Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Archive 26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Swap: Remove Aircraft  3, Add Aviation  4

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.

---

This should be a straight forward swap. Aircraft only covers the vehicles while aviation not only covers the vehicles, but also the entire industry. Interstellarity (talk) 00:57, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 00:57, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
2. I'd prefer strait addition rather than swap but weakly. Aircraft may not exist in a century or two... who knows. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removal All modern encyclopedias include airplanes and helicopters as important forms of civil and military technology. --Thi (talk) 09:36, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose the transport section as it stands mainly has articles on vehicles, not article on the broader form of transport or the industry. We have car instead of road transport, ship instead of watercraft and bicycle instead of human-powered transport. The only exception is that we have rail transport instead of train, and I would support of a swap of these articles. Train consistently gets about 1.5 times the pageviews of rail transport because readers are interested in the vehicles of transport, not the industry or general form. Gizza (talk) 10:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

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 Race (human categorization)

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.

---

If Racism is considered vital enough for this level, it would seem that the broader concept of race itself should also be. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Support per nom, though Presidentman, I hope you will propose something to remove in light of the quota. starship.paint (RUN) 01:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Support per mon; a fundamental core concept that should be included in its own right (regardless of related/derivative concepts). Aszx5000 (talk) 20:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose too much overlap with racism at this level. Could support a swap though prefer the status quo. While both sexism and sex are at this level, sex is not a social construct unlike race, which diminishes its vitality IMO. Gizza (talk) 10:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Race itself isn't level 3 in terms of vitality, but rather racism, which stems from it, has had a significantly higher impact. The effects of racism are seen in significant historical events like the Atlantic slave trade  4 and World War II  3, in academic studies such as Environmental determinism  5 and Intersectionality  5, and even in the ideas of influential figures like Immanuel Kant  3 and Aristotle  3. It's the implications and consequences of racial hatred that hold level 3 vitality. The Blue Rider 10:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Oppose The articles Ethnic grop and Racism cover relevant things. --Thi (talk) 11:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

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.

Swap Iraq  4 for Myanmar  3

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.

---

A discussion above brought forth the controversy of whether Iraq  4 is rightly ranked at a lower vitality level than Iran  3 by User:AirshipJungleman29 and seconded by User:Artem.G. On first blush, I thought a correction could be reasonable.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:09, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

This nomination will go forward because it has already receive support so it cannot be withdrawn. I saw what I thought was a complaint and quickly found a country in Asia that I was less familiar with that had fewer interwikis (258 vs. 245). Since I am less familiar with Myanmar than Iraq and it has fewer interwikis, I picked it on a whim as a swap candidate to see if Iraq could be promoted based on the misunderstanding with User:AirshipJungleman29 below.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:40, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

This could have been avoided if you had simply started a new discussion to say what was on your mind, without putting it in the form of a proposal to change the contents of the list. You're also free to withdraw your own support for the proposal if you so choose. Cobblet (talk) 01:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

A difference of 13 interwikis when both articles have 240+ is incredibly insignificant and not a reason for a swap, IMO. The Blue Rider 12:19, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Fewer interwikis and less familiar.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:34, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:09, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Aszx5000 (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Support addition There is too few countries at this level. --Thi (talk) 02:55, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong oppose Myanmar's population is about 20% larger; we already list Middle East which covers Iraq, but not Southeast Asia; and apart from listing several component countries, Southeast Asia is virtually unrepresented on the list, while specific aspects of Iraq's historical importance are covered in History of the Middle East, Mesopotamia, Sumer, Hammurabi, and Islamic Golden Age. Cobblet (talk) 23:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Cobblet. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Oppose removal per Cobblet. Neutral on addition. Gizza (talk) 23:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

• TonyTheTiger appears to have misread the conversation. What I was actually saying, in the context of advertising VA ratings as article topicons, is that many readers would not appreciate seeing Wikipedia explicitly consider one thing as more important than another. As an example, I gave Iraq and Iran—one is considered a VA3, one a VA4, and if you openly advertise that, you may just start another war. I made no comment on the actual suitability of each article for each list. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:16, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  User:AirshipJungleman29, I did misunderstand your position as being exemplary as opposed to actual. However, are you saying prominently placing VA levels on articles could start a war (bombs in the air) or an edit war.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:36, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

• I didn't question whether it's right to include one to level 3 or 4, i just don't care. I was talking about exactly this thing - vital list is not a competition, and that's exactly why the vital sign should never go anywhere except the project page. Artem.G (talk) 20:13, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  Understood (1st sentence). Not attempting to make VA a competition.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:38, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

• BTW Myanmar generally gets more page views.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:02, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

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.

Moving Road to the Transport section of the list

I don't know whether this would be a major or a minor change to the list, but was wondering your thoughts on moving the entry for Road to the Transport section instead of the structures. I think it would a good change since the primary purpose of roads is transport. I didn't feel comfortable being bold to make the change since I had some of my changes reverted and I think it would good to discuss this to gather input on whether this would be good. Interstellarity (talk) 01:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

On its own, it's not a terrible idea. But why is the move necessary at all? Is there actually any problem with the current setup? And why only move this article? Why not move bridge or canal? Cobblet (talk) 17:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I would be OK moving bridge and canal as well. Interstellarity (talk) 20:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Rail transport  4, Add Train  3

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.

---

Train gets 1.5 times the pageviews of rail transport. Readers are interested in the vehicles rather than the industry. We list Car  3 instead of Road transport  4, Ship  3 instead of Watercraft  5, Bicycle  3 instead of Human-powered transport, but this is the only exception. Interstellarity (talk) 01:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 01:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Support per my comments in the airplane vs aviation discussion. Gizza (talk) 23:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Support More basic thing for the reader. --Thi (talk) 12:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. Aszx5000 (talk) 14:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
5. Support per nom -- Marchantiophyta (talk) 02:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

If we needed to cover other modes of transport, I would support adding Public transport  4 which covers things like Bus  4, Ferry  4, High-speed rail  4 and Rapid transit  4. Interstellarity (talk) 01:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

ATTN User:Kammerer55, why isn't {{VA link}} working here?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Because of a lower-case first letter Kammerer55 (talk) 16:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

@Kanashimi, Do you know if it would be safe to use {{ucfirst:}} in {{VA link}} to make the first letter of the input uppercase? Are all titles in VA-list json-files capitalized? Kammerer55 (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Would it be too much trouble to make it so that the first letter is not case sensitive?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

@Kammerer55 Sorry, can you describe the problem in more detail? Kanashimi (talk) 22:35, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I want {{VA link|car}} and {{VA link|Car}} to produce the same results. Currently, it's Car  3 and Car  3. I could do that by using {{ucfirst:car}} -> Car in the template. It's probably safe to do, since all Wikipedia-pages should start with a capital letter, but I just wanted to confirm if there are any articles in the json-lists WP:Vital articles/data which would start with a lower case letter instead. Kammerer55 (talk) 23:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

It is technically impossible for a Wikipedia page to start with a lowercase letter, so that's fine. J947 ‡ ^edits 23:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I also think so. You may use Title library or so to normalize the page title. Kanashimi (talk) 01:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I've updated the template, but just have used "ucfirst:" for now, for simplicity. Kammerer55 (talk) 04:08, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

• What about Maritime transport? Also, are you sure this is more vital than Aviation  4 and Airplane  4 (even in the presence of Aircraft  3?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

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.

Should the proposers !vote count

Don't know if that has been asked before, but should the proposer's !vote count? Maybe it should not. Aszx5000 (talk) 16:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I've given this some thought, and this is what went through my head. There are some occasions where a conversation starts about a loose idea without any official proposal, then after some time and discussion a person opens an actual proposal even though they are neutral or opposed, to get the ball rolling and voting started and because it looks like where it's going. Imagine the scenario, there is a general discussion about whether the nation Iraq should be included or not and it looks like from the discussion I like the idea, but user:Sue does not. Now which ever one of us officially opens the vote in effect has our vote destroyed by being the opener. If it were a close vote tally in the end, whether or not the article gets added or not could depend on nothing more than which person opened the vote. It could put people off of opening voting proposals and hoping and waiting for someone else to do it, but then someone else may also be waiting as well, only if they are lucky enough for a neutral third party to open the vote so all the supporters votes are counted and not lost, but neutral people are less likely to open the vote.

Not all, but the vast majority of the time, a proposal is started by someone who likes the idea and supports it, it's just human nature, not as many people will rush and open a proposal for something they do not support. For those regular vote proposals all we would be doing would be the same as, or at least very similar to increasing the number of support votes needed to pass. If we imagine a thread needs minimum 5 votes excluding the opener, that is the same as saying it needs minimum 6 votes including the opener. If a thread has 3 opposes it needs 6 supports to pass excluding the opener, would be the same as saying it needs 7 supports to pass including the opener. If we presume most threads are started by a supporter, all we are doing in a round about way is increasing the threshold for passing threads. And there has been a fair amount of discussion on what the vote pass and fail minimum and percentage should be.

I like to see the best in people and believe people are genuine until I see a reason to believe otherwise, but projects like this have been at times vulnerable to sock puppets for people to increase their support vote unnaturally. In a worse case scenario I could imagine people trying to convince others to open threads or using sock puppet accounts to open threads so their main user account vote will be counted and not lost, or vise versa.

Also, although most of us are guilty of this, we should really be putting emphasis on the strength of the arguments and less on the vote tally, although we never have and probably never will. Some proposals begin with a large well thought out reasoning and some with nothing other than a vote and everything in between.

In short I believe it would

• Make things more complicated unnecessarily.
• Put people off starting/opening threads they believe in and may otherwise open as to not lose their vote.
• After general discussions, some close proposals could pass or fail on nothing more than who happened to open voting (a supporter or opposer), which doesn't seem right.
• In reality it feels like for most regular proposals it would be the same as increasing the needed support by one, after a fair amount of discussion about the needed support votes has taken place and been settled upon; kind of.
• Potentially increase the chances of some people behaving in ways we do not want, or at least altering the way it is played, eg if you like an idea instead of starting a thread, you would be pushed toward convincing someone else to start the vote instead of simply starting it yourself.

Sorry for the long thread, I know the idea came from a good place but the more I think about it the less I like it, it could put people off starting threads and penalizes openers opinions/votes.

 Carlwev  18:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

If the proposer votes, his vote should count. If he doesn't, it shouldn't. pbp 20:28, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Making the proposer's vote (if they decide to vote) not count is effectively akin to a flat change in quota of requiring one more support in every proposal. It also means that the person who happens to propose it gets counted the same whether they are neutral or support, or change their mind later. Neither of those changes really make sense. J947 ‡ ^edits 23:40, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

• The last 3 discussants have cumulatively said all that there is to say. Proposers votes should count.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:07, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

P.S. User:Carlwev, you only have about 2 edits in the last 3 weeks, but I have left you a couple of pings I hope you have time to respond to.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Carlwev's comments sum up the issue well IMO. I have nothing further to add. Gizza (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Add Timur

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.

---

It seems odd to me that Timur  3, one of the most important figures in the history of Asia, is not on the VA3 list, especially when people like Joan of Arc  3 are. One reshaped half a continent and had repercussions that are still felt today, six centuries later, while the other had a two-year career in a war between two countries, but is presumably considered more important because she's remembered by two prominent Western countries. Same goes for a few other articles on that list. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:37, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. As proposer. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:37, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Per proposer, the sort of impact that reshaped part of the world. CMD (talk) 04:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
3. Support One of the most important biographies. --Thi (talk) 19:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
4. Support - Vital at this level. Jusdafax (talk) 23:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
5. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 00:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Are you proposing that Timur replace Joan of Arc? Someone (or something) at VA3 would have to go. -- Marchantiophyta (talk) 04:06, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

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.

Level 1 swap: Remove Society  1, Add Universe  2

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 universe seems more important than human society, and human society is already covered at Human  1 and Human history  1. But currently the level one list has no coverage of anything larger than the Earth. Cerebellum (talk) 17:25, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Cerebellum (talk) 17:25, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Support  Carlwev  16:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Support per this and previous discussions. --Thi (talk) 17:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
4. Support addition, no opinion on removal. I do think the addition is warranted here since the universe covers everything on this list. I do think an article needs to be removed so that the list stays at 10, but I think the suggestions made are good ones. Interstellarity (talk) 19:32, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
5. Support. Aszx5000 (talk) 14:44, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Then swap with Earth  1 instead. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose I don't see a well-articulated rationale for the swap. Just because the universe is defined as everything that exists, does not mean that the article Universe covers everything that exists. That article has absolutely nothing to say on the topic of human society, for example. There is a fundamental difference between studying things that are in the universe vs. studying the universe in toto, i.e., cosmology. Cosmology can be approached from scientific or other angles; but the vast majority of scientists are not cosmologists. At the end of the day, an overview of human society seems far more relevant to the average reader than a discussion of the implications of ΛCDM, which is an acronym even most scientists would fail to recognize. Cobblet (talk) 06:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
3. Oppose - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of human knowledge, and therefore its most vital articles roughly correspond to domains of human knowledge. Society is a necessary part of the list because it is the highest-level article for the social sciences. The universe as a whole might be more important than society, but an article about the universe is relatively less vital for representing domains of human knowledge, particularly when we already have science listed. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 04:32, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
4. Oppose per above. The one bias that does justifiably exist on all vital article lists is an anthropocentric bias. There are enough articles that broadly cover scientific topics at Level 1 such as science, technology, mathematics, life and Earth. There are fewer articles that cover the humanities, i.e. the arts, philosophy and society. IMO, human and human history overlap with both the sciences and humanities are currently structured. I'm more open to swapping universe in for Earth, though again Earth is the planet which humans live on (the readers of encyclopedias) so it stands to reason that this planet is more vital than the entire universe, for now at least. Gizza (talk) 01:16, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

My guess is some may consider there to be overlap with Earth and/or Science  1. Although Earth is kind of covering geography, Science is the study and discovery of the universe, large and small, one could make the argument that Universe is more important than science, like we generally say Earth is more important than geography. Either way, I think Universe is important enough, considering it kind of covers all that really exists. I recall it being brought up in the past. Also shouldn't this proposal be on level 1 page not level 3?  Carlwev  16:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm assuming that this was brought to this talk page because the talk pages of the first two levels don't get a lot of activity. I would support merging the talk pages if it is deemed necessary. Interstellarity (talk) 19:32, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea to me. Aszx5000 (talk) 14:45, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

If one is looking for an article that would notionally cover Everything, I will note that even Wikipedia doesn't cover everything. Rather, Wikipedia is a compendium of knowledge. On that basis, one could argue that Knowledge is the ur-article; I could support a swap of Philosophy for it. Cobblet (talk) 06:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

This no doubt should be moved to WT:VA1, since it talks about articles that should belong there rather than here.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC) fixed a grammatical error 04:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

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.

Swap: Add Modern era / Remove contemporary history

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.

---

I believe Modern history was VA2 before it was split/merged and redirected. This should be at least VA3.

Support

1. As nom. --TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Support. Per discussion at VA4 (where Early Modern and Late Modern are already VA4s). Aszx5000 (talk) 13:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
3. Support Important topic. --Thi (talk) 15:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose We replaced modern history with early modern period and late modern period. We also now list contemporary history. There is no need for another overview article that completely overlaps in scope with these, and especially not when the modern era is already the historical period with the best coverage. Cobblet (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Oppose can support as a swap with contemporary history. Gizza (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Discuss

@Aszx5000, Thi, Cobblet, and DaGizza: Please circle back and consider this as a swap (suggested by User:DaGizza).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I did not like the removal of postmodernism, and I see contemporary history as a sort of replacement for it. So I am not enthusiastic about this proposed swap either. Cobblet (talk) 05:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Cobblet. What is the right hierarchy here in this subject area - i.e. what articles are the true "head articles" and what articles are sub-articles. I thought that "Modern Era" was the head and "Early Modern" and "Late Modern" the sub-articles, but now I see that there are other versions and am now confused as to the hierarchy here? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 11:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I think your understanding is correct, and the late modern period can be defined to either include or exclude contemporary (post-1945) history.

I see there is a specific concern over the verifiability of the term "late modern period". The original discussion about splitting the modern era into early and late modern periods did not seem to take this into consideration. If that is in fact the case, I would support undoing the swap we had previously made. I see @J947: has also raised this possibility on the level 2 talk page.

I'll also note that there is no rule that says we have to list the umbrella topic on this level just because its subtopics are on level 2. We have rejected adding Americas to this level even though North and South America are on level 2. We have also rejected adding topics like Humanities and Natural science. Cobblet (talk) 16:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

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 Kinshasa

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.

---

Kinshasa  4 is the largest city and the third largest metropolitan area in Africa. Between the cities in Africa we already list: Cairo  3 and Lagos  3, as well as Kinshasa, no other city in Africa comes close to the population these three cities has. It is also a financial powerhouse of Central Africa. Since African cities are underrepresented on the list, this makes a good inclusion. Interstellarity (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I don't participate a lot at level 3, but if North America only has 2 cities and South America only has 1, I am not sure Africa deserves 3. I am also not sure why Asia gets 10.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:57, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Oppose I see no reason to think that African cities are underrepresented, and besides, Johannesburg  4 is probably the better choice anyway. Kinshasa is roughly tied with Johannesburg in population (the DRC hasn't held a census since 1984, so nobody really knows how big Kinshasa is), but Johannesburg's economy (US$82 billion in 2014) seems to be bigger than the economy of the entire DRC. Cobblet (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
3. In addition to the above, the DRC is listed already. J947 ‡ ^edits 23:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
4. Oppose per above Respublik (talk) 06:35, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
5. Oppose. We still don't have a level 3 city for Germany, a G7 economy? Aszx5000 (talk) 10:57, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
6. Would instead prefer to add Shanghai at this level (but I'm aware it's a perennial proposal) but Kinshasa is not even close. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
7. Weak oppose, as while the Meta list has 45 cities, that's far too many and I would prefer to add J-burg, Berlin, Shanghai, Karachi, etc. Vileplume (talk) 19:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

@TonyTheTiger: For why we list ten Asian cities, see my first response to Interstellarity here. Cobblet (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Cobblet. I think it is reasonable to list way more Asian cities and countries than the other continents. Asia contains the majority of the world's population, more than all the other continents combined, which means that there is a lot of different languages and cultures on the continent that are absolutely worth covering by the articles we list. Interstellarity (talk) 01:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

That 2019 discussion calibrated me to this VA3 discussion very well. I stand by my oppose although I might have written it up differently had I seen this discussion first.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed re the 2019 comment. African cities are not underrepresented at this level. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 17:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

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.

Remove Rome

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.

---

We seem to have an influx of European cities compared to other continents. It is tough to make a judgment on which European city to remove since the four cities we list for Europe are pretty important in their own way. Rome is an important city since it has high historical importance and the center of religion. However, we already have articles on this list that cover those topics like Ancient Rome, which covers the ancient history of the city and how it became a republic, then an empire and Catholic Church, which is where it is headquartered. Although I won't deny that Rome is an important city, it is overshadowed by other articles we list. Interstellarity (talk) 00:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 00:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Weakly. J947 ‡ ^edits 02:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. One of the most notable cities in the world (for several reasons, some of which you outline above), and the capital of a G7 economy. Taking out Rome as a level 3 and leaving say Jerusulem (or Cairo), would make no sense to me. The world is getting bigger, and it is more than likely that the quota in this area of Level 3 will have to expand (i.e. we should probably have a German city, given it is also a major G7 economy). Aszx5000 (talk) 10:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Oppose Not a good idea. --Thi (talk) 11:54, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
3. Oppose Respublik (talk) 14:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
4. Keep in mind that the Meta list has 45 cities. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 03:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
5. pbp 03:33, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
6. Oppose with vigor. Jusdafax (talk) 05:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
7. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 16:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

• Everything is at quota; what's the need to remove a highly important city? At least make a swap, no? The Blue Rider 01:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

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.

Requests for Update

Hi, two questions:

1. Can you guys update the the Society ( 1) article's status because it's a good article now, preferably using Cewbot?
2. The C-class icon showing on all the vital article pages has its letter off-centered. Can you guys find a way to fix that?

I would do this myself, but that wouuld be overly tedious, I wouldn't want to mess with the status quo of these articles, and this is usually taken care of automatically by Cewbot. — Alex26337 (talk) 00:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Add Berlin

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.

---

In comparison to the Meta list, we have far too few cities at this level. And yes, Europe is overrepresented, but this is the capital of the country with the largest population and economy in the European Union. I won't be voting on this one. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 02:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Most populous city in European Union. Currently more important in Europe than Moscow, which is behind the new iron curtain. More vital topic than Nietzsche or Freud. --Thi (talk) 20:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

   It's not really the most populous city in the EU. This tends to be the best measure and it has Paris as 2.4 times as populous (and Madrid, Milan, Barcelona as more populous). Berlin just happens to have wide city limits. J947 ‡ ^edits 20:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Berlin is a cut below, in my opinion. In terms of cities, I think we have it about right, or would support removing a few more for countries instead. J947 ‡ ^edits 02:48, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
2. London and Paris have both existed for about 2,000 years; Rome for more than 2,700. Even the relatively young city of Moscow is older than Berlin. The urban population of London, Paris and Moscow are all vastly larger than Berlin too. I just don't see a good reason for listing Berlin at this level. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
3. Strong oppose. Germany only fairly recently unified, before that it was a bunch of city-states and because of it never manage to have the same degree of influence worldwide than other cities. Berlin only started to become relevant with Prussia  4, too recent; and the two main historical events that Germany is known for are the world wars, but even so it's not that attributable to the city itself. The Blue Rider 21:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
4. Oppose Germany's urban population is less concentrated in the capital city than the UK or France, and as such, Germany is not as dependent on Berlin economically and culturally. Gizza (talk) 01:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
5. Oppose. Per comments above, i.e. smaller and less (currently) important. Aszx5000 (talk) 14:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Would support if the quota were extended. Respublik (talk) 18:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Berlin is less vital than Rome. My dad is a European historian and he always points out that Berlin is a "new" city pbp 14:26, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

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.

(Lack of) Representation of Portugal

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.

---

Portugal was extremely influential to the world because of the Age of Discovery  3, it was pionnering for the discovery of many new territories, it created many post trades that today are important cities and countries such as Goa  5, Diu, Macau  4, Bahrain  4 and so, so many more, made possible the exchange of culture, techonology, gastronomy, etc between Europe, Asia, Africa and South America, created new maritime routes that are still used today, was essential to the fiels of cartography, astronomy, naval techonology, etc.

In today's world you can see Portuguese influence accross all continents and most countries in the world - in languages, such as Papiamento, Indonesian language  4, Japanese language  3, in food such as Tempura, Vindaloo, Peri-peri, in architecture with forts and defensive structures such as Qal'at al-Bahrain, Royal Walls of Ceuta and Fort Saint Anthony, colonial houses, universities, in culture, etc, etc.

Yet, despite all of this there are only two entries on Portugal at VT3, one being the language, Portuguese language  3, and the other being the navigator, Vasco da Gama  3, these two don't cover not even closely the whole vitality of Portugal, for that reason I propose adding either one of these three, Portugal  4, History of Portugal  4 and Portuguese Empire  4. The Blue Rider 21:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Brazil  3, the main colony and legacy of Portugal beyond its borders, and São Paulo  3, the most populous Portuguese-speaking city, are also listed, so I'd say there are 4 entries related to Portugal. Without Brazil, the Portuguese Empire would've been on par with the Dutch colonial empire  5, if not somewhat smaller and less influential. Gizza (talk) 00:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

With that reasoning, Mexico  3, the main colony and legacy of Spain beyond its border, and Mexico City  3, the most populous Spanish-speaking city are also listed, in that case, the Spanish Empire  3 is futile. United States, New York are also listed...British Empire  3 should be removed. You might argue that there are other important Spanish and English-speaking countries but that's currently, in 2100 the African countries will command the world and Mozambique  4 and specially Angola  4 will have huge populations and economy. Portugal influence, as demonstrated by my examples, go much beyond Brazil, they were the first and last colonial empire in the world, they started the Age of Discovery  3. The Dutch colonial empire wasn't nearly as enduring as Portugal, nowadays you barely see any dutch-related food, architecture, language, custom, etc; nevertheless they probably should be bumped to level 4. The Blue Rider 01:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't why people get so hung up on counterfactual history that, IF Portugal didn't colonize Brazil the Portuguese Empire, langauge, etc, wouldn't be as powerful/important. The comparasion that the Portuguese Empire would be less significant than the Dutch Empire without Brazil is wrong on all levels. Even without Brazil, Portuguese would still be spoken in 8 countries and Macao, with a total population of 83 million, which would reach around 250 million speakers by 2100. Dutch is only spoken in a part of Belgium, Suriname and some small Caribeen islands. Portugal was present in many more places and for a much more time than the Dutch too. Either way, that wasn't case and Portugal DID colonize Brazil so this hypothetical scenario is worthless. The Blue Rider 02:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Rather than counterfactuals, the point I was making was that Portugal's colonial empire is much more concentrated in Brazil, compared to the British, French and Spanish and their biggest colonies. Britain minus India, France minus Algeria and Spain minus Mexico dwarf Portugal minus Brazil. The Portuguese Empire becomes more redundant with Brazil added than the other empires with their biggest colony added because of the greater overlap. But even with all of the biggest colonies added, Portugal is still far behind the other three, by area, population or any other meaningful measure. Gizza (talk) 05:24, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Add Portugal

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.

---

Support

1. Support --Thi (talk) 21:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
2. As nominator. The Blue Rider 23:04, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. Jusdafax (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
4. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 23:39, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
5. --RekishiEJ (talk) 03:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
6. Encompasses other ideas below, so first choice for me. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose prefer adding Portuguese Empire below. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Strong oppose The modern country of Portugal is just one of many smaller countries in the EU; it doesn't stand out in terms of economy or population or geopolitical influence. No other country on the list is included purely for historical reasons; there is no reason to make an exception for Portugal over, say, Greece or Mongolia or Peru, all countries brought up in the previous discussion rejecting Portugal. There is no more reason to add Portugal to the list of countries than there is to add a city of primarily historical importance like Athens, Alexandria, Baghdad, Venice, or Xi'an to the list of cities. Cobblet (talk) 06:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
3. Weak oppose mostly per Cobblet, except I don't think historical reasons should be discounted completely. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 17:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
4. Oppose, absent a wider discussion on considering history (and state succession?) importance of historical topics is better addressed by specific articles on those historical topics. CMD (talk) 02:16, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
5. Oppose. On top of the other points being made, if you use historic pageviews as a proxy for importance/notability, Portugal is 30th in historic pageviews across all the countries in Europe. 8/9 of the current European VA3 countries are in the top 10 (and the last country, Poland, is 12th). Aurangzebra (talk) 10:19, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Discuss

• My impression from previous discussions is that the country list has been built up considering the current countries and their roles in the world, rather than historical considerations. CMD (talk) 02:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

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 History of Portugal

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.

---

Support

Oppose

1. Strong oppose. No other modern-day countries have their history listed at this level. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 23:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Oppose prefer adding Portuguese Empire below and per above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
3. Oppose this is a long shot. Gizza (talk) 00:43, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
4. Sub-articles usually should not belong to the list, and history of X is no doubt a such.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
5. Strong oppose per above. Cobblet (talk) 06:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Discuss

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 Portuguese Empire

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.

---

Support

1. As nominator. The Blue Rider 21:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
2. As a supremely important historical entity. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 03:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose not as vital as French colonial empire  4, if another Western European colonial empire had to be added. Gizza (talk) 00:42, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

   Very dubious statement but sure. The Blue Rider 01:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

   France's colonial empire at its peak was more than double the size of the Portuguese Empire at its peak. Gizza (talk) 05:24, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

   The size of the Portuguese Empire in the list of largest empires has been much debated and is likely wrong. French empire was short-lived and almost irrelevant in the long-term, it left barely any legacy. The Blue Rider 14:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

2. Strong oppose Besides previously mentioned articles like Vasco de Gama, Portuguese language, and Brazil, Portugal's role in the Age of Discovery is also covered in European colonization of the Americas and Western imperialism in Asia. This is already much better coverage than what exists for many other empires, e.g., the Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates (only covered within Islamic Golden Age), the Ming dynasty (represented only by Zheng He), nomadic empires apart from the Mongols, Sahelian kingdoms like Mali or the Songhai (represented only by Mansa Musa), various empires in Southeast Asia like Srivijaya, Majapahit and the Khmer (we don't even list History of Southeast Asia), etc. And even if I absolutely had to pick another history article related to the Age of Discovery to add to the list, the first article I would consider is probably Atlantic slave trade, which consistently gets >50% more page views than Portuguese Empire. Cobblet (talk) 06:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

   If we have Genghis Khan  3 and Mongol Empire  3 surely there's no problem with having the Mali Empire  4 and Mansa Musa  3, I would also support adding Umayyad Caliphate  4, but that's besides the point. European colonization of the Americas  3 and Western imperialism in Asia  3 are sub-sub-articles of Age of Discovery  3, and subsequentially British Empire  3 and Spanish Empire  3, not to mention that the Spanish Empire is one of the most over-represented entries on this list, with navigators, Christopher Columbus  3 and Ferdinand Magellan  3, countries and cities, Colombia  3, Mexico  3, Argentina  3, Mexico City  3 and all the other articles mentioned by you.

   I'm also of the opinion that cities are too specific to list at level 3 and pratically all the ones we list are due to recentist arguments, why not Cusco  4 instead of São Paulo  3? Is São Paulo really more vital than the Portuguese Empire? Of course not. Other countries like Taiwan  3 should be outright removed, not a level 3 country in any measure. Algeria  3 should be replaced with Ancient Carthage  4, Democratic Republic of Congo with Mali Empire  4, etc, etc. The Blue Rider 16:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

   It's true that historical importance is only one factor we've used in assessing the vitality of countries and cities, and that the other factors we typically look at are rooted in the present. But recentism is not inherently a problem; it's just that we have to balance a desire to cover current events with a desire to cover history. The list of countries and cities is one of the most intensively discussed parts of this list, and I haven't seen a consensus that drastic changes are needed. On an unrelated note, I'm well aware that the Spanish Empire is overrepresented on the list. Cobblet (talk) 17:37, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

   Oh well, it's the old debate contemporary vs. historical vitality. Western imperialism of Asia and European colonization of the Americas don't look like good encyclopedical topics for this level of vitality, in this case I prefer to add the specific empires rather than these broad mostly unused topics. I will propose the adittion of Mali Empire. The Blue Rider 18:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Discuss

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.

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.

Remove Catherine the Great  3

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.

---

While important for Russian history, she is no more important for it than Peter the Great  4, for example - and he is V4 (and less so than Vladimir Lenin  4, IMHO). And her significance outside Russia was rather limited. She is less vital than V3 Elizabeth I  3 or Joan of Arc  3 (if we talk about gender) or Joseph Stalin  3 (if we talk about Russia). V4 should be enough for leaders of such caliber. If we want to swap for a women leader, I'd suggest Margaret Thatcher  4, Queen Victoria  4 or Empress Dowager Cixi  4 as valid contenders - it is hard to argue Catherine is more vital than them, chosing her and not one of those seems very arbitrary. If we want to seriously talk swaps, I'd say either Lenin (Russia, started the entire commie thing...) or Cixi (women and China hits two sysbias topics). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. As nominator. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Support Swap with Timur. --Thi (talk) 11:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strongly oppose. I'm actually a bit surprised by this removal proposal. Catherine was one of the pivotal examples of an "Enlightened absolutist", during a period of great renewal in Russian culture and learning that we today know as the Russian Enlightenment. She ruled at the height of Russian imperial expansionism, overseeing the completion of the conquest of Siberia, the annexation of Crimea, the Russian colonisation of Ukraine, the partition of Poland and the establishment of the Pale of Settlement, all of which still have had vast measurable consequences up to this very day. Her doubling down on the system of serfdom arguably also set the seeds for the Russian Revolutions. She also established Europe's first public education program for women. I'm not sure by what metric she's being judged as less vital than Elizabeth I (a medieval monarch) or Joan of Arc (a medieval foot soldier), or how Margaret Thatcher (a modern prime minister) can be considered remotely more vital than her. As for Victoria and Cixi, the former was a figurehead monarch in a state controlled by a parliamentary government, while the latter's reign is almost universally considered a failure. But Catherine has inarguably had a massive effect on history. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
2. per Grnrchst Aurangzebra (talk) 07:38, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
3. per Grnrchst. I especially like the assumption that because the western countries Britain and France revere Elizabeth and Joan respectively, they must be more vital than Catherine. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:18, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
4. Oppose per Grnrchst. The comparison with Thatcher in particular is bizarre. Gizza (talk) 00:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
5. Oppose. She is V3 in terms of historical impact, and well above Cixi, Victoria, and probably Thatcher. Aszx5000 (talk) 14:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Discuss

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.

Tagging articles that are being discussed at VA

Should an article that is being discussed at VA for addition or removal be tagged, in the same manner of the tags used when there is an RfM being discussed on an article's talk page (i.e. the ? Maybe just for VA 1-4 initially to trial? Might help to drive further engagement in VA? Aszx5000 (talk) 19:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposal for courtesy pings

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 purpose of the Vital articles project is to help target the most important articles for improvement. But often the editors that have actually taken on the work of improving these articles are left out of discussions on them. It's quite common for GA and FA-quality articles to be nominated for removal, go through a discussion, and then get removed from the list, all without the editors that saw them through GA and/or FA being aware that all this was taking place. This is an issue, as the editors that have undertaken such qualitative article expansions are usually the ones with the deepest familiarity on the subject, and can be more well-equipped to judge the vitality of it. I thus propose that at all levels of VA discussions, if an FA or GA-rated article is nominated for addition or removal, the editor responsible for improving it to FA/GA receive a courtesy ping. I've already tried to start doing this myself when I see cases like this, but think it should be standard practice. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:40, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominator. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:40, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Support ping of all major editors where possible, and notice on article talk page. Polyamorph (talk) 11:52, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Support as proposed at VA5 only (and at the more obscure parts of VA4), where our knowledge of the topic is normally minimal so this is an excellent idea. If, however, the article proposed is something ubiquitous like sequel then a courtesy ping is unhelpful because we understand its vitality and the considerations at play better than someone who hasn't touched the VA lists before, no matter their knowledge of sequels. But make sure to provide a link to applicable section of VA5. Their opinion is near-worthless without them seeing what similar articles are there and placing them in context. J947 † ^edits 20:39, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

   That comes across very elitist! Polyamorph (talk) 20:38, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

   We do see a lot of editors come across who just plainly state that they don't understand our definition of vitality. J947 † ^edits 04:58, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

   That's true. A lot of big changes are happening in the project, the next step would be to redefine some/all the rules/procedures/definitions. The Blue Rider 22:05, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

4. Support This is a solid proposal with great intentions. I do think in most cases we will see supports for adds and opposes for removals, but I also think they will have the strongest arguments as to why their work is important. They may not understand what is meant by vital however.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:40, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

   For what it's worth, so far, out of the three pings I've put out that got responses, two supported the removal of their article. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:58, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

   Both without actually checking who is on the list. So not very useful. Doing this is a great idea, but you must provide a link to the appropriate section. J947 † ^edits 23:59, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

5. Support as befits a collaborative environment. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
6. Support for VA5 only as a good way to guide the understanding of a topic. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose for VA4 and above considering that someone who brought an article through GA/FA is more likely to be emotionally invested in a topic, and would inherently be biased towards considering such topic to be more vital than it really is. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Discuss

• I don't think editors who are uninvolved with WP:VA are likely to have complete understanding of what vitality means. I am still trying to figure it out myself. If we are going to do this, each level should have an explanation of what vital means. Saying "The vital article lists are meant to guide the prioritization of improvements to vital articles..." is quite circular. I think most editors are familar with project importance rankings. Each vital top page should say that these lists are meant to improve those articles that are most important to the entire encyclopedia or something similar.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:40, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

• I assume that a notice also goes to all of the WikiProjects connected to the article? Bearing in mind that Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

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.

Technical note

Technical note that the Infinity  3 article is not being displayed as such in the Level 4 and Level 5 lists. Respublik (talk) 18:11, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• Is a bot supposed to be checking this during maintanence runs?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

improving Book article

i originally opened this topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vital Articles but this seems to be more active. i've been trying to improve the book article, and i think we could create a drive to reach good article status like was attempted for the land article. a good level 2 article would be a great demonstration of the feasibility of this project. i also made a request for peer review recently. LarstonMarston (talk) 02:42, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I will try to have a look this weekend. The Blue Rider 04:07, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Bot updates

When User:Cewbot makes an edit like this to update count to reflect 500/500 quota status, why are the counts at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5 left behind?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Bot procedure

When I add/remove something at a higher level does the bot change all the notations and formatting at the lower levels?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

As far as I know, no. Test it though, make a change and leave it like that for a few days to see if the bot does something. The Blue Rider 00:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I did some VA4 closes and the bot fixed level 5.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Separate FAQ for VA5 guidelines?

Hi there, I'm looking to codify some of our unofficial guidelines specific to VA5. I'm leaning towards a distinct FAQ banner there since that level works differently and is much more fluid, especially compared to levels 3 and above.

I know there's the main FAQ here though, and also someone is planning to spin up a new landing page soon. Will a separate level 5 FAQ cause any problems for either of those, or do you all think this approach makes sense? -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 20:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Why not?

OrdinaryGiraffe (talk) 04:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Swap Physical cosmology  3 with Cosmology  5

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.

---

We list this article at level 3, but we don’t list the parent article. Interstellarity (talk) 12:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 12:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Currently Cosmology is mainly about historical cosmologies. Physical cosmology is more important topic. History of astronomy is at level 4, Cosmology is a level 5 topic for a reason. --Thi (talk) 12:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

• What I meant is that you must only make the proposal to remove the level 3 article here. You can't swap a level 3 with a level 5. You must either downgrade one, upgrade one or do both. The Blue Rider 12:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

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 African Union  4

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 African Union is similar to the European Union which we list in that it provides a heavy influence on the global scale of politics.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 21:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The African Union is not similar to the European Union, the latter is much more functional and thus influential than the former. The Blue Rider 21:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
2. Per BR above. European Union  3 is vastly more vital (important, etc.) than African Union. Whether AU should even be at V4 is questionable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
3. Oppose per above. --Thi (talk) 11:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
4. Per above, not at the level of the EU (although it may become that in the future). Aszx5000 (talk) 14:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

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.

Swap Viking Age  3 for Ethiopian Empire  5

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.

---

I am not sure the concept of a distinct "Viking Age" is as primary of a topic as is currently presented. Norse history is certainly important, but the Vikings are just one aspect of that, and I think it's primairly a result of a focus on English history (where it's much easier to make a "Viking Age" periodicization due to a period of actual Norse rule) in English-language sources. At the moment, Sub-Saharan Africa is excluded from any of the specific subtopics within the Vital 3 section, excepting perhaps Scramble for Africa  3. Mali would be the obvious choice, but the presence of Mansa Musa in the biography section makes me want to suggest the Ethiopian Empire. It covers a very broad range of history (1200s to 1900s), ties into various important historic trends (Relations with Islamic states, presence in the Indian ocean trade, resistance to European colonialism, importance to the histories of all three major Abrahamic religions, etc.) that are important to understand for a broad understanding. Generalissima (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

1. I would support a swap for Vikings  4. Vikings are historically and (pop)culturally important; the latter certainly much more than any African Empire. I'd expect to find Vikings, not Viking Age, which is indeed not a very common concept at this level. And Ethiopian Empire is not even V4 - I'd suggest proposing it as an addition at that level first. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
2. Ethiopian Empire is not at V3 in terms of global impact, whereas the Viking Age is. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Discuss

• Normally swaps would require the added article to be level 4. Mali Empire is up to discussion above if you're interested. The Blue Rider 23:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Support this user's alt suggestion. OrdinaryGiraffe (talk) 04:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I meant Piotrus's. OrdinaryGiraffe (talk) 04:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

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 Mali Empire

Mali Empire is the most important polity that ever existed in Africa. Sucessor of the Ghana Empire  4, it emcompassed a fairly large territorial extent. Mansa Musa  3 was fulcral to the conversion of (West) Africa to Islam and his iconic pilgrimage to Mecca put the Mali Empire on the map. It played a major part in the Atlantic slave trade  4 and to the trade of salt and gold, it was essentially an important trade post. It was the hub of intelectual and cultural development with many scholars coming to Timbuktu  4; monuments like Great Mosque of Djenné  5 were built, as well as the first sub-saharan university, Sankoré Madrasah. The Blue Rider 18:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. As nominator. The Blue Rider 18:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
2. We probably should have at least one African empire represented and this is the best candidate. Aurangzebra (talk) 03:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The most important polity that ever existed in Africa was the British Empire. Or maybe the French. For a modern palate, that may be disturbing and objectionable, but it is sadly true. While Mansa Musa deserves a place at VA3, his empire does not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:23, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Weak oppose, per lack of historic records, historic significance, or frankly lasting relevance. Also somewhat per above. Even South Africa  3 and Egypts seems more important. Respublik (talk) 18:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
3. Not a V3 level in terms of global impact. Aszx5000 (talk)

Discuss

Add Max Weber  4

Fathers of sociology include Weber, Marx (who is alrady V3 and is considered also one of the fathers of economics and political sciences...), Émile Durkheim  4 or Auguste Comte  4. One of those other 3 should be V3 as well, within Philosophers and social scientists. Probably Weber (128 interwikis, ~1,6k daily views). Durkheim has 98 interwikis and ~900 views, Comte 93 and ~700 views. Weber has more interwikis and views than V3 Mary Wollstonecraft (98, ~1,5k), or from scientists, Antoine Lavoisier (102, ~1,2), not that I am suggesting a swap this time (but if I were, those would be my 'less vital' candidates). Anyway, from the lead of Weber: he "is regarded as among the most important theorists of the development of modern Western society. He was one of the central figures in the development of sociology and the social sciences, and his ideas profoundly influence social theory and research... [he] is commonly regarded as one of the central figures in the development of the social sciences." --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. As nominator. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Support swap with Friedrich Nietzsche --Thi (talk) 11:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

   I don't think I'd support removing Nietzsche. If we have to enforce quota, maybe somebody else, from another group (Catherine above, for example). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:29, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

3. Per nom. And don't swap out Nietzche. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose We're over 1000 articles and we don't need more people to represent the humanities and social sciences. Cobblet (talk) 03:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Discuss

1. Max Weber would be one of my first choices to promote to V3 but with the quota completely filled, I don't think there's anyone on this list currently I'd remove in favor of Weber. Sociology simply does not have the same historical and social presence as philosophy and economics (it's a relatively modern field!). Also, would definitely not want to remove Wollstonecraft in favor of Weber (both sys bias + I think being one of the first feminist thinkers is more notable than being one of the first sociologists) and would definitely, definitely not swap with Nietzsche. Aurangzebra (talk) 07:53, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

   @Aurangzebra: Feminism is even younger then sociology. Both Feminism  3 and Sociology  3 are at V3, and I'd argue that out of those two, the study of all society, including all inqualities (including gender) is more vital, ditto for the founders. That said, I am not suggesting to remove Wollstonecraft, but I think Weber is more vital than a dozen other figures we list. Again, I'll point to for example Catherine. A regional ruler is less vital than a scholar who estabilish a major branch of science and whose ideas are still key. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

   Sociology is important, yes, but the field itself doesn't play a significant role in our history, society, or culture. I can guarantee you that if you ask the average person to name any sociologist, they won't be able to. Meanwhile, feminism and its adjacent movements are always in the news, its personalities are well-known through history and society, and the day-to-day effects are more acutely felt (particularly by one half of the population!) than the effects of sociology. I could agree to a swap but I don't think I'd agree with swapping Catherine the Great for the reasons the opposers put in that other thread. I'll take a look at who's in VA3 in a bit and see who is closest to the chopping block. Aurangzebra (talk) 01:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Add Journalism

Although we do list News  3, I think this is a key concept for level 3 which I believe is as vital as Broadcasting  3 and Publishing  3. Interstellarity (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
2. Support Important area in society. News doesn't cover all, for example journalism ethics and freedom of the press. --Thi (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose there's too much overlap between journalism and Mass media  2, News  3, Broadcasting  3 and Publishing  3. It would be like having both Education  2 and Teaching  5 at this level. Ethics in the industry doesn't need coverage any more than ethics in medicine, law, banking and a number of other professions. Gizza (talk) 02:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Gizza. Mass media covers journalistic ethics; freedom of the press ought to be covered under liberty. Cobblet (talk) 03:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

Hatshepsut mistakenly removed from VA:3

This is the first time I've ever participated in this project, so perhaps my understanding is mistaken, but in the discussion swapping Hatshepsut for Cleopatra (began January 24), there were five supports for adding Cleopatra, so she was correctly added, but Hatshepsut's removal only had 4 supports and a neutral, so she should have also stayed, by my understanding of the rules. Is this correct? Ladtrack (talk) 08:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the project! Yes, you are correct. @AirshipJungleman29:, as the closer, please fix it, thanks. The Blue Rider 12:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Mea culpa. Suppose this means that there will be two Egyptian female pharoahs, so there will inevitably be a disussion to remove one of them in the near future. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Well there was clearly not no consensus on the matter, so instead the discussion should still be open. J947 ‡ ^edits 23:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I feel like AirshipJungleman29 is closing discussions to hastily. Activities levels here aren't high and things might even take months until we get a consensus. The Blue Rider 01:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• @Ladtrack, AirshipJungleman29, J947, and The Blue Rider: - I have unclosed and restored the discussion. It did not meet the criteria for 2. FAILED, 3. NO CONSENSUS, 4. NO CONSENSUS in our rules. starship.paint (RUN) 09:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Moving Physical, human, and technical geography up in their hierarchy

Geography is rightfully a level 2 vital article, but physical geography, human geography, and technical geography are high level categories that should be higher up. Physical and human geography are both level 5 vital, and technical geography is newer and not included at all. Many concepts that are within these three subdisciplines, and it is odd for Map to be level 3, cartography to be level 4, boarder being level 4, Mercator projection is level 4, and equator being level 4, but human, physical, and technical geography are lower. I'd suggest that each of these three should be level 3 or 4. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

• At least for human geography, since it's the only one I have experience with, is a branch that appeared with Ratzel in the 19th century so pretty recent I would say and not that widely studied to be level 3 or 4 vital. The Blue Rider 16:50, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

  • Does recency impact how vital something is? Even if the term itself is fairly new, terms like "civil geography" have existed since the 1700s and discuss very similar topics. 21st century geography emphasizes human geography quite a bit, and most ontology currently split the discipline between either human or physical, or human, physical, and some synonym for technical. Remote sensing, which at its earliest could be considered a 19th century technology, but more reasonably was developed during WWI, is a Level 4 vital article. Human geography, and its subbranches, is extremely widely studied.

  GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

  Your best shot is to propose physical and perhaps human geography at level 4 and technical geography at level 5. The Blue Rider 23:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for the advice. I don't really understand the criteria for any of these ratings honestly, but I'll try that. As a geographer, these lists don't make much sense. Cities and countries are both human geography concepts, and cartography, GIS, and map projections are technical geography. I'd be in favor of moving them up however as you described, as its more appropriate then the current situation. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Moving Climate change to level 2 from level 3

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.

---

For example, Astronomy  2 includes child articles with the same level: Solar System  2, Sun  2, Moon  2. Sun and Moon are also the child articles of Solar System. Earth  1 is even higher up. I agree with all those classifications. Can we also move Climate change  3 to level 2, same level with Climate  2? Both climate and climate change can also be considered child articles of Earth, Life  1 etc Bogazicili (talk) 23:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Climate change is too specific to be level 2 vital, it doesn't compare in any metric to the Moon, Sun nor Solar System which are extremely essential to the comprehension of society. The Blue Rider 00:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

"Human-induced climate change is the largest, most pervasive threat to the natural environment and societies the world has ever experienced, and the poorest countries are paying the heaviest price, a UN expert said." [1] Swap with Deity or Folklore is possible, they are covered by Religion and Culture. --Thi (talk) 10:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Climate change is a recent phenomena, I highly doubt such proposal will pass. The Blue Rider 16:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Not to mention local climate change has caused the fall of various civilizations [2]. I'd say that's essential to a society. Not to mention climate change has similar page views to Moon and Solar System (31 million vs 39 million and 36 million), and higher than Universe  2 (19 million). Bogazicili (talk) 11:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd support this move. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 16:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

That's Climate variability, not Climate change. The Blue Rider 16:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Climate change is the current version of Climate variability and change (and climate change is globally quicker and is human induced). Climate variability and change  4 is like a "History of ..." article. However, localised and quicker forms of Climate variability and change, similar to modern-day global Climate change, has happened to several civilizations which contributed to their fall [3] [4]. Bogazicili (talk) 20:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

The Blue Rider, Thi, The ed17, FYI, I created a proper proposal topic below. Bogazicili (talk) 21:04, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, the climate change article is only reffering to the current climate change. The article is not an "History of...", only 1 out of 4 sections is talking about the history. Civilizations falling because of climate change is a tiny traction of all the reasons. The Blue Rider 21:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

The current climate change affects the current human societies, so it is "extremely essential to the comprehension of society" Bogazicili (talk) 21:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Move Climate change to Level 2

Per above discussion (sorry hadn't done the proper proposal format in previous topic) Bogazicili (talk) 21:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. Bogazicili (talk) 21:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
2. Support Computer is as recent phenomenon. --Thi (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
3. Supporting due to its high and outsized importance now + into the predictable future. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 22:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Recentist proposal, this article is only reffering to the contemporany climate change, but even if it included all its history, it's not on the same par as, say, Sea  2, Food  2, Energy  2; it's too specific. The Blue Rider 21:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
2. I don't think how recent something is matters to how vital it is. I oppose it because it's too specific, as per the second half of The Blue Rider's comment.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:54, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

   If it is recent it had less time to create impact and it can also rise doubts if its going to hold in the long-term. The Blue Rider 22:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

   I mean, the Information Age, United Nations, and Satellite are level 3, and computer and electricity are level 2. While I can understand that time could impact if it will hold long-term effects, I think that is minimally important when compared to other variables.

   That said, the list for level 2 articles has a lot that could probably be bumped down to make room, like sports, mass media, book, and computer. These are impactful but why is sports more vital then something like Game (level 3), a broader category of which sports are generally a subset of. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

   As we go down the levels, the recentist argument starts to get weaker, so level 3 might include things a little more recent, nevertheless, the rate of techonogical development is exponential so that's why things like the United Nation, Information Age and Satellite get listed since they drastically changed society.

   Sports and games are different things, sports had and still have more impact than (board/video) games. Books? So essential to us, they were the most common way to store knowledge, if we didn't have the recordings of those books we wouldn't have achieved modern society. I might support demoting computer and mass media though the latter is probably older than you think. The Blue Rider 23:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

   My understanding is that a sport is a type of game, while games are much broader then just board/video games and include a lot of examples on the page, including sports. I'd honestly argue that sports could be bumped down before game is bumped up. Games are a primary method of learning that predates formal sports.

   Writing is the dominant way we store information. The page for book has a bit of an ambiguous definition, and I'd tend towards thinking of books as one iteration of how we stored written materials then the more broad definitions which can include newspapers and quipus. With writing included, book seems a bit redundant as a technology. The Simple machines Lever, Wheel and axle, Pulley, Inclined plane, Wedge, and Screw are all much lower, as is paper and rope.

   I'm not really of the opinion that age of something matters that much, and "mass media" seems a bit random of an inclusion.

   The higher lists just seem very haphazard to me. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

3. Oppose per The Blue Rider and GeogSage. Also climate change is a subtopic of Climate  2 which is already Level 2 and is in turn mostly a subtopic of Earth  1. Gizza (talk) 03:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
4. Oppose per The Blue Rider and DaGizza. feminist🩸 (talk) 06:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
5. Oppose, is a subtopic of Climate  2 (already at 2). Aszx5000 (talk) 10:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

@GeogSage: Sea has 5,894 incoming wiki links [5], whereas Climate change has 26,138 [6]. I don't understand the "too specific" argument. Sea also has much lower page views [7]. In fact, climate change seems to have most page views (especially recently) compared to the aforementioned articles (Sea  2, Food  2, Energy  2) [8] Bogazicili (talk) 22:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• Page views are to be avoided as the sole metric. Obviously that popular controversial concepts like climate change will have higher views. The Blue Rider 22:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• Of course it isn't the sole metric. Bunch of other arguments have already been made. The scope of climate change is wide, and includes topics related to society, health, economy, environment, culture, politics, international relations, migration, etc... Even Train  3 is level 3 lol, climate change needs to be higher than 3. Bogazicili (talk) 22:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• Many topics can have impacts on many areas, it's a matter of essential it is to them; climate change only has a great impact on the environment, the rest is moderate at the best. I don't understand your comparison to the train, are you aware of the pivotal role that railroads had on society? The Blue Rider 23:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• @Bogazicili, Donald Trump has 30,206, and Barak Obama has 34,509. Views are not something I would really consider. Climate change has a lot of broad implications, but so does the Internet, which is a level 3 vital article.

The concept of a Sea has a wide scope, including topics realted to society, health, economy, environment, culture, politics, international relations, migration, etc., as well as all of human history. While climate change is impactful to the world, the sea(s) is/are one of the largest impactors of our climate as a whole. The article Atmosphere of Earth is a class 3. The term Climate is represented and is a class 2. I struggle to think that climate change should be ranked higher then the atmosphere of the Earth, or on the same level as the climate in general.

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• @GeogSage: Train is Level 3, so climate change being same level with climate makes sense to me Bogazicili (talk) 23:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  Why does train being level 3 mean we should move climate change to level 2? There is a limit to how many pages can be on each level. Climate change may be an important issue, maybe consider that the entire discipline of "earth science" and "weather" are level 3, and that "climate change" needs to have these to be understood at all. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

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.