Wikipedia talk:1,000 core topics/(historical)

This list is almost useless

After trying to merge this list with Wikipedia:Vital articles, I found out that this list has very little use. While including highly insignificant chemical elements, it has only five articles about fundamental chemical concepts. While including minor geographic features like Lake Titicaca and disputed or sub-national territories of relatively little importance (Falkland Islands, Macau, United States Virgin Islands) it does not mention central geographic concepts like mountain. The biography section is too long, and biased towards English-speaking countries. Mathematics and technology are far too under-represented. I would consider merging this list into Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded instead. /Yvwv (talk) 15:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Total support. I'd especially like to see the quality markings brought over to Vital articles/Expanded, since that would make the listings easier to use (however I suggest a bot is used to maintain these). LinaMishima (talk) 19:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support merger. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Support - duplicative definitely. Let's merge these lists. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support. See /Merge for a list of articles mentioned here but not at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded. —Mrwojo (talk) 18:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Support merge with lvl-4 but prefer redirecting to lvl-3. Nergaal (talk) 00:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Support Two out of seven athletes are american baseball players. --Ettrig (talk) 12:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Wikipedia:1,000 core topics by Kotniski; most people seemed to be in favor of this over the original proposal (including myself, the nominator). –CWenger (^ • @) 16:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia:Core topics - 1,000 → Wikipedia:Core topics – 1,000

• En dash is more appropriate than a hyphen here. –CWenger (^ • @) 03:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC) –CWenger (^ • @) 03:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
• Comment shouldn't that be an emdash? 184.144.163.181 (talk) 03:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
• An unspaced em dash would work too, but that seems slightly odd in an article title for some reason. –CWenger (^ • @) 04:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support either spaced en dash or unspaced em dash. Jenks24 (talk) 21:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Personally I would prefer an en dash, but seeing as an arbcom motion has been brought into effect since I cast my !vote, I guess PMAnderson's suggestion of a colon would also be acceptable. Jenks24 (talk) 22:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - There is currently a ban on moving articles to/from titles with dashes, per a decision by Arbcom. Mjroots (talk) 17:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: Important point. The arbcom page reads in part There is to be a moratorium on article title changes that are due to hyphen/endash exchange, so it affects and prohibits the original proposal, but not the counter proposal below. Andrewa (talk) 17:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• Prefer colon.(I am not proposing a colon because of the moratorium; I find it clearer and more natural than any horizontal line.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with a colon too, although I think it would be unusual to have two colons in the title. –CWenger (^ • @) 17:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• Note that the arbcon ban may be in effect on making a move like this. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment is that ban only on endash and hyphen, or on emdash as well? (or adding hypens and endashes as well... since there's a discussion in that Arbcom page about adding endashes and hypens to technical titles where the field doesn't use either) 65.95.13.213 (talk) 05:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
• Move to "Wikipedia:1,000 core topics". That's how to say it in English. (Or get rid of the page; or at least close this discussion - it doesn't much matter with what result, though the current title is the worst of the lot - just to get it off the requested moves backlog.)--Kotniski (talk) 16:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • That is a great idea, I support this move over the one I originally proposed. –CWenger (^ • @) 16:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support move to Wikipedia:1,000 core topics. Elegant solution to otherwise problematic issue. Andrewa (talk) 17:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• Move per our own standards. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Standards which are currently unclear in the light of ongoing discussion, are they not? Andrewa (talk) 17:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• All right, since it hardly matters (since it has been agreed in the previous discussion that this page should not exist anyway), I'm going to close this discussion (per IAR) and move to my proposed and unopposed title. If anyone objects, feel free to reopen it for an uninvolved editor to make the call. (Notice this page would not be affected by the Arbcom motion, which only concerns article titles.)--Kotniski (talk) 10:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Athletes and related" section

This is a very strange selection. Seven names. Six Americans (OK, one was naturalised). But is that WP:WORLDVIEW? Not just one, but two baseball players for a sport with little global appeal. If you were going to include two names from a single sport, go for a sport with international reach. It's also most peculiar that you include Bruce Lee in this section. His notability comes mostly from his films, not his athletic prowess. Putting Lee there is like moving Elvis Presley from where he currently is in the list with musicians, to be under "Performing arts" because of his films.

All in all, that's quite disappointing. --Dweller (talk) 12:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Marked as historical

Owing to the consensus to merge this with Vital Articles (level 3) I've marked this as historical. VA is more broadly supported, better composed, and is actually used in processes (such as the WikiCup), while this has become depreciated and unmaintained. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Differences between 1000 vital and 1000 core articles

What is the difference between 1,000 vital articles and this 1,000 core articles? Is there any difference? I was looking through both of the articles, and I'm confused. I was thinking of using 1000 vital but I saw 1000 core. Does one of these have articles that the other one doesn't? I think this should be clarified on the header of both of these articles specifying that this is different from the core/vital based on X. 75.70.142.23 (talk) 08:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)