Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/3

General Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

Level 5 Subpages

People History and geography Society STEM

Introduction

The purpose of this discussion page is to manage the Level 3 list of 1,000 topics for which Wikipedia should have high-quality articles (e.g. at WP:FA and WP:GA status). See the table to the right (on desktop) or above (on mobile) showing the historic distribution of Level 3 articles.

All level 3 nominations must be of an article already listed at level 4.

All proposals must remain open for !voting for a minimum of 15 days, after which:

1. After 15 days it may be closed as PASSED if there are (a) 5 or more supports, AND (b) at least two-thirds are in support.
2. After 30 days it may be closed as FAILED if there are (a) 3 or more opposes, AND (b) it failed to earn two-thirds support.
3. After 30 days it may be closed as NO CONSENSUS if the proposal hasn't received any !votes for +30 days, regardless of tally.
4. After 60 days it may be closed as NO CONSENSUS if the proposal has (a) less than 5 supports, AND (b) less than two-thirds support.

Nominations should be left open beyond the minimum if they have a reasonable chance of passing. An informed discussion with more editor participation produces an improved and more stable final list, so be patient with the process.

For reference, the following times apply for today:

• 15 days ago was: 01:14, 5 February 2025 (UTC) ()
• 30 days ago was: 01:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• 60 days ago was: 01:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Broad reorganziation of certain career paths listings under "People."

I'm looking at the organization of these pages, and it is difficult to wrap my mind around how haphazard things are. Trying to fix the latest problem I've noted is a bit daunting, so I'm proposing it more generally to see if there is any consensus that it is a problem, and how to proceed. The category of artists, scientists, Mathematicians, and Musicians, etc. is at level 3, however the pages for these career fields are Artist:Level 4, Scientist:Level 5, Mathematician:Level 5, and Musician:Level 5. This pattern continues through the career paths under people. Based on my understanding, these fields should be higher level then the subfields. I would propose moving Artist, scientist, mathematician, musician, writer, Exploration, Filmmaking, etc. to at least level 3. We can remove some of the individual people in these categories to make room, as I struggle to see how any individual artist, scientist, mathematician, etc. would be higher importance then the career field that defines their category. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. Supporting my own nomination. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. We can remove some of the individual people in these categories to make room, as I struggle to see how any individual artist, scientist, mathematician, etc. would be higher importance then the career field that defines their category tells me that this proposal was not made on a well-founded understanding of how these articles relate to one another. It is perfectly reasonable for examples of a broad category to be more vital than the category itself. If you have further questions, consider asking first instead of drafting a proposal to remove the thing you're confused about. Remsense ‥ 论 23:03, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

@User:Remsense Wikipedia:Vital articles "What makes an article vital" criteria 1: Vital articles at higher levels tend to "cover" more topics and be broader in their scope. For example, Science 1 is a Vital-1 article, while Scientific method 3 is a lower level of vitality. Determining which articles are vital at lower levels often involves looking at the articles at higher levels. For example, since History 2 is of high vitality, World War II 3 is also a vital article, just at a lower level. It is NOT perfectly acceptable for a broad examples of a broad category to be more vital than the category itself. That should be a very rare exception to the rule. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@GeogSage, tends to is clearly the operative phrase: it expresses plainly that broadness is a heuristic for vitality, not a determiner of it. Where broader scopes exist, they are not always as clearly ramified in the sources, and thus will not be for our audience. Fields of study can be concatenated, augmented and abstracted, but that often does not translate to a proportional increase in how active, mature or (lacking other words) vital they are.

The "folk religion" example below illustrates this. The comparative/synthetic material that characterizes the umbrella field alongside briefer summaries of the specifics of subfields is clearly not of greater value than what can be said specifically for most vital subfields themselves. I struggle to better articulate this if it's not getting across at this point—again, just peruse what the two articles actually say and tell me one is more vital than the other, assuming there isn't some massive hidden disparity in work done between the two. Not engaging with the specific lay of the land here is dogmatic and negligent. Remsense ‥ 论 01:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Add Mandarin Chinese

This is probably the most influential form of Chinese that I believe it deserves to be a level up from other variations of the language. It has about a billion speakers which is a significant proportion of the world population. I'd be in favor of listing this alongside Chinese language although if editors support the removal of Chinese language, I'd also be fine with that.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 21:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Redundant to Chinese language  3, which is definitely more broad and worthy of V3 than one dialect of it. We don't need to list both. λ NegativeMP1 22:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
2. We don't need both of them on this level. Kevinishere15 (talk) 18:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
3. Per Negative. Remsense ‥ 论 01:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
4. Per above. --Thi (talk) 18:05, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

Swap: Remove Chinese folk religion, Add Folk religion

Folk religion is a more general term compared to the specific Chinese version.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 01:35, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
2. Support. Might support swapping back Chinese folk religion if someone proposes a good article to replace though. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Treating one like it's a perfect conceptual subset of the other is not reasonable, even if that were a sufficient reason for the swap. Ultimately, one is a broad, fairly heterogeneous domain of study. With the other, it's pretty clear that demoting Chinese folk religion would leave a glaring gap in specific religious coverage at level 3 if one is looking at what must be emphasized historically instead of treating VA like a vulgar categorization exercise. Remsense ‥ 论 01:43, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
2. per Remsense. starship.paint (talk / cont) 14:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Remsense. See the archives at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles for previous discussions on both of these topics. Cobblet (talk) 04:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

Add Media (communication)

Just added to level 4 with overwhelming support, I am nominating this to level 3 to replace Mass media at level 2. It covers all forms of media that mass media doesn't cover.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 15:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Support per criteria 1 of what makes an article "vital." GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong oppose There was no substantial discussion and no reasoning given whatsoever at level 4. In particular nothing has been said regarding what an article on "media" would cover that could not be covered by the article on mass media. Definition 1a of "media" in Webster is simply: "mass media", and other dictionaries also give similar definitions. These articles should be merged. Cobblet (talk) 04:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Add Human geography  4 and Physical geography  4

There are many methods for subdividing geography, but the branch model is probably my favorite. In this, human, physical, and Technical geography  5 are used to subdivide the discipline. My goal is to get at least Human geography and Physical geography to level 2 for a broad reorganization of the vital articles that aligns with literature, but need to start at level 3 before I can open a vote there.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

• What 2 removals would you like to see to balance this out? At level 2 and 3 you are almost literally bumping something else out to add something.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

• It's great you bring these topics up, because I've always wondered how a geographer would explain the difference between physical geography and Earth science  3. I'd appreciate your thoughts on this, thanks. Cobblet (talk) 04:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Cobblet, sure! First, one huge problem right now is a lot of academic overlap that makes things hard to categorize. University departments put things in weird places, and different groups all use similar techniques/theories. This results in a lot of frustration and interdepartmental rivalry as different groups try to claim ownership of a topic for study. The primary difference in my understanding is that Earth science doesn't necessarily have a spatial component to it, while physical geography does. Earth science needs to employ the scientific method (it's in the name), while physical geography doesn't necessarily have to employ the scientific method. For example, an Earth scientist could study the chemical composition of minerals under a microscope and try to recreate them in a lab, things that don't necessitate spatial coordinates. Most physical geographers employ the scientific method, but other methods do technically exist, and process of creating physical regions is often more qualitative then quantitative. Physical geographers are often going to be thinking about humans and human interactions with the natural environment as well. An odd example of a method to demonstrate this is Geopoetics, which uses poetry "to explore the relationship between places, landscapes, and human experience." Not exactly the kind of thing you'd expect from the hard sciences. The last president of the American Association of Geographers Rebecca Lave considers herself a "critical physical geographer," and applies a Critical geography framework in her research, which does not necessitate the scientific method. The existence of qualitative geographic methods are one way the discipline of physical geography is a bit different.

  @TonyTheTiger, that is a good question. I've been discussing an approach to broadly reorganize geography here, and this is part of that approach. The unfortunate reality is trying to actually get to the point of proposing what I want to propose is taking a lot of steps because of the need to go through each level when proposing an article. While you're frustration at article quotas being an unnecessary limitation is something I've noticed, this rule has made the status quo so entrenched that what should be a fairly easy proposal will likely take months. For now, I'd say take from whatever level 3 geography articles, or articles in general, anyone thinks is the least vital. Fundamentally, I don't believe that the geography articles in vital articles have been approached in the best manner, and think we can do better. The changes I'm trying to make are to things set in stone in 2009 with very little debate that I can see, bit to change them, we need to move through the levels instead of just boldly trying to vote on stuff, which is disruptive to the lower levels the articles need to "pass through" for the broader proposal. You can see what my dream sheet of article additions and subtractions would be there, I don't want to copy paste it and waste half the page. My dream approach would actually result in 2 free slots at level 2 that could be put anywhere. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Swap International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement  3 with Warsaw Pact  4

We list NATO  3 and European Union  3, and while it has since collapsed, I believe the Warsaw pact is vital to the understanding of many articles we include. It is the precursor to Collective Security Treaty Organization  5, and is a direct response to the existence of NATO. Compared with the impact the Warsaw Pact had, I don't think the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement is as impactful.

Support

1. As nom GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Purely historical, Cold war is included. --Thi (talk) 07:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Swap Radar  3 for Remote sensing  4

Radar is currently listed under "Navigation and timekeeping." Radar is one form of remote sensing, and using it for navigation is only one of many applications. Remote sensing can be active or passive, and includes active systems like Lidar  5, Sonar  4, as well as passive like Hyperspectral imaging. Lidar and Sonar both have applications in navigation as well, and I think that Radar individually is less vital then all of remote sensing.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Per the same "broader = more vital" fallacy observed in previous nominations. Umbrella/summary-styled articles are simply not the sum of their parts in this way. What can be said about the subfield is clearly richer and more relevant to the reader than what can be said about the umbrella field. To be blunt, this borders on WP:RGW activism. The only distinction I can think of is that the VA system is merely editor-facing, but the impulse seems the same even if it's expressed indirectly or intended for a more select audience. Remsense ‥ 论 02:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

   That is quite the accusation and feels like an attempt at Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling through Wikipedia:Casting aspersions. This and the past few replies have felt a bit like you're expressing Wikipedia:Ownership of content regarding the list's order. Honestly, looking at your comments on this page alone, you don't sound very Civil, and possibly even a bit of a bully. In my opinion, you don't use neutral language and make what appears to me to be snide comments. You've told one editor to "stop trying to change what we consider to be our most important articles," and told me to "consider asking first instead of drafting a proposal to remove the thing you're confused about." If you feel it is, as you said, "exhausting to keep swatting down these proposals," remember Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia_is_not_compulsory.

   Righting great wrongs doesn't seem to apply here, in my opinion, as that section is about disputing objective facts in article space and requires reliable sources to counter. I want to clean up these lists as they look neglected and took time to review them holistically. I have a much different idea about what "Vital" means than you based on my interpretation of Wikipedia:Vital articles criteria. To state plainly, I disagree with your opinion and think that broader articles tend to be more vital than articles that cover a more specific or niche thing. Level 3 is supposed to be more general than level 4, and all of the level 1 articles are fairly broad umbrella articles, which seems like an example to be repeated at lower levels. I don't believe the articles are listed consistently between levels, violating some vital article criteria, so I propose changes.

   What got me interested in making changes here recently is related to geography, and I discussed openly on Wikipedia talk:Vital articles to try and build consensus and momentum, but I can't just propose it all in one go because of the "No skipping" rule, which I would support removing outright based on how much it is complicating things (To get a vital 4 to swap with level 2, it would need to be proposed through level 3 first, which disrupts the list when the goal is a one to one swap between level 2 and 4). Because Wikipedia:Be bold here is a bit more bogged down with the voting processes, tinkering with the list is more tedious than editing article categories. I've been proposing switches as I see them while looking at how to propose reorganizing geography. You telling people participating in good faith to stop proposing changes through the appropriate means feels very wrong to me.

   On this particular nomination, though, I believe the concept of remote sensing is more vital than Radar, a type of active remote sensing. Radar isn't necessarily more vital than Sonar or LiDAR, or passive remote sensing techniques when it comes to navigation. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

2. Oppose Most well-known form. --Thi (talk) 07:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

   I don't know where you get that assertion from. Radar remote sensing is pretty niche in reality, and I believe more people are familiar with and actually have used passive satellite remote sensing. Remote sensing includes the use of drones, air photos, LiDAR, and SONAR. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Remove Musicians and replace with musical concepts

Our current list of musicians contains 6 individuals or bands: Johann Sebastian Bach  3, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart  3, Ludwig van Beethoven  3, Louis Armstrong  3, The Beatles  3, and Michael Jackson  3.

The Music section is fairly limited, and has 8 articles: Musical instrument  3, Singing  3, Classical music  3, Folk music  3, Jazz  3, Pop music  3, Rock music  3.

I propose swapping the musicians with some of these music concepts and genres. The end result is a list that de-emphasizes the subjective debate over which six musicians are the most vital of all time, for all people, and adds music concepts that I believe should have been added already but lacked space at this level.

Remove Johann Sebastian Bach  3, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart  3, Ludwig van Beethoven  3, Louis Armstrong  3, The Beatles  3, Michael Jackson  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.

---

All of the musicians are men. All are Western. Four of the musicians or groups are white, two are African Americans. Three speak English. Two are German, two are American, one Austrian, and an English band. The musicians have an obvious western bias, and definitely emphasize classical music with three composers. I don't see us resolving or balancing this anytime soon, and there are many vital concepts in music we could include instead. I think if we are going to include musicians at level 3 we need to carefully re-consider this list and start from scratch.

Looking at pageviews over the past year, Michael Jackson and the Beetles have the most views, while Johann Sebastian Bach has the least, followed by Louis Armstrong. Based on this, if only one were to be removed I'd lean towards Bach as he is the lowest viewed of the three composers.

Support all

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Support Johann Sebastian Bach

1. Failing all passing, I think Bach is the least viewed of the three composers and can be dropped. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose all

1. Each argument given is fallacious individually; taken together, they still do not make a compelling case. For example, "Bach has the fewest views" by itself is bizarre reasoning for why it would be considered the lowest hanging fruit, and "I doubt the demographic biases will be rectified, ergo blow up the idea of representing any biographies" is downright frivolous. Taken as a whole, this push demonstrates a further refusal to engage with articles in their particularities rather than how they may be arranged into a pre-conceived ontology. That would require developing a familiarity with what there is to say about each subject, and actually refuting why each is considered vital. I strongly doubt this has been done in earnest. Remsense ‥ 论 03:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
   1. Oh, and I suppose it's worth pointing out that the choices of Symphony and Musical notation for directly subordinate concepts below Music betray even more surface-level Western classical music bias than the chosen biographies ever could. Remsense ‥ 论 04:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

      These two articles have more western influence then 100% of our 6 individual musicians being western? Are the other four articles, Hip-Hop, Song, Rhythm, and Melody also more bias then having all our musicians Western men? I'm happy to compromise on additions, I'm not married to the ones I proposed, but they did feel like a they belong at a higher level in my opinion. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

2. This proposal, quite literally, makes no sense. I simply cannot wrap my head around it. I mean no offense to the nominator, I do get the idea behind listing more broad musical concepts, but none of the rationales here are convincing at all. First of all, I do believe that musicians should be listed at this level as they too are highly important figures. Theoretically, you could make similar arguments for wanting to remove religious figures or political leaders because we could list more religious topics or specific types of government in exchange. However, there are definitely a handful of leaders that warrant being at this level, and I believe that the same goes with musicians. Moving on from that, in what world should the vitality of these musicians be determined by their pageviews when most of them died before modern electronics existed and their influence has been taught and documented otherwise? Every child in school that takes some sort of history or music class probably learns about Beethoven and understands their importance, but that doesn't mean that child is going to read their Wikipedia article. I'd be singing a different tune if this was a proposal to remove a contemporary figure where most information available on them is only available through news sites or Wikipedia, and I could definitely factor in page views for those, but anyone at V3 (and most people at V4, I'd argue) have likely had centuries (or decades) worth of impact and documentation to were I'd say pageviews are irrelevant. As for a "classical music bias", classical music is simply just the standard form of music that has existed for centuries more than any pop or rock or jazz or whatnot. It is what music is traditionally known as worldwide, even if the instruments and structures for it differ from region to region. This is not a valid reason to discredit either Bach, Mozart, or Beethoven. And 3 out of 6 is only half, so... what bias is there, exactly? There is quite literally a perfect balance. And in regards to the "western bias", all of the names here except maybe Louis Armstrong are recognizable worldwide. Hell, we have entire articles demonstrating how Michael Jackson and the Beatles were popular worldwide, one of which is vital itself: Beatlemania  5. While I definitely get wanting to try and go against western bias on this list most of the time, musicians at this level should go by influence rather than trying to diversify it, as I believe in this specific instance, discrediting names as important and recognizable as these is detrimental to the vital articles process, not beneficial. And are there really any figures from the East that can compare to them? "I don't see us resolving or balancing this anytime soon" this is because arguably we can't if we want to maintain an objective list. And I definitely do not think removing musicians from the list at all is a valid way to combat a non-issue. Furthermore, to start a different point, I don't think listing individual rationales like Remsense suggested would change my stance either. Mozart and Beethoven are quite literally the last two I would remove from this list and are honestly tied with eachother as possibly the most important musician to ever live, Bach is also extremely important though maybe just a tad bit less, the Beatles are the most important band to ever exist (and likely ever will exist) that basically created the modern forms of every single widespread genre, and Michael Jackson pioneered pop music and is likely the most recognizable individual celebrity to ever live. The only one I think I could possibly be swayed on is Louis Armstrong, and even then it would be very weak. TL;DR: While I can understand the nom's idea for listing more broad concepts, I do not think a single part of removing individual musicians as a sacrifice makes any sense. I do not believe that there is a western bias or a classical bias (quite the opposite, actually) when viewing the influence of everyone here critically, and determining the importance of widely documented, important historical figures based on pageviews is flawed logic. λ NegativeMP1 04:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

   • Read the criteria listed for what makes an article vital. I am trying to be consistent with this as a rubric when I make nominations. I see stuff that seems to go against how I interpret this rubric so I propose bold changes.
   • I generally think individual people are not more important then broad concepts, based on criteria 1. Level 3 is supposed to be our 1,000 most vital articles and 11.2% of it is dedicated to individuals. I think individuals are way over represented at this level, and better suited to levels 4 and 5. Level 3, to me, is where we list countries and mega cities, however we only list 20 cities. Those 20 cities are my bar for how important a person has to be to be listed, each should be more important then Boston  4 or Los Angeles  4, because each person we list means we can't list a city, or equally important concept. Do you think the 112 people at level 3 are more important then the city of Los Angeles or Sydney  4? I see a lot in level 4 I think should be level 3. Do you think these artists are more vital then the articles I proposed adding? Then all the music related articles in level 4? Then all articles in level 4? We have to make choices about what can and can not fit in each level, and I am proposing bold changes based on my personal values, and my interpretation about what it means for something to be vital. I would support moving all, or most, people to level 4, to end this "who is more important" debate, but such change is not likely.
   • Based on criteria 2, I think the articles I proposed are more Essential to Wikipedia's other articles then the musicians. I think that there are many more articles that meet this criteria.
   • Based on criteria 3, I agree these individuals are notable, extremely so, but not think there are more notable concepts. I would support one musician who we can decide "represent the pinnacles of their field with a material impact on the course of humanity." Based on this, I would expect one or two people per category (between 10 and 20 people at level 3), and if we can't reach consensus, then there isn't a definitive "pinnacle." That change doesn't seem likely, but it would be my ideal based on my interpretation.
   • Based on criteria 4, I think the musicians we include are a particularly bad representation of all humanity, over all time, and think the musical concepts are more vital overall to the world. The fact all are western violates seems to violate the 4th criteria for what makes articles vital in my opinion. This list probably looks the way it does in large part because of Colonialism diminishing non-western musicians influence, but I don't think that really excuses the sample though, which is why I think this proposal might make the list more universal to the world.
   • Page views are number 5 on the vital article criteria. It isn't what I start with, but I do consider it when making a nomination.

   GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

   I think individuals are way over represented at this level,

   That is your private interpretation and not something that is expressly stated, so you should stop trying to completely overhaul this list based on it! Remsense ‥ 论 05:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

   I really feel like you're expressing Wikipedia:Ownership of content and don't appreciate the no-edit order. My private interpretation is my own, I feel like I should be allowed to propose bold changes in line with it. Others are free to discuss their own private interpretations, which is all this list seems to be comprised of. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

   Even though I still mostly disagree, I can see more of where you are coming from now. I do think most of the articles you want to add are pretty important, but I'd also argue that all of the vital musicians (except, again, maybe Louis Armstrong) still belong at this level. It's a double-edged sword, to be honest. If I truly had to pick the two I want to see removed the least, I guess the most logical ones to keep would be Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart  3 and The Beatles  3, even though I still think they're all fine to stay. λ NegativeMP1 06:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

   Thanks, the hard thing is I also think these 6 are great. I don't think they aren't vital, but 1,000 is a small number of articles to work with. In my opinion, one of the most important people to exist was Ptolemy  4 (but he helped originate my discipline so I might be bias.) A person who's writings have been passed down for 2,000 years, including Harmonikon (Ptolemy's intense diatonic scale is the article they list on his page related to this), Tetrabiblos, Geography (Ptolemy), Almagest, Ptolemy's Handy Tables, Optics (Ptolemy), and others not included makes it hard to think of most people on the list as vital. I don't necessarily want to add Ptolemy, but I don't consider most listed more vital or influential. I don't think most of these articles were nominated with the idea of who or what was being left out because of their inclusion.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 07:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Oppose, in particular oppose Bach and Beethoven. We've decided we need 100 or so biographies at this level. At least a few of them should be musicians. The nominator of this also nominated Lincoln for removal, and, in doing so, rhetorically asked, "Do you think Lincoln is one of the 112 most important figures in world history?" I certainly think Beethoven and Bach are. Music prior to Bach and his baroque contemporaries is largely unrecognizable. Beethoven wrote some of the most recognizable pieces of music ever written. Bach has been deceased for nearly three centuries and Beethoven nearly two and their music has stood the test of time. I also echo the concern about pageviews; it might be a good metric for popular musicians but is a poor one for classical musicians. _pbp 14:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

   Where was that decided? I'd like to read the conversation. I don't think 10% of level 3 should be individual people. I don't think the musicians are more vital then the concepts I listed below, and 10% of level 3 being people is a large part of why we have so many vital concepts like song in level 4. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

5. Per everyone above. I think everyone above has addressed the factual claims already but I'd like to add one meta-commentary. In VA3, we have 1000 articles. This is a small enough number of articles where, after years of this project being in operation, every article has had due consideration at this point and we are approaching an almost steady-state with most new proposals being rejected. The current list of articles is a result of years of thorough consensus. This is unlike the VA5 project where we are still discovering random articles to this day that were tossed in haphazardly by people to fill quotas while we still have notable absences. This isn't to say that there won't be controversies here on VA3. But what that is saying is that a proposal this drastic is unlikely to get very much support. I appreciate that you split this proposal in such a way that indicates you are flexible and would even accept just one artist being removed. But the sudden influx of requests to a fairly stable and mature project is a little bit exhausting. I'd advise focusing on the proposal you care most about and fleshing it out to be as convincing as possible as opposed to a bunch of proposals with minimal reasoning. Aurangzebra (talk) 16:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

   I'm fairly new to the project, and honestly disagree with a lot of the status quo, and disagree with the idea that every article has had due consideration at this point. The fact the project is "stable" does not protect it from discussion, and these kinds of comments are a bit discouraging. Several editors seem to have decided they like the status quo and oppose any change out of hand. One hypothetical, if the music topics I proposed adding were on level 3, would people swap them for individual people? I feel like the status quo tends to be the default regardless of the proposal. Unfortunately, the main proposal(s) I would like to focus on is blocked by the policy that things need to first be in level 3 before level 2. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

   Not every status quo is negative. The definition of vitality should not be evolving over time; that makes this whole project pointless. Over years, thousands of consensus decisions have been made leading us to the equilibrium we are at now. And I trust years and years of consensus decision-making over the opinions of one person. Aurangzebra (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

6. We've been over this before and come to the conclusion that the biggest, most famous, and most important musicians worldwide are universally Western. Unlike science or literature, the global musical canon has a Western bias. J947 ‡ ^edits 01:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
7. Oppose, in particular Bach should stay.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 11:55, 24 January 2025 (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 Hip-hop  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.

---

I looked at the Genre's page views and saw that of the ones we don't list, Country music has the highest page views. I think that might be a bit of an American bias, and think it might be a subset of "Folk music" so the next highest was Hip-Hop. I believe this inclusion would make our list capture the major genre's on the radio better.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Nope. Subset of pop; if we add this, everyone would beg and wheedle to add their preferred genres.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Per above. --Thi (talk) 10:43, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
3. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:43, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

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 Symphony  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.

---

We have three composers of symphonies listed, so I believe everyone considers them vital. I including this would be a good way to respect those three without needing to list all three of them.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Essentially a subset (at least conceptually) of classical.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Per above. --Thi (talk) 10:43, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Oppose Bach did not write symphonies. I don't want to discourage people from making bold, wide-ranging proposals, but they have to be carefully thought out if they are to be taken seriously. Cobblet (talk) 04:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
4. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:43, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

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 Musical notation  4

Any system for visually representing music. I believe this should be included regardless as it quite important to allowing music to be passed down between generations. Could also go under Writing  2 possibly.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 07:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Not an L3 topic; there's but a single notation at the level of global commerce and exchange now. What would be closer to an L3 in music would be Scale (music).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

   I'd support swapping any of the musicians for Scale (music)  4. Do you want to propose that? GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

2. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

Rhythm  4

To quote the lede, ""movement marked by the regulated succession of strong and weak elements, or of opposite or different conditions"." I think this is so fundamental to music, that it should be included.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
2. This one seems like a pan-cultural key aspect of what music is all about. I could see this bumping a composer bio.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Melody  4

To quote the lede, "also tune, voice, or line, is a linear succession of musical tones that the listener perceives as a single entity. In its most literal sense, a melody is a combination of pitch and rhythm, while more figuratively, the term can include other musical elements such as tonal color. It is the foreground to the background accompaniment." I think this is so fundamental to music, that it should be included.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. This one also seems like a pan-cultural key aspect of what music is all about. I could see this bumping a composer bio.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

   I'm a bit confused with your vote, is this meant to be under support? Just comparing it to your vote under Rhythm. Thanks for clarifying! GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:53, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

Song  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.

---

To quote the lede, "A song is a musical composition performed by the human voice. The voice often carries the melody (a series of distinct and fixed pitches) using patterns of sound and silence." I think this is so fundamental to music, that it should be included.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Redundant with Singing. Why are these even separate articles? If they need to be separate, then pick the better of the two to be the L3, but not both of them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Singing is more important topic and covers this. --Thi (talk) 10:43, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
3. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:43, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

I believe this reduces the heavy western bias on the list while adding several articles that I believe should be higher then level 4. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Huh? The first three you proposed to add are heavily Western, and the rest, while general/global in cultural scope are still heavily Western-focused in actual article content, so "reduce the heavy Western bias" is not a reasonable rationale here. I don't object to the general idea of replacing some bios with more conceptual articles, but Song would be redundant with Singing (why are these even separate articles?); Hip-hop is a subset of Pop music (if we were add that, we'd see no end to demands to add other genres and sub-genres); Symphony is pretty much a subset of Classical music. Rhythm and Melody are potentially interesting as candidates. I'm skeptical that Musical notation is, because one form of it has come to dominate internationally, outside of specialized spheres; it's historically interesting in its variations, but doesn't strike me as an L3 topic. I would add Scale (music) before Musical notation, since the former pertains even if you know no musical notation of any kind, and differences in scales have far more to do with cultural musical differences than anything to do with notation.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:16, 11 January 2025 (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 religion

I think it makes sense to list this at level 3 when we already list the similar topic of History of philosophy.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 12:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Support swap with this and Paul the Apostle  3 GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Support GeogSage's version (or some other swap); we should have the general subject before some bio figure from a particular religion. History of religion is actually a more encyclopedically important topic than history of philosophy, so having it a level higher wouldn't even be out of the question. It's rather odd to me that Religion is L2 instead of L1.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

   Would support a swap of Religion  2 with Human history  1 if you want to nominate it. Human  1 is already level 1, I feel like the history of humans should be level 2. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:04, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

4. Support swapping this with Paul the Apostle  3, per GeogSage. λ NegativeMP1 02:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. A non-proposal. Remsense ‥ 论 14:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

   How is this a non-proposal? Religion is a level 2 article and considering that religion plays a huge role and influenced almost every culture in the world, it makes sense to list its history at level 3. Interstellarity (talk) 14:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

   Calling a proposal a non-proposal is not constructive in any way, just noise.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

2. Oppose straight add due to quota limits.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Oppose There are already many articles related to religion. This proposal would be useful if several articles about Christianity were replaced with History of Christianity. --Thi (talk) 10:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Swap Historical method  4 with one of several options

There are many methods for research. We include Scientific method  3 at level 3, which is definitely appropriate and not surprising as that is one most people are familiar with. History  2 is a very important topic obviously, and we list 85 articles under the section for history. Historians do not employ the scientific method, they employ the historical method. If you are familiar with any histories, you're familiar with products of this methodology. I believe based on the first two criteria for a vital article, this belongs in level 3.

1. Coverage: The example given for coverage is the relationship between Science  1 and Scientific method  3, stating that science belongs at a higher level and the appropriate place for scientific method is level 3. I believe that a closer parallel to the example likely does not exist.

2. Essential to Wikipedia's other articles: Again, the example is science and the scientific method, and I believe that the historical method is such a critical topic when covering history that it is undoubtedly a vital article. Again, a closer parallel likely doesn't exist then the examples in the criteria.

Based on some evaluations I've done of articles at level 3, I have four proposed swaps, however I'm open to other suggestions under discussion. I'm trying a new format to make sure this doesn't come off as a non-proposal, poorly thought out, or lazy - Ranked choice voting. The four proposed swaps are what I believe to be the best choices in terms of coverage, minimizing Western bias and balancing the page, and page views. I've written in my preferred order as nom, if you don't want to see one go under any circumstance don't feel the need to vote on all of them.

Swap with Herodotus  3

Herodotus is considered the father of history. We list several ancient Greeks at level 3 including Aristotle  3, Socrates  3, Plato  3, and based on comparing their page views Herodotus stands out as having significantly fewer views. Pageviews are not the starting criteria for assessing if an article is vital, but that is one of the stated criteria for the project so it is important to consider. It seems appropriate to replace him with the historical method.

Support

1. First choice as nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:43, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Swap with Rembrandt  3

We list 6 artists, and 5 are Western. Comparing the Western artists, Leonardo da Vinci  3, Michelangelo  3, Vincent van Gogh  3, Pablo Picasso  3 with Rembrandt in terms of page views, we can see that Rembrandt jumps out as the least viewed. Again, pageviews are not the first criteria for assessing an article, but it is one of the listed metrics and is useful in cases like this. I believe we can move him to level 4 and still have broad coverage of Western Artists. I'd like to see some more non-western artists though.

Support

1. Second choice as nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:43, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Rembrandt is much more important to art than van Gogh. J947 ‡ ^edits 21:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Strong oppose Idiosincrático (talk) 11:20, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Swap with Ali  3

Ali was the "was the cousin and son-in-law of the Islamic prophet Muhammad, and was the fourth Rashidun caliph who ruled from 656 CE to 661, as well as the first Shia imam." Above, I suggested we swap Paul the Apostle  3 with History of religion  4, which would leave Jesus  3 and Martin Luther  3 under religion for Christianity if it passes. Swapping Ali to level 3 would leave Muhammad  3 for Islam, which would be the "pinnacle" of that religion. I think this would be fine for level 3.

Support

1. Third choice as nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:43, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Swap with Martin Luther  3

Martin Luther is the seminal figure of the Reformation  3, and his theological beliefs form the basis of Lutheranism  4. As stated above, I proposed swapping out Paul the Apostle  3 with another article already, so assuming that passes removing Martin Luther would leave Jesus  3 under religion for Christianity, which like Muhammad is the "pinnacle" of that religion. I think that having the Reformation at level 3 covers this topic well enough and it would be fine to remove Martin Luther. Important to note, Saint Peter  4 is incredibly important to Catholic Church  3, as well as other denominations, and his absence on this list is a bit surprising to me, and I suspect it might be due to there being fewer Catholics in the United States then other types of Christian that lead to this. I think Ali, Martin Luther, and Paul the Apostle can all be safely pushed down to make room for others while maintaining the "Pinnacle" of the religions, lest we start seeing calls for Joseph Smith  4 or the 1st Dalai Lama  5.

Support

1. Fourth choice as nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:43, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Martin Luther may be the most important figure in Christianity, with the possible exception of Jesus _pbp 00:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

   Disagree, and I don't think Jesus being more important to all branches of Christianity would only be a possible exception, and Jesus is also significant in Islam, but that is another story. I think level 3 should only have the single most important figure of the major religions, secondary ones can be at level 4. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

   Saying only one from each religion at this level is too restrictive _pbp 03:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

   Level 2 has no people. Level 3 should have the absolute most vital people. We go from 0% of the 100 level 2 articles being individual people to them being 11.2% at level 3. This is the level we allow some articles on individuals, we should be extremely restrictive in which ones we choose. Every one person we pick means another article can't be on the list. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

   Martin Luther is frequently cited as one of the ten most influential people of that millennium (1000-2000), so even if biographies were reduced in size at this level (and they shouldn't be), I am confident that he should stay _pbp 17:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

   Disagree with the assertion that biographies shouldn't be reduced in size (they should be 10% of the 1,000 most important articles being biographies of individual people is absurd, and the percentage gets more absurd with each level). The most influential people of a millennium is extremely subjective, and not really what we're capturing categorically. Within Christianity  3, there is one individual who is vital across denominations. I think in each category of religion, we should only have the single most important person at level 3. We have Lutheranism  4 at level 4, and Protestantism  3 at level 3. In terms of important figures in the bible, we have Saint Peter  4, John the Baptist  4, and John the Apostle  4 all at level 4. I think Martin Luther can be safely lumped with them at level 4, but not Jesus at level 3. I have a feeling he would have agreed with me. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Discuss other options

Support swap with something else

Oppose all

1. Broad != vital. The scientific method is a specific empirical method that is applied to almost every single experiment we conduct today. Per its article, the historical method is just the collection of all techniques and guidelines historians use to research history of the past. If we start listing all the vague collections of ideas every occupation uses to do their work, we'd be going down a very slippery slope and in the grand scheme of academic occupations, I would not place historians as highly as most types of scientists. In fact, I'd say something this vague is closer to VA5 with Historian  5 than VA3. Aurangzebra (talk) 15:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

   I disagree. The vital article criteria 1 states "Vital articles at higher levels tend to "cover" more topics and be broader in their scope." This suggests that broadness is a criteria for vitalness. The 2nd criteria is "Essential to Wikipedia's other articles." Human history  1 is a level 1 vital article. History  2 is a level 2. We have entire sections of articles dedicated to history, the methods used to study history are vital to understanding these history-related topics in Wikipedia, just like the scientific method is vital to "science-related topics in Wikipedia" per criteria 2. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:38, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

   Taking this logic to its conclusion implies that the highest levels of VA should only contain sweeping topics that cover the most topics possible. Why stop at historical method? Why don't we flood VA3 with Essay  4 or Paragraph or Sentence? Primary source  5? Secondary source  5? These cover all the scope for any writing-based discipline. We don't even list Methodology  5 which is the parent for the historical method, scientific method, and any other method you can think of. For physical objects, why don't we include Quark  4? They're a part of any form of matter. The VA project isn't a dictionary where we need to choose the 1000 most important words that cover all else. We start going down this path and this project becomes a useless exercise in technicality. Broadness in conjunction with the other criteria is vitality. Broadness, for the sake of coming up with an umbrella term to cover a disparate amount of techniques, is not. Aurangzebra (talk) 18:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

   You're right, why stop at historical method? We have plenty of very specific and niche topics included at level 3. We list Proton  3, Neutron  3, Electron  3, and Photon  3 at level 3, why is Quark  4 level 4? Dark matter  4 is level 4 but makes up the bulk of the matter in the Universe  2. I just proposed adding methodology on level 5, good catch! We list 11 writers, I'm sure there are several vital topics related to writing that are more essential to learning and understanding written language then all of these individuals. The path we are going down is a useless popularity contest. What criteria would you use to determine if something is or is not vital? GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:23, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

   I use the same exact criteria as you but I feel like I emphasize notability a lot more than you do. Notability to me represents outlier ideas, things, places, or people that have had an outsized impact on culture, society, or the physical world. The Scientific method  3 was a concrete formalization that revolutionized the way we do science, turning science into a legitimate, verifiable discipline, leading to the modern innovations of today. Historical method, on the other hand, is the name for a methodology that people have been doing for years and would still be doing if there was no name for it. There was no seismic paradigm shift that accompanied the invention of the historical method because there was no invention; it's just a thing people do to study history. The quark and dark matter are not VA3 because they are not outlier ideas at a VA3-level. The discovery of the quark and dark matter were very impressive but have not led to a significant paradigm shift in Physics  2 like the discoveries of the proton, neutron, electron, and photon have.

   You seem to interpret the criteria one specific way when it's too vague to warrant any prescriptive rubric. There are many possible interpretations for the criteria provided. I mentioned this in another thread but it bears repeating: In VA3, we have 1000 articles. After years of this project being in operation, this is a small enough number of articles where every article has had due consideration at this point and we are approaching an almost steady-state with most new proposals being rejected. The current list of articles is a result of years of thorough consensus. And I say this as someone with no skin in the game and no participation in the status quo; I'm a newer user than you are. This is unlike the VA5 project where we are still discovering random articles to this day that were tossed in haphazardly by people to fill quotas while we still have notable absences. Instead of taking the criteria and holding your interpretation as the gold standard for the articles, you should look at the articles currently listed to get an idea of the consensus interpretation view. Could this consensus be wrong? Of course. But it doesn't seem like you get much support on your VA3/VA4 proposals so I would recommend reassessing and fine-tuning your proposals. Or at the very least, you should argue for the interpretation of your criteria as opposed to assuming there is only one possible interpretation of the criteria and that it is yours and proceeding from there. Aurangzebra (talk) 18:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

   @GeogSage: I don't like your implication that we're going down a "useless popularity contest". Setting aside the argumentative tone, it's rather pointless to create or improve articles that no one will read. While I don't think popularity should be the only factor in determining vitality, it clearly does need to be considered. I also think claiming "popularity contest" when talking of Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt and Martin Luther is rather ridiculous. The other problem I have here is that some of the articles you've nominated, this one in particular, are indeed broad, but they end up being coatracks that just summarize (often not very well) the content of several other articles. _pbp 17:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

   It isn't an "implication." I'm explicitly saying from what I see we aren't consistently using any criteria across articles and are effectively just qualitatively discussing topics editors think are important, and this has resulted in a list with a lot of western bias with an over emphasis on biographies. A popularity contest. Setting aside the argumentative tone, we do need to consider articles that people will read, view count is one of the metrics we use. If the articles I'm nominating aren't doing a good job of summarizing things, then they need to be improved. When I'm looking at articles Im first doing so with the described purpose in mind: "The five nested vital article levels are meant to give direction to the prioritization of improvements of English Wikipedia articles (e.g. which articles to bring to WP:GA and WP:FA status), to provide a measurement of quality of overall English Wikipedia (e.g. what proportion of the most important articles are at GA and FA status), and to serve as a centralized watchlist of English Wikipedia's most important articles." IF an article I think is vital is not high quality, then that is more reason to nominate it so it gets attention. If Earth  1 was a start class article, that wouldn't change it's vital status. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

2. See below comments. _pbp 17:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Neutral to all

Discuss

If you don't like this format, or think there are some improvements we can make, please let me know on my talk page or here. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:43, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

@GeogSage, I know I made things more heated than they needed to be before, so if it's alright with you I will try to reset and discuss this with the level-headedness it deserves. What seems clear to me is you do have particular interpretations that you feel are direct consequences of the VA guidelines, namely that individual biographies are overrepresented. It's pretty clear to me looking at the proposal history that it is not a consensus interpretation, and it seems unlikely to be fruitful for you to continue making proposals based on it. It is possible that the guideline should be updated to more clearly represent consensus if it is unclear enough to enable these disparate readings. Remsense ‥ 论 15:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

We can just change the guidelines to "Popularity contest based on page views and what the average editor who has participated thinks is cool or important" as that is what the project seems to have become. There is no consistent criteria applied, and the articles have been stable because it is so hard to actually change them now compared to how easy it was to add many a few years ago. Look at fighter jets compared to literally all other types of military hardware if you want another example besides just biographies being represented. Imagine in 2009 the historical method was listed as level 3 vital and ignored until now, how well do you think a proposal to swap it with Martin Luther would go? GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I think Martin Luther is clearly one of the 1000 most vital articles we have. He is a consummate world historical figure on the level of others listed at this level. I am still racking my brain to better articulate why this is so to you, given I've already tried from several angles. You keep insisting that certain containers are the sum of their parts, even though they do not represent the primary lens that the parts have been historically examined through. The study of Chinese folk religion is much more coherent and ramified than the cross-traditional study of merely "folk religion". The history, characteristics, and technology behind radar in particular is of much more interest to the average reader than a technical survey of the class of technologies it belongs to. Bach's particular impact on the history of music is more likely to be of general interest than diachronic investigations of the symphony as a musical form. These are all clear truths to me, but I don't know how to illustrate that other than how I already have. Remsense ‥ 论 16:37, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I know you have been very clear that you think the list is perfect. We don't list Saint Peter  4, the first pope and one of the 12 apostles. We list the Reformation  3 at level 3, which included more people then just Martin Luther. I don't think he is that important, and if he is there are tons of people in other religions who are just as important. Articulate a rubric that could be consistently applied to determine articles vitalness that isn't just a democracy. I feel like vital articles have less rigor then an election for a prom king. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:45, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

You could have a discussion about Luther versus Peter, and that would be comparing apples to apples. But that's not the discussion we've had so far.

Again, I think you overemphasize the broadness criterion, which to me is meant to ensure obviously less ramified subfields are treated as such, but you've extended the notion to treating less ramified, extended superfields as if they relate to fields in exactly the same manner that fields relate to extended subfields. Value is clearly lost when we ignore which topics are the most developed in scholarship and other RS (ergo, generating a large and mature body of work by authors, ergo likely becoming topics our readers would find most vital to know something about). I think it is possible we could augment the pageview verbiage with something involving what the body of directly relevant sources looks like (how large and varied it is, etc.) Remsense ‥ 论 16:59, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Martin Luther is my 4th option, although I think all four should be swapped with something, he was just an example. Point is that the articles added a decade ago had way less thought put into them then it takes to get something added to level 5 today. Part of my reasoning for removing Martin Luther is that there are many others who a case could be made for in Christianity, so he isn't the "pinnacle." As the levels progress from level 1 to 5, they should trend towards less broad and less conceptual. As I stated in the proposal, this is probably the closest parallel to the example given for criteria 1 and 2 as can be found on the project. I have not had success with using reliable sources, outside literature, or anything of the sort to sway opinions. Search Google Scholar for Historical method and you'll find a large and mature body of literature. People vote based on their feelings and ignore all criteria, and the project reflects that. If we needed to print only 1,000 articles from Wikipedia and publish them in a book that was as good a summary of human knowledge as could possibly be fit into 1,000 articles, which 1,000 would we choose? That is my personal interpretation of the levels, and the criteria are what I use to decide if something fits. If the internet were going to die and I needed to choose 1,000 articles, I would likely only choose 20 individual people at most. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:15, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

• I'm a history major, and I'm not sure this is vital. It's neither as vital nor analogous to Scientific method  3. In general, I agree with what Zebra said above. There IS no single historical research method and a single article about that is either a COATRACK or omits important historical methods. There already is a type of historical research at VA3: Archaeology  3. Other articles that concern historical research methods that I would elevate before I would elevate historical method are Historiography  4 and Primary source  5 _pbp 02:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  Archaeology  3 is more anthropology then formal history. They generate data historians use, but like anthropology and paleontology they are really their own thing.

  While the scientific method has the basic steps that we learn in elementary, there isn't really one "method" that follows these steps, but several. Historiography is the study of historical methods, and I'm more concerned that Metascience  5 is at level 5 then historiography being at level 4. Primary source should also be higher in my opinion, but I feel Data  5 would also need to be moved up. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Add Work (human activity)

This is a common routine humans do every day. It can go neatly in economics.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 00:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Weak support for swap with this and any of the people I've mentioned above, or maybe Furniture  3. I feel like we have a lot more concepts that are higher priority to get added but can't say this isn't vital. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
3. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
4. PrimalMustelid (talk) 00:43, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

We removed Job in 2015 which is now a redirect to this article: see Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Archive 9#Remove Job. Cobblet (talk) 04:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Also, on furniture - I know it may have only been a passing comment but still.. it was originally in, removed without discussion, then added back in nine and half years ago with no opposition since it has stayed. [1] I'd say it might be more universal than work. At this level the closest thing to cover work could be employment which is not perfect but OK coverage, the closest other thing to cover furniture that I can imagine is home which is not a great answer to expect to cover furniture. I'd say furniture may be more common than work, there many be sections of society that don't work, the very young, old, sick, lazy rich, etc, less people do not use furniture, perhaps some homeless or nomadic tribal hunter gatherers.  Carlwev  19:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Work goes beyond just working for an employer, and includes unpaid labor like chores around the house, most people do some form of work. Furniture is the product of work, if someone is using it but doesn't work, that is only because someone else created it. Swapping work for employment might also work. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:31, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I started this article on English wiki during the pandemic; some other languages already had something similar, but the English articles were scattered & focused on employment within a market-based society. Anyways, I probably won't be voting, but if I were, I would decide based on whether you want to breakout the main Factors of production  5 at Lv3. If you already include Natural resource  4 and Capital (economics)  4, or plan to, you should probably have it. If you don't though, I might actually skip it. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:12, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Swap Mobile phone for Smartphone

Smartphones are items that are owned by billions of people worldwide. Ten years ago, I would said keep Mobile phone on this list, but I think times have changed to make this swap reasonable. I think we could make the argument that they might be the most important invention of the 21st century and if this nomination doesn’t pass now, we could likely see it pass again in ten or twenty years time.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 20:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removal A smartphone is still a subset of mobile phone, is it not? Mobile phone also bests smartphone in interwikis, 151-117. Neutral on the add of smartphone but I think mobile phone stays. _pbp 00:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Oppose Looking at the views for both articles here, mobile phone has outperformed smartphone over the past 10 years. Interestingly, view counts on both are trending down.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Swap Humour  3 Alcoholism  3 for Greed  4

What drives humans to obtain more Money  3 than what they need, leaving others in economic hardship? What motivates an autocratic government to hoard Power (social and political)  3 and minimize democratic processes? The answer to what causes people to want more of both level 3 vital article concepts is Greed  4. More than ever, it is essential that Wikipedia defines greed, the philosophy and psychology behind this personality trait, and how it had and still continues to affect humans for the entirety of written Human history  1 from complete and reliable sources. [Google Scholar results] indicate that scholars had and still continue debates regarding how greed should be defined, how necessary it is within economics, and whether greed can be "good" morally from a philosophical angle. For better and for worse, greed is one of the most omnipresent and important traits in human history. No other level 3 vital article, as far as I'm aware, covers human self-interest and its effects to the extent that greed ever could if it's eventually improved and fully expanded. Assuming that we're still trying to balance the number of level 3 vital articles, I would suggest that Humour  3 be swapped since it generally is a specific part of Happiness  3 as a concept and therefore could theoretically already be partially covered there. Assuming that we're still trying to balance the number of level 3 vital articles, I would suggest that Alcoholism  3 be swapped since it is simply a specific variant of Addiction  3, which is at the same level. We can also remove Smoking  3 from the level 3 list for similar reasons.

Support

1. As nom. PrimalMustelid (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Support without swap/support with alternate swap

1. I'd be on board if we ditched both Alcoholism  3 AND Smoking  3. Smoking has significantly fewer views during the past decade. If we remove one under Addiction  3, we can remove both and make room for some other broad article topic. Just ditching one, and the more viewed one at that, seems inconsistent. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:53, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Greed is rare topic in general encyclopedias. --Thi (talk) 18:05, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

Isn't a sense of humor regarded as one of the most important traits a person could have. Surely Humour could not be the least vital at level 3.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Humour was added nine years ago 5-0 support Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Archive_10#Add_Humour, I don't remember it being questioned since. When we added humour, Comedy was also already listed, but that was was removed in 2019 Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Archive_15, so if we remove humour the concept would not be covered at all. The only things that will cover it is say, happiness, emotion, entertainment, which I think are too wide for the 1000 list to not have humour. When I think about how much of of arts and entertainment is based around humour, how many people watch TV shows, movies, live performances that are humour based, compared to say how many people watch or listen to something Jazz based, just to pick something add randon, Jazz has itself, and a person, but seems less vital to humans than humour.

Greed has only just been added to the 10'000 list with a vote of 5-2, with two opposing a level 4 add for greed, a level 3 add seems less likely. The article on greed itself states with a ref Modern economic thought frequently distinguishes greed from self-interest, even in its earliest works The idea suggested with this thread is that the whole idea of people working for money, wanting things, and getting things by buying them or by other means is covered only by the greed article. That anyone who wants to buy something that isn't completely necessary to their survival is greedy and/or suffering from greed, that the idea of greed itself as an emotion is necessary to explain the economy and human behavior . But the article itself describes it as It may at the same time be an intent to deny or obstruct competitors from potential means (for basic survival and comfort) or future opportunities; therefore being insidious or tyrannical and having a negative connotation. Describing greed is an excessive or destructive or over the top desire for things, not just any desire. I thought the idea of buying things was covered in some sense by capitalism, property, and economy. Basically The fact that people want things, and buy or sometimes take things meaning all humans suffer greed and it should be included is like saying, all humans exist due to parents having sex, so we have to list Lust as an emotion to explain that. Is the idea of greed, an excessive want for more than one needs, covered in any way by Addiction which is at level 3? However I don't think Greed is a terrible suggestion, I am just not over the Moon about the idea that all humans have it all the time and it's the reason for all human activity.

Off topic, but I previously tried to remove Alcoholism but it failed. I thought Seeing as we have alcoholic beverage, and addiction, it seems odd to have addiction to alcoholic beverages as well, also most people that consume alcoholic beverages are not alcoholics, we list smoking but not tobacco or smoking/tobacco addiction which doesn't even appear to be an article. I would think addiction to tobacco is more widespread but I may be wrong on that. But in my head the argument all people want things and buy and so must suffer from greed also sounds like, many people drink alcohol so must suffer from alcoholism. At first glance though Greed could be said to be more significant than alcoholism. (being that we have alcoholic beverage and addiction) The want/need for alcohol seems lower than the want/need/desire for anything.  Carlwev  16:48, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I have kept in mind the confusion behind the level 4 proposal for the greed article and made sure to elaborate on it more for this level's proposal, so I wouldn't say that the greater reluctance for it in level 4 translates to even greater reluctance in level 3 automatically. Something we need to keep in mind here is that the greed article on Wikipedia... isn't in good shape and is far from reflecting modern academic research on the concept. With the usage of very old sources to define greed and just one sentence for the lede, readers are not introduced to the concept particularly well. Greed can certainly be defined as "excessive," but excessive does not equal rare or minimal in impact. Hell, not everyone agrees that "greed" is "inherently" excessive; this journal article says that some scholars argue that "greed is inherent to human nature and that all people are greedy to some extent. Some argue that being greedy is vital for human welfare (Greenfeld, 2001; Williams, 2000) and that it is an important evolutionary motive that promotes self-preservation (Robertson, 2001; Saad, 2007)." The concept of greed transcends beyond just one field, none of which can touch upon human overconsumption of wealth or power adequately enough by just themselves. It is frequently covered in the likes of psychology, philosophy, economics, religion, politics, history... in other words, greed as a concept is absolutely everywhere within the humanities, arts, and social sciences. I think that it is vital (heh) that at least 1 article represents a central human flaw in wanting more than one needs to the detriment of others in the 3rd level. It may be hard to admit this, but human history and we as individuals have been largely influenced by greed from ourselves and greed from others; in my opinion, greed is extremely ubiquitous that we as humans would be better served by understanding its heavy weight over our own lives. I also wouldn't say that greed is normally seen as addictive; it has a very negative reputation because it's typically seen as a choice that one actively makes in complete and blatant disregard for others.

On that note, I'm willing to change the proposed article swap from Humour  3 to Alcoholism  3, since the latter is simply a specific variant of Addiction  3. And I agree that the concept of greed is obviously far broader than alcoholism, a point in the former's favor. PrimalMustelid (talk) 19:22, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I personally would leave smoking. For booze we have alcoholic beverage and alcoholism, for smoking we only have smoking. article says over 1 billion smoke, one eighth of world population. Tobacco is not listed, perhaps significant crop, more than soybean? but smoking primarily about tobacco, but covers other drugs like cannabis and more,  Carlwev  20:24, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

While smoking is a popular form of ingesting these drugs, there is also chewing tobacco and edibles when it comes to cannabis. The most popular drug in the world is Caffeine  4, and you consume it through drinking it. Tea  3 aand Coffee  3 are both level 3, so a case could be made for Tobacco  4, but a similar argument may include, Opium  4 and Cocaine  4. I think I'd support swapping smoking for Tobacco before I'd support a swap with soybean, which has widespread production and consumption. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:34, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Add Invention

I could see a case for this article being covered by other articles, but these are things that humanity has created throughout history, most of which influenced the things we use today.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Remove 0  3

Mathematics at level 5 is over quota, and thus we need to make difficult cuts. At level 5, I proposed removing the individual numbers that we include there. At level 4, I proposed moving the individual numbers -1 and 1 to level 5 so we can discuss removal and keep things consistent. 0 is the only number we have at level 3 that would fit the current removal of numbers -1, 0, 1, 1/2, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 100, and 1,000 from levels 5 and 4. I think that while this is important, individual numbers on the number line are not really "vital."

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:35, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong oppose per my comments in the previous discussion. Cobblet (talk) 04:52, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Per previous discussion.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:01, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
3. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 04:48, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

This is normal remove nomination. I have retitled it in the standard manner as such.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:56, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:35, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Remove Taiwan and the Netherlands

These are probably the least vital countries we list. Taiwan is covered by China not in that it doesn’t control it, but shares a similar history to China. The Netherlands while influential during the colonial era, doesn’t have much influence like how UK and France were during the colonial era. Its history is covered by our article on European colonization of the Americas. These removals I believe make sense considering that Work is set to pass.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Taiwan, from a geopolitical standpoint, outshines most countries of similar size/population when it comes to importance placed on it by the great/super powers. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:04, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Oppose Too many people, too few countries. --Thi (talk) 18:03, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
3. Oppose Netherlands removal. Idiosincrático (talk) 10:10, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
4. Oppose Netherlands as a former world power with historical importance. They continue to have far reaching territories.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:09, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
5. Oppose both. Kevinishere15 (talk) 22:03, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral on Netherlands. I'd have to see a quantiative analysis of what countries we include vs exclude. Having over 100 individual people on level 3 makes excluding entire countries difficult for me to support. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:04, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Taiwan does not have that extensive a shared history with China. It's an amusing coincidence for both items in this proposal: the Netherlands established themselves on Taiwan before China did, outside of its colonization of the Americas. CMD (talk) 11:03, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

I don't get why these are combined into a single proposal when their vitality stems from such differing reasons. _pbp 14:26, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Add Vertebrate, remove Drug

Vertebrate  4, a taxonomical group consisting of most animals that we think of when we think of animals, is such an important and well-known concept in animal taxonomy that we have a commonly used word for animals that are not vertebrates. We already list Arthropod  3 and Mollusca  3.

The article Drug  3 covers both medications and addictive drugs, two things which are important to medicine in distinct ways. Do they have enough in common to list on level 3?

Support

1. As nom. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

• User:Lophotrochozoa, are you saying it is more important than Invertebrate  4-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:23, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, because vertebrates are an actual taxon whereas invertebrate is only a convenient classification because most of the animals we think of when we think of animals are vertebrates. As I've already mentioned, two invertebrate phyla are already listed on level 3. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 21:31, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

• I support adding vertebrate, I do not think drug is the correct thing to swap though. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:18, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Moving Abortion from Social Issues -> Medicine

We've actually proposed and seconded this at Lv4 already, but I thought I should post a notice here first just in case. There's probably no need to vote on it, but if somebody is opposed, feel free to reply with feedback in the next few days. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:10, 17 February 2025 (UTC)