Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/2/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Suggest to move Social science from society to science

As the name says: Social Science is a scientific discipline, and should be listed as a science; not a societal issue. See e.g, the listing of the social sciences in the descirption of Fields of science. Arnoutf (talk) 10:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, yeah, social science is certainly a science, but it also has to do with society. There are lots of topics that span categories: Should history of art be in Art or History? Should Big Bang be under history (it's a historical occurance) or science (it's a scientific theory)? Sometimes it's kind of arbitrary where these go. – Quadell (talk) 17:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Universe

I do not think universe should be in the geography section as geography is the study of Earth and not the universe. I suggest moving it to the science section. Jolly Ω Janner 00:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I second that thought. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Earth

Why is Earth in this list twice? --Redaktor (talk) 22:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, but I fixed it by replacing Earth in the Geography Category with United States, and I might put it back, and take it out in the Science category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Us441 (talk • contribs) 12:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Few misc. swaps

I'd like to suggest a few changes.

Delete:

  • United States
  • History of science
  • something else

Add:

  • Oceania
  • Painting
  • Abrahamic religions

Maurreen (talk) 22:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Do we need painting? Swap with Visual arts, perhaps? HereToHelp (talk to me) 02:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Painting I suggested as at least as high a priority as Sculpture, which is included. From Arts, we could:
  • Take out Visual arts, Performing arts, and Art
  • Add Arts along with Painting. Arts has the broadest coverage. (The order of breadth goes from Arts, to Visual Arts, to Art.)
That would also leave us room to add Astronomy. Astronomy now has no coverage, unless you include Earth. Maurreen (talk) 14:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

My 5 Cents on Vital Articles

This is an intrinsically difficult list to compile, but here are a few suggestions.

Out

  • United States. There probably shouldn't be any countries in Geography. If yes, I can think of at least two or three more that deserve mention as much as the U.S.
  • Race (classification of human beings). The concept is too fuzzy from the scientific point of view; from the social point of view it differs very widely from culture to culture, and it's a special example of ethnicity and/or social identity.
  • Popular culture. There is Culture, Entertainment and Personal life, so I think Pop culture is redundant.
  • Cuisine. There is Culture and Food, and Cuisine is culture specific to food.
  • Sculpture. It's one of the Visual arts.
  • Internet (sorry!). It's a kind of Telecommunication.
In
  • Sun, under Geography or Science. Sure, it's a part of the Universe, but it has immense everyday and cultural significance.
  • Air under Geography. Water feels too wet without it.
  • Space under Science. Time yearns for its buddy, they can't exist one without another.
  • Instead of Internet: Information or Communication under Science.
  • Instead of Race, one of Ethnicity, Identity (social science) or Prejudice.
  • Instead of United States, I could go for Oceania, as someone mentioned above. This way all of the inhabited (traditional) continents would be included.
Also

Miranche (talk) 08:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your comments. This specific page doesn't get much attention. We might not get to this for a while. But a few of us are slowly working on another section, if you'd like to join us at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles. Maurreen (talk) 08:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll check it out. I'm enjoying the shorter list as it's more of a mind-puzzle, though I realize that the longer lists are more important. A couple more things that came to mind:

  • In: Astronomy. It's (arguably) the oldest science. Out: History of science. Very important, but of less general interest IMO.
  • In: Industry or Manufacturing, under Technology. Someone has to make things, too! Out: Electronics or Telecom. Both are very specific, though indeed very important in industrialized (yes:)) society; Telecom is the one I'd keep.

Miranche (talk) 09:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, if you don't get feedback after a while, I encourage you to do as you see fit. Your reasoning seems sound (and if someone doesn't like it, they can change it.:)) But please consider my suggestions above. Maurreen (talk) 09:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Duplicate Topics/Type of Vitality

I notice that there are a lot of duplicate topics on this page. I have listed some of my thoughts for duplicated articles that should be removed from the list (keeping the broadest terms) and traded with something more varied. I kind of nominated articles pretty liberally, and I don't have any ideas for replacement articles. There's also the matter of HOW the articles are Vital. Why would would you have a limit on the number of articles? I have thought of two possible definitions of "vital".

  1. Present Day: Vital refers to articles that any respectable knowledge base must have in order to survive (i.e. Computer, names of all of the continents, "School subjects" like Mathematics and Science, etc.).
  2. End of the World: It's 2012, and aliens have invaded Earth, wiped out all life on Earth except for the people in San Francisco, California, whose brains they've completely wiped, and destroyed all modern appliances except for one of Wikipedia's servers. What articles would those people need to have on that server to be able to survive?" (i.e. Fire, Mathematics, Food and the hunting of, etc.)

Now, on to the list of things to remove:

My eyes hurt now.--98.114.243.75 (talk) 22:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

We're going for the "present day" meaning of vital.
There's a limit on the number mainly to make for an objective cut-off point.
If you think the current articles can be better arranged, you can go ahead and change that.
We probably won't take anything out without planning to replace it.
And we probably won't get to your suggestions until we finish up our review of the main list, WP:VA. We're 70%-90% percent done. You can join us on the talk page for that, if you like. Maurreen (talk) 00:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary subpages

Does anyone object to me merging the transcluded subpages into this page, like level 1 and level 3? The subpages add complexity to what is otherwise a short and simple page. —Mrwojo (talk) 22:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. I found the page had been split so topics could be transcluded into pages like Wikipedia:Vital articles/Topic/Art, but then categories were used for that purpose instead. WP:VA went through this aborted process as well. —Mrwojo (talk) 18:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Industry?

Why isn't Industry listed as a subtopic of Technology? Nothing in that section is a top-level vital article. This page has a funny way to count up to ten. I'm going to move it and see how long it lasts. -- RichardF (talk) 13:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Level 1 article proposal

I would like to propose changing the level 1 articles to match the main categories in level 2. Specifically, replacing:

Rreagan007 (talk) 18:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Both geography and history are about the disciplines of study, whereas history of the world and earth are about the subject matter. Think of it this way, if ET's landed and wanted to understand us as quickly as possible what articles would you rather have them read first? Culture vs. Society is a tricky one I can see arguments for either, I wouldn't say I endorse the change, but I don't think it would be a bad one. My personal proposal would be to replace Technology with Human as I believe technology is a derivitive concept of both 'humanity' and 'science'. Crazynas t 06:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Removal from Vital 100

As I said in Talk:Vital Article, I think there are a few things that are placed too high on the VA structure because they're the name of a field/category which includes important objects. Just because a category gives us a convenient way of grouping the fields doesn't mean the academic field devoted to the category itself is a vitally important subject. And I say this as someone mildly obsessed with mapmaking. If we had a few lists in the Vital 100, one could plausibly argue for grouping them together (after all, the grouping is just for style/convenience), but it wouldn't automatically make List an important article.

So I strongly disagree with User:Rreagan007's proposal to replace Geography on the Vital 10, and I actually think "Geography" should be kicked off the Vital 100 list; it's probably on here because it's the name of a heading, but as a field it's much less important than most of the other things on there.

I'm not sure Linguistics belongs in the Vital 100, when we already have Language and History of Language.

I also don't think it's ideal that four of the 100 slots are taken up by Technology, History of technology, Telecommunications, and Internet. I think we could probably lose Telecommunications—why have that, and not Wheel or Engine or Projectile weapons or Printing or Paper?

I propose that we remove:

and add:

Edit: I also think Dream or Sleep would be good candidates. Dreams are a huge component of life for many cultures, and feature prominently in language, metaphor, etc. Sleep is pretty important, too. We spend a third of our lives doing it, and we don't even know why.

I also think Sexual intercourse could be an important compliment to Human sexuality, with Human sexual behavior falling somewhere in the middle.

Either of those could replace Industrial Revolution or Solar System in my proposal.

Thoughts? —MillingMachine (talk) 12:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

My views on posible changes

I came here to voice my opinion, and saw others had similar views. I also thought of lots more whilst I was typing so I typed it all down sorry.

  • I very strongly feel Disease should be here, I can't see an article here that would encompass it well, other that life and death, medicine, bacteria? posibly, very loosely.
  • And/or Poverty similar but different to disease, very widespread, important enough? or covered by food, social science, society, death
  • I quite strongly feel mountain doesn't belong here, it's importance to the mechanics of plate tectonics etc are covered well in Earth, and to humans culturally and, and to humans and all life survival wise, I don't think their more significant than say desert, Forest, island, swamp, plain etc.
  • Is it odd to have most of the continents but not to have "continent" itself? I can kind of see it as reduntant and covered enough by Earth and the individual continents though, I do see it as more important than mountain though.
  • We have 3 entries under the header "Industry" but not a place for Industry itself as one of the 100? should we not have industry as well or instead?
  • Military, important enough by itself? covered by war? Is it distinct enough from war? Should it be used instead of war? You can have big militaries without any war. There is a Military wikiproject but not a war one, does that suggest military is the wider term? I could suggest combat instead but that article at combat is very short.
  • There are some entries, which although not exactly the same, have a bit of overlapping meaning, does this matter, such as
  • I weakly feel Internet, very modern, maybe, maybe not, is it covered by telecommunication? is it more important than television or radio which have been around for longer and have had more time to make an impact?
  • Engineering, Technology, Manufacturing, Construction, kind of all about making stuff, albeit construction is fixed buildinds and structures they overlap a little in meaning is this ok?
  • Machinery, or Mechanics, probably under tech or engineering or not important enough? does it cover or is more important than electronics?

Life

The entry Life (which is about organisms) is under the header life which is about clothes and stuff. A more sensible thing and matching the 1000 articles would be to put Life with science next to bacteria, plant and animal which it contains, and rename the header 'life' with 'everyday life'. May have just been an oversight? Death is always next to it too, I'm not sure now Carlwev (talk) 00:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Oral tradition

Somehow oral tradition is so important it is included in the vital 100 articles but is absent from the vital 1000 articles and also missing from the vital 10,000 articles, very odd. What should we do about this? It should definately be mentioned in the top 10,000, posibly 1000 but 100? Carlwev (talk) 15:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Changes

After contributing to the 10,000 a lot I now have different oppinions of this 100 list. I think the following should be considered for inclusion Industry - Sport/Game - Fiction - Weather/Climate - Disease. A few I think shouldn't be here.

I think the sub headings could be different too maybe use the vital 10 topics themselves as headers, definately industry into technology, probably have life like the vital 10 could be a header and include life death animal plant bacteria food and disease. What are users thoughts on my thoughts? Carlwev (talk) 15:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I think maybe we should be a bit more equal across the board, history strikes me as being a bit empty. Maybe inclusion of something like. Modern history, Middle ages, Ancient history, Prehistory/Stone age, I'm not to sure about this but it's worth a bit of thought.

Suggestion: Science --> Natural science

I think the article that best represents the contents of section "Science" is actually Natural science. Also, Medicine and related could be moved to Life. -André Oliva (talk) 21:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Statistics versus measurement (mathematics)

Statistics should replace measurement, which is now in mathematics.

Second, statistics should be moved under science, as a scientific method. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Computer or computing should be in level 2

In level 2 there s no mention of computers which is surely a vital top 100 article. In the Technology section, Fire could be replaced by "Computing" or "Computer". 121.45.193.118 (talk) 10:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Fire's pretty important, though pbp 17:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
I think computer should probably be in the vital 100. I think fire should probably remain here too. Entries I think maybe could be omitted are, internet, book, mountain and mining.Carlwev (talk) 18:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, fire is an important article and probably should be left in the top 100- though give the focus of the article it seems to belong more in the Science section, along with water. I think having both internet and telecommunications is a bit redundant- I think that telecommunications is a bit specialized for a top 100 and could be removed, or perhaps internet as suggested above. I addition to the above, I think "community" is another candidate to be replaced- it is a vague topic that is partially covered by the other articles in that section. 121.45.193.118 (talk) 03:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Oral tradition and mining removed, disease and industry added by User:Ypnypn in March 2013; discussion closed by Cobblet (talk) 23:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Industry and Disease

I propose removing 2 and adding 2 articles, what do you think?

  • Add Disease, Pretty important, probably enough for the vital 100. Disease in some way effects people (and all life) everywhere around the world at every point in history petty much. It existed before medicine did and in parts of the world with no medical care. We have medicine which is kind of Humans reaction, study, treatment, prevention of disease. Some one else suggested disease some time ago. in the 1000 list there are over 20 diseases, which has been expanded from, "none" in the 100. We have several complementary opposites, Life and Death, Law and Crime, Medicine and Disease seems to fit.
  • Add Industry, the 1000 lists industry plus 12 "industries". Industry was important enough for someone to make it sub header here in the 100 but without making it one of the articles which was odd. Several of the articles here, Mining, Agriculture, construction, manufacturing, engineering, could be considered industries, plus possibly more electronics, telecommunication, film at a stretch too. So should we have industry?

Remove 2 of...

  • Remove Oral tradition I would like to suggest removing Oral tradition from the 100, it doesn't seem to fit, a couple of users already kind of agreed with me.
  • Remove Book, A book is important because it contains, writing and/or literature, both of these are already here. It seems odd within the 100 to include a vital topic and the vessel in which it comes separately. I would compare to having both Mining and Mine, or acting and theatre, or Agriculture and farm. I think book may not be needed in 100 if literature and writing are present.
  • Remove Mining, it looks like the most specific technology, maybe too specific? Seems odd to add specific industries but not industry itself.
  • Also, while I'm here what are peoples views on History of...Technology, Science, Art, and Mathematics? I am not proposing these but, is it just me they seem a little odd in a list as short as 100, slightly redundant as we already obviously have Tech Sci Art and Math, themselves, the history of..... articles never seem very well represented in lots of languages like many of the other articles are, I can't help but think they're fillers that just take up room, it might just be me I don't think many will agree with me on this last one though. There are other articles in the core 150 we could have, we have Telecommunication here but not Communication.

Carlwev (talk) 18:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  • I vote to remove "Oral tradition", "Mining", and "History of mathematics", replacing them with "Disease", "Industry" and "Algebra" pbp 18:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
  • How about replacing oral tradition and book with disease and industry? Also, communication can replace cuisine (both in Society), and algebra can (maybe) replace history of mathematics. I'm willing to throw out history of art and of science as well, but I think history of technology should stay. (Basically, math and art have changed comparatively little over the millennia, and science since the Renaissance. The idea of technology, by contrast, is continually evolving. -- Ypnypn (talk) 20:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support removal of all three and addition of disease and industry. --(AfadsBad (talk) 22:26, 29 September 2013 (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.

Missing continents

The geography section lists all the continents except Australia and Antarctica. Certainly Australia should be listed- I suggest replacing "city". 121.45.213.224 (talk) 19:35, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Cuisine, Add Cooking

I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles#Cuisine or Cooking on the Level 2 and 3 lists proposing this swap. Please feel free to comment on that page. Cobblet (talk) 14:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Reproduction

The current list has "Human sexuality" listed under the Life section. The "Reproduction" article seems more suitable, since it covers the same content from a broader perspective. Praemonitus (talk) 18:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, they're not exactly the same thing, but I'll support it anyway pbp 18:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Agree with Purplebackpack89, not the same, but support the swap. --(AfadsBad (talk) 23:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC))
  • This really comes down to how human-centric we want to make the list: human sexuality is to human as reproduction is to life, and I think strong arguments could be made for including either topic, or both, or neither. It might be better to revisit this discussion with more editors participating and after we fix some of the more serious flaws on the Level 3 list (we have email but not mail!) Cobblet (talk) 23:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Add Sea, Remove River

The Sea is the entire body of water on Earth, whereas River is just a type of geographical feature. -- Ypnypn (talk) 19:46, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Ocean is on the list. I would suggest replacing Ocean and River with Sea and Land, since these are the two broadest possible geographical divisions of Earth. Cobblet (talk) 20:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
A river is not just a type of geographical feature, they are what move the land to the sea and provide water to most of civilization, make the beaches and cut the terraces we build our cities on, and bring nutrients to the land that allowed civilization to flourish and build cities. The cradles of civilzation are river valleys, we could not have become farmers then built cities without them. Sea, River, and Land. --(AfadsBad (talk) 22:24, 29 September 2013 (UTC))
I'm fine with removing ocean. -- Ypnypn (talk) 22:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
These are all extremely vital. Why remove any of them? PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
WITHDRAWN
Not added on level 3. Malerisch (talk) 04:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Swap: Add Economy, Remove Business

Economy is a more general topic than Business. However, I was surprised to find that Economy is not listed as a Level 3 article, or even a Level 4 article... Malerisch (talk) 05:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 05:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Business has been around for a lot longer than Economy. --Melody Lavender (talk) 09:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Per Melody. Business is the more general topic and is important in many social sciences including law. Not just economics. Gizza (t)(c) 05:47, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removed 5-0. Malerisch (talk) 13:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Remove Cuisine

Stands out as weaker than others, we already have food, and we don't have cooking at this level which, although also covered by food seems higher importance than cuisine anyhow, and someone suggested adding cooking in it's place, although I'm not suggesting that here.  Carlwev  19:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  19:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Malerisch (talk) 03:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 09:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 08:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Cobblet (talk) 00:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Note that Cuisine is not on the Level 3 list. Malerisch (talk) 03:17, 26 June 2014 (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.

Removal of FGAN assessments

It isn't necessary to keep track of if an article is a failed good article nominee () or not for at least three reasons:

  1. Vital articles on Level 3 and Level 4 don't make this distinction. No articles there are marked with FGAN.
  2. It's inconsistent because articles are not labeled as a failed featured article candidate.
  3. Whether an article is a FGAN doesn't mean that much since many articles are prematurely nominated and speedily failed.

I've removed the FGAN icons for now because they seem like unneeded work to maintain. If you disagree, feel free to discuss. Malerisch (talk) 08:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm OK with this. Cobblet (talk) 09:01, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Not removed 3-1 Cobblet (talk) 18:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Film, Add Book

Out of the eight articles in "Art", film is definitely the weakest. Architecture, literature, music, performing arts and visual arts are all basic forms of art. Film is a branch of performing arts. It is a fairly new art that has existed for less than 150 years and not vital at Level 2 IMO.

There is some overlap between book and literature but book is not a branch of literature. It is the main medium through which literature is expressed. Books have a much longer history than film. Since their mass production after the invention of the printing press, books have had a greater impact on society.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 01:09, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 02:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose In our modern world, I think "Film" has become as important as "Literature". Rreagan007 (talk) 05:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

Okay, I just saw book in "Everyday life". I withdraw that part of the nomination. I still think film is quite weak at this level. I will try to find something to replace it with. Gizza (t)(c) 01:12, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Within performing arts, I think dance has a stronger case. Outside of arts, there is health (some overlap with disease and medicine but still pretty important), economics (some overlap with business), mass media, communication and writing (again overlaps with language and book). Gizza (t)(c) 01:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Writing is already listed. -- Ypnypn (talk) 02:39, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I really should look at the whole list before making suggestions. A lot of the articles are in different sections oompared to Level 3 and 4 which can make it difficult. Gizza (t)(c) 03:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
I had tried framing this as a swap in order to keep the number of Level 2 articles at 100 but now that there are large scale proposals below this can be a straight removal. Gizza (t)(c) 05:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove "History of" Maths, Science, technology, and art

I don't see why we need "history of" articles in a list as short as 100, the history of these topics would be dealt with in the article about the parent topic itself, a god article about something should always have a sectin about it's history. I don't think a general print encyclopedia of 100 topics or less would include "history of" topics when it could include other topics instead. History of maths for example, how much does one learn about or read about maths or about history, before the "history of mathematics" come up itself as an individual topic? In other lists all history articles have been moved to history section, here it is not. If we moved them there here, it would more opaque that there is hardly any history on the 100 list apart from these, and they are not the top history articles to have. I think ancient, classic, medieval, Modern history, or something similar would be more appropriate before adding history of discipline/topic.  Carlwev  19:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Possible replacements could be Prehistory, Ancient history, Post-classical history, and Modern history, which are the main divisions that History of the world uses. However, on the Level 3 list, Middle Ages is listed instead of Post-classical history, and Modern history is not listed at all. The top of the Middle Ages article states that "This article is about medieval Europe. For a global history of the period between the 5th and 15th centuries, see Postclassical Era", so post-classical history is the better choice since it is more inclusive. This issue may need to be raised at Level 3 as well. Malerisch (talk) 03:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
User:Carlwev and User:Malerisch, both of you seem to be suggesting that it's better to divide history by time period than by area of human activity. I'm curious why you think this way: to me it seems just as arbitrary a way of dividing the topic. For example, both ancient history and post-classical history make clumsy attempts to fit New World history into an Old World timeline, which IMO is unnecessary since they ought to be completely separate topics: better to limit both of those articles to the Old World only and focus on making Pre-Columbian era a more comprehensive article. Cobblet (talk) 00:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
The main reason that I prefer dividing history into time periods is that by doing so, we include all events that are "primarily" history rather than interdisciplinary. Otherwise, there is no "branching out" of history from Level 1 to Level 2. Subjects like Ancient Egypt, Ancient Rome, the Byzantine Empire, The Renaissance, and World War II are not covered in any greater detail. This is probably why the history sections in Level 3 and Level 4 are divided into time periods, not by subject. Besides, the articles on Mathematics, Science, The arts, and Technology already have sections on history, and the histories of each subject will be covered in the time-based history articles as well. I agree that the cutoffs for each period are not perfect, but I don't see any real way to improve them. They do work pretty well for the majority of the world, after all. I still think that dividing history by time period is the best solution. Malerisch (talk) 00:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
To elaborate a bit, I suppose that Ancient Egypt, Ancient Rome, the Byzantine Empire, The Renaissance, and World War II will be covered in somewhat greater detail, but subject-based history does not cover the big picture, and a lot of information would be omitted. The opposite is not true if time-based history is included instead, because the subject articles should provide a good overview of their histories. Malerisch (talk) 00:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm leaning towards supporting a division of history by time rather than subject. Normally "history" be default refers to political, civil and military history not history of things like art and science although the general articles should cover a bit of everything ideally. The biggest problem I see with a time based division is that articles such as post-classical era don't deal with the history of the entire world but only Europe, Asia and Africa. I don't know what can be done to fix this. Gizza (t)(c) 01:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Whatever the consensus, I don't think each of these history articles should be proposed and discussed individually. We could end up with a mix of both types of history articles such as prehistory, history of science, ancient history, and history of art which will be clumsy. We should have one or the other. Gizza (t)(c) 01:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Not necessarily: in fact I lean toward User:Melody Lavender's view that we should keep history of science and art even if we add histories by time period. I think standard history articles should continue to focus on political history, not try to do everything at once. To me, history of the world = political history of the world. If we include subdivisions of history of the world by time period it's because we recognize that political history is of such general interest that it requires more extensive coverage at this level. But that doesn't mean that the development of artistic style or of scientific thinking aren't worthy topics in their own right. Cobblet (talk) 05:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
It may be possible to keep some of the histories by topic and remove others but it will be harder to add only some histories by period. Unexplained chronological gaps don't look good. Mathematics and technology are part of science, fair enough. But prehistory is not part of ancient history. The overall number of history articles will have to go up if we want to include both classifications. I'm not necessarily opposed to that. Gizza (t)(c) 05:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely agree it's all or nothing for history by time periods. And I might backtrack on history of art and history of science seeing that each article on a genre of art or scientific discipline devotes space to its history. That being said, articles on the continents also provide an opportunity to cover that continent's history. If we list both prehistory and ancient history does that make civilization unnecessary overlap, or no? Cobblet (talk) 08:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
PASSED
Removed 5-0. Malerisch (talk) 12:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Remove History of mathematics

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  19:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 16:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Malerisch (talk) 03:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Intertwined with the history of science. Cobblet (talk) 05:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support per Cobblet. Gizza (t)(c) 01:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
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.
FAILED
Not removed 2-3. Malerisch (talk) 07:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Remove History of science

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  19:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Malerisch (talk) 03:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose absolutely vital, classic article for an encyclopedia. --Melody Lavender (talk) 09:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Melody. When I read something like post-classical history I expect it to cover the rise and fall of Islamic caliphates in more detail than the Islamic contribution to science. Even though I think the second topic is just as significant, I think that's what a history of science article should cover. Cobblet (talk) 05:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Per Melody and Cobblet. Gizza (t)(c) 07:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not removed 4-1 Cobblet (talk) 18:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Remove History of art

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  19:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  2. Suport -- Ypnypn (talk) 16:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Malerisch (talk) 03:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Notwithstanding my comments below, if we need to cut something to make way for histories by time period, this can go. Cobblet (talk) 08:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose absolutely vital, classic article for an encyclopedia. --Melody Lavender (talk) 09:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

#Oppose per Melody. Does one read about colonization in modern history and think: "This is nice, but I really wish they'd say something about colonial architecture?" Cobblet (talk) 05:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

@Cobblet: No. -- Ypnypn (talk) 17:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Then it seems unreasonable to expect articles that have to cover political history in depth to devote much space covering developments in other arenas of human activity. But I think a discussion of stylistic trends in art and how it's been practiced in different cultures might deserve a separate article even at this level. Cobblet (talk) 20:10, 4 July 2014 (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.
Removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 18:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Remove History of technology

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  19:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Malerisch (talk) 03:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Intertwined with the history of science. Cobblet (talk) 05:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Weak Support Per Cobblet. OTOH, this appears to be more important than specific technologies listed such as computer, film and electronics. Gizza (t)(c) 01:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support As the Technology article already has a history section, and if the reader wants to go into greater detail, they can access the history article from there. AfroThundr3007730 (talk) 03:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
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.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 18:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Prehistory, Ancient history, Post-classical history, and Modern history

I may as well open this up since this was the original point of the discussion (history of topics or time periods). While these divisions aren't perfect, they are what history of the world uses and are logical for most of the population. Malerisch (talk) 07:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 07:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support But maybe it's better to open the discussion on level 3 first. Cobblet (talk) 08:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 04:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support per nom. AfroThundr3007730 (talk) 03:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

We may need to advertize Levels 1 and 2 so that we can actually get some discussion and/or progress with the proposals. Otherwise these proposals could hang around for another 6 months. Gizza (t)(c) 04:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I definitely agree—your proposal to remove film has been open for nearly 5 months! What would the best course of action be though? Maybe adding a notice to the top of VA and VA/E or simply pinging regular contributors could work. Malerisch (talk) 04:42, 8 October 2014 (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.
Not added 2-1 Cobblet (talk) 18:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Sport

Stands out as a missing topic fairly wide topic, only entertainment covers this which is very very wide. Sports have in some form been a part of the vast majority of cultures for much of there history. We have about about 100 sports another 100 sports people in lev4 but here it is not represented at all. We have "arts" and several individual arts, we have industry then several individual industries, we are not removing all of these because we have a parent topic, so I think we shouldn't leave of sport as redundant to entertainment, arguably all the arts we have are also forms of entertainment, eg music, film, visual art, and performing art. Even if we had recreation, I still think sport would be important enough to have, I believe it would be a topic included before a general encyclopedia gets to 100 articles. I was wondering if game would be better, includes sports, board, card and video games and others, but seems less written and read about?  Carlwev  19:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  19:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Malerisch (talk) 04:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose See below. Gizza (t)(c) 11:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

I would prefer adding Sport over Game due to the fact that Entertainment already covers games in some detail. Although sports are also included in the entertainment article, it is written more from the perspective of the audience watching a sport rather than the players themselves. Malerisch (talk) 04:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I would prefer adding game over sport if we were to add something. Sport is one of the things that people play much like other games. There are categories of games older than most sports including board and card games that are still very popular. And there are newer genres of games like video games that very popular as well. Many non-sporting games are played as a hobby or activity and are watched by others as a form of entertainment. There are professional tournaments for games like Chess, Poker and StarCraft. I don't think sports are different from other games in that respect. Gizza (t)(c) 11:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
But professional sports is a much bigger deal than professional gaming. I don't know how valid length-of-history comparisons are in this context – Snakes and Ladders is much older than football and maybe(?) just as well known, but there's no doubt in my mind football's more vital. I even think football's more vital than chess – I suggested removing the latter from level 3 while keeping the former. I don't think I'm wrong to say that modern society places more value in sports and sporting achievements than on games and gaming achievements no matter where in the world you live. It's just... sexier. Cobblet (talk) 13:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree that professional sports are bigger than professional other games. I just don't think it makes it unique enough to be vital at this level. I would strongly oppose any of other type of game too. The other hesitation I have with sport is that at least based on my common knowledge, it is a male dominated activity in most parts of the world. If sport receives enough support then I think we should add an almost equivalent female dominated activity to balance things out (maybe dance). Gizza (t)(c) 14:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Dance is a female-dominated activity?! But I agree that the case for sport is not overwhelmingly strong either. Cobblet (talk) 22:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I know that wasn't a great example. I was just thinking of something which is the opposite of sports (there isn't really one). Gizza (t)(c) 00:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Swap: Add Communication, Remove Telecommunication

PASSED
Removed/Added 5-0. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

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

The more general topic should be listed, as it includes essential methods of communication like speech. Malerisch (talk) 05:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 05:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 05:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Right now communication doesn't include anything on the history of communication; if it did, it would cover the revolutions in telecommunication that have occurred in the last two centuries. Cobblet (talk) 01:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  09:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support per nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
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.

Swap: Add Electricity, Remove Electronics

PASSED
Added/Removed 5-0. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Electricity is a more fundamental topic than Electronics. Electronics also overlaps with Computer. Malerisch (talk) 05:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 05:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support If there's one scientific accomplishment that's shaped modern society more than any other it's our understanding of electricity. Cobblet (talk) 01:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support electricity fits better in Science than in Tech since the article goes beyond the human use of electricity. Gizza (t)(c) 14:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  06:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support per nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
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.

Add Tool

PASSED
Added 5-0. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Tools have been used by humans and other species for millennia and have played a major part in the progression of humanity. Malerisch (talk) 05:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 05:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support I agree that general technology articles are more suitable for this level. In case space needs to be made, computer is quite specific and ultimately one type of tool. IMO it is less important than fire and perhaps at a similar level to wheel which is not listed. Gizza (t)(c) 05:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 01:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  09:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support per nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:09, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
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.

Remove Linguistics

PASSED
Removed 5-0. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Linguistics is too similar to Language to merit inclusion in the Level 2 list. Other social sciences like Economics, Political science, and Sociology are not on this list when Business/Economy, Politics, and Society are, respectively. I realize, however, that Geography and Psychology are present along with Land and Mind, so this is debatable, but I feel that there is less overlap between these than linguistics and language. Malerisch (talk) 05:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 05:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Listing linguistics and language is like listing geomorphology and land. Cobblet (talk) 01:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. I agree. I feel that communication is a better related article to have because of less overlap. Gizza (t)(c) 01:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  08:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support per nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:09, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
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.
Removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 18:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Remove Social science

We don't list natural science in addition to nature. I don't see why we should list social science when society is listed.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 01:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 02:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 12:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:09, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support per nom. AfroThundr3007730 (talk) 03:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
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.

How vital is history?

Isn't the difference between history and history of the world moderately similar to the difference between art and the arts? Malerisch (talk) 11:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Probably just as different as geography and Earth but I can see your point. I haven't formed an opinion yet. Gizza (t)(c) 01:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, art is about the cultural concept; the arts is about types of art. (I do think it's odd to have separate articles: then again, the way Wikipedia works, I'm sure somebody will find the need to create technological fields someday.) History is about the academic study of the history of the world. Cobblet (talk) 09:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Climate

The study of climate is part of the atmospheric sciences, which is itself part of earth science (the other major part of earth science is geology). What do people think of replacing climate with earth science? The only negative I can think of is that earth science is a field of study instead of an actual concept but we list physics and chemistry ahead of matter. Gizza (t)(c) 04:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I think climate or weather should be in the vital 100 first. Weather/climate is vital whether studied or not. There seems to be a rough idea that it's better to have the topic before the study of the topic if spaces are short, climate is the topic and Earth science is the study, we already have Earth too, so I'm not sure we need Earth science. Life is higher than biology, history of the World higher than history etc. Weather and climate are in the core 150 articles, Earth science is not, although it is a header? Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics  Carlwev  07:30, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Earth science and physical geography both deal with the same things – the two disciplines mainly differ in approach. Since geography is on the list, listing earth science isn't really necessary. Cobblet (talk) 08:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. Gizza (t)(c) 06:21, 16 August 2015 (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.
NO CONSENSUS
Neither added Gizza (t)(c) 11:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Antarctica and history of the Earth

Antarctica is not less important than Asia or Europe, and history of the Earth is as important as history of the world.--RekishiEJ (talk) 04:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. --RekishiEJ (talk) 04:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Antarctica. Yes it is uninhabited but I think all continents are vital. Still thinking about history of the Earth. Gizza (t)(c) 02:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. I have to disagree. I think Antarctica is far less important than Europe or Asia. Antarctica has been completely uninhabited by humans for almost all of human history, and it has very few native plant and animal species. It has no significant rivers or lakes. It is essentially a very large rock mostly covered by a very large sheet of ice. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 11:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

I'm not too sure about adding Antarctica to level 2. Is there any reason we would add all the continents before other specific geographical regions like Pacific Ocean or Atlantic Ocean? The VA lists seem to rate Antarctica below the other continents since many of the geography articles related to Antarctica were removed on level 4. All continents aren't necessarily equally important: for example, there's no History of Oceania or History of Antarctica on level 3 along with the other history of continent x articles. Malerisch (talk) 02:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Haha, you've convinced me to go back to neutral Malerisch! You made some good points. However, the "history of" articles at a lower level don't necessarily have to correspond to the higher level. History of Afghanistan and History of Israel are listed at Level 4, but even with a bigger list of countries at Level 3, I don't see either of them making it. On the flip side, History of Bangladesh is not vital at Level 4 even though the country is at Level 3 for the moment. Gizza (t)(c) 02:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, you're right about the history articles. Either way, I assume we don't have any oceans because they aren't as significant in terms of history or culture as the listed continents. The same reasoning can be applied to Antarctica, I suppose. Malerisch (talk) 02:48, 16 October 2014 (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.
PASSED
Removed/Added 5-0. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Remove Bacteria, Add Cell (biology)

I can't see any reason why bacteria is added when archaea, eukaryota and virus are not. Cells are the basic units in living organisms and are as fundamental to biology as atom is (which is listed) to chemistry and physics.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 07:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support virus is not less important than bacteria, and virus is not on the list. Cells are more important.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 18:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  19:05, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I believe cell was on the list a while back, not that that means we can't discus including it again. I have thought about suggesting bacteria's removal myself before, and cell has also crossed my mind, but if there's one biology article I was really thinking about including it was evolution, I like evolution much more. This is still an improvement and I'll think about it though. Also DNA crossed my mind too, although I don't like the idea of that article quite as much...... I support this removal but thinking about the add.  Carlwev  08:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of evolution at this level. Otherwise you could add big bang in place of atom. I think the basic building blocks of life and matter which are cell and atom respectively are vital. Gizza (t)(c) 10:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I would think the equivalent to big bang would be abiogenesis, and atom and cell is a good equivalence to, I don't know what evolution would be equivalent to. I think I still like evolution more, but I think cell is still better than bacteria, so I'll support it.  Carlwev  19:05, 16 November 2014 (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.

Why no coordination with list of 1000 articles?

I wonder why there is no coodination with the list meta:List_of_articles_every_Wikipedia_should_have ? Obviously the 100 most important should be in the 1000 most important. What is it good for if you guys spend your time here on en:wikipedia if people on meta are doing the same job? As an editor on sw:wikipedia i am nterested in these lists but uncoordinaed they are useless. Cheers! Kipala (talk) 11:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

NO CONSENSUS
Not added Rreagan007 (talk) 23:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Internet

The internet has become more and more important in recent years to more and more people worldwide, and it will only continue to become ever more important in the future. In a few more years, just about everything will be connected to the internet and almost all telecommunications will travel across the internet. For these reasons, I think it should be included in this list. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose it will be odd adding this when we removed telecommunications and electronics, both of which are precursors to the internet in different ways. Personally, I don't think computer is vital either. The wheel and the human use of metal are more fundamental inventions. Gizza (t)(c) 05:43, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

Such a fragile balance of old and new topics... fire on the one hand, computer on the other... Cobblet (talk) 06:55, 9 May 2015 (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.
NO CONSENSUS
Not swapped 2.5-1.5 Cobblet (talk) 04:58, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Statistics, Add Algebra

Statistics is undoubtedly important but as a branch of applied mathematics it is less foundational in nature than algebra or analysis. We really only have room for the most basic of topics on this list so I think algebra's a better choice.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 05:05, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  2. Weak Support I think algebra is just more vital than statistics by not much. IMO Statistics is either the sixth or seventh most vital article in mathematics (calculus might also sneak in front of it). Gizza (t)(c) 05:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support addition, Oppose removal. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Agree Statistics is less foundational in mathematics. However, I think due its application in analysis, presentation and scientific theory which is otherwise not broadly covered, it's more important. Aeonx (talk) 03:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Discussion
  • This is a tough call for me. I honestly think that algebra and statistics are equally important, and should probably both be listed here. I'd rather we remove a different article to make room for algebra. Number seems a little out of place, and less vital than a major branch of mathematics are. Outside the math section, Construction, which seems to have a lot of overlap with Engineering, could potentially be removed. I'm also not sure it's necessary for us to list both Atom and Chemical element, or Religion and Mythology. A chemical element is just a collection of atoms, and religion and mythology are really just 2 sides of the same coin. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Thinking out loud I could see the list without statistics and algebra, but I'm still thinking. I think I'd keep construction, mythology and atom. I could lose Oceania, the list never used to have it, and it seems less vital than India and China, which I've been thinking about but we'll probably never add countries here, an attempt to include all settled continents has been made, but Oceania is obviously the least vital. I was thinking about gender too, it seems as much a part of someones identity as ethnic group which we have. Book seems a little unnecessary with writing and literature. I was thinking about sport but that failed already, and anatomy too.  Carlwev  17:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Book definitely has a lot of overlap with writing and literature. I could also possibly go for removing Oceania. I'd be interested to hear other peoples' thoughts on that. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • On the one hand, we definitely shouldn't feel bound by old paradigms; on the other, I do like listing all six inhabited "continents" (per English convention) out of a sense of fairness. (FWIW, Wikipedia is still getting more page views from Oceania than Africa.) Definitely against the idea of listing individual countries – I don't think there's much to be gained from debating what the "most vital" countries are.
  • If you want to get rid of book I think I'd like to see printing listed – I like it as an example of technology more than fire. (Come to think of it, I think I'd like to bring back history of technology in place of things like fire or the wheel.)
  • I think I'd prefer human body over anatomy, but I was never too keen on the removal of bacteria in the first place, and I agree with Carlwev (in a previous discussion) that evolution has a strong case for inclusion too.
  • Comparing chemical element to atom is perhaps a bit like comparing ethnic group to human. I don't agree that they're redundant. Mythology is about stories, religion is about belief systems – those are also quite different. Not all religions have an associated mythology and vice versa.
  • Most classical definitions of mathematics begin by invoking ideas of quantity and space – number is about the first and geometry is about the second. So in that sense these two are the most basic math concepts. Cobblet (talk) 13:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Disease, Add Space

I think there is overly significant bias towards Biology articles ie: Animal, Cell, Disease, Human, Life, Plant, Nature, Biology, Death, Medicine. All of these article in some way relate to Life. Of all of them, I think Disease is least vital, and it already has some overlap in the others.

I think an understanding of Space is more significant and important than Disease.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Aeonx (talk) 04:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose - Per discussion. Disease is a valid Level 2 topic, and Space is adequately covered by Universe. This has been up for two months and is not getting support, so I suggest closing this. Jusdafax 06:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose removal. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


Discussion

I would oppose removing Disease. I'm not that keen on adding Space, but it's not a terrible idea and it's been mentioned before too. Disease has a tremendous effect on all societies in all parts of the world in all history regardless of whether biologists professionally study it or not. There are a few articles I could contemplate removing but probably not disease. I was happy when it was added, when Mining and something else was removed I think.  Carlwev  19:48, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm also not a big fan of removing disease unless it is replaced by something similar like health but I do understand the bias towards biology. I think the weakest of all biology articles is nature. Nature just refers to life on earth or the earth itself. Both life and earth are listed which makes nature redundant in my opinion. Gizza (t)(c) 04:13, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Don't like the idea of removing disease, and not a big fan of adding space either. I'd be in favour of removing nature if it meant we could bring back bacteria or add evolution. Cobblet (talk) 04:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
I believe the most vital article in the sphere of biology not currently listed is human body. Considering we have so many articles related to anatomy in the 1,000 level I think it makes to add human body here (it can also be seen as an extension of human on level-1). I still don't know what makes Bacteria more vital than than the other two domains of Eukarya and Archaea Gizza (t)(c) 13:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
We already list plants and animals as two particularly notable kingdoms within the eukaryotes. Between the two domains of prokaryotes, Bacteria is the more notable one. Without any microorganisms on the level 2 list we are missing out on a really important component of Earth's biosphere. Cobblet (talk) 00:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

My two cents

I wouldn't mind losing Book, Personal life, Nature, or Popular culture. Not a big fan of Statistics or cell either but don't mind them as much....I wouldn't mind adding Evolution and Human body/Anatomy, I would be OK with adding Bacteria and Space, but not as much. Sometimes the same articles come up in discussion. Nature has been brought up several times. The articles that are getting mentioned by several users may have more success and be worth bringing up?  Carlwev  20:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I've wondered about personal life. It is an important concept in (pun not intended) our lives but is it something that can be written about in detail in an article without repeating information from elsewhere? I noticed that it is the only article at this level which isn't even expanded at Level 4. Gizza (t)(c) 12:06, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Evolution should definitely be added. I would probably throw out Personal life, as we already have both Family and Community. Popular culture also seems a little redundant since we also have Culture. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
No consensus 2–3 Cobblet (talk) 19:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Remove Book, Add Evolution

I really think Evolution should be added, and Book seems to be the weakest article we have. We already include Literature at this level, which makes Book very redundant. With electronic communication, physical books just aren't all that important any longer. I suppose technically e-books count as books also, but I still think Literature is enough and Evolution is far more important. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:39, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  09:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I think it makes sense to consider adding evolution, but if you're going to remove book I think you have to add printing. This list doesn't make any sense without any coverage of one of the most important inventions ever. Cobblet (talk) 19:12, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I would replace nature with evolution instead. Biology and the natural sciences are already well covered. Gizza (t)(c) 05:13, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose the removal. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Discussion

My thoughts...I think, evolution is more vital than cell. Evolution happens to all life, the cell majority of life but not all. We all know the discovery of evolution by Darwin, whom is listed at the 1000, was a major point in Biology, the discovery and discoverer of the cell I'm sure was important too but isn't such a known topic. While I'm here, I'm thinking ethnic group to be a bit week, people of a continent are covered by the specific continent article. The article on human body seems more vital, should cover ethnic variations of the human body along with much more too. Gender, is just as important, probably even more to a persons identity as ethnic group, I would consider it more important, but would too be covered some by human body; we also have human sexuality which covers some of the ground. Personal life seems a bit of an awkward article too, difficult to write about, could cover as little or as much as you could think of; you could argue things like Existence or reality vital at this level but we don't list them in the 100 either and probably shouldn't.  Carlwev  09:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I disagree strongly with the idea that the ethnicity can be adequately covered by continent articles where the focus is on place, not people. But I agree that personal life may be too nebulous a concept to treat in the same way as the other vital 99 topics. Cobblet (talk) 19:01, 12 November 2016 (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.
No consensus 1.5–1.5 Cobblet (talk) 19:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Remove Money, Add Economics

I think including the article on Economics instead of Money would be a much better choice. Economics encompasses money, and I think including the broader topic is better at this level.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:39, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support the addition. Gizza (t)(c) 05:01, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose the removal the least vital article in the area IMO is employment, which is primarily a topic of economics. Money is a part of economics too but is studied in detail by other professions too such as accountancy and law (though employment has legal implications too). Gizza (t)(c) 05:01, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose money has a longer history and is more directly relevant to most people. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Discussion

Employment is one way people can make money. But people's relationship with money goes beyond employment such as using it to buy goods and receiving money as inheritance or a gift. Business is also a broader and antecedent topic because you can have business without employment but you can't have employment without business. Gizza (t)(c) 05:01, 16 November 2016 (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.

Sport

Why is there no sport on the list, if art for instance has 7 articles (plus history of art)? You can remove statistics or whatever. Linhart (talk) 20:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Sport has been bought up before, I think I supported it in the past, and I would support adding it again.  Carlwev  22:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The simple answer is that there has been a lot more scholarship written about art as opposed to sport. Cobblet (talk) 01:24, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Long boring discussion
I understand that, but that can't be the main argument for vitality of topics. How much scolarship has been written about clothing? It's simply a disgrace not including such a core topic as sport on this list. Sport has many ancyclopedias of its own, it is one of core subjects in schools all over the world and an exremly important aspect of life for millions of people. I'm not proposing adding articles like History of sport, football, Physical exercise, Sports club or whatever, just one cimple core article Sport. Not including it shows more bias and personal dislike than anything else. Linhart (talk) 08:30, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
I think it's important to distinguish between the competitive physical activity of sport and recreation in general. Everything you say about sport is true but could just as easily be said of a different form of recreation such as game or hobby or physical exercise – focusing only on sport shows bias indeed. I'm not sure why you would question the availability of scholarship on clothing, which is universal to all human cultures past and present; that is true of recreation as well, but not of sport. Cobblet (talk) 17:17, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm not questioning it, I just say it's a topic with not so much academic articles about it compared to natural science, so basically similar to sport. Just type in clothing or sport in some database, it's similar. However, I don't agree with comparison with hobby. I never heard for "encyclopedia of hobby" or "academy for hobby" (or academy for cell or fire), but there are hundreds of academies for sport. Reducing sport to hobby shows just the bias and attitude I'm talking about. For me personaly Arts maybe seem just a hobby, but objectivly I value artists and it is great having articles about it. I expect similar attitude from others. Also, sport is not a subtipe of recreation, it's on the same level, phrase "sport and reaceation" proves that. Linhart (talk) 19:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
I think it would be good to have an article on the list that talks about leisure in general. I'm not trying to "reduce" sport to the same level as hobbies (although many countries have numismatics and philately societies, and here's a 16-volume encyclopedia on collectibles), but I think focusing on sport while ignoring the many other ways people use their leisure time still introduces an element of bias to the list that a broader article like recreation would avoid. All sports can be played for recreation; not all recreation is sport. In my view they are not on the same conceptual level. Cobblet (talk) 20:29, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
But you still don't quite understand. It's not about "spending leasure time", there are thousands if not millions of people who are profesional athletes, who are studying sports, who are profesional trainers, who are managing sport clubs, who reseasrch and write obaut sport, who are projecting sport infrastructure etc. They are not doing it for hobby or spending leaisure time. I can read science books in my free time, but that doesn't make science a leisure activity. And not all sports can be recreation, Formula One can't be recreation.Linhart (talk) 22:13, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, with the rise of mass media, sports have become part of the entertainment business. That doesn't change the fact that in its essence, sport is a form of recreation; and that with isolated exceptions, professional sports did not exist before the 20th century. Tourism is another activity that is fundamentally recreational in nature, even though nowadays it has an industry, infrastructure, vocational training, academic study, marketing, etc. devoted to it. While you can say that recreation is a fundamental part of every person's life, you can't say the same thing for more specific types of recreational activities like sport or travel.
Now, it's true that something like film is also not universally enjoyed by everyone, and it doesn't seem fair that we have so much about types of art and so little about other forms of recreation. On the other hand, one could argue that film is nevertheless more important than sport because it not only serves as entertainment but is also a form of creative expression that we value highly. Notice there are no athletes on the level 3 list while there are several filmmakers. I have personally tried to remove some of the filmmakers in the past, and failed.
Saying Formula One can't be recreation is like saying the Champions League can't be recreation – auto racing can definitely be done as a form of recreation. Cobblet (talk) 23:45, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, professional film also did not exist before 20th century. For me and many others sport is more important than film, for me sport is also a form of specific expression that I value highly, not just entertainment. For me watching films is just stupid entertainment. But such subjective opinions are irrelevant here. Formula One is not just a car recing, it is specific sport with its own organizations and rules. You can't do it for recreation. Sport is not a type of recreation. That's like saying art is type of hobby. With that attitude you need just two articles, Stuff and Doing. It is funny how there are articles of film, music, literature etc, stuff that many people don't care about, but for sport that is a problem. There are statistics, "90 percent of Americans watch sports" (only watch, so not including those who do it or read about it) and probably similar or even higher for other countries. Is philosophy or chemistry such a fundamental part of every person's life? Linhart (talk) 09:49, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Of course they are – much more so, in fact. Philosophy and chemistry are fundamental to how we as humans understand the world, and therefore a lot of serious study has gone into them, and thus they are essential for Wikipedia to cover well. Modern civilization would be unrecognizable without either. Take away modern developments in philosophy and chemistry and you take away both the ideology and the technology that enabled the destruction of both World Wars, for example. I would not agree that things like sport or film have left a similarly profound impact on humanity, and I don't believe either concept is as vital as chemistry or philosophy; so I'm not going to get into a debate of sport vs. film with you. When I said that not everyone enjoys sports, my point was not that sports aren't vital because they aren't popular enough, my point was that I'm not convinced the non-recreational aspects of sport are necessarily vital to understanding ourselves or the world we live in at a fundamental level, even though they may be terribly important to you and many others. Yes, sports are much more sophisticated than mere recreation; but the latter is what I believe to be truly vital about sports. I realize many other things on this list are vulnerable to the same argument; the question is whether there are other arguments to be made in their favour, and whether such arguments can also be made for sport. Cobblet (talk) 19:02, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, what you think is "in the essence" or "truly vital" about something in not so important as the real impact on human lives. Sport is fundamental aspect of vast majority of people's lives, they understand world through sport as much as through chemistry. If someone mentions Germany, I don't think about chemical elements there or german chemists, I even don't know them. Modern civilization would be unrecognizable without sport, take away sport education in schools, take away all sports infrastructure, sport news (on portals or in newspapers, there is usually no special page about chemistry), sport events etc. The world would be nrecognizable, people would be physically and psychically totally different. Well I'm glad that you're not going into debate sport vs film, because there is truly no difference. There absolutely cannot exist 100 things that are more fundamental part of every person's life than sport. Don't you see, sport doesn't have to be as important as philosophy (I don't have to prove that), it just need to be in the top100 (I'm proving just that all the time).Linhart (talk) 21:46, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
It's absolutely reasonable that you don't know what those 100 things are and that you don't think they have a real impact on your life. I don't know what all of those things are either. But it does not automatically follow as a result of your ignorance and mine that they must not have a real impact and that they must not be as important as sport. Cobblet (talk) 21:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I understand that, but you started this argument of fundamental part. Lets tha add Sun and Semen or Bacterial microcompartment. Noone knows what's that, but it's probably fundamental for people lives. I could also say that your ignorance of sport doesn't mean that sport does not impact your life. This argument brings us nowhere. Maybe we don't understand each other. Is this debate over vital things for encyclopedia or vital things for human life? Because encyclopedias are for thing people want to know about and not for things that are indispensable for theam to breathe.Linhart (talk) 22:06, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Certainly not the second (philosophy doesn't have anything to do with your ability to breathe), but perhaps you and I understand the purpose of an encyclopedia and this list differently. If you want a list of the things people want to learn about the most, I suggest WP:5000. Cobblet (talk) 23:18, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
No, that's just the list of articles popular last week. Otherwise my point exactly, philosophy or arts have nothing to do with your ability to breathe, just like sport. But for sport it becomes a problem. Because that huge aspect of life is misteriosly some kind of irrelevant.Linhart (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
That report has been compiled on a weekly basis since 2013; if you were to aggregate all the data, maybe it would be closer to what you're looking for. Nobody said sport was "irrelevant", or even less relevant; for me, the question is whether the way in which sport relates to society as a whole is comparable to the way society relates to the other concepts on the list. I understand that you feel that your life would be unrecognizable without sport, that it has "real impact" on you. But there are others who no doubt feel that way about art, or philosophy, or film, or chemistry, or music, or literature, or games, or travel, or clothes, or any number of things. Is that enough of a reason to include all of them on the list? If so, you have a potentially infinite list. Cobblet (talk) 00:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Now i totally agree, that's why science, arts, philosophy, literature, transport and clothes are on the list, they should be, I never denied that, they are really important for many people. I think the way in which sport relates to society as a whole is comparable to the way society relates to those things. It would be really hard to prove otherwise. But now a question, how many people think that for Fire(or statistics or history of art or cell or geometry or ice or whatever), how many people think and read about fire on daily basis? Except for firemen noone.Linhart (talk) 06:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree fire is one of the less obvious choices, but presumably the biggest reason it's on the list is because it's the "first" technology, and was absolutely necessary for survival before we learned how to use electricity, even it may no longer be immediately relevant to those of us living in the developed world. But in the developing world, fire is still very much essential, not only for cooking and heating, but also for slash-and-burn agriculture, which forms the livelihood of hundreds of millions of people and also creates very serious issues of air pollution and environmental destruction in many places around the world. The more general concept of combustion is relevant to anyone who operates a gasoline engine or a furnace or a non-electric stove or does welding. Fire ecology is an important field of study, and the US alone spends billions of dollars each year on wildfire management. Builders have to think about fireproofing. As far as I know a Bunsen burner is still standard equipment in any middle/high school science lab, and learning how to start a fire is a basic wilderness survival skill that gets taught to kids. It's quite obvious that there are lots of people besides firefighters who have to think about fire in their daily lives.

Cobblet (talk) 08:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes of course, but still, less people, less equipment (each school has not only a bunsen burner but also a gym with dozens of pieces of equipment), less money, less study, less news etc. comparing to sport. It's "just" one (first) technology, such as Running is first sport. So what?Linhart (talk) 10:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
OK, so you missed the part about agriculture. Even nowadays, hundreds of millions of people around the world would quite literally starve to death if it weren't for their understanding of how to use fire. I hope the schools where you come from don't actually have less equipment related to fire protection than to sports. Fire extinguishers, fire hydrants, sprinklers, fire alarms, emergency exits, insulated wiring, fuses/circuit breakers, etc. are things that are required by law to exist in every building you live or work in. No amount of training or knowledge of sports could save your life in the way understanding one simple fact about fire (like how you can't use water to put out an electrical fire) could. I could also mention the use of fire as a weapon, or its symbolic importance in our culture which extends even to sports, e.g. the Olympic torch relay. Just because there is no "fire industry" or "fire school" per se does not change the fact that fire affects our lives in all sorts of ways. Cobblet (talk) 13:31, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, in each gim by us you have goals, hoops, nets, trampolins, vaulting horses, pommel horse, uneven bars, balance beams, still rings, climbing walls, wall bars, hundreds of balls, bats, hockey sticks, rockets, tennis tables and then outside fields, courts, running tracks, throwing and jumping fields, hurdles, wardrobes with lots of equipment, corridors, special floors etc. if we are counting things now. Little running can also save your life, or skills of throwing/kicking can help you in various ways, it can be also used for weapon, or tactics, strategy etc., it also affects our lives in all sorts of ways. If you would abolish all sport, ban sport news, forbid recreational sport and destroy sport facilities, millions of people (ex profesionall athletes, organizers, coaches, journalists...) would starve and because of fans there would be a revolution or war within a month and also millions of people would die.Linhart (talk) 18:05, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
That's a ridiculous argument. The equivalent argument for fire would be that if you banned anyone from ever attempting to fight or prevent a fire then the entire world would eventually burn up, civilization would be destroyed, and we would all die. If you insist on equating the importance of gymnastics equipment (which not every modern gym has) with fire protection equipment (which every modern building is required by law to have) I cannot have a productive discussion with you. Cobblet (talk) 18:13, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
But that WAS basically your argument (hundreds of millions would starve without fire...). OK, then we can end this. It's obvious that we have different views, you don't like it and for you it's not important. Because there are no clear criteria what makes a "vital topic", any further debate is irrelevant. Well, I'm surprised that there is no "Supporting pillar" on the list.Linhart (talk) 18:58, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Again, if you cannot appreciate that farmers might play a more basic role than sportspeople in supporting society as a whole, there is no point in continuing the conversation. Cobblet (talk) 19:18, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The topic is not farming, but fire, btw in Agriculture there's no mention of fire. Still, farmers obviosly play the same role as filmmakers. You truly have an interesting perspctive. I agree there's no point, you simpy don't appreciate the role of sport in modern society. I clearly won't change that. I'm going to drive F1 on my yard now, bye.Linhart (talk) 19:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
While you're at it, make sure you go buy food from filmmakers. Agriculture#Types of agriculture: In shifting cultivation, a small area of a forest is cleared by cutting down all the trees and the area is burned. The land is then used for growing crops for several years.... This practice is used in Northeast India, Southeast Asia, and the Amazon Basin." Agriculture#Crop cultivation systems: "Shifting cultivation (or slash and burn) is a system in which forests are burnt, releasing nutrients to support cultivation of annual and then perennial crops for a period of several years." Why care about which articles we should improve on Wikipedia when you don't even read them? Cobblet (talk) 19:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
No mention of fire. Maybe you should read Burn: A burn is a type of injury to skin, or other tissues, caused by heat, cold, electricity, chemicals, friction, or radiation. And obviosly you didn't understand the argument with filmmakers. ByeLinhart (talk) 20:43, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
PASSED
Removed, 5-0 support, 7 months,  Carlwev  20:47, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

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

Remove Personal life

Per previous discussion.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 05:15, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 07:33, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  12:42, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Cobblet (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support AbstractIllusions (talk) 20:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

So, what are we planning to replace this with? Cobblet (talk) 00:01, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Evolution or human body is what I would have in mind. Nature could also go to make way for them both.  Carlwev  19:28, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
I'd support Sport as a replacement. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:57, 16 May 2017 (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.
Added 5–0 Cobblet (talk) 18:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Add Evolution

As per above talk threads.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 11:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  12:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Cobblet (talk) 18:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
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.
No support for this swap. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Remove Land, add Sport

Land is the least useful article in the Geography section; all the specific landmasses are covered in continent-level articles on this list, and Nature approximately covers everything else.

Sport is a very general term and is different from Entertainment.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support addition I agree that listing all the continents separately makes Land an unnecessary article to include at this level, and I think Sport is important enough that it should be listed at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Continents are places. We have nothing on the physical processes that give rise to and shape landforms. Cobblet (talk) 02:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose removal I agree with Cobblet on removal. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:02, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Discussion
  • Earth should cover this in some detail. Geology is probably a better topic than Land for this list if people feel that is necessary. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Earth doesn't and shouldn't cover land anymore than it does sea – one should not be on the list at the expense of the other. Geology is a good addition but currently makes zero mention of landforms – as soon as you start talking about erosion and weathering the hydrosphere and atmosphere get involved (not to mention the biosphere), while geology is mainly about the lithosphere. Land and sea are essentially the interfaces where components of the geosphere interact. Cobblet (talk) 01:41, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
I've always thought that "Mind" was a very strange article topic to include. I assume it was thrown in to encompass topics like consciousness, intelligence, thought, and idea but it still feels somewhat awkward and out of place in the list. I'd support removing it to add sport and keep land. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:58, 4 October 2017 (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.
PASSED
Removed/Added, 5–0 Rreagan007 (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Swap: remove House; add Home

House is a kind of dwelling, whereas Home categorically refers to the place (not necessarily a structure per se) where people reside. Although the two words are interchangeable colloquially, I propose using Home instead of House is more accurate and inclusive.

Support
  1. Support as nom. ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 22:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support —J947( c ) (m) 01:56, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support It's the boarder term and what should be used at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:56, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:48, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support GuzzyG (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

The distinction between house and home is seen in a variety of contexts and uses. The article on Houses begins with, "A house is a building that functions as a home [...]" (emphasis added). A common expression is, "Home is where the heart is" (Wikiquote:Home). Legally, the Castle doctrine "negate[s] the duty to retreat when an individual is assaulted [...] within one's own home" (emphasis added). Article 25[1] of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, "Everyone has the right to [...] housing [...]" (emphasis added). Maslow's hierarchy of needs categorically refers to meeting physiological and safety needs—which a home helps provide—as fundamental to human survival.— Preceding unsigned comment added by GeekyEnki (talk • contribs)

References

  1. ^ "Universal Declaration of Human Rights". www.un.org. Retrieved 2017-10-10.

From an editorial perspective, all of House, Home, Housing, and Shelter (building) need significant amounts of improvement. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I strongly agree with the need to improve the quality of the content in those four articles. ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 22:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

The lists of vital articles nest: all the level 1 articles are on level 2, all in level 2 are also in level 3, etc. It's our general practice that we only add new articles from the next level down (level 3 in this case). Home is actually on none of the lists right now. I suggest trying to add it at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded first (it may be reasonable for the level 4 list to have both articles), with an indication that you're interested in seeing it swapped for house on the level 2 and 3 lists, and alerting the users there to this discussion (this page isn't as frequently monitored). Cobblet (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, I'll propose adding Home to the Expanded list first and shepherd its promotion back to Level 2.
Two follow-up questions:
  1. Shall we leave open, table, or withdraw this proposal in the interim? Since Home is not on the preceding lists, voting isn't permissible.
  2. How come this section was labeled unsigned when, in fact, I signed it ("Preceding unsigned comment added by GeekyEnki (talk • contribs)")? I wonder if the system tagged the discussion remarks in particular as unsigned despite being part of the initial section creation.
― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 00:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Once home gets added to level 4, if you want the same swap to apply on both levels 2 and 3, it might make sense to close this discussion and open one on the level 3 talk page, because that talk page is more active than this one. The system only seems to check for signatures at the very end of a comment. Cobblet (talk) 01:26, 11 October 2017 (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.
PASSED
Removed/Added, 6–0 Rreagan007 (talk) 01:44, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Swap: remove Community; add Sport

We list both Community and Society at Level 2. Looking at these two articles, they seem to be very similar topics with a lot of overlap, so I don't think that we need to list both at level 2. I suggest that we remove community and add Sport.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:15, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support GuzzyG (talk) 14:20, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support. One of the most vital communities, Nation, is not even level-4. Definitely move to level 3. wumbolo ^^^ 10:28, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
  4. feminist (talk) 12:00, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support trying to get sport in for ages. Community and Society do seem to overlap, and society seems better. In my head it's similar to ethics and morality, we only list ethics.  Carlwev  17:01, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support Strong support, sport should be added ages ago. Linhart (talk) 10:38, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
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.
FAILED
2–5, not added. --Rreagan007 (talk) 19:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Add Scientific method

I think that it is as important topic as History of science.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 09:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support as a swap with History of Science. Crazynas t 06:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. Theory is level 4, Truth is level 3, Thought is level 3, and I could name countless more vital articles than Scientific method at this level. I would also remove Mind, as it doesn't include articles like this one. wumbolo ^^^ 13:08, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I'd say it's redundant to the history of science at this level. Gizza (t)(c) 00:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose addition I do not think it is more vital than Epistemology. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. Not quite Level 2 worthy. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:29, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Science is enough here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
1-4 Crazynas t 21:56, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Swap Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, Oceania and South America for Continent

Continents are much less vital/important than the individual countries. A nation, country, kingdom or empire contains certain people which shape the environment in a certain way. Most country borders are not continental borders, but related to the terrain (Terrain is a level-5 article for some reason) e.g. landforms; and rivers (but lake borders are rare to be honest). I am getting the idea that we list continents just so we can say that we "cover" the whole Earth. There are two problems with this: we don't include Australia (continent), and continents are not so vital as to warrant six percent of vital articles. We are acting as if Continent is almost a level-1 vital article, when it's not even level-2. The United States are more vital than North America in my opinion, and have been on the list some time ago.

I'm not going to pretend that we only list continents for geographical reasons. Of course we list Europe and Asia separately and not as Eurasia because they have different culture. But again, the distinction between Europe and Asia is drawn using landforms and rivers (and lakes). But the justifications related to climate, flora and fauna are also relatively poor, since all of the continents aren't nearly universally homogenous. I am not at all comfortable with listing all of these continents while River is only a level-3 vital article, and Ocean is not even a level-3 vital article. I also like the idea of adding Continent to level 2, when Plate tectonics is level 3.

Support
  1. Support as nom. wumbolo ^^^ 10:24, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose We do cover Australia as part of Oceania, and Earth's terrestrial geography definitely merits 6% of the articles on this list. Ocean is not a level 3 article because it is about the concept of a planetary ocean in general; sea is the article about Earth's ocean in particular, and it is on this list. Yes, the practice of referring to Europe as a separate continent is a product of Eurocentrism; but for me that is not strong enough a reason to abandon the use of continents to categorize the Earth's landmasses. I strongly oppose the inclusion of any individual countries at this level. Cobblet (talk) 17:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose pbp 12:59, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 09:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose The general article on continents isn't really what's vital. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removed, 5–1 Rreagan007 (talk) 00:14, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Remove Popular culture

Not really vital at this level.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 09:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support. Redundant to entertainment, culture, myth, folklore, sport, etc. Not vital at this level. wumbolo ^^^ 12:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support. Probably not a very good subject for an article at this level, in the same way Culture is not a very good article at level 1. I'm going to go ahead and support because I think we have some better articles being proposed to add to the list. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  14:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  5. Strong support When we do not list Anthropology and folklore it is no way to list popular culture ahead of them. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Oppose

#Oppose I would prefer remove film before popular culture and I support add folklore at this level. A lot of anthropological topics should be covered at this level Dawid2009 (talk) 18:28, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

  1. Oppose Remove film, only an aspect of popular culture. Linhart (talk) 09:52, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
  • For those suggesting removal of film, I would oppose that. I view film as an important art form on par with music, which is listed also. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
No, film is on par with song, on par with music would be something like Cinematography. Linhart (talk) 09:28, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Film is part of popular culture such like comic or video game. Cinematogrgaphy is part of art such like literature or music. Cinematography currently is listed at the level 4 and film at the level 2. IMO we should replaced video game with cinematography and remove film to the level 3. Dawid2009 (talk) 17:46, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
I'd consider swapping film with cinematography. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:36, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

You want to swap film with cinematogrraphy when we have currently two levels difference? There were such changes whenever in that project?Dawid2009 (talk) 22:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
3–6, not removed. --Rreagan007 (talk) 19:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Remove Civilization

Other historical topics are more important.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 09:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support I think some of the articles proposed for addition are more vital than this one, so I'm going to go ahead and support this removal. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Barbarism is not even on level 5. Linhart (talk) 09:58, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose  Carlwev  14:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose The idea of civilization is a very important topic in history and the social sciences. pbp 14:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose I would rather remove History of World due to fact that it can be covered by other articles such like history or earth. Dawid2009 (talk) 17:51, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose civilization is a fundamental component of all general knowledge encyclopedias and Wikipedia is no exception. Gizza (t)(c) 02:09, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
  5. Oppose power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  6. Oppose I'd put it in the top 15 vital articles if there was a thing. –J947 (c), at 08:00, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

Which historical topics are more important? Or is this just quota-cutting? wumbolo ^^^ 12:56, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

  • I too would like to know which specific historical topics are more important. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:08, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
If the article is about the definition of complex society, then Society seems to be the most important article. The history of civilizations is the same as History of the world. --Thi (talk) 16:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Hmm, Civilization seems to be about complex societies as they exist over time, which is why it's in the history section rather than social sciences section, but I concede there is some overlap with Society. What about a swap with Archaeology? Rreagan007 (talk) 18:10, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Generally level 1 seems be without sense. Currently we have earth ahead of universe and try have language ahead culture despite fact that article about universe is easy to featured article such like article about earth. What do you think about megre level 1 kinto level 2? Knowlage at the level 2 also is without sense (knowlage and human probably are two the most basics concepts for encyclopedia). It seems to me that level 1 could have 100 articles for outline to lower levels. What do you think? Dawid2009 (talk) 17:51, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by it being easy to write a featured article about the universe – we know very little about the universe beyond Earth. Knowledge may not be listed on level 1 but science is and the proposal to add philosophy is close to passing: the former is one approach to knowledge and the latter encompasses another approach. I don't see why it makes any more sense to eliminate level 1 than to eliminate any other level – all levels are bound to be controversial. Cobblet (talk) 18:54, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Britannica's Propædia/Outline of Knowledge

Now that we're at 99 articles and need to add something, I thought I'd lay out here the first two levels of the Outline of Knowledge in Britannica's Propædia, consisting of 41 "divisions" grouped into 10 "parts", just as a way of providing a reference point for discussion. The next level down consists of 167 "sections" which are also listed in the Propædia article.

  1. Matter and energy
    1. Atoms
    2. Energy, Radiation, and States of Matter
    3. The Universe
  2. The Earth
    1. Earth's Properties, Structure, Composition
    2. Earth's Envelope
    3. Surface Features
    4. Earth's History
  3. Life
    1. The Nature and Diversity of Life
    2. The Molecular Basis of Life
    3. The Structures and Functions of Organisms
    4. The Behavior of Organisms
    5. The Biosphere
  4. Human Life
    1. The Development of Human Life
    2. The Human Body: Health and Disease
    3. Human Behavior and Experience
  5. Society
    1. Social Groups: Ethnic groups and Cultures
    2. Social Organization and Social Change
    3. The Production, Distribution, and Utilization of Wealth
    4. Politics and Government
    5. Law
    6. Education
  6. Art
    1. Art in General
    2. Particular Arts
  7. Technology
    1. Nature and Development of Technology
    2. Elements of Technology
    3. Fields of Technology
  8. Religion
    1. Religion in General
    2. Particular Religions
  9. History
    1. Ancient Southwest Asia, North Africa, and Europe
    2. Medieval Southwest Asia, North Africa, and Europe
    3. East, Central, South, and Southeast Asia
    4. Sub-Saharan Africa to 1885
    5. Pre-Columbian America
    6. The Modern World to 1920
    7. The World Since 1920
  10. Branches of Knowledge
    1. Logic
    2. Mathematics
    3. Science
    4. History and The Humanities
    5. Philosophy
    6. Preservation of Knowledge

While I probably would've done things a lot differently, it's still surprising to me how many of the 41 divisions aren't represented by an article on this list. What jumps out to me the most is that language (which is on our Level 1) isn't mentioned at all among Britannica's divisions, while our level 2 has none of earth science/geology/history of the Earth although Earth is a level 1 article. Cobblet (talk) 03:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I think we should just add Evolution to the list and call it a day. It's been mentioned by me and several others to add to this list for a long time and I think it's the most vital articles we are currently lacking. My thoughts on some other articles mentioned for addition.
  1. Anatomy: really just a branch of biology, which is included
  2. Human body: we already include human, and I think that's enough
  3. Bacteria: we already include cell, bacteria is just a single-celled organism
  4. Space: An article on essentially the empty space in our universe seems like a waste of space to me. I thnk universe covers this well enough
  5. Sport: This would be in the same category as the article removed, but entertainment covers this somewhat, and I just don't think sport is as important to add as evolution is. I would consider removing another article (like nature) to include sport. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:03, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I support adding Evolution. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
I think Land is the best article to remove at this point to include Sport. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
There are some good ideas in the Britannica list though some strange ones too. The way they divide history is very weird. "##The Production, Distribution, and Utilization of Wealth" is essentially economics which would be a good addition to the list. Gizza (t)(c) 00:54, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Replace Forms of government with Government (but not right now)

The government article still needs a large amount of work; if anyone here wants to contribute it would be appreciated. At some point, I think that it should replace forms of government on this list. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

The original article on government was moved to forms of government last year – check the page history. I have no problem with changing the link back to government now that it isn't a redirect or a disambiguation page. Cobblet (talk) 02:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
The article Forms of Government has been moved back to and merged with Government. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
MOOT
Already removed by other nomination. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Remove Myth

Only WikiProject Mythology rates it as Top-class importance. It's not vital at this level, and we barely include Book.

Support
  1. Support as nom. wumbolo ^^^ 12:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 07:59, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I could maybe support a swap of myth for folklore, but oppose a straight removal. Cobblet (talk) 13:56, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
  2. This article covers the topic of mythology, and supersedes the Mythology article formerly rated at Level 2. Not something I would call not vital. feminist (talk) 11:59, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose unless it's swapped for mythology or folklore. Gizza (t)(c) 00:44, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

Surely the logical swap, if any, would be swapping myth for folklore? They cover similar ground, and Folklore could be said to be wider/parent article.  Carlwev  17:45, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

  • I know the Mythology article was merged into it, but it just doesn't feel like an article about "myth" should be included at level 2. I think we should swap myth for folklore. See proposal below. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:59, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
1–2 Rreagan007 (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Swap Performing arts for Folklore

Performance art currently is listed at the level 4, so performing arts should be although removed from the level 2 to the level 3

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 07:19, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose --Thi (talk) 08:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose performing arts is the only article that covers topics like theatre, dance, opera, puppetry, circus, magic, etc. apart from art itself. Also per Carlwev. Gizza (t)(c) 00:40, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

Surely the logical swap, if any, would be swapping myth for folklore? They cover similar ground, and Folklore could be said to be wider/parent article.  Carlwev  17:45, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Swapped, 5–0 Rreagan007 (talk) 20:17, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Swap Nature for Sun

Nature is redundant to Universe, Plant and Animal. There's also Evolution, and an ongoing proposal to add Environmentalism. Sun covers Star, Heat and Light. If Language is kept at level 1, I'll propose Sound at level 2.

Support
  1. Support as nom. wumbolo ^^^ 13:10, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support. Nature is somewhat redundant with other articles at this level, and isn't a particularly good article to list here. We list Earth at this level, and if any other celestial object is vital enough to list here it is certainly the Sun. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:48, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 07:53, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support as an improvement to the list. Gizza (t)(c) 00:19, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support Dawid2009 (talk) 13:31, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
  • Star is also related with e.g. Star systems so sun dos not cover star but maybe sun is vital at this level. Dawid2009 (talk) 13:39, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I thought about Solar System before, that would cover not only the Sun but the planets and other object around it, would anyone prefer that, or is still Sun that is better. They are both better than Nature though. Both Sun and Solar System are already Featured Articles, they have both already got to the standard we hope to reach for these articles.  Carlwev  07:24, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • Support Solar System as the broader topic. Crazynas t 08:06, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Solar System as my second choice. After all, Fire already covers Heat. wumbolo ^^^ 13:36, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
PASSED
Swapped, 5–0 Rreagan007 (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

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

remove Money

Less vital than Trade.

Support
  1. Nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 13:17, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support. wumbolo ^^^ 13:39, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose No rationale given. Cobblet (talk) 00:17, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

Swap: add Trade, remove Money

This is the more fundamental concept as money exists for trade.

Support
  1. As Nom. Crazynas t 20:11, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support. wumbolo ^^^ 20:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 00:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support Cobblet (talk) 01:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
  • @Crazynas: I think you may have a transposition error. Since money is already listed and trade is not, I assume that you mean for this nomination to add trade and remove money, correct? Rreagan007 (talk) 19:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, this was intended as an alternative to the above to remove Money. Crazynas t 23:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
1–6, not added. --Rreagan007 (talk) 19:30, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

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

add English language

Some time ago there were suggestions to swap continents for countries. I think that more reasonable would be to add English language. This article never has been nominated to this level because of people usually confuse this list with list on Wikimedia for users from whole world. I think that readers of ENwiki need featured article about English language.

Support
  1. Dawid2009 (talk) 13:17, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. Even if every human being spoke English, Speech would be more appropriate here (since we already have Writing and Communication). wumbolo ^^^ 13:42, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. While I very much support Levels 3, 4, and 5 being tailored towards the English language Wikipedia, Levels 1 and 2 have never had that clause added to their descriptions. Levels 1 and 2 are just so small that I don't think much tailoring, if any, should be done. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:38, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Unnecessary at this level. Cobblet (talk) 00:15, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Too specific for this level. Crazynas t 20:12, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  5. Oppose power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. Just, no. I don't want to go into this. Tailoring. Tooken. Too. Far. J947 (c), at 04:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
1–5, not removed. --Rreagan007 (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Remove Chemical element

Between Atom and Chemistry this concept is well covered.

Support
  1. As Nom. Crazynas t 20:01, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. Ten chemical elements are listed at level 3. Also, atoms have nothing to do with chemical elements, other than the fact that chemical elements happen to be atoms (catch-22). Chemistry also covers a lot more than just chemical elements. wumbolo ^^^ 20:39, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
    I don't understand what you mean when you say atoms have nothing to do with elemental matter? I agree the chemistry covers more then chemical elements (molecules, for example, but that's my point) and atoms deal with more then just the EM interactions of classical chemistry. The lede to chemical elements.
    A chemical element is a species of atoms having the same number of protons in their atomic nuclei (that is, the same atomic number, or Z)
    Explicitly makes it dependent? Crazynas t 21:53, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
    Yeah dependent, but not too relevant for this level. I have a question, is this proposal related in any way to 2019 being the International Year of the Periodic Table? wumbolo ^^^ 22:16, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  2. Strong oppose It's difficult to have a sensible discussion based solely on reading the leads and headings of Wikipedia articles. If math can have four subtopics I don't see why chemistry can't have its most important subtopic. Cobblet (talk) 22:49, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
    But, eg, Anthropology, Geology, Archaeology: get none? In any case, Atom IS Chemistry's most important subtopic (if you don't believe me go read the article on John Dalton). Best.  Crazynas t 18:58, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
    There is no Nobel Prize in any of those fields. wumbolo ^^^ 19:22, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
    Anthropology gets plenty of coverage at this level – basically every topic in the Everyday life and Society/social science sections is an object of study in anthropology. Archaeology is about as vital to the social sciences as something like scientific method is to the physical sciences – obviously important, but not top-100 material. I already observed above that the list's coverage of the earth sciences is relatively weak, but there are other articles I'd cut (like sleep, as you proposed) before this. I'll pass on your suggestion to read up on Dalton – reading Wikipedia is not the best way to learn a subject. Atoms may be the fundamental building blocks of matter, but most chemists (those who aren't dealing with quantum or nuclear chemistry) are not dealing with matter at an atomic level, but rather its bulk properties. Atomism by itself doesn't tell you anything about whether you can turn lead into gold. It's the idea that you can't chemically transform atoms of one element into another that ended alchemy and started chemistry. Cobblet (talk) 14:39, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 07:35, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  5. Oppose If we are going to add solar system (see contigent at nature vs sun section) we should keep two chemical articles. When Maths has several and Physics have specific articles about astronomy we should keep at least chemical element. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:30, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Discussion

How is Water more vital than Chemical element? wumbolo ^^^ 20:13, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Water is central to biology, geology, meteorology, economics, technology, history, and religion in a way that chemical element (as a legacy of Lavoisier) is not. But this is more about the fact that I think we have a good coverage of what a chemical element is between the other two articles I mention above. Crazynas t 20:43, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Water wouldn't be central to any of those if it weren't for chemical elements. What's more, the topic of geology requires chemical elements more than water since we already list Sea at this level. Economics should not be invoked here, because the least vital chemical element at level 3 is Gold, and it is the most vital chemical element in economics. Holy water, Water and religion, Ritual purification and all other related topics aren't listed on any Vital articles list. It's not very fair, as water is an older concept than a chemical element, is it? With regards to history, we can't compare Maritime history (level 4) and History of water supply and sanitation (level 5) to Timeline of chemical element discoveries, since the latter article consists of a table. Alright, I will admit that water is more vital than chemical element in meteorology and technology, but that's hardly convincing as Meteorology is at level 4! wumbolo ^^^ 20:56, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Have you looked at the scope of the TOC in the Water article? That is how I came up with the above list. Crazynas t 21:53, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
SNOW FAIL
1–6, not added. --Rreagan007 (talk) 19:49, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

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

swap City for Human settlement

Town is at the level 4 so city better fit at the level 3 than at the level 2.

Support
  1. As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 14:54, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Human settlement isn't even on level 4. Cobblet (talk) 15:22, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. 17 cities are at level 3; how do you explain that? wumbolo ^^^ 15:50, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Human settlement is just an overly technical word for cities, towns and villages. WP:COMMONNAME is a policy made in a different context but it's applicable here too. Gizza (t)(c) 03:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per Gizza and the fact that the article is less than 13 years old. Just shows the technicality of the term. J947 (c), at 04:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  6. Oppose Rreagan007 (talk) 19:49, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
1–5, not added. --Rreagan007 (talk) 22:03, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

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

remove Education

Probably too specific topic. I do not think it is much more vital than learning, epistemology and scientific method.

Support
  1. As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 14:54, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. 0.4% of level-4 articles are universities, so Education fits this level perfectly. Level 3 has School. wumbolo ^^^ 16:03, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose epistemology and scientific method are way too specific. It could be swapped with learning which is similar in scope but education is the more popular topic. Gizza (t)(c) 03:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  4. Oppose, Gizza's repeating my thoughts. J947 (c), at 04:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  5. Oppose --Thi (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
MOOT
Already added by other nomination. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Add Folklore

Definietly very fundamental topic wchich cover varios subjects such like (for example) folk, urban legend and many other things related with anthropology. Sport is at the level 2 and Folklore studies clearlyare more vital than Sport studies (perhaps based on Wikipedia's own statistics). If we are going to add tradition or cult to the level 3 reasonable would be add folklore to 100 the most important topics.

Support
  1. As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 14:54, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support as above. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose --Thi (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Discuss

Judging by the 3–3 consensus for adding Folklore in the proposal a few sections above, I don't think this will pass. wumbolo ^^^ 16:07, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
1–5, not added. --Rreagan007 (talk) 22:02, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

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

remove War

In my opinion war (as the most important concept of conflict) certainly is vital article among 200 the most important topics but I doubt that featured article is needed at the level 2. At the level 3 we list nuclear weapon but we do not list nuclear war (also weapon is listed at the level3). War seems be less vital than (for example) environmentalism. Definition perhaps is needed at this level but I think that it could be enaugh mentioned in other article (for example Civilization). Dawid2009 (talk) 14:54, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nom. `Dawid2009 (talk) 14:54, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. While Aggression is at level 4, there are World War I, World War II, Cold War, Genocide, Peace and Terrorism at level 3. The least vital of these is Cold War, followed by Terrorism. However, I can't see any of them removed in the foreseeable future, so I oppose this proposal, as War covers all of these I mentioned. wumbolo ^^^ 15:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose there are more than 6 articles related to war at Level 3. There are political leaders primarily known for engaging in war, empires built out of war and political ideologies related to war. Gizza (t)(c) 03:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  4. Oppose War (or the threat thereof) has played a crucial role throughout all of human history. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:26, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  5. Oppose --Thi (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Discuss
You have mentioned 6 articles covered by War at the level 3 and list grow 10x times from 100 to 1000 articles. Dawid2009 (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
There are about 200 articles related to war at level 4. wumbolo ^^^ 21:51, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
Not removed, 2–4 Rreagan007 (talk) 19:21, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Remove Statistics

Not vital for this level. A quota of 4 for mathematics seems optimal to me.

Support
  1. Support as nom. wumbolo ^^^ 19:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  2. Weak support Dawid2009 (talk) 15:06, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. Statistics is the least important math article currently listed at Level 2, but it's still quite important. And I think having 5% of level 2 being math articles makes sense when 5.3% of Level 3 is math articles. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 09:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per Rreagan. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  4. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 17:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC)).
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 5–2; Removed, 6–2 Rreagan007 (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Swap: remove Myth, add Folklore

Alternative to the above proposals. When the article on mythology was merged into myth, I had the feeling like myth didn't really belong at this level. I understand that this seems somewhat superficial, but changing the article title does change the focus of the article, and an article about folklore just seems to be more vital than an article on myth. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:39, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:39, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. Strong support Dawid2009 (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support removal --Thi (talk) 09:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support As it currently stands, Folklore is the broader and more fundamental article. Some form of this concept is necessary here. Crazynas t 09:57, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support as nom. ios2019 (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2019 (UTC) (Note: This does not appear to be a legitimate vote. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)) I stand corrected. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
  6. Support unless the myth article is renamed back to mythology and changes in scope. Gizza (t)(c) 00:11, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose addition --Thi (talk) 09:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose remove Myth and bring back Mythology. Mythology is more important than folklore. Linhart (talk) 09:46, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose as per my comment above. feminist (talk) 17:54, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

Folklore should be added. How you imagine recreation, sport, popular culture or film as something more vital than cluture and folklore? Currently mythologhy is redirect to myth. We also list legend at the level 4 and we have Religion at the level 1. Dawid2009 (talk) 18:09, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, folklore is basically a "peasant's culture", so yeah, it is less important than popular culture, sport and recreation, which are all much more universal. It is maybe more vital than film though... And that there is no article for Mythology (a study of Myths) is a disgrace for the Wikipedia. Linhart (talk) 17:07, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Ecology added, 5–0; Environmentalism not added, 1–5 Rreagan007 (talk) 18:58, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Add Environmentalism

An important issue.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 09:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC) Edit: I support adding either Environmentalism or Ecology. --Thi (talk) 16:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. Organism is level 3, and Population is level 4. wumbolo ^^^ 13:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. It's an important issue, but definitely not level 2 vital. Something like Ecology would be a better choice at level 2. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:04, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  4. Oppose; only level 3 vital. J947 (c), at 05:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  5. Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 10:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC)).
Add Ecology
  1. Support --Thi (talk) 16:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Ecology. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Ecology. Dawid2009 (talk) 18:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  4. Weak support though two branches of the weakest branch of science at this level would normally deem some criticism. J947 (c), at 05:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 10:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)).
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Anatomy added, 6–0; Human body not added, 1–2 Rreagan007 (talk) 19:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Add Human body

I think that topic about human anatomy is needed at this level.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 09:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. Anatomy would be a better choice for level 2. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:07, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Add Anatomy
  1. Support I support adding either Anatomy or Human body. --Thi (talk) 16:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)--Thi (talk) 16:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Anatomy. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:18, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support anatomy though wouldn't mind human body. Gizza (t)(c) 01:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  5. Weak support though two branches of the weakest branch of science at this level would normally deem some criticism. J947 (c), at 05:32, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  6. Support (Ios2019 (talk) 09:57, 23 January 2019 (UTC)).
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/2/Archive_1&oldid=1137397976"