * Boolean algebra (logic)


 * Cartesian coordinate system
 * Category (mathematics)
 * Cauchy's integral formula
 * Central limit theorem
 * Class field theory
 * Classification of finite simple groups
 * Commutative algebra
 * Commutative diagram
 * Commutative property
 * Commutative ring
 * Compact space
 * Complex analysis
 * Computable function
 * Computational complexity theory
 * Conjecture
 * Coordinate system
 * Correlation and dependence


 * Determinant
 * Dimension
 * Diophantine equation


 * Elementary algebra
 * Equation solving
 * Equivalence relation
 * Euclid's Elements
 * Euclidean algorithm
 * Euclidean space
 * Euclidean vector
 * Euler characteristic
 * Euler's formula
 * Euler's identity
 * Expected value
 * Exponential function


 * Fermat's Last Theorem
 * Field (mathematics)
 * Fields Medal -- Award
 * Formula
 * Foundations of mathematics -- ?
 * Four color theorem
 * Fourier analysis
 * Fourier series
 * Fourier transform
 * Fractal
 * Function composition
 * Functional analysis
 * Fundamental group
 * Fundamental theorem of algebra
 * Fundamental theorem of arithmetic
 * Fundamental theorem of calculus


 * Galois theory
 * Gaussian elimination
 * General topology
 * Graph (mathematics)
 * Group (mathematics)
 * Group representation
 * Gödel's incompleteness theorems


 * Harmonic analysis
 * Hilbert space
 * Hilbert's problems
 * History of mathematics <-- ?
 * Holomorphic function
 * Homological algebra
 * Homology theory
 * Homotopy


 * Information -> Information theory
 * Inverse trigonometric functions
 * Isomorphism


 * Knot theory


 * Laplace's equation
 * Limit of a sequence
 * Linear equation


 * Manifold
 * Margin of error
 * Markov chain
 * Markov's principle
 * Mathematical logic
 * Mathematical optimization
 * Mathematical physics -- ?
 * Mathematician
 * Metric space
 * Modular arithmetic
 * Module (mathematics)


 * Non-Euclidean geometry
 * Normal distribution
 * Numerical analysis


 * Open set
 * Ordinary differential equation


 * Philosophy of mathematics -- ?
 * Poincaré conjecture
 * Polar coordinate system
 * Polygon
 * Polyhedron
 * Polynomial
 * Prime number theorem
 * Probability density function
 * Probability distribution
 * Probability space
 * Propositional calculus
 * Pure mathematics
 * Pythagorean theorem


 * Quadratic equation


 * Random variable
 * Real analysis
 * Representation theory
 * Riemann hypothesis
 * Riemann sphere
 * Riemann surface
 * Ring (mathematics)
 * Ring theory
 * Russell's paradox


 * Sequence
 * Sheaf (mathematics)
 * Standard deviation
 * Statistical hypothesis testing
 * Stochastic process
 * Student's t-distribution
 * Symmetry -> Symmetry in mathematics


 * Taylor series
 * Theorem
 * Theoretical computer science
 * Theory of computation
 * Three-dimensional space
 * Topological space
 * Two-dimensional space


 * Vector space

Some of the topics in Mathematics are duplicated in measurement:
 * Angle
 * Area
 * Volume

Regards, RJH (talk) 15:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've added in the ones that I think probably should be in the list. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

10,000 things
I have created a template to illustrate this project. I had thought of using an image of lao tzu, but decided on the character for 10k things and a quote from the taoteching. "10,000 things" is a buddhist/taoist phrase to mean "innumerable things" or simply "everything", which i feel is an apt companion to this project. I doubt anyone will take it to the next level and create a list of 100k vital articles:)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice touch. I like it.


 * On your other point, it should be noted that only one of the level 1 vital articles is past a B class rating. I guess people just like building lists. ;-) Regards, RJH (talk) 19:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. In fact, I will take that as a challenge to pick at least one article in this list, and see if i can push it up a notch. If every person compiling this list did that, well, we'd have some improved articles.(mercurywoodrose)66.80.6.163 (talk) 18:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that approach has worked fairly well, at least for me: just pick a handful of articles to champion and see if you can get them up to GA status. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Need for better display and tools
I think having some markers on the articles, a bot to check status, and then having the stuff sortable in topic etc. would be helpful. Logistically, it would make sense to do the whole thing in Excel offline (or Google docs) and have a pivot table and the like. Could have some outputs to display here, or inputs to upload periodically. This whole project seems pretty dead by the way...which says some really bad things about Wiki. But suggestion here would help fix it.

71.246.147.40 (talk) 03:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it might be helpful to do as you suggest, but first I think you would want to finish up the content. Otherwise you would have to constantly update your spreadsheet.


 * Since changes are still being made to the list, I dispute your last assertion. To me the issue isn't with the list itself, but with the slow progress on improving the status of the listed articles. Still, Wikipedia doesn't have a deadline for completion, so it may be best to think of this in the long term. This is just another way of organizing the information, which may become beneficial in terms of wikiproject priorities. In the future, it is possible these lists may become re-organized in a tree structure. But that is down the road. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

adding turtles and perhaps others
I'm going to add the "top" turtle articles, with the exception of a subcategory that has low notability. It's eight or so articles and comparable to what we have for snakes. The articles have high hit count and are popular with school children. As of now, we don't even have an article on turtle itself!

Will also, try to read the entire list and see if there are any major categories unpopulated like that. From there, just picking the relevant project's "top" articles is a good way to help. Of course some projects are micro focus and I would leave out something that just seemed infamilair or obsucre. Given we have 1300 free spots, this seems reasonable. Plus it will educate me with the list. Plus, I think we overdid it on "people" and this will at least allow filling the other areas.

71.246.147.40 (talk) 03:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

PBP89's Globalizing/Changes
I’ve recently been globalizing the Meta 10,000 Vitals and I made some edits, primarily in sports and cars, in an attempt to globalize this as well. For my diffs, see here for cars and here for sports. In sports, I’ve added most Olympic Sports and a variety of sports played worldwide; since sports hasn’t been expanded much compared to the Meta 1000 we had the room. I know in cars that means that there are a lot of tiny cars in and sporty cars out; sorry, that’s what the world drives. Tell me what you think. I also switched out indigo for gray in the colors; when there are seven colors in the rainbow the one called "blue" is really cyan and "indigo" is really blue (more on that there; plus gray's a web color (two, actually, if you count silver), indigo isn't. Zero problem with having both gray and indigo if feathers are ruffled by loss of indigo; this list isn't full and we certainly have room for 14 colors.  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  01:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Duplicates (29 Oct 2011)
Found duplicates: --Abiyoyo (talk) 17:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Adolescence
 * 2) Ampere
 * 3) Atomic orbital ( Fundamental physics concepts and atomic physics)
 * 4) Book
 * 5) Brahman (disambiguated)
 * 6) Caffeine ( Health/Fitness -->Drug and Organic Compound)
 * 7) Canal (Artificial Landforms and Hydraulic Structures )
 * 8) Capacitance ( Electronics and Electrical Circuits)
 * 9) Celestial mechanics (Celestial mechanics)
 * 10) Chicken (disambiguated)
 * 11) Child
 * 12) Clint Eastwood (actor and director )
 * 13) Code of Hammurabi (Nonfiction--> Antiquity and Law )
 * 14) Cricket (disambiguated)
 * 15) Edward Gibbon (this on me, added him in historians where he belonged; he was already under behaviorists where he didn't )
 * 16) Electric charge (Electromagnetics--> Electrostatics and Electronics )
 * 17) Electrical resistance (Electromagnetics--> Electrical circuits and Electronics )
 * 18) Electricity ( Industry-->Energy and fuel  , Electromagnetism)
 * 19) Electromagnetic radiation (Electromagnetics and Waves   )
 * 20) Electromagnetism (Two different Electromagnetism sections!)
 * 21) John George Kemeny
 * 22) Euclid's Elements (Nonfiction and Geometry )
 * 23) Explosive material (Material&Chemical and Ammunition )
 * 24) Flower (Plant morphology and flowering plant )
 * 25) Force (Fundamental physics concepts and Force)
 * 26) Frequency – (1) Physics/Waves; (2) Engineering, Machinery and tools/Electronics
 * 27) Fruit – (1) Anatomy and Morphology/Plant morphology and anatomy; (2) Fruits/Fruit
 * 28) Gasoline – (1) Energy and Fuel/Fuel; (2) Energy and Fuel/Material and chemical
 * 29) Gunpowder – (1) Industry/Material and chemical; (2) Weapons/Ammunition
 * 30) Hades – (1) Fictional worlds/Imaginary places; (2) Esoterics, magic and mythology/Greek mythology
 * 31) History of literature
 * 32) Homosexuality
 * 33) Indian subcontinent – (1) Peninsulas/Asia; (2) Regions and country subdivisions/Asia
 * 34) Inductance – (1) Electromagnetism/Electrical circuits; (2) Engineering, Machinery and tools/Electronics
 * 35) Kerosene – (1) Chemical substances/Chemical compounds; (2) Industry/Material and chemical
 * 36) League of Nations – (1) Modern history/Basics; (2) International organizations
 * 37) Legal history – (1) History/Basics/History of other topics; (2) Law/Basics
 * 38) Magnetic resonance imaging – (1) Medicine/General concepts; (2) Industry/Food and health
 * 39) Mahabharata – (1) Literature/Specific works of literature/Antiquity; (2) Specific religions/Eastern religions
 * 40) Mass
 * 41) Mid-ocean ridge – (1) Physical geography/Ocean floor; (2) Earth/Geomorphology/Oceanic and coastal landforms
 * 42) Musée du Louvre – (1) History/Museums; (2) Architecture/Specific structures
 * 43) Myriapoda
 * 44) Nanotechnology – (1) Condensed matter physics; (2) Technology/Basics
 * 45) Nova – (1) Mass media/Television; (2) Astronomy/Stellar Astronomy (Nova wasn't disambiguated to TV series, but removed as unimportant - only one interwiki--Abiyoyo (talk) 21:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC))
 * 46) Old age
 * 47) Pregnancy
 * 48) Puberty
 * 49) Radio
 * 50) Robert Redford – (1) Entertainers/Actors; (2) Directors, producers & screenwriters
 * 51) Roberto Benigni – (1) Entertainers/Comedians; (2) Directors, producers & screenwriters
 * 52) Ruhollah Khomeini – (1) Politicians and leaders/Modern/Asia/Central Asia, Iran, Caucasus; (2) Rebels, revolutionaries and activists/Asia
 * 53) Saffron – (1) Herbs and condiments/Specific; (2) Flowering plant/Asparagales
 * 54) Salad
 * 55) Season – (1) Air/Meteorology/Seasons; (2) Dimension/Time/Season
 * 56) Shrub – (1) Plant morphology and anatomy/Life forms; (2) Organisms/Plants
 * 57) Solidarity
 * 58) Speed
 * 59) Sugar – (1) Cooking, food and drink/Sweet Things; (2) Biochemistry
 * 60) Swamp – (1) Biomes/Wetlands; (2) Earth/Geomorphology/Fluvial landforms
 * 61) Television
 * 62) Temperature
 * 63) Tree – (1) Plant morphology and anatomy/Life forms; (2) Organisms/Plants
 * 64) Universal Declaration of Human Rights
 * 65) Viola (plant)
 * 66) Vitruvius
 * 67) Water Lilies
 * 68) Wood
 * 69) X-ray
 * 70) Xuanzang
 * The striked out are corrected.--Abiyoyo (talk) 17:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Do me a favor: List what sections and subsections each appear under. That way, it will be much easier to determine which section is best for them to belong to and/or if any of them need to be disambiguated (for example; cricket is on twice. I would guess one is the insect and the other is the bat-and-ball sport)  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  17:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, i can not. :( The algorythm I used does not allow to determine a section. But you can use search.--Abiyoyo (talk) 18:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Good job tracking these down! Regards, RJH (talk) 15:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Architecture and construction
There's quite a mess in theese two sections with a lot of duplicates and intersecting subsections. They have to be organized properly. --Abiyoyo (talk) 12:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Apartment (Residential buildings and Architectural types )
 * 2) City block (urban studies/planning and measurement of length )
 * 3) House ( Architectural types and Residential buildings)
 * 4) Skyscraper ( Architectural types and Residential buildings)
 * 5) Street ( Architecture and and Urban studies/planning)
 * 6) Urban design ( Architecture and and Urban studies/planning)
 * I think the subsection called "architectural types" should be deleted. There are only four articles, three of which are duplicates.   Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  19:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)