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

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.

---

Swap:Remove Employment. Add Economics

Employment is a subtopic of economics. In an abridged encyclopedia, employment would be a section within the economics article. Economics would cover equally vital subtopics like trade and market.

Support

1. Support as nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
2. Support. I'd also remove Industry and Money, and I'd add Trade because we have Language at level 1. wumbolo ^^^ 22:06, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 00:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
4. Support Dawid2009 (talk) 15:05, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
5. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 09:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC)).

Oppose

Discuss

This will result in business and economics (the two parent articles covering the field) and the most important subtopic money, at this level. I also don't think there much value in having industry at L2. Too generic unlike actual industries like manufacturing, which is listed separately. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I was actually thinking about the overlap between Industry and Manufacturing as well, and the fact that we don't have trade at this level. Crazynas ^t 08:08, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Recall that job used to be on the level 2 and 3 lists. When it was removed at level 3 it was also swapped for employment at level 2. Cobblet (talk) 16:55, 13 December 2018 (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.

---

Remove Sleep

Note that this article is only about sleep in humans, as the hatnote explains. Sleep is no more vital than several other articles at level 3 such as Consciousness, Metabolism and Immune system, and at level 4 such as Endocrine system and Hormone. Since Hibernation is at level 4, nothing would be lost. Also notice that Breathing is listed nowhere, which might even make us remove Sleep from level 3.

Support

1. Support as nom. wumbolo ^^^ 20:31, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
2. Support This shouldn't be ahead of something like geology. Cobblet (talk) 14:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

   Honestly sleep seems more important than geology by a bit. It's hard to compare the two though. J947 ^(c), at 04:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

3. Support After thinking about it some more, there are more important articles to list at Level 2. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:18, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
4. Support I do not think geology is less vital, for Wikipedia, but Wumbulo's reasoning is pretty enaugh for me. Dawid2009 (talk) 11:56, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
5. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 05:28, 24 January 2019 (UTC)).

Oppose

1. Oppose --Thi (talk) 07:36, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

#Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 09:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC)).

Discuss

• I'm not sure about this. An activity that takes up 1/3 of your lifetime seems to be pretty vital to me. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:00, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

  An activity that takes up 3/3 of my lifetime seems pretty vital, too, but it is not listed at any level because the context is more important when assessing. wumbolo ^^^ 21:09, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

  That's a fair point. I'm still undecided, but I'll give this some thought. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:37, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

  Respiration_(physiology) covers breathing and is at Level 4. I'm neutral about sleep at the moment too. Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:02, 25 December 2018 (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.

---

remove Film

Less vital than popular culture, cinematography and photography wchich are not listed. I would consider swap with printing. Dawid2009 (talk) 13:17, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Support

1. Nom.
2. Weak support – Book beats film by quite a bit in my mind. Dawid's nomination is not moving and simply stating uncommon opinions, but if book has been raised for discussion, then film should posit closer a call. J947 ^(c), at 05:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose --Thi (talk) 14:08, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
2. Oppose Film, in my mind, is equivalent to book. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:10, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
3. Oppose power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
4. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 09:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)).

Discuss

Printing should be ahead of specific articles such like book, computer, film. Popularization of Printing in Europe by Gutenberg is essential to the most general periodisation. I would also add Archeology or Exploration ahead of something like book/computer/film. Dawid2009 (talk) 21:17, 2 January 2019 (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.

---

remove Transport

Obviously and logically less vital than infrastructure. Dawid2009 (talk) 13:17, 23 December 2018 (UTC) Confusing is also fact that travel is level 4 and several concepts of travel are listed at the level 2 or 3. 16:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Support

1. Nom.
2. Support. Navigation is just as vital. wumbolo ^^^ 13:38, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose --Thi (talk) 14:13, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
2. Oppose No obvious or logical rationale given. Cobblet (talk) 00:16, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
3. Oppose – This level varies seriously. Infrastructure ranks with Physics, Chemistry, Writing, and co in the top 30. Transport more lowly hangs around 90. And the importance varies considerably on this level, with a blockade from 60 down seperated from the top 30 by miles. There would be far less discussion here if this was 30-150. It's just the nature of life (which sure helps with creating gods and stuff putting Myth/Mythology up the rankings and obviously and logically furthering the blockade's number). J947 ^(c), at 04:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
4. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 15:26, 23 January 2019 (UTC)).

Discuss

@J947: Are you suggesting that Infrastructure could be among 30 the most important articles? Infrastructure currently is not even already listed at the level 2 but I also not necessary belive that transport is vital among 90 articles. Travel is at the level 4 and exploration is at the level 4 (at the level 3 probably we have littly too many people).Dawid2009 (talk) 07:28, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@J947: What do you think about nomination of infrasstructure for this level? Dawid2009 (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, your nomination confused me in my comment. Go for it, Dawid. J947 ^(c), at 05:10, 1 February 2019 (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.

---

add Exploration

Currently exploration is at the level 4 but I think that it should be even at the level 2 because of we have articles such like space exploration at the level 3. Sport is listed at the level 2 despite fact we have none sport figures at the level 3. Exploration have a lot of representants at the level 3.

Support

1. Nom Dawid2009 (talk) 13:17, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
2. Support. Good arguments, I don't have much to add. Definitely more vital than transport and navigation. wumbolo ^^^ 13:45, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose --Thi (talk) 14:13, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
2. Oppose. You should try getting it added to Level 3 first. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:00, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
3. Oppose power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
4. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 15:28, 23 January 2019 (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 Ethnic group

Similar to community, which was removed.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 09:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
2. Support. wumbolo ^^^ 12:51, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Removing community at this level makes this article more important to keep listed, not less. Ethnic group is a foundational source of identity for most human beings. I would consider a swap with Identity (social science) or Nation. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
2. Oppose agree with Rreagan007. To me Identity is more of a psychological than social or historic phenomena. This concept is necessary (and not quite covered by Civilization or Culture). Nation seems well covered by Country (which does not, itself quite reach to Ethnic Group). Crazynas ^t 21:43, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
3. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 10:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)).
4. Oppose Per above Dawid2009 (talk) 20:14, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

When we have Earth at the level 1 it seems to me that we should list geography and geology at the level 2 (geology is foundamental topics for most articles related with geography listed at this level and level 3). If we keep ethnic group at the level 2 we will have larger chances to add ethnography and ethnology at the level 3. It is reasonable because of we do not list specific fundamental articles related with etnography/etnology (similar to ritual) at the level 3 but we list popular culture there. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:14, 7 February 2019 (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.

---

remove Construction

Less vital than Infrastructure.

Support

1. Support as nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 13:17, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 14:11, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
3. Support I think there is too much overlap between Architecture and Construction to have them both listed at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:53, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
4. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 09:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC)).

Oppose

1. Oppose. Why don't we remove Engineering then? wumbolo ^^^ 13:43, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
2. Oppose No rationale given. Cobblet (talk) 00:16, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
3. Oppose power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
4. Oppose, read my comment below and feed yourself with the current quota: 99, not 105. J947 ^(c), at 04:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

@Wumbolo: I am quite confused why English Wikipedia does not have article about technique (d:Q2695280) and technocal science (d:Q12015335). In wikidata technical science in English language is described as: "engineering disciplines". Engineering seems be vital at this level as outline for science but Construction probably is too similar to architecture and should be replaced for Infrastructure. Dawid2009 (talk) 18:13, 28 January 2019 (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.

---

Add Color

Support

1. Support as nom. Ios2019 (talk) 15:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Less vital than Light. wumbolo ^^^ 19:25, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 20:42, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 19:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
4. Oppose Dawid2009 (talk) 18:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
5. Oppose Light and Electromagnetism are both more vital and not listed yet. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
6. Oppose; give me a reason for supporting. Though it'll be hard to justify colour being more important than light. J947 ^(c), at 21:21, 30 January 2019 (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 Ethics

Support

1. Support as nom. (Ios2019 (talk) 16:55, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
2. Support – Ethics often revolve around crime, crime often revolves around ethics. I think we should either have both or none at this level. And it's hard to consider ethics being more vital than sleep. J947 ^(c), at 05:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Philosophy is at level 1. wumbolo ^^^ 19:28, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 20:41, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose Law is builed based on philosophy and ethics so IMO listing Law at this level without Ethics would make no sense. Also if we decide remove ethics to level 3 we will have less chances to add morality on level 3. Some time ago there was discussion at Level 3 talk page to add morality to this level; this nomination has been failed due to much overlaping but IMO Morality clearly should be at the level 3 when Ethics is level 2. Sleep I would compare rather to other articles rlated with neurology or human behaviour at the level 3-4. Dawid2009 (talk) 13:09, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
4. Oppose Orser67 (talk) 05:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

@Ios2019: You oppose to remove crime; how crime is more vital than ethics? Dawid2009 (talk) 12:20, 30 January 2019 (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.

---

Add Metal

"Metals are present in nearly all aspects of modern life." Metal is even more vital invention than computer, as the editor Gizza has mentioned.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:22, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose So are carbon and hydrogen, or any common aspect of chemistry. The most important chemistry concept not listed is periodic table, not metal. Also, metal is not an invention or technology – maybe you're thinking of metallurgy. Cobblet (talk) 15:53, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 11:54, 29 January 2019 (UTC)).
3. Weak Oppose In my opinion article about Natural resource would be more important than something like computer (Natural resource is not even listed at the level 5 but it get more pageviews than transport and raw material get more pageviews than Land) but article about metal is not very important if we are foccused on technology. Resource has been rated by wikiproject computing as mid-importance article. Dawid2009 (talk) 11:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

   Note: Natural resource actually is listed at level 5. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

   I did not noticed that because of it has not template on the talk page. Personally I would put natural resource as subpage to environmentalism (but on higher level than environmentalism) and I would put human resources as subsection to economy. Dawid2009 (talk) 14:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC) @Rreagan007: We do not list Natural resource at the level 3 because of we have Renewable energy and Raw material is not at the level 4. I think we should start nomination with raw material or resource to level 4. Industry also is vital at the level 2 when we list Mining or Industrial Revolution. Manufacturing probably is not vital when we list machine and Handicraft at the level 4. Dawid2009 (talk) 14:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

Note: I've started a proposal around adding Natural resource to Level 4. J947 ^(c), at 03:55, 22 February 2019 (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.

---

Add Machine

Machines are everywhere.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:22, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose So is nitrogen. Machine is not even on level 3. Cobblet (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose Instead listing book, computer and machine I would prefer list History of technology (why we have to list book ahead of printing, while Ebook and parchment are not even at the level 4? Or why we have to list computer at the level 2 while battery is more foundamental than computer in historical context and Internet is more vital than computer in non-historical context?) Dawid2009 17:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 11:57, 29 January 2019 (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.

---

Add Algebra

One of the main parts of mathematics.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:22, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I think five math articles at level 2 is enough, and in line with the lower levels – math takes up 5.3% of the articles at level 3 and 3% at level 4. Cobblet (talk) 15:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose We have more than enaugh articles math-related articles at this level. Dawid2009 (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose. No more vital than Mathematical analysis. wumbolo ^^^ 17:25, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
4. Oppose. It would be the next math article I would probably list, but I agree with the above comments that 5 math articles is enough at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
5. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 11:55, 29 January 2019 (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 Land

With 30 language versions it is not as vital as History of Earth (58) or Solar System (204).

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:22, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Land is the natural complement to sea and both should be on the list. Cobblet (talk) 15:36, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose This is not WP:5000 (we need general articles among 100 the most important) and Solar system should not be ahead of star. Thinkink about it more, IMO Solar system covered by sun at this level is enaugh. Human should not know a lot of about solar sytem until he/she do not understand what is star and how excatly universe works. Dawid2009 (talk) 15:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

   Tell me how the universe works then Dawid2009. J947 ^(c), at 05:21, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

3. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 11:58, 29 January 2019 (UTC)).

Discuss

I maybe could support swap land for continent (because of continet is more popular concept than land, tectonics, geology + antarctica is mentioned in continent article) but I do not see any objections to remove land without swap. Dawid2009 (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2019 (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.

---

Remove Mind

It is hard to describe what mind really is. [1].

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:22, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose You've just linked to a page that describes the concept of mind pretty well. I don't understand your concern here. Also I completely agree with Dawid's comments. Cobblet (talk) 15:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose mind at this level is the only article which covers things such like: Thought, Intelligence, Sense and Cognition (which covers also other important concepts such like reading or information). Dawid2009 (talk) 15:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
3. Weak Oppose. I agree with you that mind is a rather nebulous concept and the subject matter is a bit odd for an encyclopedia article; however, as Dawid2009 points out, there are important concepts that aren't covered anywhere else in the list. And a couple more he didn't list are consciousness and sentience. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
4. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 11:50, 29 January 2019 (UTC)).
5. Oppose as per Dawid. Though if sleep were kept it would be harder to decide with a surprising amount of overlap. I also concur with Rreagan's comment. J947 ^(c), at 21:38, 30 January 2019 (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 Geography

Earth is more vital topic.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:22, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Which is why Earth is on level 1 and geography on level 2. Why is geography not vital at this level? Cobblet (talk) 15:37, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 11:50, 29 January 2019 (UTC)).
3. Oppose Article about Geography is not purly article about Earth or Physical geography. Human geography is parent article for various articles listed here (for example economy or politics). Etnography is parent article for Ethnic group. Dawid2009 (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
4. Oppose – Alone the physical part of geography is the best physical representative of the Earth at this level. And don't discount other aspects of it. J947 ^(c), at 21:48, 30 January 2019 (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.

---

Add Outer space

The Sun is a star and Earth is a planet. The article Universe is about cosmological models. This topic gives an introduction for space exploration and astronomy.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 16:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose There's considerable overlap with astronomy, and too many science-related additions are being proposed right now – History of the Earth is on the verge of being added and matter also seems like a better proposal than this. Cobblet (talk) 17:05, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose Covered by astronomy. Outer space should not be ahead of geology when Earth is level 1 article and Universe is level 2 article. Dawid2009 (talk) 17:07, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose Solar System is more vital, but I don't think we really need both the Sun and Solar System either. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
4. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 11:48, 29 January 2019 (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.

---

Add Gender

"It seems as much a part of someones identity as ethnic group which we have" as the editor Carlwev said.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 16:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Human sexuality is sufficient at this level. Cobblet (talk) 16:44, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose Human sexuality at this level is enaugh. We are humen-centric but Gender should not be ahead of Organism, speciffically when we list Ethnic group at this level. Dawid2009 (talk) 16:46, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose I agree that human sexuality is enough at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:19, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
4. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 11:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC)).
5. Weak oppose covered by human sexuality, but still top 150. J947 ^(c), at 00:00, 25 February 2019 (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.

---

Swap: Remove Sun, Add Solar System

I know that Sun was recently added, but after thinking about it some more, I really think that Solar System would be the better article to list at this level. It obviously is the broader topic and covers the Sun, as well as the Moon and the other planets.

Support

1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:21, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
2. Support addition --Thi (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
3. Support per nom's reasoning Orser67 (talk) 05:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
4. Support  Carlwev  07:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
5. Support addition. We have all planets at level 3, which is not adequately covered just by Sun at this level. wumbolo ^^^ 10:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 08:15, 2 February 2019 (UTC)).
2. Oppose removal --Thi (talk) 09:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose swap I explain below. Chris Troutman (talk) 11:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

Articles related with earth should be ahead of astronomy-related articles when we are earth-centric (earth is at the level 1 while universe does not). We even do not list Light-year at the level 3 despite fact it can give imagination about universe such like north pole and south pole can give imagination about earth. I would add Solar system rather at the seme level what galaxy/star and keep sun at this (2) level due to fact that has been recently swapped for nature. Dawid2009 (talk) 21:38, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Light-years can give imagination about the universe, like the poles on earth? What? Anything can be a source of imagination. J947 ^(c), at 03:07, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@J947: If I had to choose beetwen sun and solar system I would choose rather sun (star is level 3 while Solar systems are level 4). Universe is more than superficial described in article about astronomy and universe so I withdraw my recent suggestion although I would consider add planetary system to the level 3 If we are going to add solar system here. Dawid2009 (talk) 06:35, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

There nothing in your comment remotely related to mine (and weirdly enough, the ping didn't work). So why indent it there and ping? J947 ^(c), at 21:11, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

The solar system is a disparate collective of objects that no one standing on earth can see at one time, because the objects are both far away and occupy different parts of the sky. Just about everyone alive sees the sun everyday and for that reason, the sun has also held mythological importance to early human societies. Chris Troutman (talk) 11:44, 8 March 2019 (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 Printing

I think the article on printing would be a better choice to list in the technology section at this level. Yes, there were handwritten books, but that should be covered adequately by the article on writing, which is also included at this level.

Support

1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
2. Support addition logical suggestion. Currently we have film at the level 2 despite fact that we do not have history of film and cinematography at the level 3. Gutenberg should has stronger parent topics than film directors at the level 3. Dawid2009 (talk) 18:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
3. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC)).

Oppose

1. Oppose There seems to be no consensus for removal without a swap and Book is more general article. Printing is only a one aspect of books. Modern e-books are not printed. --Thi (talk) 18:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
2. Oppose power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

The scope of the current book article doesn't seem to include ebooks. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:38, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

• Book#E-book. Layout, libraries and paper (level 3) are also mentioned in this article. --Thi (talk) 18:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

E-book is also at the level 5 although we have video game at the level 3. Dawid2009 (talk) 18:44, 5 November 2018 (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.

---

add Organism

Until we add anatomy we should add organism. Currently we list animal and plant but we do not have organism which cover many other concepcts such like fungus.

Support

1. Nom Dawid2009 (talk) 13:17, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
2. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 10:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC)).

Oppose

1. Oppose The general article on life should be sufficient to cover the other types of living organisms. I think it's better to list the two most important organisms (plants and animals) at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:30, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 08:22, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
3. Oppose power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Swap

1. Swap with Animal and Plant as they are redundant to Food and Clothing. This might not be how quotas work but this addition allows for Protist or Cyanobacteria at level 3 (I don't like listing individual bacteria, e.g. currently S. aureus and E. coli, on the same level as Cyanobacteria). If this passes, I will still oppose Nature on this level, in favor of Exploration and perhaps Ecology. (I am neutral on just adding Organism.) wumbolo ^^^ 13:58, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Wumbolo: How are they redundant? Crazynas ^t 20:13, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

If this list wasn't human-centric, we would also list Fungus and Bacteria. Since humans have been using animals and plants for so long, it makes sense to include them. However, food and clothing are the primary uses of animals and plants, making them less than necessary at this level. wumbolo ^^^ 20:16, 24 December 2018 (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.

---

Add Matter

Everything is made of matter.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 16:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
2. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 12:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)).

Oppose

1. Oppose Too much overlap with atom and chemical element, but I would support a swap with atom. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:07, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose Matter is better described in article about chemistry than solar system in article about astronomy. Dawid2009 (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
3. I'd also support a swap with Atom. Also a lot of things aren't made of matter, the most vital of which are Light and Sound. Light and Photon are probably covered by Sun (which also covers Heat), while Sound could be covered by Wave, although Sound is fine when Language is at level 1. wumbolo ^^^ 10:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

   Light and sound are both forms of energy, which is listed at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

Do we really need more articles related with science? IMO the most vital and general, needed article at this level is Infrastructure. Dawid2009 (talk) 16:38, 28 January 2019 (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.

---

Add History of Earth

Support

1. Support as nom. (Ios2019 (talk) 16:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC))
2. Support wumbolo ^^^ 19:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

# Support --Thi (talk) 16:30, 28 January 2019 (UTC) Geology. --Thi (talk) 18:55, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
#Support Dawid2009 (talk) 17:00, 28 January 2019 (UTC) After thinkink about it more Geology maybe is better choice. Geology is important article for study of earth (level 1) such like Engineering is importnt article for study of technology (level 1). Aalso geology seems be redutant to Gography uch like Ethnology is redutant to Ethnography. Dawid2009 (talk) 05:19, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. I think Geology is more vital to list at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:09, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

   Why? Dawid2009 (talk) 21:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

   @Dawid2009: Because it's the broader topic. History of Earth is essentially a Geology article and the article on Geology broadly covers the history of Earth, while also covering a whole lot more. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

2. Oppose At this level having evolution and geology probably is better option. Dawid2009 (talk) 06:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

Some time ago there was nomination for addition of Natural science. It haa been failed due to Nature covered Natureal science at the time. Recently we have swapped Nature for Sun so now we have better occasion to add Natural sciene. I think it would be littly better choice than History of earth. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:41, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

How about a swap with History of science? wumbolo ^^^ 19:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

History of Earth would go in the Science section, not the History section, so if you're looking to swap I'd suggest removing an article from the science section. And just FYI, this article was nominated previously. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2019 (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.

---

Remove Crime

In my opinion Law is more fundamental topic and poverty is perhaps as serious social issue as crime (Marcus Aurelius: "Poverty is the mother of crime.").

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 16:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
2. Support Per nom. Also crime is not much more vital than job what even is not listed at the level 3. Dawid2009 (talk) 16:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
3. Support – Ethics often revolve around crime, crime often revolves around ethics. I think we should either have both or none at this level. And it's hard to consider crime being more vital than job. J947 ^(c), at 05:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
4. Support Again, we're at 102 articles, so something's got to go. You can't have an unlawful act if you don't have law; at this level I guess we'll have to make do with just the latter article. Cobblet (talk) 18:37, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
5. Support. We are over quota and law probably covers this topic sufficiently at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:25, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 11:48, 29 January 2019 (UTC)).
2. Oppose Crime is a vital concept relating to every culture in history and for every time. GuzzyG (talk) 06:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

Unfortunately the proposal to add human behaviour is not getting much attention – it would make sense to swap crime for it. Cobblet (talk) 17:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Crime sometimes is mentioned in anthropological articles (for example in Sex differences in humans is mentioned the crime). So I belive that featured article about human behavior could covers crime too (but at the moment this article is very short and does not cover crime). I generally support swap emiotion for human behavior because of behavior seems to me boarder and more vital concept. Human behavior could describe broader issues such like politics. Dawid2009 (talk) 18:12, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment: If human behavior is added, I would support swap emotion with human evolution due to emotion overlap similar field. Human evolution is not less vital for encyclopedia than history of earth and fit at this level when we have human and history of the world at the level 1. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not really sure that we need to list both Evolution and Human evolution at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:15, 29 January 2019 (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.

---

Remove Manufacturing

Currently quite short article with lots of lists. Is it really vital at this level, when Machine is not listed? Is Industry more vital?

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 17:30, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
2. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 11:44, 29 January 2019 (UTC)).
3. Weak support When Service (economics) even is not listed at the level 3 I do not see how Manufactiring is vital at this level. Agriculture is listed due to historical significante. Industry probably should staying when we list film; because of Industrial Revolution is level 3 article while History of film is level 4. Dawid2009 (talk) 17:58, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
4. Support Less important than Business and Trade, also has some overlap. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 01:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
5. Support We are over quota and something has to go. This probably doesn't deserve to be listed at level 2. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:23, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Why Manufacturing engineering is not even at the level 5 while at the level we have manufacturing and engineering? Natural science and Social science naturally are listed at the level 3 due to we have Society and Nature. BTW I also note English Wikpedia does not have article "technique" (d:Q2695280 and "technical science" d:Q12015335 Dawid2009 (talk) 18:45, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Dawid, Technology#Definition and usage may clear up your confusion regarding English usage of these words, which is different from in other languages. My sense in that at least in North America, manufacturing engineering is more usually thought of as a mix of mechanical and industrial engineering than as an independent discipline. Cobblet (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Dawid2009: Tactic (method) and Procedural knowledge already exist. wumbolo ^^^ 19:09, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Wumbolo: I just have pinged you not as question but rather as suggestion for consensus. When English Wikipedia already have category: Engineering disciplines it shows that Engineering should not be removed ahead of construction (you have suggested to remove engineering as first despite fact this is important topic beetwen technology and science in English). Dawid2009 (talk) 19:22, 28 January 2019 (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.

How vital are tool and machine?

Tool is level 2 article. Machine is not on the level 3 because of we list simple machine there. How vital are all these articles? English Wikipedia does not have article about d:Q1183543 so would compare that things to technical names such like vehicle or mode of transport. I doubt all these articles should have higher priority for featured article than history of technology or philosophy of science. Some users other than me have agreed each other that history of science is not more vital than scientific method so I would consider removing tool and history of science to readded history of technology and to add philosophy of science. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:35, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

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.

---

Add Geology

Important article about study of Earth/Planet. This is the only general concept which well belong to Brittanica's outline and is not represented here. Several users suggested to add it here. If we decide add Geology we will have better chance to swap sun for solar system because of sun has been swaped for nature and geology explain some concepts which aree not described in other articles. For me Geology is even more general and important article than something like Climate.

Support

1. Support as nom Dawid2009 (talk) 09:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 09:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
3. Support It's a top-level science article that should be listed, and since Earth is at Level 1, it makes sense to list it at Level 2. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:47, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
4. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 11:03, 14 March 2019 (UTC)).
5. Support A general concept that is taught at middle school/high school should be represented at this level. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 01:20, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
6. --RekishiEJ (talk) 08:43, 24 March 2019 (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.

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 Industry

Less vital than Trade.

Support

1. Nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 13:17, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
2. Support. wumbolo ^^^ 13:39, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
3. Support per Gizza: "Too generic unlike actual industries like manufacturing, which is listed separately." --Thi (talk) 14:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
4. Support There probably is too much overlap with other listed articles like business and manufacturing. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
5. Support at this level industry feels like a definition or overarching concept with not much meaning or substance. Just like how actual continents are more than vital than continent. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:32, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose No rationale given. Even if you accept that industry is less vital than trade (which is not a reasoned argument, but just an opinion), that doesn't mean that industry isn't vital at this level. Cobblet (talk) 00:16, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
2. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 15:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)).
3. oppose  Carlwev  22:32, 21 March 2019 (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 Emotion

Reasons above (I consider swap sleep and emotion with human behaviour)

Support

1. As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 14:54, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
2. Support. Many related articles are level 4, so Emotion belongs to level 3. wumbolo ^^^ 15:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

   @Wumbolo: You do realise that this is level 2... J947 ^(c), at 04:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

   Oops I read your comment wrong. Sorry for the ping. J947 ^(c), at 21:16, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

3. Support. Emotion does seem to be a bit weak to be listed here when you compare it to the other articles listed in the Level 2 social sciences section. It's also got some overlap with other articles that are listed like Psychology and Mind. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
4. Support swap with human behaviour. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:32, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 20:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 09:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)).
4. Oppose As something that guides human actions at a basic level, it's as vital as logic. Cobblet (talk) 16:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
5. Oppose We list logic, mind, psychology, feeling is as important as thinking, emotion is expanded with several emotions in the 1000 list, and many in the 10,000 list. How we feel is just as important as how we think. I believe it belongs here and is far from being the weakest article here.  Carlwev  16:27, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

Opposers: any reasons? J947 ^(c), at 21:17, 30 January 2019 (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.

---

Add Antarctica

Support

1. Support as nom. (Ios2019 (talk) 14:55, 22 January 2019 (UTC))
2. Support wumbolo ^^^ 19:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
3. Support addition Continent. In my opinion, Antarctica as separate featured article is not even nearly vital for this level but we need information that Antarctica exist and "generally" we have 7 continents on the earth. Dawid2009 (talk) 09:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

   Firstly, your vote is not a support, secondly, I am pretty sure that there's proof Antarctica exists. :) But please clarify. J947 ^(c), at 21:24, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

   Well, so I will clear what my vote excatly mean: Antarctica is mentioned in several other articles from level 2 (such like South America) but it is mentioned additionally and rather in confusing way, not intentionally for Antarctica; in these articles there are not definition of Antarctica such like it is described in article about continent. I generally think that we need definiotion of Antarctica at this level but I do not think we really need whole featured article about this continent. Antarctica is important in context of physical geography but not in context of human geography IMO it is not nearly vital to other continents. It is reason why recently nomination for Antarctica has been failed (there is discussion in archives) and it is reason why History of Antarctica is not listed at the level 3 while History of Oceania there is (Although maybe I could support addition History of Antarctica to the level 3 because of we have one polar explorer at the level 3). Dawid2009 (talk) 21:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. This has come up before, and I'll say what I said previously. "Antarctica has been completely uninhabited by humans for almost all of human history, and it has very few native plant and animal species. It has no significant rivers or lakes. It is essentially a very large rock mostly covered by a very large sheet of ice." Rreagan007 (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 20:42, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose, but would support swap of Asia, Africa, Europe, North America, South America, and Oceania with Continent. Mstrojny (talk) 00:37, 6 February 2019 (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.

---

Swap Computer and Communication with Telecommunication and Speech

Would cover Sound and Radio; the latter is no less vital than Computer. Note that we have Writing, so Communication is not really needed at this level.

Support

1. Support as nom. wumbolo ^^^ 19:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
2. Support swap Computer with Speech even in non-historical context computer is less vital than Internet so computer nodoubtly should not be ahead something like printing Dawid2009 (talk) 19:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removal of communication Dawid2009 (talk) 19:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC), Oppose addition of telecommunication Dawid2009 (talk) 19:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 20:41, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 09:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)).

Discuss

I am quite not sure Ideographic language can be covered by Writting. Communication probably also is quite nearly vital to language which is listed at the level 1 (Nonverbal communication is listed ahead of Body language) Dawid2009 (talk) 19:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

We don't list Photograph on any level. Video is at level 3 because of the technology not type of communication. Film is at level 2 because it is an art form not because it's communication. wumbolo ^^^ 19:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Communication is not completly covered by telecomunication, speech and writing and it is way too important topic to remove it (and communication is also more popular concept than telecommunication). Swapping communication for these three articles probably would be such like swapping culture for arts + folklore (history of world vs culture it is other accident because of history of world also cover other important topics). Dawid2009 (talk) 21:18, 22 January 2019 (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 Electricity, add Electromagnetism

Support

1. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)).

Oppose

1. Oppose. The article on Electromagnetism is about the fundamental force, and if we were going to list something in that area, we should just list the main article on Force itself, which incidentally is currently nominated below. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

@Ios2019: Could you give rationale to nomination? I personally do not know about electricy and electromagnetism very much but I note we have added electrity instead Internet some time ago. Dawid2009 (talk) 06:40, 29 January 2019 (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.

---

Add Force

"Four fundamental forces of nature are behind all that we do, from falling down to orbiting the sun."[2]

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:22, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
2. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 11:56, 29 January 2019 (UTC)).

Oppose

1. Oppose If I had to add another physics article it would be matter. Essentially it's a question of overlap: the relationship between force and energy, which is already listed, is relatively obvious; the relationship between matter and energy far more subtle (thanks, Einstein). While force and matter are both fundamental physics concepts, the list gains more from having energy and matter than from having energy and force. There's also the question of whether we need another physics article at all – science is already quite well represented on this list. Cobblet (talk) 16:02, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose Machine or Matter would be better choice than something like Force; but I think chemical element and atom is enaugh for chemistry and I do think machine is more vital than infrastructure for technology. Dawid2009 (talk) 13:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose Matter is a much better add. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

I believe the unsigned !vote is by User:UnitedStatesian. Cobblet (talk) 20:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, sorry about that UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2019 (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.

---

Remove Entertainment

It is a well-made article, but it overlaps with Culture, Arts topics and Sport.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 16:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
2. Weak support swap with human behaviour Game also covers that thing. Some time ago we have removed recreation from level 3 to level 4 to give place for other specific articles, maybe we could try here. Dawid2009 (talk) 16:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC) I have changed support for "weak support" (entertaiment is not enaugh covered when game is level 3 article). 16:56, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Arts and culture are about human expression. Entertainment is about the human capacity for experiencing that expression. The two are complementary and equally vital. I agree that human behaviour is a better addition than most of what Thi's just proposed, but it shouldn't come at the expense of removing entertainment. Cobblet (talk) 17:00, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 11:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)).

Discuss

I potentially could support swap entartaiment for something but it is one of the most vital not-science related articles. Dawid2009 (talk) 17:08, 28 January 2019 (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 Computer and Tool, Add History of technology

IMO Book is the only specific article which can belong to 100 the most important topics. It exist for thousand yeras and is main topics in context of technology and in context of literature/art. Computer historically is way much less vital than something like Calendar and computer should not have higher priority for FA than Internet. Tool also does not belong to level 2. When Handicraft and Machine technology are not at the level 3 I do not see how machine or Tool would be at the level 2. Gadget even is not listed at the level 5 and other concepts similar to d:Q1183543 are not listed on any level. Historry of technology would be decent addition. It vital at leasat just as history of art and generally there are not any overlap beetween history of technology and history of science, speciffically due to fact that even exist other article: History of science and technology. When we list at the level 3: Gunpowder, Explosive material and Firearm, I think we should have here two separated article about history of cience and history of technology. Also computer IMO is less vital concept of communication than speech or even nonverbal communication and if we decide add history of science we will have better chance to add History of aviation or Space race to the level 3. These two are better human achivements than history of bicycle and are nearly vital just as history of film.

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 09:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
2. Support swapping Tool for History of technology.
3. Addition. It is illogical to include history of science but not history of technology.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:58, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
4. Removal of Computer. It is less vital than Electricity, and just as vital as Radio at level 3. wumbolo ^^^ 10:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removal of Computer. Still better choice than the alternatives. --Thi (talk) 09:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
2. Removals, since after skimming through the list I think that both computer and tool are vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:58, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose we have too many vague "history of X" articles already. The goal here is to pick 100 topics, not to pick as many topics as possible that cover ten other topics. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:05, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

   We've only got two. I don't think that's too much. J947 ^(c), at 04:33, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

4. Strong Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 11:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)).
5. Weak oppose removal of Computer, oppose removal of Tool, neutral on addition – Computer is here as a representative of the modern days alongside Modern history, and I think that's a fair two percent, though probably rounding up. The catch-all article for tools is IMO more vital than computers, and I feel like it should be okay to have 3 articles here about specific items (removing Film, it doesn't belong here). I'm neutral on the addition, and that's solely because RekishiEJ makes a poignant point. HoS is more vital than HoT, but not by much, but not enough to place it clearly for me either way. J947 ^(c), at 17:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
6. Oppose: I don't want another "history of x" article, we should add the things you said as separate discussions, because Tool and Computer should be at Level 2. Wikipedia is browsed via a computer so this is a pretty vital article anyway. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 01:15, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

To be fair. I also remind that when Co coputer has been added we decided add it instead computing and now computing is level 4 article since computer science is level 3. Dawid2009 (talk) 09:14, 6 March 2019 (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 Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, Oceania, and South America) and (Add Continent)

Support

1. This would conserve space in this level and more space for new articles. Mstrojny (talk) 13:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong oppose The article that defines the concept of a continent is not in any way, shape, or form an adequate replacement for the articles that describe the geography of specific continents. And no rationale is provided for removing nearly half of the geography articles on the list. Cobblet (talk) 18:27, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

   Sorry about that, Cobblet. Is this nomination worthy enough for a discussion or should I remove it? Mstrojny (talk) 19:14, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

   There's no need to apologize – everybody is always welcome to give their own opinion and start a discussion. You may withdraw any proposal you make at any time. But I'm sure there have been proposals that passed despite my strong objections. Cobblet (talk) 19:27, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

2. Oppose These six (sorry, Antarctica) are the most important geographic (and ethno/cultural) divisions on the planet. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:15, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
4. Oppose – the continents themselves have useful content, rather than just a article which discusses the continents in themselves, but not the stuff inside the continents, which is the useful part. J947 ^(c), at 02:36, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

I'm surprised that everyone opposes adding Continent, but is fine with Country, City, Land and Sea at this level. wumbolo ^^^ 09:36, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Because a "continent" is nothing more than a large landmass that we've attached a name to for convenience of nomenclature. They're arbitrary and have no intrinsic meaning, which is why there are different ways of naming continents. All the other concepts you mentioned do have an intrinsic meaning. Cobblet (talk) 23:02, 17 April 2019 (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.

---

add Human behavior

This topic seems be more vital than sleep and emotion

Support

1. As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 14:54, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
2. Seems largely important, good catch. J947 ^(c), at 05:05, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
3. Support swap with emotion. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
4. Support Exactly the type of article that is incredibly important and deserves the community's attention. Compare Britannica's article, which covers the topic from the perspective of developmental psychology. Cobblet (talk) 16:29, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Note to closer: The article's name is actually Human behavior, American spelling. J947 ^(c), at 04:15, 11 January 2019 (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 Construction, add Infrastructure

Several users have agreed each other that there is too many overlap between Construction and Architecture. Infrastructure is a concept which covers similar things to Construction but here there is none overlap with architecture. Infrastructure also is enaugh general and popular article for this level. It is more general than something like City/Human settlement, Transport or Traffic. Editor @J947: even mentioned that it belongs to 30 the most important articles.

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 09:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
2. Support not 30 most important, changed my opinion, but still vital. Construction, also, is an appropriate removal. J947 ^(c), at 19:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
3. Support removal --Thi (talk) 09:21, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
4. Support removal There is definitely too much overlap between construction and architecture to list both at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
5. Support removal (Ios2019 (talk) 11:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)).
6. Support removal due to the overlap; no addition. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

I believe the unsigned !vote is by User:UnitedStatesian. Cobblet (talk) 20:03, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, signed now UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:05, 29 April 2019 (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.

---

Remove Business

Business is important concept but after swapping Employment for Economy we have here too many overlap. We do not list Spirituality when we have Religion at the level 2 and Philosophy at the leve l so I do not think we should have Business when economy is level 2 article.

Support

1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 09:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose as it's the most important out of all the related articles at this level. I really don't see how this is less vital than Trade, Economics, and Industry. It just plain isn't. And BTW Dawid, Economy is only at L4 (which should be changed). I think you were referring to Economics. Also, on a broader note, I think it's fair to have 3 or 4 percent of the articles here to be business-related. J947 ^(c), at 04:31, 9 March 2019 (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.

---

Replace Home with Building.

I see no value in Home, in compare to House, when there is already family. and when compare to House, Building is more appropriate.

Support

1. As nom --Viztor (talk) 13:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Building has overlap with architecture. If we decide add something wide it should be infrastructure which has not any overlap with architecture but could covers things like information infrastructure or ski lift. It would be one of the most general article for technology. However we are one under quota and I would prefer remove sun or solar system (probably sun woukd be better choice brcause of nominations to remove planets from level 3 got failed) Dawid2009 (talk) 14:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose Shelter is one of the most basic of human needs and where one lives is fundamental to one's identity. The generalized concept of a manmade structure with roof and walls is not nearly as vital. Cobblet (talk) 08:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

   Home by definition is the place you/family live, there is very little to cover given we already have family. Viztor (talk) 07:34, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

   Does family cover forms of housing, housing tenure, or homelessness? Cobblet (talk) 11:20, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

   Homelessness is not on the level 3 but maybe security could be added there. Dawid2009 (talk) 15:00, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

3. Oppose Home or House comes first. --Thi (talk) 07:47, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
4. Oppose. "Home" is a broader concept than just a building. Besides, we recently removed construction from this list, which is more vital than building. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:52, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
5. Home is an extremely important topic. You can live in a home on your own, and it's very much vital to you with no overlap with Family. But still, it rises above overlap with Family anyhow IMO. J947^{'s public account} 21:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
6. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 21:09, 5 July 2019 (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 Psychology

Psychology is listed because of 10 years ago section about Every day life had name anthropology and psychology (or something similar AFAIR). Anthropology got removed but psychology still straying. It is not needed because of mind and emotion are more inportant than psychology just like music is more vital than musicology or just like ethnkic group is more vital than ethnography. Psychology and Neuroscience are two articles which we need hav on the level 3 (Neuroscience is only levwel 4 article). Some time ago I was supporting to remove emotion that it could be covered by mind, such like though is covered by mind; but now I think emotion still should be here. Emotion is pair with logic just like logical intellifence can be pair with emotioal intellifence (opposers reasons were convinted to me)

Support

1. Dawid2009 (talk) 14:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Psychology covers both human cognition and behaviour. If we're not adding human behaviour we should definitely keep psychology on the list. Even if we do add human behaviour, I would still be OK with keeping this on the list. I don't see a problem with listing both psychology and two of its subtopics. For one thing, we're under the quota, not over. Cobblet (talk) 08:52, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose Psychology is about human behaviour and the section Everyday life could also be Human behaviour. --Thi (talk) 07:49, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose(Ios2019 (talk) 21:07, 5 July 2019 (UTC)).

Discuss

I am not really sure about it. Saying that psychology is about every day life is like saying that musicology is about folk music and saying that psychology covers mind and behaviour is like saying that meteorology covers climate and weather. We have already logic, emotion, mind and probably we will have human behaviour. I do not see how psychology is more vital than other human-centric science like anthropology. When we do not have theology ahead of literary critism we should not have two levels difference beetwen psychology and neuroscience (or something like psychiatry/neurology). I would consider keep this one space for something other. There are topics which could be added here (or readded) and these ones have less similar topics with overlap on this level than psychology does. Dawid2009 (talk) 14:58, 7 June 2019 (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.

---

Add Matter

I've noted with great interest the article Matter which was suggested by several editors in the proposal to add Force. I am giving everyone an opportunity to go on record and see how they feel about the article Matter.

Support

1. wumbolo ^^^ 18:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 16:19, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Swap with atom

1. Support swap with atom. We already list chemical element here, and we don't really need both it and atom. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
2. Weak support Natural tesource is mentioned in the article land. We also list computer which is very specific for this level. I am oppose to add wothout swap because of we do not have space among 100 articles to explain many impoetant topics. Matter fits when we list energy, atom can be covered by chemical element. Dawid2009 (talk)

Discuss

1. Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/2/Archive_2#Add_Matter. --Thi (talk) 20:51, 16 April 2019 (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.

---

Add Everyday life

Every other section for Level 2 includes the article(s) the section is named after. Why shouldn't that also be the case here? - Sdkb (talk) 04:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. - Sdkb (talk) 04:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. This article isn't even listed at Level 3, 4, or 5. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:42, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose It is only a section header. --Thi (talk) 06:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

This is a section header, it looks like a phrase to catch all the loose articles that don't fit in neat sections like history, science, geography or arts etc. We used to list Personal life but removed it [[3]]; this everyday life looks like a very similar article, and difficult to write about. Among the different size lists there are many section/subsection title headers that are not listed themselves as articles at the same level such as continents listed under continents header but not listing continent itself, music genre is a header in the 1000 list but not one of the listed articles, as is Filmmakers and businessmen and several more. Section headers could be discussed I suppose, but they serve more as convenience of navigating the list, and are probably not as important as the actual articles themselves.  Carlwev  17:19, 9 May 2019 (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.

---

Subcategorizations of film and music

@Rreagan007: First of all, please provide edit summaries, especially when you're reverting other user's edits: WP:FIES. I don't see how these subcategorizations help readers better navigate the list. They only seem to introduce conceptual confusion. By saying film is a visual art and not a performing art, are we implying that film is never a performing art? How is film more of a visual art than architecture? Also, a lot of electronically composed music is not "performed" in any meaningful sense of the word (e.g. video game soundtracks). I see no advantage in making these sublists and would prefer all the art genres remain uncategorized. Cobblet (talk) 04:38, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

@Cobblet: I'm merely going by what our own articles classify them as. The Performing arts article lists music as a performing art. The Visual arts article lists video and filmmaking as visual arts. Film has also been categorized under Visual arts at Level 3 for quite some time. Architecture is also listed as a visual art in the visual arts article, so that could be moved under there as well. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:15, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Film is also described as "a dominant performance medium" in the performing arts article. But for the sake of consistency with level 3, how about we just take music out of the performing art category? Cobblet (talk) 13:32, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I'd honestly rather put architecture under visual art. Having some articles subcategorized and some not seems like a worse solution. I'd like to hear what other people think about this, but most people don't seem to care much about the organizational structure of the lists. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I think creating subcategories on the level 2 list was a bad idea to begin with. I don't think it's all that helpful for the reader, and it only serves as another thing for us to argue over. I'd prefer we go back to listing everything in each category in alphabetical order. Cobblet (talk) 15:41, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I will say that I didn't love the idea of subcategories at level 2 when it was first changed, but honestly it's kind of grown on me. Yes, it is something else to have discussions over, but the same can be said for every level that uses subcategorization. Lists like this aren't of much use if they aren't well-organized. There is certainly more than one way to organize lists, but on balance I find the subcategorized lists to be more helpful. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:30, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Frankly I find the subcategorising less helpful. I only see the need for further divisions and headings once a sublist is bigger than around 7 or 9 items (per the Seven, Plus or Minus Two rule. All it does is make the list more inaccurate. The lists have already become less easy to follow and count when they were changed from numbered lists to bullet points. Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:17, 23 June 2019 (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.

---

Add Simple machine

This article covers for example Wheel. The story of machines and technological revolution starts here. Only History of technology could be more general, currently not listed article.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 10:49, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Now that we have one space open, I would prefer adding back history of technology. Cobblet (talk) 12:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
2. Not before machine itself gets added to level 3. J947^{'s public account} 00:13, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose Quoting myself from the infrastructure discussion above: "I think we need to resist the impulse to just turn the top VA levels into a list of all the broadest words in the dictionary, and one way to do that is to look at the extent to which the concepts under an umbrella term are associated with it." Were I to start describing the wheel, noting that it's a type of "simple machine" wouldn't be the first thing to come to mind. Sdkb (talk) 17:21, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

I also think it would be reasonable to swap fire for history of technology. Cobblet (talk) 12:07, 9 September 2019 (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: add Continent, remove Land

Culturally more natural complement to Sea. Land has fewer interwiki links than Continent. Earth is more vital topic than Land.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 07:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
2. Addition only.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:26, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong oppose That's why Earth is level 1, but this is the level 2 list. Continent is just the terrestrial equivalent of list of seas – all it talks about are how different definitions of continents exist. I don't see how it improves the list to replace land with an article that would not cover islands. I can tolerate a swap of land for geomorphology but not for continent. Land has few interwiki links because many Wikipedias do not have separate articles for land and terrain. Cobblet (talk) 11:10, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose Land is the broader and more generic term. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:09, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose per most of Cobbler's rationale. Sdkb (talk) 17:17, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
4. Oppose per Cobblet, the article could and should be more broad but still not vital enough. See also this. J947^{'s public account} 21:25, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

Another way to look at it: the level 3 articles desert, island, mountain, forest, glacier, lake, and river are not subtopics of continent. They are subtopics of land on level 2, just as land is a subtopic of Earth on level 1. Cobblet (talk) 03:07, 5 September 2019 (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.

---

Add Infrastructure

Important, probably covers transport, which is on this list. IMO more important than logic and folklore. Extremely important, covers facilities, really vital in not just modern-day life but before as well. Complements tool. We're on 99. —J947 ^(c), at 01:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominator. J947 ^(c), at 01:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
2. Support. One of good alternatives. --Thi (talk) 13:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
3. Support Infrastructure should be compared to technoogy which is level 1 article, not eenginering and architecture. It i naturally broader article than transport and "how article is general" should be the only consideration at the level 1 and 2. I can not understand people who bother about Wikipedia's statistics on these two levels. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose There is not a good, standard definition of that subject. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose not convinced it adds anything of value to this level beyond what is already in engineering, architecture and transport. Also per UnitedStatesian. Gizza ^(t)(c) 22:42, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose As used in the article, infrastructure encompasses both hard and soft infrastructure – it's basically anything that allows an economy to function. If the scope of the term is as broad as economy itself, I would propose that as a better alternative, except that it's not even on level 3. (Now that I think of it, it may not be a bad idea to swap infrastructure for economy at level 3.) Moreover, I think the concept of hard infrastructure (i.e., physical service networks) ought to be covered at least by industry, and that of soft infrastructure (i.e., institutionalized services) ought to be covered at least by government. In short: just because the list does not contain the term "infrastructure" does not mean that the list does not cover infrastructure. I think there are other level 3 articles that would add more to this list than infrastructure would. Cobblet (talk) 23:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

I agree with UnitedStatesian that it's a somewhat amorphous term. I'm currently unsure about the proposal to add it here, but some thoughts: a large portion of the categories/examples listed in the intro refer to transport, but there are also a bunch that refer to non-transport related things, and I'd like to see those covered in some way at this level. I have a few hesitations, though. First, some of those are covered by either engineering or the general technology article. Second, I think we need to resist the impulse to just turn the top VA levels into a list of all the broadest words in the dictionary, and one way to do that is to look at the extent to which the concepts under an umbrella term are associated with it. If you asked me to start describing a park or a tunnel, it might be a while until I mention it's a type of infrastructure. Overall, I'm open to persuasion and might change my vote later.

Also, those of you voting here may be interested in discussing my proposal to add some additional transport infrastructure-related articles to level 4. - Sdkb (talk) 16:42, 28 August 2019 (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 Fire, add History of technology

Art, science and technology are separate things and deserves more articles. I don't think that history of technology is covered by Science and History of science. Most important aspect of science is modern science, but history of technology covers for example prehistoric era. Fire can maybe compared to such article as Chemical reaction which is in level 3.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 12:17, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
2. Supprt addition Dawid2009 (talk) 20:41, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose The history of technology is mostly covered by History of the world, the specific era articles, and Technology, which has a history section. Fire is vital, arguably from both a chemistry perspective and a technology perspective, but certainly so when taken together. Sdkb (talk) 18:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
2. Strong oppose removal Dawid2009 (talk) 20:41, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Sdkb. History of technology is covered in different ways by history of science and history of the world. Both articles discuss the advancement of technology over time. Gizza ^(t)(c) 22:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
4. Oppose Fire has been a vital topic for millions of years. pbp 23:48, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

• I'm wondering whether fire ought to be moved to the science section under chemistry, rather than the technology section. Thoughts, anyone? Sdkb (talk) 18:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't speak for all scientists (ecologists would see things differently, for example, although even they would consider at least atmosphere of Earth to be more vital than fire), but chemically speaking fire is just one special manifestation of an oxidation, which is just one subtype of a redox reaction, which is not even on level 3. There are probably dozens of articles related to chemistry I would add before fire – chemical bond, chemical reaction, matter, periodic table, etc. Cobblet (talk) 00:31, 26 September 2019 (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 Death, add Spirituality

Spirituality is the only article which completly covers things like Theism, Atheism.....etc etc. I am also not sure it is justificed to favorise articles like death, afterlife ahead of birth, beforelife. What do you think to swap death for spiritulality? Dawid2009 (talk) 18:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

1. Oppose removal, weak oppose addition: Death is a fundamental part of being human; it's hugely culturally and philosophically important. I oppose adding spirituality because it has too much overlap with religion — just look at how much the spirituality intro section discusses the overlap — but I wouldn't mind seeing another religion article added. Perhaps God? And I did propose adding birth to level 3, but that failed. Sdkb (talk) 04:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose removal, death pairs well with life. It is not being favoured ahead of similar articles as the nom suggests. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose Death is important thing in life and culture. Spirituality overlaps with religion. --Thi (talk) 11:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

The modern concept of spirituality does not necessarily overlap with religion: see Spiritual but not religious. Cobblet (talk) 06:24, 7 November 2019 (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.

---

99/100

Currently we have 99/100 articles. Which one you would propose to add next? Dawid2009 (talk) 18:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't like either of your proposed removals, but both your proposed additions seem reasonable to me and I'd support either one if it was proposed on its own. Cobblet (talk) 02:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I think the way to go about this is to look at overall topic areas, rather than just individual articles that seem like they're missing. I compared the percentage of articles in the different sections here to the percentages at level 3, and they're mostly balanced, with one main exception: Arts is 7% here, but only 4% at Level 3. That said, I don't really want to remove any of the arts articles here, and I think 7% is probably more appropriate than 4%, so perhaps level 3 is where the issue is. Sdkb (talk) 04:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I also took a look through the level 2 archives here at proposals that came close to passing. Some that stand out: Matter and Human behavior (which, at 4-0, probably should have been added). Sdkb (talk) 09:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@Cobblet: As the closer for human behavior, could you offer more explanation as to why it didn't pass? Sdkb (talk) 15:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Rule 4 at the top of this page is clear: After 60 days any proposal may be closed as NO CONSENSUS if it has a) failed to earn at least 5 support !votes, and b) earned less than two-thirds support. Moreover, one of the !votes was for a swap, and the !voter did not indicate whether they would support a straight addition, so really, it was only 3–0, as I noted when I closed the discussion. Cobblet (talk) 17:11, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Ah, got it, thanks. It seems like a weird rule, and I'm still left wondering whether the lack of votes signaled lack of enthusiasm for the proposal (as the rule seems to assume) or just lack of attention to it, but idk. Sdkb (talk) 03:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I have the following items on my personal list of 500 articles. I could support adding one of these, although many of these topics would not be suitable at this level. It is only a draft.

History: Ancient Egypt, Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, Pre-Columbian era, Renaissance, Age of Discovery, Scientific Revolution, Age of Enlightenment, Industrial Revolution, French Revolution, World War I, Soviet Union, World War II.

Geography: Continent (nominated three times), Antarctica (nominated two times), Arctic, Desert, Sahara, Forest, Mountain, River, Lake, Atlantic Ocean.

Arts: Aesthetics, Museum, Opera, Dance, Theatre, History of literature, Novel, Poetry, Fairy tale, Painting, Sculpture, Photography, Comics, Romanticism, Realism, Modernism, Abstract art, Jazz, Folk music, Pop music, Rock music, Classical music, Singing, History of music, Musical instrument.

Philosophy and religion: Good and evil, Ontology, Philosophy of science, Epistemology, Reason, Truth, Atheism, Secularism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Christianity, God, Myth (removed).

Everyday life: Thought, Memory, Dream, Sleep (removed), Sexual orientation, Family, Marriage, Child, Gender (nominated), Man, Woman, Love, Happiness, Game, Sport, Tourism, Fruit, Coffee, Bread, Meat, Milk, Nut, Vegetable, Potato, Sugar, Cereal, Salt.

Society and social sciences: English language (nominated), Linguistics (removed), Grammar, Personal name, Alphabet, Latin script, Speech (nominated), Social science (removed), Library, Constitution, Police, Crime (removed), Military, Democracy, Conservatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Colonialism, United Nations, European Union, International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, Mass media, Journalism, News, Human rights, Poverty, Justice, Slavery, Genocide, Peace, Social security/Welfare, Discrimination, Racism, Social equality, Feminism/Women's rights/Gender equality, Liberty, Power, Environmentalism (nominated), Pollution, Disability, Economy (currently not in Level 3), Capitalism, Money (nominated), Bank, Tax, Employment, Corporation, Trade union, Fishing, Hunting, Mining.

Science and medicine: Nature, Scientific method (nominated), Measurement, International System of Units, Health, Hygiene, Exercise, Nutrition, Medication, Birth control, Vaccine, Abortion, Allergy, Diabetes, Common cold, Mental disorder, Sexually transmitted infection, Addiction, Cardiovascular disease, Cancer, Pregnancy, Ageing, Obesity, Day, Year, Organism (nominated), Reproduction, Taxonomy, Species, Biodiversity, Ecosystem, Extinction, Human evolution, Natural selection, Human body (nominated), Nervous system, Brain, Skin, Lung, Ear, Eye, Circulatory system, Blood, Heart, Digestion, Liver, Muscle, Skeleton, Immune system, Sense, Zoology, Dinosaur, Bird, Mammal, Reptile, Insect, Fish, Amphibian, Primate, Dog, Cattle, Botany, Flower, Tree, Fungus, Photosynthesis, Bacteria (removed), Virus, Genetics, Gene, DNA, Metabolism, Erosion, Rock, Plate tectonics, Soil, History of Earth (nominated two times), Earthquake, Mineral, Volcano, Climate, Global warming, Season, Weather, Cloud, Rain, Wind, Snow, Biochemistry, Periodic table, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Oxygen, Iron, Gold, Chemical reaction, Acid–base reaction, Metal (nominated), Alloy, Steel, Chemical bond, Molecule, Wave, Electromagnetic radiation, Optics, Light, Speed of light, Color (nominated), Sound, Matter (nominated two times), State of matter, Particle physics, Subatomic particle, Electron, Photon, Radioactive decay, Classical mechanics, Mass, Motion, Newton's laws of motion, Quantum mechanics, Magnetism, Theory of relativity, Thermodynamics, Heat, Temperature, Vacuum, Force (nominated), Gravity, Electromagnetism (nominated), Asteroid, Big Bang, Galaxy, Milky Way, Orbit, Outer space (nominated), Black hole, Planet, Star.

Technology: History of technology (removed and nominated three times), Weapon, Biotechnology, Medical imaging, Rocket, Satellite, Spaceflight, Space exploration, Fire, Natural gas, Petroleum, Renewable energy, Hydropower, Solar energy, Wind power, Nuclear power, Computer science, Machine (nominated) or Simple machine (nominated), Engine, Robotics, Aircraft, Bicycle, Car, Rail transport, Ship, Glass, Metallurgy, Paper, Plastic, Textile, Wood, Navigation, Compass, Map, Calendar, Clock, Lens, Infrastructure (nominated two times), Bridge, Road, Electronics (removed), Internet (nominated), Printing (nominated), Mail, Radio, Telephone, Television.

Mathematics: History of mathematics (removed), Algebra (nominated two times), Equation, Algorithm, Mathematical analysis, Calculus, Function, Coordinate system, Angle, Dimension, Set, Mathematical proof, Topology, Probability, Natural number, Integer. --Thi (talk) 11:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Articles that stick out to me as potential strong candidates: Matter, Internet, Nature, God. Should I nominate any of them? Sdkb (talk) 20:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

If you do so, it would be best to address objections raised in previous discussions. For example, nature was swapped for Sun a while ago. Cobblet (talk) 06:22, 7 November 2019 (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 History of technology

War and Computer were not removed years ago because of these ones are not listed in history section but among other overrepresented ones. It is incomprehensive to say that history of technology does not belong among few very the most important aticles related to history. In general every historical age is started or ended by revolution associated with technology. Inventing fire... inventing writing... inventing printing by Gutenberg... inventing Internet, so what is puropse to lis war ahead of history of technology? (how big significance get war outise historical context to put it among 100 articles and ahead of history of technology?). I also see objections to say that history of technology is more vital than history of science but in previous nomintions nobody gave arguments why in their opinions history of science is more vital. Dawid2009 (talk) 18:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

People often say that history of technology is redundnt to technology and history but how time and energy are not redundant to universe any more than space/outer space or matter (I do not know about physcics much so I only ask)? Dawid2009 (talk) 18:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Support

1. Support addition per previous proposals. --Thi (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose addition, strong oppose removal I can't fully parse the nomination, so perhaps I could be swayed, but we just agreed not to add History of Technology, and my rationale hasn't changed since then: The history of technology is mostly covered by History of the world, the specific era articles, and Technology, which has a history section. Regarding War, it's one of the most consequential (politically, economically, culturally, etc.) endeavors that humans undertake. I'm strongly opposed to removing it, and probably still would be even if Level 2 only had half as much room. Sdkb (talk) 03:20, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose removal War is too fundamental topic in human history. --Thi (talk) 11:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose removal UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:20, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
4. Oppose removal, unsure on addition. Nah we can't remove war, it has been so vital to how human life (and death) developed in this way. J947^{'s public account} 20:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
5. Oppose Strongly oppose removing war. I moderately oppose adding history of technology, and might support removing history of art and history of science. Orser67 (talk) 22:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Discuss

Why History of Science and History of art but not History of technology?

Proposal addition of "History of technology" probably will not be passed despite my and Thi's repeated efforts but I find some points on which we could pay attention:

1. Level 2 include History of science and History of art which are covered by other articles, excatly like History of technology does.
2. Either of technology and History of the world are listed on the level 1, not 2 and proposal of the removal Geography (I also opposed it for the record) was failed just due to fact Earth is level 1 article.
3. We still did not reach to the consensus why "history technology" is not more vital than history of science or history of art. I also doubt history of art will be removed from the level 2 in future as it is core topic of social sciences and we recently we added articles like History of film/music/architecture on the level 3 but I am interested about point of @J947:/@J947 Public:. J947, you supported addition of History of film ont the level 3 (As "History of film is more important article than any biography associated with film) but weakly opposed addition of "History of technology" to the level 2. J947, do you think History of art is more vital than history of technology or you would keep rather either of history of arts and history of film/architecture/music altogheter on the level 3? Dawid2009 (talk) 14:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I actually was neutral on that proposal. Right now I am probably leaning towards support. J947^{'s public account} 20:22, 3 December 2019 (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.

---

What to do about Modern history merge

So it appears Beland, after some light discussion, has merged Modern history into Early modern period, Late modern period, and Modernity, and changed the page to a redirect to the modern history section of History of the world. How do we want to deal with this as it affects VA? Our main options as I see them:

1. Leave Modern history listed as a redirect, effectively endorsing its recreation, as we did for History of philosophy.
2. Swap Modern history for Modernity (currently level 5 and consisting mostly of definitions of the term in different subject areas).
3. Swap Modern history for Early modern period and Late modern period, putting us over quota.

Personally, I'm inclined to favor option 3, unless persuasive arguments come to light that it was a bad merge. What do you all think? Sdkb (talk) 08:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing this. Two points:

1. We would not be over quota after option 3 – we currently stand at 99 articles.
2. It appears to me that the split was actually between early modern, late modern, and contemporary history, although some material was merged into modernity.

I support your option 3 in view of point 1 and despite point 2, since late modern period has a summary section on post-1945 history. Cobblet (talk) 16:00, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Right, thanks for those corrections! I did a fair amount of looking around contemporary history and related articles. I didn't include it because it seems, as you noticed, that most scholars think the late modern period goes up to the present and that contemporary history is a subfield of late modern history (and since swapping for three articles would be a tough sell; the "over quota" error was since I originally thought to propose adding it as well), but I did add it to VA5 since it wasn't previously listed at all. Sdkb (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd prefer option 1 personally; I think it should have remained as an overview article. Option 3 is also fine with me. J947^{'s public account} 22:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

As a general Wikipedian, I'd prefer to see a stronger consensus established for a change of such magnitude. As a WikiProject VA participant, I'd be wary of the precedent set if we start overruling merge decisions all the time all over. I think the proper locus for that authority is at the articles themselves and the established merge processes. Sdkb (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• Leave Modern history. This is extremely important subject. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 22:19, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
• Personally I would prefer option 1, because at the moment it seems not clear that the split will solve the articles potential problems. However, option 3 would be easier. --Thi (talk) 22:39, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
• Where is the discussion about this merge? If the merge stands, my stance is Option #2 pbp 00:26, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

The only discussion I could find was on the modern history talk page, as I linked above. @Beland: I think a lot of us here would find it helpful if you could weigh in pointing us to any further consensus for performing the merge and explaining further why you think it was beneficial. I've also issued an invitation to WikiProject History so we can get some more input from history experts. Sdkb (talk) 08:29, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Sure! These broad overview articles tend to be somewhat neglected by editors compared to their perceived importance, and indeed modern history was getting on average a thousand page views a day (I added charts to the talk pages of all the articles in question here) so it would be good to get more eyeballs on them. I don't know of any other related discussions; it seems like there are very few editors monitoring these articles, or at least there were no objections to splitting after the question was open for about half a year. Modern history basically breaks down into early modern, late modern, and contemporary, with slightly fuzzy boundaries and contemporary sometimes included in late modern. We already had a relatively well-developed early modern history article, which is good, because there is so much to say about this fast-moving and important period that including both that and coverage of the even more fast-moving late modern period in the same article would just be too long to read comfortably, especially if including contemporary history. A huge part of the modern history article was actually specifically about late modern history, and it was itself already pretty long, so I spun that off into a detail article which it seems worthwhile to have anyway if only because scholarly discussion of the long-term trends in this period (which are what define it) are extremely educational. Normally when we have detail articles, to avoid too much duplication we shrink the coverage in the parent article to a paragraph or two. But because modern history is completely covered by only two (or three, if contemporary is summarized separately) detail articles, that would leave it very short and of questionable utility. And actually there's a much longer-than-normal summary (which is OK by me, given the subject matter) of the entire period at History of the world#Modern period anyway, which is why I redirected there.

I guess for vital article purposes, since history of the world is already there at level 1, readers at level 1 will get a good summary of modern history, so dropping it from level 2 entirely might not be wrong. Especially since the coverage there is clearly incomplete; like history of art is included but history of technology (which plays a much bigger role in defining these big historical periods) isn't? I see at level 3 often the level 2 articles become main articles for sections of detail articles. Going in the opposite direction, adding both early modern period and late modern period at level 2 means that the level 3 section "Modern history" could be broken in half, which would actually be educational in of itself and not inappropriate since including everything from the Renaissance to the Cold War in a single section leaves me a little out of breath. It's also fine to just add those two articles at level 3, since not all sections have a main article, and they would break up that long section like Bronze Age and Iron age are doing for Ancient history.

At the risk of making things more complicated, there are also some complaints that the periodization we have been talking about only really applies to European history. It's somewhat less true later on as globalization kicks in and we started having world wars, but global contact started at the beginning of the modern period, so that's part of the reason it's sometimes treated gloablly. But hey, maybe Australia wasn't really part of the early modern period, or there was just so much going on in Asia or Africa that had nothing to do with the long-term trends in Europe that we just need to spin off giant summary articles for several-centuries periods there. It may take someone improving these articles from C-class to A-class to find out, or maybe more research into non-English-language scholarship in this area. Right now we're essentially hanging global history on these names. A possible alternative is something like History of the world (1500-1815), which in the long term could end up being a simple rename of early modern period or a summary of several different detail articles about different parts of the world.

Anyway, given the pace of editing, that sort of change seems unlikely to happen any time soon (if ever) so picking from the existing articles is probably the right thing to do for now. If I had to choose, I'd endorse your option 3, especially given the improvement to organization at level 3 this would have.-- Beland (talk) 00:05, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Beland; that all sounds very reasonable to me. I'd still appreciate hearing from others who have edited history overview articles more extensively before we take option 1 off the table, just to ensure we're not missing any important countervailing perspectives. Sdkb (talk) 02:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd support option 3. The Level 4 vital articles on history are already divided into five groups: Pre-History, Ancient, Post-Classical, Early Modern, and Modern (which seems to correspond to Late modern period). In the absence of a particularly strong argument for using some other kind of periodization, I think it makes the most sense to hew to this pre-existing standard and make all five of these categories level 2 articles. Perhaps at some point in the future historians or other groups will reject these categories, but for now at least I think they work reasonably well. Orser67 (talk) 16:31, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

As part of this, I would support renaming the "Modern History" Vital Article category as "Late Modern History" and adding Contemporary history as a level 3 article or at least as a level 4 article. Late modern history seems to only sometimes include contemporary history, so I think it would be good to get contemporary history in at a lower level just to have all of our bases covered. Orser67 (talk) 17:05, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Support option 3  Carlwev  20:34, 3 December 2019 (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 Modern History, add Early modern period and Late modern period

After the discussion above about the recent split of modern history, I don't think it's premature to start a vote on swapping it out for early modern period and late modern period. My argument for doing so is that both periods are vital enough aspects of history be worthy of inclusion at this level, that they are fairly widely accepted in English-language historiography as methods of historical periodization, and that this could be beneficial in terms of reorganizing the categorization of some history-related vital articles.

Support

1. As nom Orser67 (talk) 21:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
2. Support. I think we've made enough noise in history-focused areas by now that if there were going to be strong objections to the merge, they would've started to materialize by now (see WP:SILENCE). Assuming that the merge stands, this seems to be the best approach. (Consensus above seems to be heading toward it, with 4 !votes, versus only 2 for the status quo and only 1 for modernity.) (As a side note, I think it speaks to the value of this project that, without it, a very high level change would've gone almost entirely undiscussed.) Sdkb (talk) 07:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
3. Support the consensus. --Thi (talk) 14:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
4. Weak support if the merge stands. Think there should have been far more discussion about the merge though. J947^{'s public account} 20:26, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
5. Support Agree with above comments  Carlwev  20:36, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
6. Support per previous discussion. Cobblet (talk) 04:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Keep Modern History, even if it is a redirect. Article margers and "renamers" cannot dictate topics in our VA project. Vital articles are LISTS OF SUBJECTS and Modern History is a very important subject. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 19:13, 18 December 2019 (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.

---

Swap: Remove Atom, add Matter

Continuing the discussions from here and before, Atom is covered by Chemical element and Matter is the broader topic. Sdkb (talk) 21:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Related discussions

• First addition of Matter. The other discussion is linked to in the nomination. J947 ^(c), at 21:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Sdkb (talk) 21:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
2. Support addition per previous proposals. --Thi (talk) 17:18, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
3. Support per nomination. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:20, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
4. Support per nom Orser67 (talk) 18:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removal. Basic building blocks of matter. The Feynman Lectures on Physics: "If, in some cataclysm, all of scientific knowledge were to be destroyed, and only one sentence passed on to the next generation of creatures, what statement would contain the most information in the fewest words? I believe it is the atomic hypothesis, that all things are made of atoms..." --Thi (talk) 19:10, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose Atom is essential. Matter sounds interesting, but the list is full. We have to draw a line somewhere. --Spaced about (talk) 10:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
3. Oppose Atom, matter, and chemical element are all important, so if I had to pick two out of the three, I would pick the two that get more page views, which means leaving out matter. Cobblet (talk) 18:15, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
4. Oppose per other oppose votes. GuzzyG (talk) 11:24, 24 January 2020 (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.

---

Add God Deity

We only list one religion article at this level, Religion (arguably two, if you include Folklore), which seems insufficient. God Deity is a good candidate for the addition because it's an important and fundamental concept to many religions around the world. Sdkb (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Update: I've changed the proposal from God to Deity, since the latter covers more than just monotheistic religions. Sdkb (talk) 06:00, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Related discussions

• God.
• Deity.
• God.

• All three were failed removals at level 3. J947 ^(c), at 22:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Sdkb (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. ミラP 15:37, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
3. Support good suggestion. Myth overlaps with folklore while deity doesn't overlap with anything other than religion itself. Philosophy has 3 sub-topics at this level (ethics, knowledge and logic) so it is reasonable for religion to have one. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:03, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
4. Support as per nom. J947 ^(c), at 03:06, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

   Reaffirming my support. Religion has had such influence for a such a period that it deserves to have 2.5 articles out of a 100 IMO. Having 101 articles for a bit isn't that bad at all. J947 ^(c), at 22:10, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

   Agreed. Cobblet's approach seems a little overly harsh — if an article would be considered important enough for the top 100 when the list has 99, it should still be so when the list has 100. I hope the closer will take that into consideration if it comes to that. Sdkb (talk) 23:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

   On that note, I wish VA discussions were decided by consensus from an impartial closer to fit with almost every other area of the 'pedia. It's not like they'd be too hard to judge in almost all circumstances. J947 ^(c), at 01:09, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

   I have developed this idea further at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4#Add Pocahontas. J947 ^(c), at 23:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

5. Support We need to escape from overlap. One of these two articles (God and Deity) should be one level higher than second one when artocles are quite similar. Covering it at level 2-3 is probably better than 3-4. Dawid2009 (talk) 14:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
6. Support agree with rationale given --Spaced about (talk) 10:56, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Deity covers god, so I'll propose that. ミラP 02:48, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@Miraclepine: Looking into it, I agree with you that Deity would be the more appropriate choice. I've changed the proposal; please feel free to modify your vote accordingly if you wish. Sdkb (talk) 06:00, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@Sdkb: Thanks. ミラP 15:37, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

1. Oppose I think that in encyclopedic context Myth and Deity are roughly at the same level and Myth was removed. --Thi (talk) 17:24, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose I think there are better candidates to take the last spot. Would consider a swap proposal. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:20, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose  Carlwev  14:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
4. Oppose I think that religion is probably enough at this level, and would support Secularism before Deity. Orser67 (talk) 19:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
5. Oppose any additions without a corresponding removal now that the list is full again. Cobblet (talk) 18:16, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
6. Oppose per other oppose votes. Secularism would be a better listing. GuzzyG (talk) 11:24, 24 January 2020 (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.

---

Swap: add deity, remove sun or Solar System

@Sdkb, Miraclepine, J947, Spaced about, DaGizza, Thi, Carlwev, and Orser67: among two overlaped articles (sun and solar system) one is certainly redundant (pay attention how plenty candidates can be added among 80-120 the most important articles). In the past I was convinced that sun is more important than solar system but after longer participating on VA, especially after discussions about removal of planets from the level 3, now I am ambivalent and feel that solar system is more needed on this level. Also, fact that users who opposed removal of sun in the previous nomination ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/2/Archive_2#Swap:_Remove_Sun,_Add_Solar_System ), were used arguments that sun revolve around culture is just strongly associated with religion. Without humans' expression to deities (excuse me if my language or explaining is bad), sun historically would not be culturally important/influential. It is obvious that for eample Sun/Solstice is associated with culture and religion. In my original view solar system was not more important than sun based on fact there are many wide topics just like galaxies or star systems but saying that article on sun is more important than article on solar system, based on cultural content, does not make any sense (reader can not read (reador can not study Sun#Religious aspects if she/he does not know what deity itself is!, check this link, please). Solar system is more important than sun from purly-science perspective as long as we have all planets on the level 3 and no galaxies there, meanwhile deity and religion are articles which revolve around solar deity and sun in culture. @Cobblet and UnitedStatesian: Among many participants in that discusion you two said that swap would be more reasonable than straight addition (AFAIR, UnitedStatesian, your vote was during time when we were 99/100 and more than one article was nominated to addition durin that time), what do tou think about proposal to swap deity with sun? Religion deserve representation if we can list so plenty overlping articles (everywhere; for example we list entertaiment, performing arts, and sport to cover game) or when we have modern topics like modern history, computer, film etc. I also echo J947 comment. Impact of religious figures for history was incomparable and of course the most influential. Is there any reason why deity/god (parent topic and subtopic of religion) can not be ahead of Laozi or Jesus if we list film (parent topic and subtopic of the arts) ahead of filmmakers listed on the level 3? Beyond that we have quite overlap between deity and god on the level 3 and justification to list both IMO would be more rational if we decide list one of them on the higher level. I would even argue that article like theism is more vital than plenty articles listed on the level 3. Dawid2009 (talk) 21:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Something associated with religion should be added. If not deity, spirituality is also reasonable addition, it is almost as vital as human behaviour itself, uncomparably more important than something like painting (level 2; BTW when we have already visual arts too), which one is more close to specific articles like singing or physical exercise. Dawid2009 (talk) 21:23, 22 January 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 Psychology, add Human behavior

Per plenty previous discussions, now in the archives

Support

1. I am the nominator Dawid2009 (talk) 21:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
2. Weak support; I believe in this case that the study is less important than the actual thing and we don't need both. J947 ^(c), at 23:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
3. Support per above and previous discussions. --Spaced about (talk) 09:23, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose A modern encyclopedia would never not include Psychology, while it's reasonable Human behavior would be left off. Behavior itself (a level 5 article) being listed would be a better choice and still not one of the most 100 important topics. Common overview articles shouldn't be listed, it'd be like listing Walking. I'd prefer Breathing instead if we had to cover something similar. Human behavior shouldn't even be on the level 3 list. GuzzyG (talk) 11:20, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
2. Oppose Good comment by GuzzyG. --Thi (talk) 11:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
3. Oppose Between these two, I think psychology is the more important article to list. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Related discussions

At level 2:

• Addition of Human behavior (no consensus).
• Removal of Psychology (failed).

At level 3:

• Addition of Human behavior (passed).

At level 4:

• Addition of Human behavior (passed).

—J947 ^(c), at 23:00, 23 January 2020 (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.

FYI: Consensus discussion?

As a heads up, there is a discussion on making VA a consensus-building discussion at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4#Add Pocahontas. J947 ^(c), at 22:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

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.

---

Replace history of science and history of art with force and matter

The meta equivalent of WP:VA does not include any history of x articles at all, and history of science and history of art are essentially sub-articles, meaning they are less vital than force and matter, which are vital concepts in natural science.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:19, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
2. Support addition Ethnic group and Entertainment are less vital articles than history articles, which are traditional encyclopedic topics. --Thi (talk) 17:09, 25 March 2020 (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.

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 Epistemology up to Level 2, move Knowledge down to Level 3

Epistemology is one of the core branches of philosophy. There appears to already be consensus that epistemology should in some way be represented at Level 2, since the article on its primary subject, Knowledge, is currently included at Level 2 (for reference, the other Level 2 philosophy articles include three other core branches: Ethics, Logic, and Religion). I'm not sure what the reasons that led to this strange placement are, although I'd hazard a guess that past issues with bloat and clutter in the Epistemology article didn't help (I've been working on cleaning the Epistemology article up, although the Knowledge article is also in dire need of improvement, and I'd like to work on it too eventually).

But the point worth focusing on here is that the Knowledge article doesn't offer the same broad survey of its respective branch of philosophy (epistemology) as the other core philosophy articles. For comparison, this would be like putting Good and evil on Level 2 and Ethics on Level 3, rather than the current placement of Ethics at Level 2 and Good and evil at Level 3. Since I can't see any benefit to putting the far narrower Knowledge article in Level 2 rather than the more general Epistemology article, it seems clear to me that the two should be swapped. Drevolt (talk) 21:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Drevolt (talk) 21:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
2. Support The article offers more general view on subject. --Thi (talk) 22:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
3. Support I agree that this is a better choice. Listing one of the primary branches of philosophy is a better than listing the article on the general concept. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
4. Support Slightly counterintuitive (similar to "Art" being Level 3 but "The arts" being Level 1), but the logic (heh) is sound. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:07, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
5. Support Per Rreagan007. Aza24 (talk) 05:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose pbp 03:26, 13 June 2020 (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: Industry (to level 4)

After a concept split, all the content related to Manufacturing or Industrial society has been moved to those pages. The remaining Industry article is essentially a stub for the narrow term-of-art in economic analysis.

I made sure to reach a consensus before carrying out the split, and it's been a couple weeks now without being contested. As a result, I'd like to suggest demoting the Industry article straight from level 2 to level 4. The specific industries currently listed under it at level 3 can be regrouped under either Agriculture (primary) or Manufacturing (secondary); while perhaps not 100% accurate as a taxonomy, those two anchor the sectors the other industries fall under.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
2. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose  Carlwev  19:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Discuss

@Zar2gar1: I'm curious to see if these changes will stick. The hatnote might be enough to get people to go to manufacturing instead, but industry, as the more common search term, might just start to gravitate more towards manufacturing over time just as it has in the past. As one suggestion, I'd remove industrial society from the hatnote and just stick to manufacturing—people will be more likely to read the hatnote if it's short, and industrial society is a more specialized page (talking about the relationship of manufacturing to society). Oh, and also, I'd go through the leads of some of the "what links here" pages for industry and change them to manufacturing if appropriate. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Looks like industrial society isn't even level 5. Someone should probably fix that. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: Funny enough, I wonder the same thing; expediency definitely won out in the split. My personal ideal would be to have Manufacturing discuss goods-production in general, the main Industry article discussing industrial methods, & the current meaning at a qualified page like Industry (economics) (currently a redirect).

I got more pushback than I expected about merging the economic meaning elsewhere though. Also Manufacturing currently leans overwhelmingly towards industrial production, plus very little of the old content on Industry was actually about industrial processes (thus the bulk wound up at Industrial Society). I'll probably leave some quick notes for posterity on Talk:Industry and Talk:Manufacturing about considering more reorganization after the articles have evolved.

As for further cleanup, I actually made two redirects with qualified titles (for possible future moves too) and started looking over the inlinks. There are a lot of them though so I'm just going to be doing occasional samples when I have a few minutes to kill. I don't think WP:AWB would work since you have to look at the link's context to determine the intended meaning.

Because most of the old content wound up at Industrial Society, I figured there might be enough demand for it to deserve a mention in the hatnote, at least for now. If anyone swings by and cuts it though, I have no problem with that. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good; I'm glad that thought is being put into the organization! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: Swap for manufacturing

I agree with Zar2gar1's nom, but I think we want to have something at this level related to the concept we're talking about, so how about adding manufacturing in its place?

Support

1. Support as nom. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:42, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
2. Support this also; I hesitated to propose a swap since they seem to bog down more in split votes. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
4. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
5. Support Cobblet (talk) 18:18, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
6. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 17:23, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

I still think that Industry should get booted down to Level 4 with its current meaning, while Manufacturing is currently at Level 3. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:00, 28 August 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.