Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/3

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

People History and geography Society STEM

Introduction

[edit]

The purpose of this 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: 10:15, 17 August 2024 (UTC) (Purge)
  • 30 days ago was: 10:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
  • 60 days ago was: 10:15, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Hunting  3 Bow and arrow  3, add Service (economics)  4

[edit]

Under Economy  3, we currently list four industries within the Primary sector of the economy: Agriculture  2, Fishing  3, Hunting  3, and Mining  3; and two industries within the Secondary sector of the economy: Manufacturing  2 and Construction  3. We do not list any industry within the Tertiary sector of the economy at Level 3 or above.

Such a distribution between the three sectors is imbalanced, and within the primary sector, hunting is arguably the least important: most animals produced for human consumption (either for meat or animal products) are farmed (i.e., agriculture), not hunted. A case can be made for removing fishing instead, given that it is a subtopic of agriculture and seafood comprises a minority of meat consumed in most countries around the world, however it is probably a more widespread practice than hunting, so my preference is for the removal of hunting. Given that the tertiary sector is mostly about the provision of services, adding Service (economics)  4 makes sense.

Support
  1. As nominator. feminist🩸 (talk) 08:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    UPDATE: agreed, definitely remove Bow and arrow  3 first. At best it's a subtopic of Hunting or Archery  4. feminist🩸 (talk) 02:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support swap with Bow and arrow  3. Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 12:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support per nom. Gizza (talk) 04:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC) Support the original proposal of removing hunting and adding service. Oppose the new swap of removing Bow and arrow (which is both a significant hunting tool and military weapon) and adding service. Gizza (talk) 01:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support removal --Thi (talk) 12:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Both removal and swap. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support removal of Bow and arrow and addition. Interstellarity (talk) 22:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose Bow and arrow should be removed first. --Thi (talk) 09:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose, Hunting was the only way all of humanity fed itself for over 90% of its existence, before agriculture was common. Food and Agriculture are at level 2, at level 3 we start listing several animals and food and drink types and crops, I would prefer to keep hunting, seems more vital in the long run than soybean, cheese, tea, chicken, egg. I also agree hunting may be more vital than bow and arrow.  Carlwev  12:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

Add Peter the Great  4 (no swap with Catherine)

[edit]

There are plenty of editors that suggested a straight addition rather than a swap with Catherine. My reasoning is in the above discussion. Interstellarity (talk) 11:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Interstellarity (talk) 11:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Meh, weak support; while he is probably fit for this level, we are over quota at V3 and I'm afraid it'd overrepresent Russia in that regard (Peter, Catherine, and Stalin) since we don't have key rulers of all sorts of countries, such as Mustafa Kemal Atatürk  4. Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 12:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose. When I look at the names on Wikipedia:Vital Articles#Leaders and politicians, I can't see Peter the Great as being as influential. I also think that Cleopatra  3, Nelson Mandela  3, and possibly Joan of Arc  3 should also not be on this list (i.e. they are more celebrity-notable than as politically influential as the others on this list). Aszx5000 (talk) 16:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    i.e. Constantine the Great  4, would easily rank well ahead of these three (and Peter). Aszx5000 (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    i.e. Franklin D. Roosevelt  4 should be ranked alongside Adolf Hitler  3 and Joseph Stalin  3 as the biggest leaders of the 20th century (and Roosevelt took American out of the Great Depression). Aszx5000 (talk) 16:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Joan of Arc would probably come to mind if I was asked for the ten most vital women to world history. She should be kept, especially since we removed Frida Kahlo  4. Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes sense to me. Aszx5000 (talk) 18:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - Russian representation is sufficient as it is. Also much less important than e.g. Green Revolution which was recently removed. Gizza (talk) 00:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion

Swap: Remove South Korea  3, Add Korea  4

[edit]

We should list Korea  4 over South Korea  3 since we have broad coverage of the whole Korean Peninsula. The broad coverage of the Korean Peninsula and its history is more vital than the country of South Korea itself. At level 4, we list History of Korea while History of South Korea and History of North Korea are at level 5. We should do a similar thing at this level. Interstellarity (talk) 16:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Interstellarity (talk) 16:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per nom. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Korea has been unified for most of its history; South Korea, throughout its short-history, is most certaintly not a level 3 country. The Blue Rider 12:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ukraine is also a relatively recent social construct that was part of Russia or the Commonwealth for the majority of its history in the past millennium. It is also significantly less vital than South Korea. Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 17:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Strong oppose; South Korea is no doubt a vital country at V3, and I'd much rather add  North Korea than Korea. Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 23:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose History of East Asia is listed at this level. --Thi (talk) 09:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong oppose per previous discussions. Cobblet (talk) 19:00, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion
If we're adding more regions as opposed to countries, let's start with the Balkans  4. Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 23:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Contra the supporters, the country list at VA3 is much more from a modern perspective than a historical perspective. If we want to change that fact, first priority is removing United Arab Emirates  3. J947 ‡ edits 22:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the country's geopolitical significance, it seems reasonable to list either the UAE or Dubai at this level. I might support a swap with  Iraq, though. Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 01:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move Laozi and Homer to other categories

[edit]

We moved Moses and Abraham out of people and into religion because they were not placed into people at level 4. As I understand, the reasoning for not placing them there at level 4 is because historians generally consider them legendary figures and not real people. But I can't figure out why this would only apply to religious figures. In level 3, Homer  3 and Laozi  3, in particular, are widely considered to be not real people. Both are generally believed to have been invented to be writers for the works now attributed to them, which were actually written by various other people. I suggest moving them out of the people category because they are not people. As to the new destinations, I suggest under literature for Homer and under Eastern philosophy next to Confucianism for Laozi. I believe those are the only two non-people remaining in the people category, but if I am mistaken let me know and I'll add that to the list. Ladtrack (talk) 07:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
Oppose
  1. I don't think that Homer  3 is considered a "legendry figure", and the debate still goes no re Laozi  3. Can't see a clear case for moving unless their status as "legendry figures" was more clear-cut/widely accepted. thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Both are pretty widely considered not real people. I didn't really want to go into it because I thought it'd be more well known than it appears to actually be, but here we go.
    The page Homeric Question, which surrounds the authorship of the Iliad and Odyssey and whether Homer exists, has the line "Most scholars, although disagreeing on other questions about the genesis of the poems, agree that the Iliad and the Odyssey were not produced by the same author, based on "the many differences of narrative manner, theology, ethics, vocabulary, and geographical perspective, and by the apparently imitative character of certain passages of the Odyssey in relation to the Iliad." This is sourced to four different publications, and nearly every other source that comments on the matter will agree with it. Both the Iliad and the Odyssey are generally believed to be a set of oral traditions that were rewritten to fit into a single storyline afterwards. Most importantly, they were collated by different people, according to writing analysis. The existence of the poems themselves are considered the strongest evidence (frankly, pretty much the only evidence) for the existence of the author, and since they weren't written by the same person, that leaves pretty much no room for a historical Homer. Even if a historical Homer existed, such a person could have only made one of the two epics at most, and most of the biographical details must have been invented later. Anyway, the scholarly consensus strongly trends toward no, there wasn't a real Homer. If you want more, go to the Homeric Question page, which covers this in more detail than I could ever hope to.
    Like with Homer, the page Laozi says "By the mid-twentieth century, consensus had emerged among Western scholars that the historicity of a person known as Laozi is doubtful and that the Tao Te Ching is "a compilation of Taoist sayings by many hands", with an author being invented afterwards. The book's conspicuous absence of a central Master figure place it in marked contrast with nearly all other early Chinese philosophical works." This is also well-sourced, and the next paragraph notes that fragments of what later became the Tao Te Ching have been found without being attached to the rest of the document, dating back from before Laozi was said to have been born. This strongly suggests that Laozi was not a real person, but rather, as the article states, a name attached to a book written by many. It is a little hard to come to a consensus surrounding this because Laozi is sometimes considered a religious figure, but frankly virtually no historians would legitimately argue that the Tao Te Ching was actually written by a single author.
    Is it possible that Homer and/or Laozi existed? Yes, it is. But the works attributed to them could not have been written by them in the way that the legends say they were, there is no contemporaneous evidence supporting either of their existence, and there is substantial evidence against the possibility of both of them existing. This project moved Moses and Abraham out of the people section because Level 4 did not have them there, which is because historians consider them to not be real people. Well, this is the same deal. If anything, there is more evidence for Moses than for either of these two. Scholarly consensus strongly trends against both of their existence. Ladtrack (talk) 03:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not the forum to make these arguments, it should be on the article pages where Homer is considered a real person and Laozi is a source of debate. thanks. 08:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC) Aszx5000 (talk) 08:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per above. --Thi (talk) 15:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion

Add Information

[edit]

This is what is used to inform people about everyday events in the form of books, the news, word of mouth, etc. Interstellarity (talk) 00:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Interstellarity (talk) 00:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 22:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose Redundant with communication, knowledge, and sense at this level. Cobblet (talk) 19:11, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion

Add Climbing  4

[edit]

Recently added to V4, some suggested it would also be V3 worthy and I agree, roughly on par with Swimming  3, we're also 1 article under quota.

Support
  1. As nom. Kevinishere15 (talk) 02:53, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. As a recreational activity — the V3 subsection for Swimming  3 — climbing is at least as vital. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Climbing  4 has the sub-categories of Mountaineering  4 and Rock climbing  4, and the Olympic sport of Competition climbing (up for V5 consideration at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/Society#Add Competition climbing). Aszx5000 (talk) 10:40, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Strong oppose Not at all comparable to swimming – it's not a survival skill, and the history and global presence of the sport are minuscule compared to swimming. Maybe more comparable to something like surfing. Cobblet (talk) 19:28, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Not on par with swimming. --Thi (talk) 09:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion

Swap: Remove E (mathematical constant)  3, Add 1  4

[edit]

(Edited based on some feedback)

TL;DR While e and pi are very important to a range of areas in math, 1 is crucial to virtually every area in math and many beyond that, in both trivial and nontrivial ways. Sorry for the rambling. I was told that my previous explanation lacked sources.

I would honestly be willing to remove any of the numbers on this list (0  3, E (mathematical constant)  3, and Pi  3) in favor of 1. 1 is the foundation on which all other numbers are based. I would argue that that alone would be enough to make sure it's the highest number on the vital article list, especially given how the rest of the list is constructed (eg arithmetic is level 2, while number theory and calculus are level 3 due to arithmetic's more fundamental nature, even though number theory and calculus are probably of more interest to Wikipedia's readers).

With that said, I realize that's not necessarily convincing enough on its own, so I'll try to justify it as much as I can. 1 is fundamental to a much wider range of mathematical areas, including the ones in which e and pi are most important.

Most of the definitions of e given on its own Wikipedia page are linked very closely with 1. The limit definition, where e is the limit as n goes to infinity of (1+1/n)^n, has two ones in it, although that doesn't say as much on its own. Specifically, this definition covers some important properties of 1 as well. It is effectively measuring the relationship between small deviations from 1 and correspondingly large exponents. If you replace the first 1 in the definition with any other number, the limit is either 0, infinity, or doesn't converge. e's use in compound interest is very closely related to excess returns over 1.

It's also defined as the sum from n=0 to infinity of 1/n!, which is sort of a trivial use of 1, but gets at another important point. Because 1 is the multiplicative identity, the reciprocal (or inverse) of any number is obtained by dividing 1 by the number. This results in 1 appearing in a lot of important formulas as the numerator of a fraction, but also results in 1 being removed from a lot of formulas in which it would otherwise appear. If a formula included a 2*pi, for example, we would consider that formula to be an important application of pi (and this happens a lot, to the extent that many mathematicians throughout history have used 6.28... as the circle constant instead of 3.14...) If a formula included a 2*1 or 2/1, the one would simply be omitted.

Some examples of this include the formula for the nth triangular number n*(n+1)/2. In addition to the 1 that already appears in this formula, this formula is also equal to (n+1 choose 2). We would normally express this as n*(n+1)/(2*1), but the 1 gets left out of a formula in which it otherwise plays a useful role. Similarly, the expected value of a random variable with density f(x) is equal to the integral of x*f(x). It should really be divided by the integral of f(x), but since the integral of any probability density function is 1, this again gets left out.

Anyway, on the subject of e, there are also some calculus definitions based around 1. It is defined as exp(1), and is also the unique number such that e^x is its own derivative. It turns out that the derivative of k^x is equal to a constant times k^x for any positive k, but e is the only number for which that constant is exactly 1. Other constants become important due to their relationships with 1.

Pi has a similar story. It's primary definition comes from the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter being 3.14... to 1. Many of its geometric and trigonometric applications come from relationships with the unit circle (radius 1), in which 1 radian corresponds to distance 1, cosine is equal to x/1=x, and sine is y/1=y. The definition of pi in terms of an area of a circle also assumes a circle of radius 1.

I would be happy to keep going with other properties, but I doubt anyone is paying attention at this point anyway. Granted, while the ability to find 1 almost anywhere in the definitions of other constants is sort of an argument in its favor, I realize that it's probably important to show how it stands on its own as crucial to other fields. Here is a non-exhaustive, but pretty broad list of examples.

Arithmetic: the most obvious, but most basic example. 1 is the first number almost every child learns, and through successive additions of 1, every positive integer can be reached. It also forms the basis for continued fractions. It's far from obvious that taking a sequence of fractions with numerator 1 can give simple representations of many important constants, including e, the golden ratio, and the square root of 2. There are generalized continued fractions that can have arbitrary numerators, but the fact that so many of the important properties come from numerator 1 is very significant.

Analysis: Many analysis courses and textbooks begin by taking the number 1 and applying successively more advanced operations to get all of the operations we care about. If you use addition, you can get the natural numbers. With subtraction, you can get the integers. With division, you can get the rationals. With polynomials, you can get the algebraic numbers. With limits, you can get the real and complex numbers. This forms the basis for much of analysis, and thus much of modern calculus. Thus, 1 is crucial not just for simple math, but for much more complex math as well.

Algebra: 1 is the multiplicative identity. This is crucial to many properties of arithmetic and algebra on real and complex numbers, to the extent that the identity element in any group is often given the name 1. The diagonal elements of an identity matrix in any number of dimensions are all 1, and any correlation matrix must have diagonal entries equal to 1 and all other entries between -1 and 1.

Probability: Probabilities are defined to be between 0 and 1. Any certain or almost certain event has probability 1, and many important theorems in probability involve proving that something does or does not have probability 1. All discrete probability distributions sum to 1, and all continuous distributions integrate to 1.

Combinatorics: Pascal's Triangle starts with a single 1 (and arguably an infinite row of 0's), and uses a simple, organized sequence of additions to compute all combination values, forming the basis for a large portion of enumerative combinatorics.

Computer Science: It may seem a bit trivial that computers only use 0's and 1's, but there are still a lot of useful properties that come out of this. The Church-Turing thesis shows that those two numbers and some simple sequences or rules can perform vast amounts of computation, and the fact that 1 is the multiplicative identity means that operations like multiplication on a computer are relatively simple (just shift some bits and add).

Set theory: Advanced set theory courses often begin by defining 0 and 1 in terms of sets, and then building up to all cardinal numbers. Bertrand Russell notably spent hundreds of pages proving that 1+1=2 in Principia Mathematica, which forms the foundation for modern set theory.

Pi and e are very important to certain areas of mathematics. 1 is crucial to almost all areas of mathematics, and in plenty of nontrivial ways as well as the obvious ones.

If 1 seems too simple and not worth including, I would argue that is largely due to the way that sources like Wikipedia currently think about it. Pi has a featured article and e has a good article, so it was easy to find useful facts about them in one place (it's probably also easier to come up with them since you can just scan useful formulas for the symbols). I had to come up with a lot of the 1 properties myself, even though most of them seem important enough that they probably should appear on 1's page. With a successful push from the VA project, I could easily imagine a 1 article that demonstrates just how vital it is in nontrivial ways.

Sorry about the rambling. I've thought about this for a while, and some people in the discussion thought that this explanation could use more evidence.

Support
MathAndCheese (talk) 01:55, 24 Aug 2024 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Remsense ‥ 论 02:29, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. e is a constant that appears in formulas in a wide variety of seemingly disparate disciplines. The fact that something so seemingly 'trivial' (trivial defined very loosely) appears so often in groundbreaking and fundamental theorems indicates its higher levels of importance. If I'm using VA as a method for figuring out what's most important to learn, I would want to teach people about e first, before 1 which is more 'trivial' and has less non-intuitive properties that people already innately know even if it may objectively appear in more mathematical statements. Aurangzebra (talk) 20:57, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I honestly thought your second sentence was an argument for 1 until I saw that it was under the "Oppose" section. If you replace "e" with "1" in the first two sentences, they sound just as reasonable if not more. I think I understand what you're trying to say, but the fact that e coming up frequently is "surprising" in some sense, while 1 comes up more frequently without being surprising, speaks to 1's importance.
    I'm not really sure of how you can teach people about e before 1 (although again I probably see what you're trying to get at). If you already know the important properties of 1, you can always skip the article, but that doesn't make it less important. I don't think that the vital article project should make assumptions about people's knowledge, and the current placement of more "obvious" topics at higher levels seems to reflect that. MathAndCheese (talk) 23:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion
Each reason given is faulty in one way or another, and none are based directly in what we write the encyclopedia around, which is the interest afforded in reliable sources. I would go as far as to say that the point raised about "some numbers taking longer to come about, ergo less vital" (my paraphrasing) is perfectly backwards. A huge portion of the history and present richness contained in mathematics is unmistakably intertwined with and rooted in e, π, and 0. While 1 is unmistakably interesting and the concept of the unit is philosophically central, there is not nearly as much to say in terms of breadth and depth. If I had to hazard my own negative critique—1 is almost too fundamental to approach the same levels of interest; that of the kind gestured to by the OP seems superficial. Remsense ‥ 论 02:29, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a fair critique, but I think it partially comes down to a difference of opinion on what this list tends to represent. In practice, the list does tend to favor things for their importance or fundamental nature over what people may need to learn from an encyclopedia. Arithmetic appears at level 2, while topics like number theory and calculus do not. I'm sure that there aren't a lot of people coming to Wikipedia to learn about arithmetic, but it is an important topic that is so fundamental to other branches of mathematics that it gets a spot in a higher level. In general, if there is a topic on this list that can't be understood without first understanding some more fundamental topic, the more fundamental topic tends to be placed at a higher level, even if it is more abstract and of less interest to a typical reader. I don't claim that it necessarily should be that way, but this does seem more consistent with the way that the rest of this list is constructed. MathAndCheese (talk) 14:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only way we meaningfully define "importance" is attestation in sources. Remsense ‥ 论 21:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Surely that's also an argument for 1 then? I'm not sure of exactly what you mean by "attestation in sources," but I can't imagine a meaning in which 1 doesn't come out ahead of e and pi. The 5 listed criteria on the Vital Article page are:
Coverage: It's hard to define whether a number is "broader in scope" than another, but if I had to choose 1 or e, I'd think 1 is the clear choice just for how broadly applicable it is.
Essential to Wikipedia's other articles: 1 is crucial to virtually every math and science article and many in other topics.
Notability: Seems to be mostly referring to people, but "material impact on the course of humanity" seems to apply more closely to 1.
No (Western) bias: Probably doesn't apply
Pageviews: In favor of pi and e MathAndCheese (talk) 22:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, each point is based on your personal opinions and not what any reliable sources say. Remsense ‥ 论 22:59, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I only just understood what you meant by "reliable sources." I've thought about this for a while, so I think I made some assumptions about what people would and wouldn't find important, and I omitted a lot of the evidence that I was using in my head. I realize that my explanation ended up pretty long and rambling, but I hope it addresses your concerns about using evidence to support my point. I'd love to hear what you think. MathAndCheese (talk) 01:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/3&oldid=1242555035"