Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/3

General Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

Level 5 Subpages

People History and geography Society STEM

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

For reference, the following times apply for today:

• 15 days ago was: 21:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC) ()
• 30 days ago was: 21:58, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
• 60 days ago was: 21:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

---

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

Such a distribution between the three sectors is imbalanced, and within the primary sector, hunting is arguably the least important: most animals produced for human consumption (either for meat or animal products) are farmed (i.e., agriculture), not hunted. A case can be made for removing fishing instead, given that it is a subtopic of agriculture and seafood comprises a minority of meat consumed in most countries around the world, however it is probably a more widespread practice than hunting, so my preference is for the removal of hunting. Given that the tertiary sector is mostly about the provision of services, adding Service (economics)  3 makes sense.

Support

1. As nominator. feminist🩸 (talk) 08:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

   UPDATE: agreed, definitely remove Bow and arrow  4 first. At best it's a subtopic of Hunting or Archery  4. feminist🩸 (talk) 02:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

2. Support swap with Bow and arrow  4. Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 12:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. Gizza (talk) 04:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC) Support the original proposal of removing hunting and adding service. Oppose the new swap of removing Bow and arrow (which is both a significant hunting tool and military weapon) and adding service. Gizza (talk) 01:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
4. Support removal --Thi (talk) 12:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
5. Support. Both removal and swap. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
6. Support removal of Bow and arrow and addition. Interstellarity (talk) 22:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
7. Remove bow and arrow, add service. Idiosincrático (talk) 20:07, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
8. Support swapping Bow and arrow with Service Lazman321 (talk) 08:25, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Bow and arrow should be removed first. --Thi (talk) 09:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
2. Oppose, Hunting was the only way all of humanity fed itself for over 90% of its existence, before agriculture was common. Food and Agriculture are at level 2, at level 3 we start listing several animals and food and drink types and crops, I would prefer to keep hunting, seems more vital in the long run than soybean, cheese, tea, chicken, egg. I also agree hunting may be more vital than bow and arrow.  Carlwev  12:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Discuss

• @Carlwev and DaGizza: - the nomination has been changed. starship.paint (RUN) 09:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  • @Carlwev: - could you make your vote explicit on Bow and arrow and Service? Which is more vital? starship.paint (RUN) 09:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  • There's still not enough votes to render a decision on Service. starship.paint (RUN) 12:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

    @Starship.paint: Is there enough votes now? Lazman321 (talk) 21:07, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

    @Lazman321: - yes. starship.paint (talk / cont) 02:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Add Peter the Great  4 (no swap with Catherine)

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.

---

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

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 11:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
2. Meh, weak support; while he is probably fit for this level, we are over quota at V3 and I'm afraid it'd overrepresent Russia in that regard (Peter, Catherine, and Stalin) since we don't have key rulers of all sorts of countries, such as Mustafa Kemal Atatürk  4. Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 12:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. When I look at the names on Wikipedia:Vital Articles#Leaders and politicians, I can't see Peter the Great as being as influential. I also think that Cleopatra  3, Nelson Mandela  3, and possibly Joan of Arc  3 should also not be on this list (i.e. they are more celebrity-notable than as politically influential as the others on this list). Aszx5000 (talk) 16:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

   i.e. Constantine the Great  4, would easily rank well ahead of these three (and Peter). Aszx5000 (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

   i.e. Franklin D. Roosevelt  4 should be ranked alongside Adolf Hitler  3 and Joseph Stalin  3 as the biggest leaders of the 20th century (and Roosevelt took American out of the Great Depression). Aszx5000 (talk) 16:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

   Joan of Arc would probably come to mind if I was asked for the ten most vital women to world history. She should be kept, especially since we removed Frida Kahlo  4. Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

   That makes sense to me. Aszx5000 (talk) 18:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

2. Oppose - Russian representation is sufficient as it is. Also much less important than e.g. Green Revolution which was recently removed. Gizza (talk) 00:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
3. On second thought, V4 might be a more appropriate level. Idiosincrático (talk) 20:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

• @Interstellarity: - any other article you would like to propose to remove, or any support for any removals listed above? starship.paint (RUN) 03:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

  I think we should remove an article since we are over quota. Calligraphy seems to make the most sense being removed since there are other topics more important. Interstellarity (talk) 09:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

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

Add Information

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

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 00:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 22:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
3. Weak support in response to what User:Cobblet said: I don't think it's redundant with Communication  2 and Sense  3, although it is very similar to Knowledge  2. However, between these two you could argue that information seems to be a more broad term than knowledge, so substituting it might be something worth considering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikieditor662 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
4. Support Lazman321 (talk) 05:04, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
5. Support. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Redundant with communication, knowledge, and sense at this level. Cobblet (talk) 19:11, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
2. Idiosincrático (talk) 20:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
3. After further thought, it is fine at VA4.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

1. This is more similar to Data  5 than Sense  3.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
2. I view this as sitting between Knowledge  2 and Data  5 and am not sure whether 3 or 4 is correct.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
3. Further: between Knowledge  2 and Truth  3 above it and Data  5, Evidence  5, and Clue (information) below it.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

---

(Edited based on some feedback)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support

MathAndCheese (talk) 01:55, 24 Aug 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Remsense ‥ 论 02:29, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
2. e is a constant that appears in formulas in a wide variety of seemingly disparate disciplines. The fact that something so seemingly 'trivial' (trivial defined very loosely) appears so often in groundbreaking and fundamental theorems indicates its higher levels of importance. If I'm using VA as a method for figuring out what's most important to learn, I would want to teach people about e first, before 1 which is more 'trivial' and has less non-intuitive properties that people already innately know even if it may objectively appear in more mathematical statements. Aurangzebra (talk) 20:57, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

   I honestly thought your second sentence was an argument for 1 until I saw that it was under the "Oppose" section. If you replace "e" with "1" in the first two sentences, they sound just as reasonable if not more. I think I understand what you're trying to say, but the fact that e coming up frequently is "surprising" in some sense, while 1 comes up more frequently without being surprising, speaks to 1's importance.

   I'm not really sure of how you can teach people about e before 1 (although again I probably see what you're trying to get at). If you already know the important properties of 1, you can always skip the article, but that doesn't make it less important. I don't think that the vital article project should make assumptions about people's knowledge, and the current placement of more "obvious" topics at higher levels seems to reflect that. MathAndCheese (talk) 23:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

3. Opoose per above. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:25, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
4. Oppose – Idiosincrático (talk) 10:22, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

Each reason given is faulty in one way or another, and none are based directly in what we write the encyclopedia around, which is the interest afforded in reliable sources. I would go as far as to say that the point raised about "some numbers taking longer to come about, ergo less vital" (my paraphrasing) is perfectly backwards. A huge portion of the history and present richness contained in mathematics is unmistakably intertwined with and rooted in e, π, and 0. While 1 is unmistakably interesting and the concept of the unit is philosophically central, there is not nearly as much to say in terms of breadth and depth. If I had to hazard my own negative critique—1 is almost too fundamental to approach the same levels of interest; that of the kind gestured to by the OP seems superficial. Remsense ‥ 论 02:29, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

This is a fair critique, but I think it partially comes down to a difference of opinion on what this list tends to represent. In practice, the list does tend to favor things for their importance or fundamental nature over what people may need to learn from an encyclopedia. Arithmetic appears at level 2, while topics like number theory and calculus do not. I'm sure that there aren't a lot of people coming to Wikipedia to learn about arithmetic, but it is an important topic that is so fundamental to other branches of mathematics that it gets a spot in a higher level. In general, if there is a topic on this list that can't be understood without first understanding some more fundamental topic, the more fundamental topic tends to be placed at a higher level, even if it is more abstract and of less interest to a typical reader. I don't claim that it necessarily should be that way, but this does seem more consistent with the way that the rest of this list is constructed. MathAndCheese (talk) 14:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

The only way we meaningfully define "importance" is attestation in sources. Remsense ‥ 论 21:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Surely that's also an argument for 1 then? I'm not sure of exactly what you mean by "attestation in sources," but I can't imagine a meaning in which 1 doesn't come out ahead of e and pi. The 5 listed criteria on the Vital Article page are:

Coverage: It's hard to define whether a number is "broader in scope" than another, but if I had to choose 1 or e, I'd think 1 is the clear choice just for how broadly applicable it is.

Essential to Wikipedia's other articles: 1 is crucial to virtually every math and science article and many in other topics.

Notability: Seems to be mostly referring to people, but "material impact on the course of humanity" seems to apply more closely to 1.

No (Western) bias: Probably doesn't apply

Pageviews: In favor of pi and e MathAndCheese (talk) 22:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Again, each point is based on your personal opinions and not what any reliable sources say. Remsense ‥ 论 22:59, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I think I only just understood what you meant by "reliable sources." I've thought about this for a while, so I think I made some assumptions about what people would and wouldn't find important, and I omitted a lot of the evidence that I was using in my head. I realize that my explanation ended up pretty long and rambling, but I hope it addresses your concerns about using evidence to support my point. I'd love to hear what you think. MathAndCheese (talk) 01:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

This proposal is essentially inactive, but it's disappointing when an editor thinks ChatGPT will somehow come up with additional compelling arguments and evidence for their case they were unable to convince anyone of previously. This shows a fundamental lack of respect for and engagement with the counterarguments already given to you. Remsense ‥ 论 23:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Add Franklin D. Roosevelt

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.

---

compare reasoning by @Aszx5000 in the "Add Peter the Great" discussion.

Hitler, Stalin (and Mao) are already there, with Roosevelt missing. Similarly Washington and Lincoln are included, with FDR being the only other US President consistently ranked in the top three with them, also missing.

I'm aware there are efforts not to be too US-centric here, but if anything Washington and Lincoln are vastly less important as leaders on a global level than Roosevelt (or any modern US president, frankly). Many of the other world leaders listed here are taken from the high points of that nations relative power, whereas these two come mostly from Americas founding mythology and did not have anything close to the international standing during their time as some of the other leaders here had. (This is not a suggestion to remove or swap either of them, to be clear) — jonas (talk) 16:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

1. Oppose. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were all authoritarian dictators and had significant personal influence over their countries. Roosevelt is an influential president in shaping US policy, but I think he isn't as important of an individual on an international stage due to the nature of America's government requiring input from many individuals to function. I would not rank him "top three," as subjective as those lists are. Jefferson had an impact still felt centuries later, for example. Woodrow Wilson would likely be as influential as FDR, from a long-term point of view. I'd rather see all the other US presidents all brought down a level than see more get brought up.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

   FDR is considerably more influential than Wilson and his presidency was more influential than Jefferson's _pbp 19:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

2. Weak oppose. I think two should be the limit for U.S. presidents here. The most vital president is definitely Lincoln. As for the second one, FDR and Washington both have good reasons to be listed, but I think Washington is a bit more vital than Roosevelt. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
3. Oppose – per above. Idiosincrático (talk) 10:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

1. Comment @QuicoleJR and @Purplebackpack89 I strongly disagree that FDR was more vital of an individual than Jefferson. His presidency was impactful, no doubt, but Jeffersons impact exceeds his time as president. Jefferson was the primary author of the Declaration of Independence, for starters. His presidency saw the acquisition of the Louisiana Territory. He is one of the presidents who set the stage for everything that was to come. Woodrow Wilson played a huge role domestically and internationally in WWI. His domestic policy is what set the precedent for FDR to do what he did, and in fact, FDR was the vice-presidential nominee in the 1920 United States presidential election that immediately followed Wilson's terms in office and would have likely been a continuation of much of Wilsons administration. Vitalness is a difficult thing to quantify, but Washington and Jefferson are both massively important more than 200 years later. Lincoln was president during the most challenging events in U.S. history, but I would not consider him the most vital, just the most popular to remember in public consciousness. Roosevelt was president during the World War and had some major domestic policy changes, which is certainly noteworthy and would be in the top 10 levels of importance, but somewhere around Wilson, in my opinion. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 14:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

   History major here. The idea that FDR and Wilson equate in influence is laughable and not supported by any reputable historian. If, for no other reason, consider how they were viewed at the end of their presidencies: Wilson was essentially a persona non grata, his party was repudiated and would be repudiated for another decade. When FDR died, there was essentially a continuous line of people from Warm Springs to Hyde Park to pay respects and his party would control government for most of the ensuing two plus decades (Ike was really non-partisan rather a Republican).

   No, Wilson's domestic policy did NOT set the precedent for FDR's policy. Wilson didn't have anything anywhere near close to the New Deal. FDR did NOT win in 1920 and, if he had, his party would have governed much differently than he did. I might add the New Deal doesn't really figure in your analysis of FDR, even though it "set the stage for everything that was to come". Almost every successive Democratic president has sought to expand the New Deal welfare state and civil rights; every Republican president since Nixon has sought to contract the welfare state and ignore issues of civil rights.

   Also, your spelling is awful. _pbp 15:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Lol, I fixed the spelling; that's what I get for checking the internet before coffee while working in markup. I’m to used to throwing a word out, having Grammarly catch my drift.

Wilson literally had a campaign platform called "The New Freedom" that focused on major reforms in agriculture, labor, banking, business, and tariffs. On Encyclopedia Britanica, it states, "By the extensive use of federal power to protect the common man, the New Freedom anticipated the centralized approaches of the New Deal 20 years later."

The Federal Reserve Act created the central bank of the U.S., and he created the Federal Trade Commission and Internal Revenue Service. He definitely set the stage for FDR, and we can't know if the FDR party would have governed differently if his ticket had won in 1920; that is just speculation.

FDR died during wartime before we could cool off and see the mess of reconstruction. If he had lived, I don't know if that would be the case. Like Abraham Lincoln, it is really easy to make a hero of a dead president. Truman dealt with the aftermath and isn't viewed nearly as well as FDR.

I don't know if you think this is reputable, but the Eleanor Roosevelt Papers Project states "Wilson had a great influence on both Roosevelts. FDR served as his assistant secretary of the navy and carefully observed the harsh lessons Wilson's campaign for the League of Nations exacted on his presidency. ER embraced Wilson's commitment to progressive reform and his passionate commitment to the League of Nations. He closely observed the scathing treatment Edith Wilson received from the press when the first lady did not conceal her influence within the administration." GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:43, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not particularly down for you shitting on Harry Truman either...the end of WW2, the beginning of the Cold War, the Fair Deal, integration of the armed forces...a lot of historians rate HIM as a better president than Wilson _pbp 23:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not particularly "particularly down" with what your tone, the last two comments have felt very uncivil, especially your language in the last one. These people are complicated individuals and discussing their impact and historical significance needs to be doable without having a nationalistic knee jerk reaction to defend them. There is an entire page dedicated to Criticism of Franklin D. Roosevelt, and not the least of the reasons was these was Executive Order 9066. Regardless, you're conflating how good these presidents were with how impactful and vital they were. Hitler is extremely vital to understand, but he is not a very good guy in my strong personal opinion. FDR was the center of a lot of propaganda, and he died during a war before he had to get his hands dirty with the post war period, which in my opinion is largely why he is remembered so fondly and why Truman initially had a very low public opinion when he left office. All the bad stuff was pinned on Truman, all the good stuff credited to the late FDR. How good or bad they were as presidents isn't really that important, the question is how vital they are, and I don't think they are vital enough for level 3. In American History would definitely rank them below Thomas Jefferson in terms of how overall vital they are to the understanding of the history of the United State. Globally, Jefferson did some things that had major impacts on the world as a whole. Jefferson is the principal author of the United States Declaration of Independence. Check the "legacy" section of that page. He wrote the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which is the precursor to the establishment clause in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. This is the foundation for Freedom of religion in the United States, which has a pretty significant impact in the rise of Secularism globally. Jefferson still had slaves, which makes him a pretty bad guy in my personal opinion. I still think he is extremely important as a historic figure, at a global level, exceeding FDR and every former president besides George "Conotocaurius" Washington. I still wouldn't put Jefferson at Level 3. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I never said Jefferson was less or more important overall, however I DID say FDR was a better President. I don't know if you noticed, but I never actually supported FDR's inclusion, merely criticized your line of opposition to it.

Tone, schmone, deal with it. I HATE it when people police my tone. And you've got to understand that the reason I'm frustrated you is that you're a non-history major (granted, geography is a related discipline) and you've fallen for fringe and revisionist viewpoints, such as "what if FDR had lived after the end of World War II", again forgetting that Harry Truman is himself thought of as a Top 8 president ever. In particular, the criticism of FDR page is fring and and revisionist; it seems to exist because FDR is frequent target of right-wing POV pushing. And I don't know where this "nationalist kneejerk" comment is coming from...I'm not praising FDR while damning non-Americans. _pbp 17:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Truman is only thought of as one of the "top 9 presidents ever" in hindsight when it comes to how "good" their presidency was; immediately after his presidency, he had an extremely low approval rating. The goodness of a president is not relevant to how "vital" they are for inclusion, and the "goodness" rating and "impactful" rating are completely different but equally subjective things. I'm referring to the latter when I say that FDR and Wilson are equally impactful in the long term. My line of opposition is based on my own subjective opinion, of course. One paper I'd recommend reading is Cognitive psychology: Forgetting the presidents as I think it covers some of the things related to memorability and relates to what I think would make a president "vital" to the understanding of the American story and the world as a whole.

Tone is very important when discussing things online, and is one Wikipedia:Five pillars, and part of [[Wikipedia:Etiquette]. The talk pages aren't like Reddit or Facebook, there is supposed be a bit more civil approach. I don't like it when people swear at me due to their frustration, and if a co-author on another publication were to speak like that, it would not be acceptable. Not that it matters, but I have a minor in history as an undergrad left over from when I changed from a history major to geography. Most of my undergraduate geography gen-ed is in history, and I almost got a double major but decided to go for a second minor instead. I have studied Historical geography a bit, worked on journal articles and projects involving historical research as part of my GA funding, and am currently working on some projects. Our personal credentials are not really important, however, on Wikipedia. Sources are what matters here; you can't just declare something fringe and "right-wing POV pushing" to dismiss it. I'm sorry that it frustrates you that I don't defer to you or change my opinion because of your degree. Your language seems aggressive, and you're making personal remarks about my background to dismiss my point of view or interpretation is frustrating to me. Maybe knowing more of my formal credentials and background will frustrate you less though, or maybe it will just cause you to further dismiss me as only having a "minor" in history.

The "nationalist kneejerk comment" refers to you not being "particularly down" with my criticism of Truman "either". This is where tone is important; it seemed like you were communicating that he was above criticism, and your Userbox declaring, "This user worships Franklin D. Roosevelt as a God" definitely reinforces my opinion on the matter. This tone and statement, coupled with your userbox, comes off to me as a defense of a National symbol. Historians discussing presidents or any historical figure are going to offer both criticism and praise, and political groups will also criticize them. Criticism of FDR and Truman is not necessarily "right-wing POV pushing" anymore than praise is "left-wing POV pushing." In the case of Truman, he didn't run in 1952 in part because of his poor polls, and when he left office, his polls were extremely low. Only decades after his death have historians begun to view him much more favorably than his contemporaries viewed him. Speculation that if FDR had remained in office, he might have lost some popularity is only speculation that FDR and Truman might have taken similar actions and been perceived similarly. This is pure speculation as we can't exactly test this with an experiment, but that is true of all "what if" statements in history. Similar speculation was brought up in a history class I took when discussing the popularity of Lincoln compared to his successor, and it was immediately compared to public perceptions of FDR and JFK. It isn't something I'm creative enough to come up with myself. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

1. Controversial opinion: Lincoln is vastly overrated. He was mythologized in death for having been assassinated. While true he stewarded the country through Civil War, economic end geographic factors made that outcome a foregone conclusion. as for freeing the slaves, that was a forgone conclusion as well. He technically only freed those in rebelling territories, and it was Congress amending the constitution really ended slavery. Hyperbolick (talk)

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.

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

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

Support

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

Oppose

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

Neutral

Discussion

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

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

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

Add Conspiracy theory

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.

---

Conspiracy theories has been used throughout history to downplay major world events in history.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 22:56, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The proposal is insultingly lazy. If you can't be bothered to explain why, please stop trying to change what we consider to be our most important articles. Remsense ‥ 论 22:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
2. Theory  4, Scientific theory  4, Pseudoscience  4 and Fallacy  4 are only level 4, I'm not convinced this is that more important.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:28, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
3. Per Laukku, I'm not convinced this is one of the most vital topics throughout all of human knowledge. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
4. Oppose – per above. Idiosincrático (talk) 10:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
5. Oppose - per above. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 14:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
6. Oppose per above. Redundant to science, logic, history, etc. at this level. Gizza (talk) 03:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

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

Tiny change

The "people" category seems to put it in chronological order of when they were born, yet Van Gogh and Picasso's positions are switched. It's not much of a difference but I'd recommend swapping their spots.

Thank you. Wikieditor662 (talk) 06:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Be bold and do it! The Blue Rider 19:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I can't, as the page is extended - protected which requires 500 edits (amongst other things), while I only have a little over for 400. Wikieditor662 (talk) 23:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@Wikieditor662 and The Blue Rider: - swapped. starship.paint (talk / cont) 02:14, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Add Donald Trump And Elvis Presley

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.

---

Please forgive me if I made some sort of mistake, but this seems fairly obvious, doesn't it? They have (and will have) an extremely significant impact on society. I'm not sure who we should remove to add them, but there are plenty of people on there who aren't nearly as important.

If you need further evidence, you may look at some of the numerous scholarly articles. I have no doubt that there is extensive reliable research from academics on their completely world changing influence. Wikieditor662 (talk) 21:56, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

1. Oppose both. Elvis was discussed in the past several years ago, in a debate whether or not him or Michael Jackson  3 should be listed at this level In the end, the decision was made to list M.J., and I think that was the right move. Elvis' music hasn't stood the test of time in a global scale like him, and M.J. is far more influential. As for Donald Trump, I'm almost certain that people who are still alive do not belong at V3 as that alone suggests recentism, and his worldwide impact is not large enough compared to a historical figure like Abraham Lincoln  3. It would also suggest western bias, which vital articles should avoid. λ NegativeMP1 22:25, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

   I have a few questions & points about your response:

   1) Why does it have to be Presley or MJ? Why can't they both be in?

   2) I'm fairly certain that you don't have to be as important as Abraham Lincoln to make it on there. You could argue that plenty (if not most) people who are currently on level 3 are not as influential as him.

   3) As for trump, although he will be president again, his past term could be enough to get him onto level 3 by itself. Also, while the recency bias can definitely be at play at certain times, it is the majority if not vast majority of scholars who agree trump's influence and legacy will be very significant, and will cause large amounts of change not just in the US but the entire world, even more so than most other US presidents.

   4) I don't see how adding western people would create a western bias, given that both of these two people have had an influence extending beyond just the west.

   Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

   1) Because the musicians that we can list at V3 are very limited. Michael Jackson changed music forever, is probably the most famous pop culture figure to ever live, and has left an impact that will likely last for centuries. Elvis simply did not do that, and he's also not the face of a whole genre like Michael or The Beatles  3.

   2) You do. V3 can only have a handful of people, and 1,000 articles total. Trump is not at that level yet.

   3) It's really, really not. Donald Trump is absolutely recency bias and he does not belong here. Also, I object his first term alone being V3 worthy. Maybe if his second term is truly, extraordinarily disastrous (and by disastrous, I mean World War 3 would have to start during it).

   4) There is a large effort at V3 to try and make a balance between the west and the east. So yes, adding even a single extra western person would upset that balance. λ NegativeMP1 00:52, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

   Thanks, I see your point now and why we might not want to add trump at this point. I do wonder, however, what about Louis Armstrong? Was even he that much more significant than presley? And also, shouldn't we base people based on how significant they were overall rather than whether they were from the east or the west? Wikieditor662 (talk) 04:07, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

   I think Armstrong is listed because of his influence on Jazz  3, like how M.J. contributed to Pop music  3 and the Beatles contributed to Rock music  3. However, I do agree that his case for being at this level is weaker than the other two. As for the west/east thing, there are a lot of figures that we in the west might consider influential, but in reality had no impact in other parts of the world, or vice versa. Not saying that people like Elvis fall into that category, but more or less my point is that west/east is still a factor to take into consideration. For example, there was even a consensus a while ago to remove Vladimir Lenin  4 from this level out of fear of bias towards Russian figures. Whether I agree with that consensus is a completely different story, but it's still a relevant example. λ NegativeMP1 04:13, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

   I really should know better than to mix into these discussions, but...really? Michael Jackson was an uncommonly gifted and accomplished popular musician and entertainer, but...changed music forever? In a way that David Bowie or Led Zeppelin or Prince didn't? I don't really see it. --Trovatore (talk) 19:21, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

   He definitely changed it more than Elvis... λ NegativeMP1 20:16, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

   Did he? You don't need to answer; I don't really care. VA has clearly outlived whatever usefulness it ever had, given that the listing turns on this sort of discussion. I'm not sure why I keep it on my watchlist. As you were. --Trovatore (talk) 20:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

   I can agree with you on that, but I'm still optimistic that this process (VA) has/could have some use as time goes on, even if it still needs work. That's just me though. λ NegativeMP1 20:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

   We get it. You like MJ. I don't. I consider Elvis more important. _pbp 20:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

2. Oppose both per above. GeogSage
3. Oppose per above. Idiosincrático (talk) 23:35, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
4. Oppose both. Trump on recency and crystal balling per above. If an article on 21st century were to be included in a list of 1,000 articles, the best candidate would be War on Terror considering how it has influenced and shaped the world's geopolitical situation for over 20 years, including the election of Donald Trump twice. Elvis is essentially another representative of rock music which makes him redundant to the Beatles. Gizza (talk) 07:15, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
5. Oppose both. I can see an argument possibly being made for Elvis Presley. But Trump? We list a little over 100 people in VA3 and only 2 American leaders, George Washington  3 and Abraham Lincoln  3. There are so many presidents I would consider putting into VA3 before Trump (I would say Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan) and none of these guys come close either. Aurangzebra (talk) 14:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
6. Oppose Trump, Support swap of Michael Jackson with Elvis. Let's remember that VA3 has less than 120 people for THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE WORLD. _pbp 18:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

   Can you please provide a rationale on how Elvis Presley is more culturally relevant and influential than Michael Jackson? λ NegativeMP1 18:52, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

   Can you do the opposite?

   I don't see Vegas or the rest of the USA teeming with Michael Jackson impersonators the way we do with Elvis impersonators. I notice above you claim that MJ's music has "stood the test of time" more...really? Elvis left the building 30ish years before MJ did and you still see Elvis songs in commercials and other

   Also, awhile back (back long enough that MJ was still living), the Atlantic did a 100 most influential Americans ever. Elvis made the Top 100 and MJ did not. _pbp 20:50, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

   Michael Jackson is a global artist, whereas Elvis Presley's popularity is largely confined to the USA and a few other English-speaking countries, as evident from his record sales. Tribute shows like MJ One and MJ the Musical have grossed more than any Elvis tribute shows. Jackson also surpasses Elvis in terms of streams, followers, and monthly listeners across various platforms, including YouTube and Spotify. Interestingly, despite Elvis Presley being listed as a V3 article on Wikipedia until two years ago, Michael Jackson has had Wikipedia pages in more languages. This disparity suggests that Jackson's global impact and recognition are more extensive. TheWikiholic (talk) 21:41, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

   I'm not really a big fan of the attitude you're giving off here ("we get it" in a separate comment) when all I asked for was how you think Elvis is more important. And I do see your perspective, by the way, even if I disagree. Even if you considered Elvis more important than M.J., an argument can still be made that Michael Jackson is more worthy at V3 than Elvis since M.J. represents Pop music  3, and Elvis would just be another rock representative (and I believe that VA as a whole has a rock bias). Combined with everything that TheWikiholic typed out before I could. λ NegativeMP1 21:41, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

   It seems a little questionable to me whether rock and pop should be considered separate genres at this level of detail, but to the extent they are, taking The Beatles as representative of rock is also questionable. The Beatles were at least a crossover combo, probably as much pop as rock. (Elvis was also crossover, with country.) If you wanted to pick a straight rock band, I think it would be Led Zeppelin (whom I don't really like that much, in case you thought this was a fan thing). And yes, I know I shouldn't do this, but in for a penny.... --Trovatore (talk) 06:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

   Perhaps I should point out that I believe more strongly that MJ DOESN'T belong at VA3 than that Elvis DOES. I just have a helluvalot of trouble thinking of Michael Jackson as one of the 100 or 200 most influential people in the history of the world. _pbp 04:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

   I respect your viewpoint, but I feel like objectively, from a worldwide standpoint, Michael Jackson had more influence. I do get the idea behind him not being one of the 100 or 200 most influential people in human history, but for a representative of a genre we list at V3, the person that is probably the most famous celebrity / pop culture figure ever (which I don't think is really disputable) is fit for that role. I struggle to see Elvis' impact outside of the United States and a couple of other countries, and it definitely isn't enough to where I'd say he should be listed alongside The Beatles  3. λ NegativeMP1 05:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

7. Oppose both per above. TheWikiholic (talk) 21:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
8. 🍋‍🟩 OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 03:08, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
9. Oppose both per above. Kevinishere15 (talk) 23:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Not keen on Elvis, but I think Trump is kind of wait-and-see. His health may take a turn precludng him from being impactful in a second term, or it may continue as it is, and he may have a world-changing run. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Add Computer programming  4

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

---

This article covers a key area of computing and is an essential part of other vital articles in computing. No Computer  2 would exist without programming, as every single one is made of programs; programming is a key topic of study in the field of Computer science  3 because of their importance, and Artificial intelligence  3 is created through programming. Furthermore, programming has a dedicated section in V4, illustrating the range of topics that programming covers, and yet it has little representation in V3. Finally, I've selected computer programming over Computer program  4 because I feel an article on the act of constructing tasks for computers would cover more topics than an article on the tasks themselves, as the former would also cover, for example, important people within the field of programming and the historical significance of their contributions.

Support

1. As nominator Lazman321 (talk) 04:59, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Egregiously redundant with Computer science. It feels like people are hyperfixated on the fact that we're at 999 and desperately feel a need to plug the hole. We do not need to, and it's a bit exhausting to keep swatting down these proposals. Remsense ‥ 论 05:04, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

   I understand computer science to be a discipline of applied science and programming to be a form of software development. Could you explain how it is "egregiously redundant"? Lazman321 (talk) 05:16, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

   The nominator attempted to provide a decent rationale that I can actually see where they were coming from with. Accusing them of just trying to "plug the hole" in spite of that feels like you're just attacking them. I do agree with the idea that it is kinda redundant to computer science, but jeez. λ NegativeMP1 05:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

2. I don't think this is egregiously redundant and as someone who is a software engineer by trade coming from a traditional computer science research background, I definitely agree with many of your arguments. However, I do think at this point it is still fully subsumed by Computer  2 and Computer science  3. At Level 3, we only have space for 1000 articles so we need to make sure the topics we include are broad in scope. I think it's the same reason why we don't have something like Breathing  4 on this level. Breathing is more important than programming or computer or anything else; without breathing, we have no humans. And yet it is Level 4 presumably because it is a specific 'tool' and is subsumed by things like Human  1 and Biology  2 that govern it at a higher level. Aurangzebra (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
3. Per Aurangzebra. Kevinishere15 (talk) 23:53, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

Lazman321 (talk) 04:59, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Add Mandarin Chinese

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

Support

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

Oppose

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

Neutral

Discussion

Swap: Remove Chinese folk religion, Add Folk religion

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

Support

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

Oppose

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

Neutral

Discussion

Add Media (communication)

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

Support

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

Add Human geography  4 and Physical geography  4

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

Support

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

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

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

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

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

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

Remove Abraham Lincoln  3

We have 27 articles at level 3 under "Leaders and politicians." Of these, two are United States of American politicians, and both of these are presidents, Abraham Lincoln and George Washington  3. I think this might be a bit of U.S. bias showing, as well as Wikipedia:Recentism. American education highly emphasizes the Civil War and president Lincolns role in it, but globally I don't think he is one of the top 27 most vital leaders to ever exist. I don't have someone to replace him with, and we could use the space to swap in someone else at a later date.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Lincoln ended slavery while keeping America from falling apart. If he had failed, it might be the case that many countries would have followed the splitting model to preserve slavery.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Lincoln is frequently cited as the most influential figure in American history. There's a reason that the Marian Anderson concert and the I Have a Dream speech were given at the Lincoln Memorial. Recency claim is bunk; He's been dead for 160 years; he was dead before Winston Churchill  4, Joseph Stalin  3, Adolf Hitler  3 and Nelson Mandela  3 were born. The U.S. bias claim is bunk as well; if the nominator really is concerned with U.S. bias, there are sections of VA4 and VA5 that are far more slanted than the 2 out of 27 we see at VA3 political leaders._pbp 16:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Per pbp. Although, I will add my own opinion: while there is possibly some U.S. bias when it comes to leaders and/or politicians at V4 and V5, I don't see how this really fits under that. I would argue that V3 actually has quite a fair balance, all things considered. And the recentism argument doesn't really make much sense to me. λ NegativeMP1 19:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

   Do you really think Lincoln is one of the most vital 112 people in all of human history, more then everyone on level 4, like the examples I've listed in the discussion from level 4? I thought this would be an easy and obvious proposal. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

   Yes. While my opinion may be swayed since, well, I am American, I do believe Abraham Lincoln is an extremely influential person that is one of those 112. λ NegativeMP1 21:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

4. Unlike almost everyone pre-20th century on the list, Abraham Lincoln was famously born of the common folk, and did not gain education or position because of parental wealth or position. He was a self-made man. He was an attorney but never attended more than grammar school; despite this, he's most highly regarded for his words and vision, not his military leadership. Did anyone else on this list "free the slaves"? Lincoln was ever an advocate for others, not a ruler or conqueror. BusterD (talk) 21:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
5. This is obviously vital. --ZergTwo (talk) 01:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
6. Mostly per everyone else. Together with Washington and FDR, Lincoln is often rated as one of the greatest presidents of all time. More often than not, historians rank him as the greatest president of all time, which strengthens the case for Lincoln being kept on the list. I think listing Washington and Lincoln is sufficient for this level. While FDR might have a strong case for level 3, these two presidents are obviously vital at this level. Interstellarity (talk) 01:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

@TonyTheTiger, @User talk: Purplebackpack89, the people who would cite lincoln as the "most influential figure in American history" are either greatly exagerating or unfamiliar with American history. George Washington  3 role in the revolution, resigniation after the revolution, serving as the first president, and retirement at the end of his 2nd term set the tone for the U.S. and his example was influential to the countries gaining their indepenence after the U.S.. Lincoln is important to the American story and mythos as a martyr, and one of the most popular presidents, but there there are tons of important leaders that are vital to understanding human history. The American Civil War  4 is only level 4. Attila  4, Hannibal  4, William the Conqueror  4, Marie Antoinette  4, Gustavus Adolphus  4, Vladimir Lenin  4, Oda Nobunaga  4, Sitting Bull  4, Otto von Bismarck  4, Abu Bakr  4 the first caliph, are all level 4. None of the Chinese emperors are level 3. Sun Tzu  4 isn't even level 3. No leaders from India are level 3. Lincoln is just not one of the 112 most notable, influential, humans in all of history to ALL of humanity. The current list has a huge western bias (Two American presidents give it a pretty heavy American bias), and probably a bit of a bias towards recent leaders, and the American Civil War is mostly a foot note in history for most of the world. Winston Churchill  4 is level 4, I don't know why he is an example as I wouldn't want him to be level 3 either, but his involvment in World War II definitly make him significant outside his countries domestic affairs. I don't know who should replace him, but he should be removed. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• "greatly exaggerating or unfamiliar with American history." Excuse me? I literally have a DEGREE in American history; you have a degree in not-history.
• No leaders from India at level 3? What about Mahatma Gandhi  3? Or Ashoka  3 from ancient India?
• China has Qin Shi Huang  3, Mao Zedong  3, plus Genghis Khan  3 whose house conquered and ruled China, so the assessment of China and India seems off
• Some of the figures you've listed are fair comparisons to Lincoln; others are not. I don't think anybody would consider Marie Antoinette or Sitting Bull more influential figures in world history, or in the respective histories of France or the United States, than they would Lincoln.
• Oda is an interesting example because he is cited as a "great unifier" of Japan...which is literally how Lincoln is thought of in America.

_pbp 17:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• I have a minor in History. Our personal credentials are not really something to get into on Wikipedia though to argue an opinion is more or less valid. You can bring them up, but using them to dismiss others directly in a discussion isn't really the best.
• Missed Gandhi, good point, however no pre-Colonial Indian monarchs on the list from India. I was looking at level 4, and got confused with the fact Gandhi is under "Rebels, revolutionaries and activists" at level 4 instead of leaders.
• I listed several examples I thought were important, especially in under represented groups, in level 4. I'm not necessarily suggesting all of them should be level 3, but demonstrating that level 4 is filled with vitally important individuals. Marie Antoinette is quite famous internationally, and to the narrative of the French Revolution, like how Lincoln is important to the United States and our Civil War history. I think on an international level, in the scope of all human history, she is as important to the story of humanity as Lincoln, if only as a symbol in the French revolution.
• Oda is the first of three "Great unifiers," with others being Tokugawa Ieyasu  4 and Toyotomi Hideyoshi  4, all level 4. George Washington  3 is commonly known as the "Father of His Country." The fact you see parallels with Lincoln and the three unifiers of Japan that are at level 4 is largely why I think Lincoln belongs at level 4. Tons of vitally important people to several cultures are at level 4. Lincoln isn't more vital then Abu Bakr, Gustavus Adolphus, Lenin, Hannibal, Attila, or many others. I think the three Great unifiers of Japan in level 4 are a great reason to put Lincoln there.

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Bro, if you didn't want me to criticize your credentials or tout my own, you shouldn't have made the "greatly exaggerating or unfamiliar with American history" comment. _pbp 18:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

The statement is not reliant on my credentials to be more or less valid. I didn't say "As someone with a minor in history, I think..." You can disagree, but your credentials don't make your disagreement more or less valid. Back to the point though, here is a publication by Fred Kaplan (journalist) on Lincoln titled Abraham Lincoln: Breaking Down the Myth of a Perfect President, and another by Richard West Sellars titled Remembering Abraham Lincoln: History and Myth. I'm not saying Lincoln is not an important person to history, just that he is not one of the top 112 most important people, nor one of the top 27 political leaders, of all time. Otto von Bismarck  4 is more vital in my opinion to the way human history has progressed since the 1800s, and I don't consider him one of the most vital 27 leaders, or 112 people, either. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

Support

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

Oppose

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

Discuss

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

Swap Radar  3 for Remote sensing  4

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

Support

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

Oppose

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discuss

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

Remove Musicians and replace with musical concepts

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support all

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

Support Johann Sebastian Bach

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

Oppose all

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

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

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

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

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

   I think individuals are way over represented at this level,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discuss

Add Hip-hop  4

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

Support

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

Oppose

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

Neutral

Discuss

Add Symphony  4

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

Support

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

Oppose

1. Essentially a subset (at least conceptually) of classical.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Per above. --Thi (talk) 10:43, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

Add Musical notation  4

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

Support

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

Oppose

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

Neutral

Discuss

Rhythm  4

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

Support

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

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Melody  4

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

Support

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

Oppose

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

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

Neutral

Discuss

Song  4

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

Support

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

Oppose

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

Neutral

Discuss

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

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

RfC: RfCs for changes to the list of Level 3 Vital articles

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Withdrawing, as I wasn't aware of the November discussion. That's my bad since I should've looked, and there's no reason to belabor this any further. Remsense ‥ 论 01:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

---

Should a globally visible RfC be required to make changes to the list of Level 3 Vital articles? 04:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

RfC discussion

• Require RfC – to be blunt, I'm a bit concerned by the potential for counterproductive changes resulting from restless tinkering based on particularized interpretations of what the VA system is for and basic misreadings of its guidelines. This list has been fairly stable over the years, and while mere longevity is usually weak consensus, for a system whose results are so widely visible to editors it is distinctly less so. I think there is far more likelihood with the present system for a weak consensus localized here to do damage than to make efficient improvements to the list of what we consider the 1000 most vital articles, meant to stably guide the work of editors. At present, the overwhelming majority of proposals are not approved. Even though a supermajority is required for approval, the low turnout puts a considerable onus on individual editors to keep noticing and opposing clearly defective or lazy proposals, which is a waste of time. Remsense ‥ 论 04:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose: Needlessly bureaucratic. And rather circular: having an RfC to have RFCs. And why only Lv 3? _pbp 05:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  Because it's been the most constantly contested list when viewed in terms of how mature and complete it is. It's clearly not circular, no idea what you think that means here: I'm asking the community whether they think their input is required about this list. It's needfully bureaucratic, as I explicitly want to discourage further lazy and frivolous proposals. Remsense ‥ 论 05:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  This list can never be complete. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  A non-argument, since I'm not asking to gold-lock it. I'm asking for changes to be decided by more than a handful of editors who are paying attention in part due to their particular motivation to futz with something that's meant to be highly stable. Remsense ‥ 论 05:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  What I mean by "circular" is having an RfC about having RfCs. It's like the Coffee Table Book of Coffee Tables from Seinfeld. _pbp 06:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  But it's not an argument against the logic of the proposal, it's an argument that the proposal's wording sounds funny. I don't disagree. Remsense ‥ 论 06:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose: I don't think it is unfair to say this proposal is targeted at, or motivated by, me. Per my comment above, the status quo being stable for years is not an argument. I wasn't here to vote on stuff years ago, concensus can change. New editors are born every day, and this projects status quo is already heavily protected by rules making it difficult to change. Years ago, it was obviously much easier to get stuff through, and we still have artifacts of that time. This feels like Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling, and I really feel like the language you're using here and throughout this talk page is not civil. If some people feel "noticing and opposing clearly defective or lazy proposals, which is a waste of time" they are free to Take a break GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think it is unfair to say this proposal is targeted at, or motivated by, me.

  For posterity, I do not dispute the latter characterization. It is not status quo stonewalling to require substantive changes to site guidelines to be agreed upon via RfC: I'm asking the community whether they think this list—a global, mature, highly visible, arguably highly influential site project—should be held to a similar level of consensus. Remsense ‥ 论 05:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  This proposal seems like you're literally trying to change policy to make it harder to change the status quo. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  Correct. It requires too much effort to prevent weak local consensus from upturning the apple cart, which would happen totally silently for most interested parties otherwise. I won't be taking another break; instead, I will allow the community to decide whether they want eyes on this. Remsense ‥ 论 06:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose primarily per Purplebackpack89. I would be fine if the results for vital article voting are determined by consensus instead of supermajority rather than creating inefficient RFCs and increasing the risk of backlogs. --ZergTwo (talk) 06:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• Comment Just want to point out I'm not sure if the votes here will be considered in the discussion page. Should we copy discussion over there? I'm not particuarlly familiar with this procedure. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose based on pbp's comment. Also, I feel as if this is somewhat related to the nominator's messages at this proposal, where they state that he feels as if editors are "hyperfixated on the fact that we're at 999 and desperately feel a need to plug the hole.", and then says that it's "a bit exhausting to keep swatting down these proposals." Is this proposal actually an attempt to try and maintain level-3 in the long run? Or a counter-measure to prevent "swatting down these proposals"? λ NegativeMP1 06:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  This is the last I'll reply to refrain from bludgeoning, but yes, this is explicitly reactive, because the recent activity on this page has been alarming to me in proportion to what it's meant to accomplish for the whole encyclopedia. We don't lock pages proactively, we lock them reactively—so I don't see how that is in itself problematic. Remsense ‥ 论 06:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• Question where would this RFC be held, exactly? How is this page not already "globally visible"? I think I would lean oppose, basically on the grounds that VA is fairly useless but mostly harmless as long as it remains just in this little enclave, but could become a more active nuisance if it tried to get more editors interested. --Trovatore (talk) 06:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  Replying further while not rehashing as not to bludgeon per above: people get notifications for RfCs, and they are listed alongside other pertinent RfCs in a centralized location, while this page has comparatively few regulars, and I'm not convinced all the editors that would otherwise care know to have this particular page on their watchlist. If I'm wrong, and it turns out the community doesn't see changes as potentially harmful as I do, then I will gladly accept that. Remsense ‥ 论 06:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  [P]eople get notifications for RfCs[...]. Do they? I haven't seen this in any sort of consistent or predictable way. Are you talking about some particular kind of RfC, say one with bot-assisted notification? --Trovatore (talk) 06:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  Right, that's what I'm referring to. Remsense ‥ 论 06:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  Ah, well it might have been good to clarify that. I see all sorts of RfC's (or at least they're called RfC's) that are really nothing more than talk-page discussions that the originator has decided to call an RfC. Those don't notify anybody except people watching that particular page. --Trovatore (talk) 06:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  FWIW, you can subscribe to receive a notification whenever a new proposal is created here. _pbp 14:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  Again, the issue is that people who don't otherwise see what's going on here might want to. That doesn't help any more than "you can add the page to your watchlist" does. Remsense ‥ 论 14:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• Additional thoughts Did you know it is easier to get an article deleted than flagged as vital? The VA list requires 5 supports for a proposal; no such requirement exists at AfD, and articles are frequently deleted with the support of only three editors, fewer if it's a PROD or CSD. AfDs don't require an RfC either. I think there's generally an understanding across all aspects of Wikipedia that the bar or quorum is whoever shows up _pbp 14:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  That's not at all comparable! The distinction being that vital articles are generally held out as being of the highest importance—that's the point!—while articles turning up AfD are very much not! Plus, articles generally aren't competing with each other in a way that's vulnerable to what are effectively counterproductive swaps at AfD. I don't get your perspective here. Is there some aspect it would help if I further elaborated on? I feel like I've ranted too much already, and people are entitled to dismiss my proposal if they don't agree with what I think is important, but I don't get where these disconnects before that point are.Remsense ‥ 论 14:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  AfD plays for higher stakes than VA does. Being removed as vital doesn't remove the article entirely from Wikipedia. AfD DOES.

  I suppose what I'm looking for fundamentally is why VA needs to be held to higher standards than seemingly any other aspect of Wikipedia _pbp 14:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  The perspective outlined here is totally reasonable, but I disagree with it because I have different priorities. That's fine. Again, it depends how much you think this project matters in accomplishing its stated purpose here, e.g. improvement of our most important articles. I personally care about that a lot more than the articles I almost always have to characterize as marginalia at AfD. I'm seriously glad there are people who have opposing perspectives on this, because I'm ultimately biased to a fault. But that reasoning on some level is the why that answers your question. Remsense ‥ 论 15:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose This would make the process more prominent among those who have not been calibrating their opinions with regular participation. We would be likely to have 100 Simpsons episodes if we made this process more prominent.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• As I discussed in November, requests for comment discussions should be used for matters where there is a lot of general interest, often because the decision will affect a lot of people. The RfC process is not designed to process a high stream of discussions, as this would place a lot of demand on the community's time. I think having a separate stream for vital article discussions is a better fit: I think it already reaches most of the people interested in the vital article process, and avoids swamping the centralized discussion process. isaacl (talk) 16:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. My opinion hasn't changed since the last time (from a different editor, but only two months ago). Maybe we need to document this somewhere? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Add History of religion

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

Support

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

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

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

Oppose

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

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

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

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

Swap Historical method  4 with one of several options

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

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

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

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

Swap with Herodotus  3

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

Support

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

Swap with Rembrandt  3

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

Support

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

Swap with Ali  3

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

Support

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

Swap with Martin Luther  3

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

Support

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

Discuss other options

Support swap with something else

Oppose all

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neutral to all

Discuss

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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