Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5

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

People History and geography Society STEM

Introduction

[edit]

The purpose of this page is for discussions of over-arching matters regarding Level 5 Vital articles, such as procedures, quotas, or other broad changes. Level 5 Vital articles are meant to be 50,000 topics for which Wikipedia should have high-quality articles.

If you want to propose articles to be added, removed, or swapped from the Level 5 Vital articles lists, please do so at the relevant subpages: #1 People; #2 History & geography; #3 Society (arts, philosophy, religion, everyday life, recreation, and social sciences); #4 STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics).

Discussions on this page and its subpages follow these guidelines:

Voting count table (>60%)
P = passes
F = fails 		opposing votes
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
0
supporting votes
 – – – – F F F F F F
1 – – – F F F F F F F
2 – – F F F F F F F F
3 – F F F F F F F F F
4 P P P F F F F F F F
5 P P P P F F F F F F
6 P P P P F F F F F F
7 P P P P P F F F F F
8 P P P P P P F F F F
9 P P P P P P F F F F
  1. Before being closed, a Level 5 proposal must:
    1. Run for at least 15 days; AND
    2. Allow at least 7 days after the most recent vote; AND
    3. Have at least 4 participants.
  2. For a proposal to be implemented on the Level 5 list:
    1. It must have over 60% support (see table); AND
    2. It must have at least 4 support votes !votes.
  3. For proposed additions from August 2024 onwards, the nominator should list (and possibly link to) at least one potential section in the level 5 vital articles list for the article to be added to. Supporters can also help in this regard.

For reference, the following times apply for today:

  • 15 days ago is: 08:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  • 7 days ago is: 08:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

If you're interested in regularly participating as a closer, the following browser tools may also be helpful:

Swap Muhammad ibn Ali al-Sanusi with Senusiyya

[edit]

I'm bringing it here rather than the people talk page since the Senusiyya will be placed under history if they get added. If anyone has seen my proposals lately, I have been pushing for the removal of articles that I personally feel are never going to escape stub-class. I will admit, that kind of the reason I want to get rid of al-Sanusi, although now I'm starting to think that his article can improve after all if we transplant some of the info from the Senusiyya article to him. However, even if we can improve his article, we have also been removing people who are chiefly known for finding a royal dynasty without actually being rulers, and I ultimately think that's why he's here. Instead, we should swap him out for the order he belongs to. Although only one of them end up ruling Libya, they still seem to play a big role in resisting Italian colonial rule.

Support
  1. SailorGardevoir (talk) 07:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 02:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support adding Senusiyya to History. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:08, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose removing Muhammad ibn Ali al-Sanusi from People. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:08, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss
  • All of the relevant sections (whether you put the man under Religious figures or Rebels) are technically still under their quotas so I say why not have both for now? A personal theme of mine at Level 5 is that it's arguably even more useful for stimulating mergers / splits than improving single articles in isolation. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:08, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to improve the nav bar in level 5

[edit]

I'm trying to improve the nav bar at level 5 to make navigating through lists a lot easier. The link is at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Nav bar/5. Because this list is broken down into many sublists that are difficult to navigate, I'm trying to figure out the best way to organize this navbar. The level 4 navbar seems to be OK, so I am looking for some advice on how I can improve navigation with the navbar. Right now, it is a bit of a mess so any advice and editor improvements to it are welcome. Interstellarity (talk) 23:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It the table on Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5 useful in this regard. I think the table is trying to break up into equivalent sized sections? Aszx5000 (talk) 22:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's bump this discussion a bit longer because the nav bar is cluttered for sure, especially when you get into sublists. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect this talk page to the new VA landing page talk page

[edit]
NOTED
Not much feedback, but centralizing all process discussions at the main VA talk page should probably happen someday. For now though, Level 5 is still in flux and different enough to warrant keeping separate. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Shouldn't this talk page be redirected to the new VA landing page talk page? It feels that we are having discussions about Level 5 processes and procedures that would be best hosted at the overall VA talk page level (which used to be one the Level 3 talk page), and not outside of that. Better to have one single page for making such suggestions at VA? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 11:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd actually keep this one separate, at least for now. The regulars here can probably tell you I'm a broken record on this, but I think Level 5 will always need to work differently from at least Levels 1-3, purely because of scaling issues. I'm usually very for consolidating pages, but VA5 is sort of an exception. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:08, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal: Splitting the society subpage

[edit]
STALLED
Not much feedback; restart similar proposals if interested. Current page sizes and 1 year trends noted. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The society subpage is way too long and was thinking that it should be split into multiple subpages. Not sure how to split the subpages, but was hoping to get some input on how we should split it. Interstellarity (talk) 12:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After closing and archiving a lot of proposals, the society page isn't particulary bloated; less than 200k bytes - the People subsection has more as of now. The Blue Rider 17:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For some context, with our first-year anniversary of the separate proposal pages coming up, XTools now reports the following (approximate) sizes:
Proposal page sizes
Subsection Size, end of 2023 (kB) Current size (kB)
People 195 150
Hist & Geo 305 130
Society 580 210
STEM 165 180
So while Society is still the largest, it was relatively massive in the beginning and has trended down in size the most. STEM on the other hand is the only one to trend up. So if we do decide to split Society, which I personally support, we should also discuss splitting Math & Science from Tech (which dominates the discussion page). -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:08, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to update, the STEM page included a lot of very stale proposals. Tech still dominates the page, but now that the cruft is closed out, it's at a much more manageable ~135 kB. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:39, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add a button that makes it easier to nominate vital articles according to the new rules

[edit]

I think it would be helpful to have a button in each of the subpages that makes the nomination process for adding and removing articles a lot easier. I was thinking a template could look something like this. The format proposed is commented in the edit source screen. Please let me know your thoughts on this. That way, we can have more nominations that are rule-binding. Interstellarity (talk) 21:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose quota change: Culture +100 Biological and health sciences -100

[edit]

There's clearly work remaining, but I don't think there are that many easy cuts in the Culture section (Universities? Museums?), which is almost 200 entries over quota. On the other hand, Biology has taken too long to fulfill (nearly 400 under quota), and a similar proposal was made for Level 4 months ago. This one would be:

  • Culture 1750 ---> 1850 (currently has 1946 entries).
  • Biology 5815 ----> 5715 (currently has 5412 entries).
  1. Biology, biochemistry, anatomy, and physiology 1200 ---> 1150 (currently has 1062 entries).
  2. Plants, fungi, and other organisms 1075 ---> 1050 (currently has 968 entries).
  3. Health, medicine, and disease 1140 ----> 1115 (currently has 1005 entries).
Support
  1. As nominator. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 16:37, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, other cuts could definitely be made to Television articles for example Makkool (talk) 14:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support, although I have been trying to improve the Health section. The problem is that nobody votes on the more technical proposals. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Regardless of current potential cuts (and this increase wouldn't even take Culture under quota as it stands), "Culture" is extremely broad, and there are some areas such as ethnic groups that are still lacking. Iostn (talk) 00:21, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. oppose. I think we could likely trim plenty from both sections, and we should emphasize reducing the list rather than shuffling stuff around. For example, while I love academic journals, I think half could probably be cut from the list. We could likely cut half the magazines, TV, and Radio articles while we're at it. I struggle to believe WWE Raw is one of the most important articles on Wikipedia, and while King of the Hill might be among the greatest animes of all time, I think it probably could be cut as well. While an argument could be made that Sports Illustrated is impactful, I don't know if Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue needs to be included as well. Biology and health sciences probably could be expanded tremendously, but I'm sure there are cuts to be found there as well. I look through Public health topics, and pages like Infant mortality and Birth defect are not included. In short, I believe that Wikipedians have been a bit overzealous about getting their favorite TV show or publication listed while slacking a bit on Biological and health sciences topics.GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 02:20, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong oppose, on a few counts. I'll be slowly coming back from a hiatus & doing some other things (like a mark-1 vitality estimator) before proposals here. I'm against removing slots from the biology section for now though because: 1. I don't think its current size reflects the subject, just a bias in the interest level by proposers. I'm not a botanist, but I have 45 plant nominations alone that I didn't get around to earlier this year. So we could probably exceed the current quota with more participation. 2. I know it's not an agreed convention for now, but I think we should also move away from overly-tuned quotas with more than 1 or 2 significant digits. 3. If any of the Society sections gets a quota bump, I would actually like to see it go to Religion & Philosophy. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 11:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. After thinking about it for a bit, oppose per Zar2gar1. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:00, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

If Biology is 400 below and Culture is 200 above, who are we not just shifting 200 from Biology to Culture? BD2412 T 15:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  1. I may propose something similar if this one passes, but I think there's a decent amount of cuts for an outright +200 increase. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 16:37, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't support that, since I think there are certainly enough additions to get at least the Health section to the quota. I also think enough cuts can be made to get Culture down to the new quota. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What are your more technical proposals? GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 02:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Improve a random Level X article

[edit]
FIXED
Main Lv5 randomizer button now directs to a random VA article of C-class or lower quality. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The button seems to not work. Pressing it will either just reolad the page or take to some category like which is clearly not random and makes the editor choose. ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 07:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good find, it kicks me to the maintenance category for VA articles by quality rating. I'm already building up a decent backlog of projects here, but if nobody else gets to it, maybe I can look into making it a genuine "I feel lucky" button. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:39, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked into it, and it was a simple fix. The service on Toolforge only needs URL parameters, but the catch is it's not smart enough to descend through a container category. You have to feed it individual ones from the bottom of the category tree.
I've currently set it only to return Stub, Start, and C class articles, along with Lists (Lv5 still has about 110 and we've never officially discouraged them). My thinking is the lower-quality articles are easiest to improve quickly.
Also, I didn't make changes to the button on any of the sublists. Those already worked since the "Vital ... by <topic>" categories are leaves in the category tree. Those buttons don't filter at all on quality though and may return even FAs. AFAICT the service on Toolforge only allows adding categories (i.e. union / whitelist), whereas it would need parameters for intersections or complements (i.e. blacklist) to filter on topic & quality simultaneously. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:31, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

General quota proposal: larger denominations

[edit]

Hi everyone, how about one quick process proposal? It's a simple one: from here on out, let's restrict all Lv5 quotas and quota proposals to rounder numbers, specifically multiples of at least 200 (or 300, 400, etc.)

If this passes, we can round the current quotas to the nearest multiple, and if those wind up summing to less than 50,000, we'll add extra slots to the most over-quota sections (or subtract from the most under-quota if wind up over 50k). This won't supersede the active quota proposal above either; if that one passes, we'll apply the 100 slot change, then round the updated sections appropriately.

We've actually discussed this before, but I've never brought it for a formal !vote. I can think of several various reasons to make our quotas chunkier though:

  • We already use soft quotas at Lv 5 so smaller changes take up energy without much benefit
  • Round numbers are much easier to subdivide (especially if we ever re-introduce header-level quotas within lists)
  • Round numbers make it easier to read and audit our tables & data reports
  • Round numbers make things easier to swap when we do have quota proposals

Perhaps my main reason though is that I think we all agree the quotas (even if they're soft) are meant to discipline the lists and proposals, not just reflect the current size and proposal activity. If they become the latter, they're largely an exercise in box-checking and should arguably be done away with completely. By restricting quota changes to significant amounts though, we force ourselves to better justify the quotas, which also improves the list quality.

And as for the exact multiple, we can do multiples of 100 if everyone prefers. I honestly think Lv 5 is large enough for bigger chunks though, plus sections with prime multiples (e.g. 1700) can cause minor hiccups with subdivision. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 13:42, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Support as nom. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 13:42, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support multiples of 100 per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:14, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discuss
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5&oldid=1260604702"