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

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

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? OhanaUnitedTalk 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)

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)

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 Wikipedia: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)

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)

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 Wikipedia: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? -- Ϫ 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 meta: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

  1. Horses -
    1. Byerley Turk
    2. Bucephalus
    3. Darley Arabian
    4. Godolphin Arabian
    5. Traveller
    6. Trigger

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Igrek (talk • contribs) 12:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

  • 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.

Wwm101 19:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

At this moment I agree with removing these articles:

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)

Deleted

Writers

  1. Jim Lehrer
  2. Bill Moyers
  3. Charlie Rose
  4. Tavis Smiley

(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)

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)

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:

  • Mechanical engineering, tools and machinery (the stuff belonging there is strung a bit everywhere)
  • Industry (split and expanded off "business and economics")

Other stuff to do:

  • 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

Circéus (talk) 21:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

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)

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.

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.—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":

and for "Weapons":

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:

  1. Dielectric
  2. John Dalton
  3. J.J. Thomson
  4. Metamaterials
  5. Quantum electrodynamics

— Preceding unsigned comment added by RJHall (talk • contribs) 30 June 2011 19:58

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)

Comparison of trends

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

Category VA Level 01/12 04/12 4:3
Ratio
2 3 4 4 4
Arts and Culture 8 6.4 5.26 5.90 5.96 93%
Language, Everyday Life 19 8.3 6.20 6.47 6.83 82%
Geography 12 8.4 12.15 14.34 13.73 163%
History 4 6.3 4.84 5.61 5.66 90%
Mathematics, Measurement 6 6.2 1.96 3.62 3.65 59%
People 0 12.3 21.43 23.27 22.37 182%
Philosophy, Religion 7 7.2 1.95 3.21 3.65 51%
Science, Health, Medicine, Biology 18 23.4 22.11 27.16 26.49 113%
Industry, Society, Social Sciences 17 9.3 3.84 4.78 4.95 53%
Technology 9 10.8 4.68 5.63 6.70 62%
Totals (%) 100 98.6 84.42 92.22 97.31 100%

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.

Some of the topics in Mathematics are duplicated in measurement:

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. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Duplicates (29 Oct 2011)

Found duplicates:

  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

--Abiyoyo (talk) 17:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

  • 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) Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 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.

  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)

--Abiyoyo (talk) 12:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the subsection called "architectural types" should be deleted. There are only four articles, three of which are duplicates. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 19:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/4/Archive_1&oldid=1137397935"