Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/2/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 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.

---

Remove: History of art

Just to make it clear, I love art and I write about art on here quite a bit. But what makes the History of art more vital than History of music or History of mathematics. What about History of literature? Literature is probably more influential in terms of spreading ideas (religions and such). History of agriculture seems more vital since it's literally on how we consume food. If the reason it is here is for longevity, a subtle nod to 70,000 year old cave paintings, then why wouldn't History of technology be before it? Seems like remnants of favoritism but I wouldn't be sure on what to replace it with so best to remove it first and then it can make room for another suggestion. (Note: This article is not on the "History of the Arts" it's on visual arts, namely painting, pottery and sculpture) Aza24 (talk) 05:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Aza24 (talk) 05:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
2. Support Art itself is Level 3, so this should at most be down there. (The arts is Level 1, but this is the history of Art, not of the arts.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose History of art is, in my opinion, more important than some of the others.Geekpotato24 (talk) 12:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
2. Oppose History of art is linked to general history, history books are usually illustrated with pictures of art. History of art also counterbalance for History of science. Most potential nominees for this list would be from natural sciences and History of art is major topic in humanities (for example history of philosophy is not necessarily included in primary or secondary school curriculum). Swap with some other article is possible. --Thi (talk) 09:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
3. Oppose I strongly disagree that. art is an integral part of human civilization and its developments are very important. Idimoayli3388 (talk) 08:03, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Discuss

Geekpotato24, rather than just citing your opinion, could you explain it? How would you argue that the history of art is more important than the history of music, mathematics, literature, agriculture and technology? Aza24 (talk) 05:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Standard history articles tend to focus on events. Articles like history of science and history of art help provide a different perspective on history. The history of science is essentially the history of how we came to understand the world around us, both on an intellectual and a practical level. Math is linked with the former; technology (agriculture being an aspect of technology) is linked with the latter. Art isn't more significant than math or technology, but it is less related to science than those fields. So an article on art history does contribute more to the list than an article on the history of technology or math, in the sense that there is less overlap with what is already on the list.

Also, I understand the history of art to be essentially the history of material culture. Material aspects of any culture are always more readily accessible than its non-material aspects: not all cultures leave behind a well-documented literature or music, but they all leave behind objects. Choosing the history of art as a gateway to understanding how we as humans expressed ourselves in the past prevents us from otherwise being biased towards cultures that developed writing and/or a musical tradition that we have been able to document.

I don't see the selection of history of art as a statement that it is "more vital" than the other histories you mentioned – note that I am neither supporting nor opposing the proposal. All I'm trying to say is that if we force ourselves to prioritize 100 articles to improve, history of art is a plausible candidate, for the reasons I gave above. We could very conceivably have gone in a different direction. For example, since language, math, philosophy, science, technology, and the arts are all level 1 articles, it could be argued that the histories of all those aspects of human culture should be considered equally vital, and therefore we should list all of them (listing history of literature as the corresponding history article for language). That argument makes a lot of sense to me. The only problem with adding all those articles is that you then have to find articles to remove :-) Cobblet (talk) 01:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Cobblet: I concur that ideally many more "history of" articles should be added. The main issue I have in the context of this list is exactly what you recognize, this history article in particular is non representative of any of the Vital 1 articles, as it is on art, not the arts. Also – while I personally agree with your point on technology falling under science, the precedent in Vital 1 seems to disagree with us both by including science and technology. Aza24 (talk) 07:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think technology "falls under" science, just as I don't think mathematics falls under science either. My point is that they are more closely related to science than art is. As I see it, traditional history articles like human history and the histories by period focus on the history of events; history of science covers the history of rational thought; and history of art covers the history of objects. This doesn't cover all of history perfectly, and it isn't related to the structure of Level 1 at all. But if we're limited to 10 history articles, it's a solution that includes overlap where it seems reasonable to do so (i.e., between human history and the histories by period), and otherwise avoids overlap where possible. Cobblet (talk) 16:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding, I'll cite some sources when I have the time. Geekpotato24 (talk) 14:41, 3 July 2020 (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.

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.

---

Birth control

Moved from Level 3

I propose that Birth control be promoted from level 3 to level 2. EllenCT (talk) 01:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm surprised it's even level 3, given that the list doesn't even include Birth. --Yair rand (talk) 02:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

It does however include pregnancy. Cobblet (talk) 05:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• This would have to go at the Level 2 talkpage. I would myself oppose such a move (no disrespect towards its monumental effects on human life, but I don't think it's up there with Biology or its main branches as a Top 100 article), but you are free to propose it there. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose We don't even list Drug or Medication at Level 2, so birth control doesn't really belong there. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:07, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:01, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Does not stand above many other possible topics. --Thi (talk) 19:32, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Idimoayli3388 (talk) 08:00, 15 November 2020 (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.

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.

---

Swap: Move Space up to Level 2, move Ecology down to Level 3

Time is already at Level 2, so not having its physical and metaphysical counterpart doesn't make sense IMO. While Ecology is important, we already have Evolution, Climate, and several other Biology articles at this level, and (I say this as an evolutionary biologist with some background in Ecology and particular interest in terraformation) the field doesn't seem to rise up to Level-2 importance. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 08:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Support

1. As proposer. I mostly support the addition, so while I think Ecology should be demoted if consensus exists to keep it I'm fine with demoting another article to make room for Space. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 08:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removal Ecology is important article, it represents questions of human ecology (global warming, biodiversity etc.) as a gateway article. Universe represents Space. --Thi (talk) 09:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

   I don't think that the physical concept of the universe completely encapsulates the philosophical (and mathematical) implications of "Space", especially as the latter complements with Level-2 Time. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 09:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Discuss

I agree we are heavy on biology articles. Perhaps that's to be expected when we have Earth, human and life all on level 1. We used to list nature rather than ecology and I personally might've preferred to keep it that way, but that's not how the cookie crumbled. It seems reasonable to prioritize an article on life's interaction with Earth's physical environment over one on the abstract notion of physical space. Yes, there is overlap between ecology and several of the other science articles, but the overlap between space and geometry is arguably no better. Cobblet (talk) 09:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

That's fair enough. I always think of "space" and "time" being connected conceptually, hence why I proposed the addition, but space is represented by Geometry (and to a lesser extent Universe) while time has no such analog, so if only one of them is to be represented at least we picked the "right" one. I still think that we are too biology-heavy for Ecology to be on here (and, again, I say that as an evolutionary biologist and geologist), and I would advocate for its removal if any other more-worthy article appears (whether Space or anything else), but I think it's better than Nature given our preference for having abstract studies of things over the things themselves (c.f. our recent Knowledge/Epistemology swap). – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 09:31, 29 July 2020 (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.

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.

---

Swap: Remove War, Add Health

Health is a very important article. It covers the well being of living things. War is important, but not that important to be listed at level 2. Interstellarity (talk) 21:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Support

1. Support addition, oppose removal War is one of the main events of human history and sociology, from Punic to Second World, and has killed a large proportion of the all-time human population. Health is also pretty important, however; I've read that mosquito-borne diseases are responsible for the majority of all-time human deaths. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:57, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

1. We already have Medicine and Disease, which overlap too closely. War is too important to remove. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
2. Oppose. I agree there is too much overlap with other listed articles. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose Too much overlap, War too important. OnAcademyStreet (talk) 04:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

I'd prefer a swap with something else in the Science category. Health seems more vital than some of the other articles we've recently added in this category. For instance, I wasn't convinced by the arguments for keeping both Sun and Solar system. We should not have four articles on astronomy but only two on health – three of each is more reasonable. Cobblet (talk) 22:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Related discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles#Swap:_Remove_Epic_poetry,_Add_Mental_health. Interstellarity (talk) 22:42, 30 November 2020 (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.

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.

---

Swap: Remove Statistics, add Set (mathematics)

I know this is a hard sell, given that we already have five math articles on here and that we've had a recent precedent form that in general fields of study are to be preferred over topics of study at this level. That said, Set (mathematics) is definitely one of the "upper-tier" Level 3s: set theory is the basis of modern mathematics, and its development has had major historical impact with such milestones as Cantor's first set theory article, Russell's paradox, and indeed Gödel's incompleteness theorems, and has continuing impact with such insoluble puzzles as the continuum hypothesis. Furthermore, the concept of a set is quite intuitive enough for laypersons to be included at this level, and it would serve as a good counterpart to Number. Statistics is important, and Level 3-worthy IMO, but it doesn't have the same fundamental importance to math as Arithmetic or Geometry do (and, like sets, has its historical importance date mainly from the 19th century). If this fails maybe it can be replaced by Algebra or Calculus instead to represent modern/higher mathematics. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:18, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. I'm willing to have set theory in its place up here if consensus goes in that direction. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:18, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I was persuaded by Aeonx in this previous discussion that statistics is more important than I originally gave it credit for. Statistical data analysis arguably plays a fundamental role in every field of scientific research. Many statistics articles always rank among the very most frequently viewed math articles. The applied side of math deserves representation just as much as the pure math side. Yes, it would be nice if this list had room for algebra or calculus/analysis: but some big topics are bound to get left out on such a short list. Cobblet (talk) 05:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
2. Oppose the primary swap, mainly to prioritize a wide & common topic at this level over a narrow, more esoteric one (even if relatively simple & fundamental to theory). Actually, thinking about the discussion here, I would support swapping out Arithmetic (as relatively close to Number) for Algebra or Calculus (slightly favoring Algebra). After adding one of those, if for some reason Math was allocated another slot at this level (not sure if it should), I could support adding the other or Set Theory. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
3. Oppose Set is not as important topic in society and media as statistics. --Thi (talk) 11:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

I think when we consider math articles for VA, we have to weigh them in greater encyclopedic context than just looking at their applications to pure math. Statistics is well known as a field that has had more of an impact on society at large than on mathematics as a discipline, so I'm hesitant to remove it. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I am aware of such considerations, which is why I noted that this might be a hard sell. That said, set would make a great addition to Level 2, especially if we promote Group and Field to Level 3. We could use it to replace Number, or we could expand the Math section to 6 articles, although I can see issues with either approach. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:47, 1 December 2020 (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.

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.

---

Swap: Remove Book, Add Infrastructure

We already have Writing at this level and it is a more broader category than book. Without a doubt, books were important in history, but I think we should be looking for a broader category. I wasn't sure what to add in replacement of book and I think Infrastructure would be a better replacement for Book because we don't have a lot of coverage of that on the list. At this level, we should be looking for broader terms that would fit in this level and at the lower levels, we should be more specific. Interstellarity (talk) 19:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Books, as in codices, started to become very, very important after Gutenberg, which postdates writing in general by millennia. Infrastructure is a crucial part of Technology. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
2. Support. I agree that we don't really need both book and writing at list level. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removing Book. OnAcademyStreet (talk) 01:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose History of technology or Simple machine would be perhaps better additions. --Thi (talk) 11:39, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose addition. I still think there is too much overlap between infrastructure and technology, engineering, architecture and transport as per the previous discussion. Gizza (talk • voy) 05:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose, as infrastructure has more severe superfluosity problems than book, and per Gizza on book's inclusion being more consistent with other media. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 04:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Previous discussions on removing Book and adding Infrastructure. Cobblet (talk) 04:14, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I guess I'm neutral on book. While is overlaps with writing and literature, film is a more recently invented medium of art and communicating information. It will be weird to have film listed but book not. Gizza (talk • voy) 05:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Swap: Remove Solar System, Add Moon

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This might be very controversial, but I feel that Solar System is redundant when we already have the Sun. The Moon has had a much larger impact on human culture and society than the overall solar system, and has often been contrasted to the Sun in art. Not to mention, it is the basis of lunar calendars much like the Sun is the basis of solar calendars. Solar System is indeed important, but it feels more Level 3-worthy than Level 2-worthy IMO alongside the Milky Way. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:21, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:21, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
2. Support - agree with nom. Interstellarity (talk) 19:47, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
3. Support addition Rreagan007 (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
4. Support addition --Thi (talk) 11:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
5. Support per nom -- PaleoMatt (talk) 20:10, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose but I agree with the need to add Moon. I might suggest removing Business to free up a spot instead, as it seems to closely overlap with Trade. OnAcademyStreet (talk) 04:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose removal As important concept in geography (in large sense) as Moon. Heliocentrism is basic concept in history of science and human viww of the universe. Children learn about planets in elementary school. --Thi (talk) 11:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose removal  Carlwev  13:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose removal per Thi. Jusdafax (talk) 03:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose I didn't love the addition of Sun and would've preferred listing the Solar System instead of Sun and Moon separately. Cobblet (talk) 13:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
6. Oppose addition of moon . We probably should have at leaat one of sun or solar system but I do not see how we could list all three (sun, moon, solar system) among 300 articles. Overlap would be absoluetly drastic and absurd. Dawid2009 (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

If we had to decide between removing Business or Trade, I'd probably rather remove Trade, as that's covered by business and economics. Business seems like a higher priority article to me. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:19, 10 January 2021 (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.

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.

---

Swap: Remove Trade, Add ???

Trade should probably be removed since we already list Business and Economics. Not sure which article to add in its place. I suggested Health in the past, but we already list Medicine and Disease. Would like input from the community on what to add in its place. Interstellarity (talk) 11:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support, would suggest Deity in its place Trade is certainly Level 3 worthy, but not quite Level 2. Most religions, on the other hand, have some sort of deity, where as a spirit or a full-formed entity. If something else is proposed that's good and has consensus, I'm willing to support that as well.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 12:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Support swap with Deity. Add rationale per previous proposal to add deity and remove rationale per nom. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Support removal of Trade and addition of Moon. --Thi (talk) 20:04, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
4. Support removal. Adding Moon is more important than adding Deity. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:28, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

   I disagree. We already have at least four astronomy articles, whereas we only have one for religion. Wikipedia has a massive systemic bias toward the natural sciences as opposed to the social sciences; let's not replicate that in VA. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

   The Sun and the Moon are the two astronomical objects that directly effect the Earth in substantial ways. Additionally, the human exploration of the Moon and possible future habitation of the Moon make it vital to list at this level in my opinion. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:13, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

   The world has become less religious in the last few decades, but throughout 99% of human history (and indeed still today in many parts of the world) religion has been an incredibly important part of our existence. The moon is definitely also important, and it deserves level 3, but the Apollo program and speculative possibility of future habitation just isn't enough for level 2 unless we're willing to give undue weight to astronomy articles. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:23, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

   In fairness, the Moon does have many religious connotations throughout the world much like the Sun (as well as Lunar calendars, etc.), as said in the earlier discussion. Of course, it's not quite as important as the Sun for Earth's purposes, but I personally think it might make the cut for Level 2.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:39, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

   FWIHW Wikipedia:Contents/Overviews mention solar system and earth but does not include both: sun and moon (there is star but no natural satelite), on the other hand WP:Contents/Overview include all: Deity, God and Worship. If we compare Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/2 with Wikipedia:Contents/Overviews then religion is underpropotionally represented in comprasion to other fields which we cover more than enough. I think moon is important article but for this level astronomy and solar system are central in the encyclopedia and suffiecently covers it (Lunar calendar, Space colonisation etc. are topics which go to idepth of 50 000 articles, as they currently still are not listed even on the level 4). Also, religion can be influential for someone's identity in the highest possible way, more than whatever, and we have just one main article related to that outline of knowlage. I think trade is really way more than enough covered by other articles. Goods and trade are even mentioned in first paragraph of the transport article which we choosed over infrastructure. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:16, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

5. Support swap with Deity or other religious topic, per others. If Biology can have about 11 articles then religion should have at at least 1. List should be diverse. If nomination for removal of trade is bot going to pass I can suggest tool which is not listed here on pair witch machine (another generic article) and can be better covered than wide concept of Deity in another articles. Not 100% sure Trade is best article to femove as we have other which had shorter significanve through history like computer or sport. But on the ither hand one article related with evonomics coyld go as per overlap and small room for many topucs here. Dawid2009 (talk)
6. Support adding Deity. Deity-beliefs are surely as fundamental to the human experience as trading goods. Ambivalent about removing trade but not especially opposed. Hyperbolick (talk) 04:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
7. Weak support Trade is very important but I do think the concept of deities outweighs it slightly. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 20:13, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Trade, along with agriculture, is an essential, ancient and universal human activity. I don't think either Economics or Business adequately covers it. It is arguably more important than either Diety or the Moon -- Zelkia1101 (talk) 01:54,24 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose Trade is universal and old concept, the overlap I think is not too much. It was a replacement for money. Is Deity more important or universal concept compared to other ideas like spirit/soul or afterlife?  Carlwev  10:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose addition of Deity per above. --Thi (talk) 11:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose I'd suggest that business is actually a weaker choice for the list than trade, although I don't mind keeping both. (Better this than to list all three of Sun, Moon and Solar System, IMO.) Business basically covers what Britannica covers in its article on business organizations, which are rooted in the development of modern commercial/corporate law. Trade is a much older and more fundamental economic activity. Cobblet (talk) 10:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose Trade has been a driving force in human history since its earlier stages. Dimadick (talk) 07:04, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

I have no objections to adding that. If anyone objects and suggests a new addition, we can further discuss what to add in its place. Interstellarity (talk) 19:03, 9 April 2021 (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.

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.

---

Swap: Remove History of art, add Deity

Art history is a very important topic, but we have seven arts articles at this level, presumably all of which have a history section, so it's already covered without us needed to list the specific article on it.

Deity should be added in its place per my prior rationale: We only list one religion article at this level, Religion (arguably two, if you include Folklore), which is insufficient. The world has become less religious in the last few decades, but throughout 99% of human history (and indeed still today in many parts of the world) religion has been an incredibly important part of human existence. Deity is an important and fundamental concept to many religions around the world, so a clear choice for the spot. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:32, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:33, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. I agree that being one over quota is a bigger deal at this level than the lower levels, but it's still not catastrophic enough as it would be at Level 1 to warrant excluding Deity.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:09, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. Interstellarity (talk) 12:27, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
4. Support per nom, especially considering that the inclusion of the "history of art" is beyond random—no clear reason why its more vital than the history of agriculture or literature. Aza24 (talk) 16:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
5. Support this swap per discussion but also per discussions in archives about these entires. According to Wikipedia:Contents/Overviews "History of art" is not the same what "History of arts" or Cultural history so this article is not enough near wide or important to be considered vital a this level (Hitory of technology which according to Wikipedia:Contents/Overviews covers Hitory of agriculture and is bolded there probably would be much better and is mre foundamental to knowlage). Religion is propotionally underrepresented at this level and among some possible alternatives, deity probably is the best choice. Dawid2009 (talk) 08:28, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose addition since we're at 101 articles. I do think deity is a better choice for the list than moon though. Cobblet (talk) 23:49, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

   @Cobblet: If you think deity is as vital as some of the other entries on the list, I'd encourage you to support its addition. We'll find another article to remove sometime soon, whereas if this fails because of your vote, it'll likely put a lid on any possiblity of deity being added anytime soon. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:18, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

   We'll find another article to remove sometime soon – I'll believe it when I see it, because that is certainly no longer the case on level 3, where finding something remove should be a lot easier than at this level. And I consider it vastly more important to keep the list at 100 articles than to add any specific article. The process breaks down when everyone tries to add their favourite article but nobody can agree on what to remove – again, see what has recently been happening on levels 3 and 4. Perhaps we may lose credibility with certain people if we do not list deity separately from religion; but we lose credibility with everyone else if we ignore our own rules just to please those people. Cobblet (talk) 02:23, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

   Without prejudice to the rest of your comment, "losing credibility" implies that anyone outside of Wikipedia, or even most editors on it, really cares about our "Top 10/100/1,000" vital lists. Maybe the dregs at Wikipediocracy do, but that's just petty drama that ~none of the billions of our readers know, or should know, about.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:54, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

   If you believe that nobody else cares, why do you? I have had friends IRL tell me they use this list to find interesting articles to read. YMMV. Cobblet (talk) 03:13, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

   Because I'm invested in Wikipedia to an extent that I believe does not reflect the average reader or even editor. That said, I'm glad your friends have been able to make use of this list.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:18, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

   I would swap moon with light as better alternative for astronomy article or remove either of tool and ecology to keep also space for history of technology or human behaviour Dawid2009 (talk) 08:28, 11 July 2021 (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.

Swap: Remove Moon, Add History of technology

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 originally supported the addition of Moon, but because we are short on space, it's probably the best article to remove right now. History of technology would be a better article to add.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 19:37, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
2. Support removal In my opinion the weakest article on the list. Cobblet (talk) 00:20, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
3. Support At this level we should superfically cover the most core topics. History of technology nelongs to level 2 because if history and technology are level 1 and this article cover history of Agriculture which is level 3.In all honestly this is much more important to Education future Generation about history of technology than have Three article relate with solar system. Dawid2009 (talk) 05:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
4. Support addition In my opinion there is some weaker articles on the list which can be removed. --Thi (talk) 11:06, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose addition already covered by History of science per above discussion if we are to keep it. Neutral on removal; I was the one who initially nominated the addition of Moon and it makes some sense without a space (heh) crunch, but I can see how it's not as vital as the Sun or Earth.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:45, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose addition We are one article over quota and history of science covers many related topics. Cobblet (talk) 00:20, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose removal Not the best article to remove. --Thi (talk) 10:23, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The 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.

---

Remove History of science

We are 1 article above query. As the only history article at this level, it should go first. Interstellarity (talk) 13:36, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. (nom)
2. This is fine at Level 3, but not "generic" enough for Level 2.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
3. Now that history of art is replaced by deity, it is ridiculous to still keep this article without re-adding history of art.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:04, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
4. No reason for this to be more vital than the history of literature or history of agriculture. Seems like a sound removal overall; I think we should stick to the genericism we've established, that excludes "history of" articles. Aza24 (talk) 22:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
5. Already have 28 other science articles at this level. This article sticks out on the list as one that seems most out of place. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 15:48, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose How is history of science less "generic" than Moon? Cobblet (talk) 15:04, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose History of science is part of global cultural literacy. --Thi (talk) 15:50, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose Per above. Supporters arguments are not convincing (or even understandable) . History of science and History of technology are the only two "History of" articles which should always remain among 100 most important topics. Dawid2009 (talk) 07:04, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

   History of technology is on level 3. This is the only History of article that is on this level. I don't think we should add History of technology due to space constraints. My question to you is: Which article would be the best candidate for removal when it comes to being on quota? Interstellarity (talk) 14:43, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

   Personally I mean we could readd History of technology. There are some candiates for removal which I mentioned in the past, now in the archives but first article which I would support for removal is definitely Moon. Dawid2009 (talk) 18:58, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

Neither literature nor agriculture are level 1 topics. Meanwhile history of science should not only cover the history of agricultural science, it should also cover the history of mathematics and technology which are also level 1 topics. Cobblet (talk) 01:38, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

• With regards to the other level 1 topics, language and human are adequately covered by the level-1 human history, history of life is down at level 4 (I don't count Evolution, at level 2, as standing for it as that is the theoretical process itself rather than how it proceeded in practice through time, which would IMO be closer to abiogenesis at level 3 but even that's imperfect), the histories of Earth, art, technology, and mathematics are at level 3, and history of philosophy isn't even at level 5. I don't think that the history of mathematics should be included in the history of science (already in Ancient Greece it was felt to be "purer", and while there is some connection between the two math is theoretical as opposed to the empiricism of science), but can't argue against the intimate relationship between science and technology over time (indeed, that's how Popper disproved historicism, but I digress).  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:20, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
  • (NOTE: There is currently a discussion to promote history of life to Level 3, and I remarked that I felt that evolution and abiogenesis did cover the topic; I wanted to clarify that I think that those two articles are sufficient for coverage of life's history at level 3, but they are not completely identical to that topic to fully stand in for it themselves.)  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:27, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

  Whether math is intrinsically "theoretical", and whether it should be contrasted with more "empirical" fields of knowledge, is more a reflection of taste in contemporary academia than a description of historical reality. In no civilization does the development of mathematics begin with what one would now call pure rather than applied mathematics – abstraction was always a subsidiary development. Also, no history of science would fail to mention Euclid or Archimedes. In Metaphysics, Aristotle did not distinguish between math and natural science on the basis of empiricism: he called both of them "speculative" (i.e., neither "practical" nor "productive") sciences. Cobblet (talk) 03:11, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, this meets criteria 3 to be closed as no consensus, but also meets criteria 1 to be passed. Shall I pass this anyways? Heart ^(talk) 03:39, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@Cobblet, @John M Wolfson, @Dawid2009, @Thi, @Interstellarity, @Bzweebl, @RekishiEJ, @Aza24, please see above comment. Heart ^(talk) 03:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Criterion 1b is not met. The discussion should stay open. Cobblet (talk) 04:17, 17 September 2021 (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.

Good News

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.

---

here. 187.20.1.86 (talk) 08:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Swap: Remove Language, Add Society

A discussion related to this list is at the Level 3 talkpage here. 2804:14C:5BB1:8AF2:6187:2BC2:DB0C:9E59 (talk) 18:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Remove Business

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're one over quota on a list so small that it has no business being over or under quota. I think history of science is the weakest article, but it's been nominated for removal and that nomination did not succeed. The second weakest article on this list is business.

Companies and corporations are we understand them today didn't really exist until roughly 500 years ago. Corporate structure is not as old and as univeral as it is made out to be. Furthermore, the functions of business (whether its producer theory or firm theory) are adequately covered under economics and trade, which we already list.

Support

1. Support Zelkia1101 (talk) 22:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Lord Business can live elsewhere. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:36, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Dawid2009 (talk) 10:33, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
4. Support Not particularly vital or historically significant. Dimadick (talk) 10:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I think history of science and film are the two weakest articles; indeed, film didn't really exist until 125 years ago and is adequately covered by visual arts. I'm somewhat content with Business being at level 3, but I'd much rather remove those two articles first. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:03, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose "Companies and corporations are we understand them today didn't really exist until roughly 500 years ago." That's true but that's not business, private business operation that involving a person opening a store and hiring staff and procure and sell products exists for much longer than that. I believe business as a form of organization is more mature form to do trade, though I do feel we need to pick one and that's going to be difficult. Lolitart (talk) 15:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose Because Economy is not listed at this level. --Thi (talk) 16:35, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose film is the more niche topic which should be removed as per the proposal below. Gizza (talk • voy) 07:00, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose defining concept in todays world. GuzzyG (talk) 16:57, 7 December 2021 (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.

Remove Film

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 are one over quota, and having film at such a high level sticks out like a sore thumb. We already have visual arts, and while film is an important part of such arts, the fact that the pictures are moving is insufficient to list film over such media as painting or especially photography in general. Business has been proposed for removal because corporate structure dates only to about 500 years ago; film would be particularly egregious to list in that case, since the earliest films date to the last two decades of the 19th century and film as a widespread phenomenon is one of many inventions of Thomas Edison in the first decade of the 20th. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:10, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:10, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Support Film is an important industry, but I believe is not Level 2 important. Lolitart (talk) 15:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
3. Support Since it doesn't seem like my nomination is going to go through, this is also a good choice. It's embarassing for us to be over quota on a list that's already this small. Film does not stand next to book in terms of importance. Zelkia1101 (talk) 20:34, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
4. Support Visual arts already covers film - a grouping that includes paintings which have a far greater historical cachet than film and yet shouldn't appear here either. DMT Biscuit (talk) 21:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
5. Support redundant to performing arts and visual arts. Gizza (talk • voy) 01:18, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak oppose. I can see the nominator's rationale for why film is perhaps the least vital arts article at this level, but when you zoom out a bit, I really don't think the arts is where we should be cutting here. We have only seven arts articles here, compared to a whopping 27 in science and technology, including many subfields that are much more niche than film is niche as a subfield of the arts. I'd prefer to cut one of those. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 15:51, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

   If art needs such a weak article to bolster its representation, does it really deserve such representation? I would add Beauty, which I'm shocked is only at level 4. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

2. Oppose Too basic topic in modern encyclopedia. --Thi (talk) 16:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
3. Oppose Its impact on human culture far surpasses most science articles. Dimadick (talk) 10:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose Even thought I would strongly support removal of the arts from the level 1. Dawid2009 (talk) 06:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose arguably the defining art of the 20th century; too important not to cover here. GuzzyG (talk) 16:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

   Which is kind of my point. "Arguably the defining art" of a certain century, much less a recent one, is fit for level 3, not a full level above painting, photography, or dance, which are more culturally universal and far more established. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

   Not just the most recent complete century; but arguably the most documented and definitely the one with the most prominent spread of mass culture. I'd rather swap Visual arts for painting; this is an overview article; better to be specific. Sculpture is the only odd one out then, but not as important honestly. Performing arts can be swapped with dance for the same reason, music performance is covered by music and theatre kinda by literature and Entertainment. radio and television compete with photography and one should not be added before the other. Before any argument based on comparing fields though; i think we should be considerate of how we cover things on the other vital lists first. We cover film and animation, a film genre before both Dance and Ballet on the level 3 list. We cover History of film before History of dance, History of painting, History of photography (all level 5 articles). We cover 60 articles on actors (with barely any theatre actors like Henry Irving, so all related to film mostly) and 60 on filmmakers on the level 4 list. Taking 10 off actors for presumed non-film importance; that's 110 film people; more then 63 for painting, 15 for dance and 6 for photography, i would argue a cut is needed to balance that more for sure, but we're still adding contemporary film people like Jackie Chan; which speaks for films larger importance. We list more film articles than all of the performing arts articles on the level 4 arts list, more individual films than paintings, photography is barely covered. Film still has major impact on today's cultural landscape, the other three don't in a large sense. Before we get down to the history of each or comparing eachs worth; we should atleast take into factor what we list first; because if film is truly less important; film topics shouldn't dominate our coverage in all aspects over the others and if it automatically does either way then it is more important to list here than the others. I would agree painting is more culturally universal than film; but we don't cover people like Raja Ravi Varma, Albert Namatjira, Xu Beihong, Ben Enwonwu, Juan Luna and Reza Abbasi (i only tried Abbasi and there was no consensus [1]) - so not only do we not represent this cultural side of painting, or not seen as vital in one part; while we can find consensus to add people like Jackie Chan, Abbas Kiarostami, Ousmane Sembène and Guru Dutt it means most non-western film has more recognition in the west than non-western visual art; which matters for a heavily western based list like these vital lists. I just don't see a way film isn't more important than those three; although i would prefer to go more specific with painting over visual arts and dance over performing arts - it's better to have a good article of these two than the others; probably listed to try and have catch-all articles to cover everything; this would fix this issue pretty conclusively. GuzzyG (talk) 06:34, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

I would say Business is an order of magnitude more important than Film, as much as we love film and tv, that's even shorter history than Business and a lot less broad in scope. Kind of confusing when both are proposed for removal while having similar ratio of support/oppose. Lolitart (talk) 14:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove History of science

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This was nominated over 6 months ago (see previous discussion), but we are still 1 over quota here. I've reviewed the current Level 2 list, and I am convinced that this is the least deserving article at this level. As I didn't participate in the previous discussion, I am renominating it. The sciences section is, by far, the largest section at this level, and most of the individual science articles at this level include a history section within them, making this article very redundant.

Support

1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
2. Per nom and previous discussion; this seems like a consensus choice as opposed to Moon, Business, or Film. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
3. Strong Support Links to history of science can be found in Science which is already in the list. I do not see why the history of science must be added when science is already there, especially when other articles, such as Christianity The most widespread religon, is not in the list. Telefocus (talk) 20:23, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
4. Strong support the weakest article on this list. Why have a specific article on the history of science and not art or technology? History of science is signficantly covered by science and there's no reason to raise history of science above all of the other history articles. Zelkia1101 (talk) 15:39, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong oppose Infinietly more vital and less specific in short encyclopedia than moon which is covered by solar system, solar system is not level 1. For those who are convinced it is Bad Addition, see also Thi's argument in previous discussion. We should have also something like history of technology ahead of specific articles like moon or ecology. No doubts. No discussion IMHO. Dawid2009 (talk) 11:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
2. Oppose It is one of the basic areas in history of culture and civilization. Civilization itself is listed at this level and I see it more as a concept definition than an overview article; other human history articles cover the rise and development of civilizations. History of science is important are in education. It is easier for non-professionals to become familiar with natural sciences and technology via history. --Thi (talk) 12:24, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
3. Oppose The list currently have six articles on Human history, and breaking down into different periods, with each of them describing the political and social aspects of different era in details. Yet they do not sufficiently cover the background science and technological development that pushes and propel these historical development. Hence this article is essential to compensate for that. C933103 (talk) 06:33, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Replace Epistemology back with Knowledge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In previous discussion, the article Knowledge have been decided to swap out for Epistemology, on the ground that Epistemology, the study of knowledge, covered Knowledge itself and is a boarder topic.

I, however, think this assessment is faulted.

Epistemology being a study of knowledge, as can be seen in the article, is a study on things like how to define knowledge, how to acquire knowledge, theories of nature of knowledge, and so on. It, however, is not about the concept of knowledge itself.

And arguably, an article on knowledge, which covers the totality of knowledge of humanities, is of more general interest as well as being more important, than an article than cover nature of these knowledge, which mostly only interest people in philosophical field, and is disconnected from the content of knowledge that have been acquired by human.

Because of this, I would like to switch the Epistemology article back with the article of Knowledge.

C933103 (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominator. C933103 (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
2. Support Removal of all "-logy articles", and adding back knowlage. Dawid2009 (talk) 15:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 08:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
4. Support I agree. --Sajid Reza Karim 12:02, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
5. Support  Carlwev  13:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

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.

Remove Deity

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.

---

As there are currently over 100 articles on the list, 1 articles need to be removed in order to the number back into within quota.

In the discussion above, I noted that multiple persons including me and someone else have proposed the removal of Deity, with arguments including the concept have already been covered by religion, it does not have particular significance over religion itself as a social function that would warrant the inclusion on the top 100 list, and that it's unparallel representation against the secular part of the society with two articles on religions but no articles on areligious counterparts.

Therefore, I propose the article deity be removed from the list. C933103 (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Support

1. support as nom. C933103 (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
2. Support per discussions. --Thi (talk) 09:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
3. Support. The general article on religion is enough at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1. We just added deity, so I don't think it's likely we'll just reverse course. Going back to only a single religion article at level 2 would reflect bias toward the modern, more secular world (at least in the West), neglecting the extreme importance religion has had to many cultures throughout history. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

   It would be too Abrahamic-religion-centric to have deity have this high of a position. Main use of religion, especially in the ancient time, is to help people understand the world and maintain community together, through both support and ethic rules and gathering and religious-community activities. Neither of them have particular connection with deity. There are a lot of earthly beings that can be added before we proceed to add heavenly beings. Also we have quite a high number of history-centric articles in the list already. C933103 (talk) 21:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

2. Per Sdkb; while East Asian religions tend to be an exception, not only the Abrahamic religions but also Roman/Greek mythology and Hinduism tend to be very theistic. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

   Nontheistic religion isn't just east asian religions? C933103 (talk) 12:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

3. Oppose Diety is nearly always the center of religons, so I don't see why it needs to be removed.Telefocus (talk) 20:27, 1 March 2022 (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.

Swap Ethnic group for Work (human activity)

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.

---

As something which most people on earth spend ~8-10 hours each days, ~250-300 days each years, ~40-50 years dedicating their life doing, I find it odd the working as an human activity is now being left out of "Everyday life" section of the article. Especially when numerous sub-concepts, including agriculture, business, manufacturing, and trade, are already on the list.

I propose switching out "Ethnic group", which is also an important concept, but I don't think it is *this* important in people's daily life, as compared to working. C933103 (talk) 18:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominator. C933103 (talk) 18:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
2. Support It's better this way. --Thi (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
3. Support addition as a dominant aspect of everyday life. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:33, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removal. Ethnicity has been the most major form of social organization and discrimination throughout history. I won't ask anyone to out themselves, but editors who are part of the predominant ethnic group in their country should think very carefully about the risk of systemic bias before supporting. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:33, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
2. Oppose ethnic groups are fundamental demarcations of human groups. Work is sufficiently covered by agriculture, business, manufacturing, and economics. Zelkia1101 (talk) 15:42, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Ethnicity is at the core of a person's identity. And work (human activity) isn't even listed at Level 3 yet. You should propose adding it at Level 3 before you propose it here. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
4. Oppose swap, work is important, maybe swap for something else. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
5. Oppose I support keeping ethnic group per above. Work is not a bad suggestion but to me it could be vital in a slightly larger list (maybe 200 articles). A similar rationale could be used to add e.g. sleep which we all do for 7-8 hours a day or so. At Level 3, I would support swapping trade union out for work. Gizza (talk • voy) 07:33, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

We listed job but swapped that for employment and then for economics. See the last discussion here. Cobblet (talk) 17:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I can understand economics being a topic more important than job/employment/work, however I think it wouldn't bar work as an important part of people's daily life from entering the top most important 100 articles. C933103 (talk) 00:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Votes like "Support addition and oppose removal" are bad when we *need* to keep the quota at 100, and we are already 1 over quota. I would personally recommend people who want to add this article but against the proposed removal to suggest alternative articles to be removed. C933103 (talk) 13:44, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Swap: Add State (polity) or military or Ideology, delete Political science or international organization or charlemagne

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.

---

United States, Campeonato Fluminense, state of Minas Gerais, Islamic State, State atheism, Christian state, jewish State, mórmon state, confederate States of America, State of São Paulo, rogue State, deep state etc this big notoriety. Already with comparison with state for example, political science loses validity when it is applied in dictatorial regimes such as China (non comments above International organizations or Intergovernmental organization bellow the level in comparison with national States inside or no beltway such as Iraq War and more wars in the global south). Ideology talk above Socialism and communism such as marx is the first major intellectual. About of Military this very potential in the century, institution number one trusted in the diverses countries and reserve power in countries of global south. Charlemagne is eurocentric persona. Phuphusi (talk) 18:47, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Support

1. Per nom.

Oppose

1. Oppose No international organization is listed at this level, and being over the quota, we need to remove articles, not add new ones. Cobblet (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

Luizpuodzius

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Swap Sport for Travel

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.

---

As a Chinese saying goes, the fundamental needs of human life involve clothing, food, home, and travel. While such Chinese saying doesn't necessary applies to different culture, especially those English one, I think the act of travel, from daily commuting, shopping, weekend leisure and business trips, visiting friends and families, to long distance trade and touring, are indeed essential to human life. And thus, I think it is more important than sports, which is an sub-item of entertainment, and does not function as an important component of every human's daily life. Despite a sizable part of the population would regularly practice and/or watch sports, they are still not as common and as essential to daily life of human as Travel. As such, I think Travel is a more appropriate article to be included in this list of 100 articles than Sport.

Note that, while the list already include the article Transport, the article is listed under technology section, and mainly concern the use and development of various different ways of transporting things from one place to another, as opposed to the article on Travel, which focus on the activity and purpose of the act of traveling itself. C933103 (talk) 18:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominator. C933103 (talk) 18:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Swap with Exercise would be better. Exercise is closely tied to the health and covers one aspect of the sport. However, sport is one of the most popular areas of entertainment and it is a common topic in the news and even in encyclopedias. --Thi (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
2. Oppose. We already list transport. I think there is too much overlap between transport and travel to list both at this level. Maybe swapping transport for travel would work. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
3. Oppose: As Swami Vivekananda noted, "You will be nearer to heaven playing football than studying the Bhagavad-Gita."[2]. Also per Rreagan 007. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 21:30, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

In the past few people said that sport is recreation just as tourism which is not listed at the level 2. Perhaps I could replace "travel" with "ecology" if we would remove artile on ecology because of I have no doubts at least by my "first though" travel is more vital than the ecology. Dawid2009 (talk) 12:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Travel is not just tourism, but also cover all sort of trips everyone made, be it commuting, grocery runs, meeting with friends, selling and trading different things, or even military mobilization and moement.

As for ecology, I think this article represent earth's biosphere, and ecology is also a quite popular topic, so I don't think it is really that good a subject to be replaced from the list. C933103 (talk) 00:17, 21 February 2022 (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.

History of science vs History of technology

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.

---

Which of the two articles is more appropriate for the list's purpose of viewing the progress of human history from a non-political aspect that describe the evolution of human civilization, thus being a more appropriate accompany to the list of era-segregated history articles in the VA2 list?? C933103 (talk) 08:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

History of science

History of technology

Other articles

Discussion

I`m support, the objetive for sustentability is here. Sisiphu (talk) 20:23, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• History of technology is probably slightly more vital in my opinion, but I don't think either should be listed separately at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
• I agree with Rreagan007 that either shouldn't be at this level. I suggest that History of science be removed to bring the list to the quota of 100. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 14:47, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

  This proposal was only recently brought up and defeated. Unless you can present a stronger case than what have been suggested in the past else it probably isn't worth. C933103 (talk) 15:30, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry, hadn't seen the archive before this. I might try to present a stronger case in coming months. Since it was brought up recently and got defeated, doing this now will probably be a waste of time for everyone. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 15:38, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Swap Film with Mass Media and/or Art

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 propose we swap Film with Mass media. Mass media covers not only film/television but also radio, email, newspapers, etc. I don't think Film belongs on here over Painting as a Visual art, but Mass Media is its own header in Vital-3 under Society and Social Sciences, which is why I was inspired to suggest it be promoted to Vital-2.

EDIT: I've decided Art per the discussion is the one that should be promoted in Film's place. Tagging Thebiguglyalien and C933103 in case they want to change their votes. LightProof1995 (talk) 01:00, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Vote below

Support for all three articles to be listed:

1. --Thi (talk) 06:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Support for only Art to be listed:

1. As nom LightProof1995 (talk) 01:00, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Support for only Film to be listed:

Support for only Mass media to be listed:

1. As nom LightProof1995 (talk) 06:30, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
2. Support. Film has regularly been identified as an overly specific entry in its category for level 2, and I was thinking about making a similar proposal myself. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:53, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
3. Mass media is a prominent tool in society from history to modern time. C933103 (talk) 11:04, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
   • I say Art fit too but I do not support swapping Film out for it for Art, and I do not support a 1-for-2 addition as of current stage due to the current number against quota, please find another replacement target. C933103 (talk) 16:08, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

     I agree a 1-for-2 swap is not ideal, which is why I switched my vote to just Art instead of Art + Mass media. After I proposed Mass media be the change, I changed my mind a mere two days later in the discussion, but there were already votes for Mass media and since I agreed I shouldn't propose a 2-for-1 swap, I felt my only option was to separate out all the options. Currently the vote sits at 20% support Film be included, 60% support Art, 60% support Mass media, and 20% oppose Art but are presumably Neutral about Film and Mass media. I assume the philosophy of those voting for multiple of the article choices as Vital-2 is it isn't necessarily bad to have the list slightly over quota as it may draw more attention to the articles being included than less attention from the ones already on the list, e.g. possibly the philosophy of Thi, so as the vote stands now the majority of Wikipedians (3/5 for each) support Art and Mass media be included, but only 40% (me and you) are against the idea of a 1-2 swap (I assume Cobblet is neutral on the idea of 1-2 because they specifically said "Strong oppose of Art" although they did vote under the section I meant to be for opposing all 3 be listed), the vote would swap out Film for both Mass media and Art, but we need to wait at least 6 more days (to hit 15) before doing swaps, and at this level I'm inclined to wait at least 30 with much discussion for a broad consensus. (Also I'd change my vote to support both Art and Mass media if it made the difference between both or neither be swapped in, for example if Cobblet clarified they oppose 1-2 swap, therefore making it 60% against 1-2 swap and therefore No consensus on the swap. I'm inclined to go ahead and change it now, I may before the 15 days are up.). LightProof1995 (talk) 05:33, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

     Excuse me? Why would I be neutral to a proposal that includes adding art to the list when I already said I strongly oppose listing art? FWIW, I also strongly oppose any proposal that results in a net addition of articles to a list that is already over quota. Cobblet (talk) 06:54, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

   You're right, lol, that's why I tagged you, I felt I may have been interpreting the vote incorrectly, it is difficult. So 60% support for Art, 60% support for Mass media, but 60% support for no 1-2. I got the idea you were neutral because you commented in a section in my head meant "oppose all three" but you specifically said "oppose Art", therefore your neutrality was on the additions of Film and Mass media. I.e., instead of voting in "Support for Film and Mass media, but not Art", a vote of Oppose-Support-Support, your vote was for "Oppose only Art", a vote of Oppose-Neutral-Neutral, therefore you are neutral on 2 of the 3 articles in question being on the list, but you're right that is different from 2 of the 3 articles in question being added to the list. LightProof1995 (talk) 07:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

4. Mass media is an improvement over film. Gizza (talk • voy) 05:34, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Support for Art and Film, but not Mass media, to be listed:

Support for Art and Mass media, but not Film, to be listed:

1. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:03, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Support for Film and Mass media, but not Art, to be listed:

Oppose any of the three articles be listed:

1. Strong oppose the listing of Art. Including both Art and The arts on a list of 100 articles makes no sense, and the longstanding consensus is that The arts is the better article to list. Cobblet (talk) 14:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Not convinced that this link shows there is longstanding consensus Art beats The arts in Vitality. For one thing, they say if the swap occurs, Art should still at least be listed as Vital-2. Second, the main argument is flawed: The term "Art" is not only applied to the Visual arts. It applies to music, dance, poems, etc. as well, i.e. everything "The arts" can be applied to, the word "Art" can be applied to as well. LightProof1995 (talk) 18:03, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

You missed the very first sentence of the previous discussion, and the entire point of the swap: "art" is directly subsumed by "the arts". There is no reason whatsoever to list two articles with such obvious overlap on this level. Cobblet (talk) 06:34, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think Art is necessarily subsumed by The arts. Rather, I think you cannot have one without the other. Anything created as part of any of the arts is considered art, and you can't create art without partaking in one of the arts. If the problem is only one of them should be at a higher level, I think it should be Art because from just looking at the two and planning out how to edit The arts, I got the impression the Art page was the one worked on and visited more. Sure enough, Art has over twice as many views in the past 30 days as The arts. You could argue that just means The arts should stay at Vital-1 so more attention should be paid to it, and maybe you're not wrong. However, if I (or someone else) go make The Arts Good/Featured article status, I'd see no reason to return to the question of replacing The arts with Art, as I feel "number of views" is a reasonable metric for determining vitality although I admit it is not the only one. Since this vote is for getting Art up to Vital-2, I feel my vote is still reasonable even with the currently poor state of The arts page. LightProof1995 (talk) 05:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm still not hearing any reason to list both art and the arts at this level. And if it were in fact so straightforward that "anything created as part of any of the arts is considered art", there would never have been any controversy over things like Brancusi's Bird in Space or Duchamp's Fountain or Cage's 4'33". Cobblet (talk) 06:54, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

My idea for thinking we maybe shouldn't do a direct swap of an "Art" article with Mass media, a more communication-focused less-art one, was a subconscious thought I am only now writing out here and now (sorry lol) carried over from the discussion in the Archives on "Remove Film" where Sdkb stated: "We have only seven arts articles here, compared to a whopping 27 in science and technology, including many subfields that are much more niche than film is niche as a subfield of the arts. I'd prefer to cut one of those.". I realize now Mass media falls under Society and social sciences so is not as bad, but still, this is why I made my first comment in the discussion below, and why I changed my vote to only Art. As for the works you mention, I actually find those pretty cool; I thought the latter was going to be perhaps an obscure Nicolas Cage movie with horrible reviews, but that still gets your point across... even the most obscure and review-bombed Nicolas Cage movies have fans though, i.e. someone out there considers them art :) LightProof1995 (talk) 07:45, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Discuss:

One issue there is with this is Mass media is more focused on communication, while Film is more focused on the Art. Maybe Art should be promoted? LightProof1995 (talk) 06:27, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

After starting a discussion in the Talk Page of The arts about missing sections, I started to think Art may be the article that should actually be Vital-1. However, if that is the case, it should easily at least make it to Vital-2. LightProof1995 (talk) 01:00, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think email count as mass media. C933103 (talk) 11:04, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Mass media wins with 66.7% support, while Art only has 50% LightProof1995 (talk) 11:02, 8 October 2022 (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.

Which article to remove? 1 over quota

Given that we are one over quota and several editors tried nominating articles for removal, I would like to get some input on what article you think should be removed so the quota is exactly 100. Interstellarity (talk) 14:58, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Epistemology, since it is no more vital than metaphysics, which is currently unlisted, and we can only have 100 articles.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:51, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I could get on board with that, I think. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:15, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Epistemology wouldn't be my first choice. It was swapped in for knowledge. The 4 main branches of philosophy are epistemology, logic, ethics, and metaphysics. We currently list 3 of those 4 at this level. If anything I'd rather add metaphysics to this list. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:47, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I doubt philosophy worth this much articles out of a total of 100 for all its branches to be included.C933103 (talk) 06:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Civilization, Land, Deity (covered by Religion and Atheism is not listed), Entertainment (subtopic Sport should be Exercise), Ethnic group, Folklore, Fire (could be swapped with Climate change). Epistemology covers Knowledge, which has been mentioned as possible Level 0 article. --Thi (talk) 18:45, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

One could argue that Moon is redundant to Earth and Sun, but I don't think it's "the" article that needs pruning. Film sticks out like a sore thumb IMO, but you can see how my recent nomination for its removal went. Taming fire is a large part of what makes humans human, so I think it's sacrosanct, and I've heard there's already a bias towards STEM topics so Deity, etc., should not go. History of science is too specific and out of place for my liking as well, but I don't think it has consensus for removal. One of Government, Law, and Politics can go IMO; all three involve the coercive powers of the state, but I think Law is the strongest (for keeping) of the three. I also think human should be demoted from level 1 to level 3, but that's probably going to be more controversial than it's worth. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:23, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I would say, an article on "human" itself, is more important than like Human history (Level 1) or Anatomy (Level 2). You can call it human-centrism, but so is Wikipedia itself, with WMF's mission and vision specifically targeting "every single human". C933103 (talk) 06:42, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

History of science is the most offensive member of the list, in my view. I'm broadly against hosting Wikipedia-specific general articles at so high a level. I declined to nominate it for removal because such a nomination had been made, and failed, within the year. I am opposed to removing government, law or politics. These three things are not at all the same, and a comprehension of each is absolutely necessary when studying human history, culture, current affairs, etc. We could also do without Oceania. Zelkia1101 (talk) 19:34, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree that History of science does stick out. I see it failed to be removed by one vote. Had I been around for that nomination I probably would have voted to remove it. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:53, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Maybe deity should be removed? As while religions in general is a very important topic regarding how humanity organize and understand the world before advance in science and society, and is still playing an important role in maintaining communities and ethics, I cannot see deities having the same effect.

Also, I think epistemology, the study of knowledge, should probably be replaced by an article on knowledge itself, as it is the more commonly understood and more commonly known topic. C933103 (talk) 06:00, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I thought about this and I vote we get rid of History of science, but only if we also replace Film with Mass media. Neither Science nor History of science currently mention String theory which is honestly pretty horrifying to me. So if only one of those articles needs focus it is Science. Film is still less important than History of science, but not Mass media, which covers not only film/television but also radio, email, newspapers, etc. I don't think Film belongs on here over Painting as a Visual art, but Mass Media is its own header in Vital-3 under Society and Social Sciences, which is why I was inspired to suggest it be promoted to Vital-2. LightProof1995 (talk) 05:42, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Country, Add State

This is an important concept in politics, economics, and philosophy. Country is fine at level 3. Interstellarity (talk) 18:06, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 18:06, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
2. Support bc the word “state” is tied to the phrase “sovereign state” which seems to be the true highest form of government, e.g. on the country page it says Wales is a country within a sovereign state, the United Kingdom. (Also that country is a great example bc this is English Wikipedia and I say this as an American.) LightProof1995 (talk) 20:58, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 22:05, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
4. Easy support. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:00, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
5. Support. Country is a bit more nebulous, state should be the priority. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:39, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I've decided I Oppose this swap because the Geography section is at 12 articles while the Society section is at 20 articles. LightProof1995 (talk) 10:59, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

Now that I've made the swap, I am questioning it. Per the Vital-3 list, "Country" seems to be the geographic term, while "State" is more of a political/society term. We need Open comments. I think we all may have jumped the gun here -- while the way we define it, all countries are states, I feel as children we didn't really know what a State (polity) is, we only knew the term country. On maps they are called countries -- we saw maps as kids, but I personally didn't learn what about the concept of a state (U.S. states are different) until high school. It's like "country" and "state" are two sides of the same coin, with "country" referring to the geographical aspect of them, while "state" refers to the political aspect of them. Therefore, it's like they are synonymous, but for this list, choosing "State" over "Country" brings imbalance to the list, not more balance, per my opposal argument above. I made the swap so it will be easy to undo if we reach consensus State should indeed go up to Level 2 while Country goes down to Level 3. LightProof1995 (talk) 09:21, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Finally, an answer to the 1 over quota

I would like to propose swapping Early modern period and Late modern period with Modern era. This will help fix the quota and is one of the four major time periods in history. I understand it is not listed as a vital article anywhere, but I think this deserves a place on the list based on its obvious vitality.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 00:38, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose See Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/2/Archive 2#Swap: Remove Modern History, add Early modern period and Late modern period for why Modern history (now a redirect to Modern era) is no longer listed. Cobblet (talk) 02:07, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion