Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Archive 27

Add
A topic that is definitely vital at this level, since it has been a frequently used word in both daily and science contexts.


 * Support
 * 1) As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) per nom Aurangzebra (talk) 05:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 3) I can see this at V3. Vital for live, and culture. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  03:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 4) per nom  GeogSage  ( ⚔Chat?⚔ ) 06:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 5) --Thi (talk) 09:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 6)  Vileplume  🍋‍🟩 ( talk ) 02:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 7) TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 8) 'Support Dawid2009 (talk) 08:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose We're two articles over quota and no swap has been proposed. Eggs are just one aspect of sexual reproduction in some animals – sexual reproduction would be a better choice for this list than egg. Cobblet (talk) 19:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) When I think of egg, I think of 's so a tad of overlap; weak oppose.  The  Blue  Rider  Postal horn icon.svg 01:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Discuss
 * 1) I previously suggested removing both bread and cheese from level 3 to level 4 (not that far above this). This was two for, three opposed to bread, two opposed to cheese, and one neutral on cheese last I checked. Could egg be swapped for one of these two? GeogSage  ( ⚔Chat?⚔ ) 06:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Swap Mobile phone with Smartphone
Per recently closed discussion above, I am proposing this swap since Smartphones are ubiquitous to modern life nowadays. Interstellarity (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support
 * 1) Interstellarity (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose All smart phones are mobile phones, but not all mobile phones are smart phones. When you compare Smartphone and mobile phone views (see |Mobile_phone here), mobile phone gets 3,886 views while smartphone gets 2530. GeogSage ( ⚔Chat?⚔ ) 19:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @GeogSage and @Purplebackpack89: Would you support a straight removal of mobile phone without a swap for Smartphone to get at quota? Interstellarity (talk) 23:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I would support dropping mobile phone to level 4 without a swap yep.00:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC) GeogSage  ( ⚔Chat?⚔ ) 00:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for mentioning that. I did propose above that Mobile phone be dropped to level 4, but there wasn't a lot of participation in that discussion. I would encourage people to either say they support a swap or support a straight removal. Interstellarity (talk) 00:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) per Blackadder  pbp  21:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose --Thi (talk) 09:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Neutral


 * Discuss

Add Public transport
This is a key feature of most modern societies. It covers things like High-speed rail, Ferry, Rapid transit, and Bus. Not sure what to swap it with since it would be one over quota, but looking forward to your opinions. Interstellarity (talk) 02:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Interstellarity (talk) 02:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) Now that transport is of Level 2, it is reasonable to include this crucial article, however a few articles must be removed so that the quota won't be exceeded.--RekishiEJ (talk) 04:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 3) Broad coverage, I would rate higher than  and / CMD (talk) 05:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Weak oppose Mass transit is primarily an urban phenomenon. I'm open to the idea of adding an article related to urban areas, but have some doubts that this should be the first one added. For example, topics like urbanization (rural–urban migration was fundamental to the development of civilizations and is a defining feature of industrialization) and suburb get more views than public transport. Cobblet (talk) 17:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) Per Cobblet, but I'd argue public transport is more important than suburb. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Neutral


 * Discuss
 * Restored from archive.  starship .paint  (RUN) 14:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Remove, and
Okay, no doubt they are vital, but are they really as vital as, which is currently also considered vital at level 3? Besides, there are currently 1002 articles in the list, yet still incomplete as it lacks some articles so vital that should definitely be added (e.g., and ).


 * Support
 * 1) As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Subtopics, covered by history of art as well. I read all arguments here, and I favor the nom's position. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 00:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 3) Support film as it is a relatively recent industry, and I don't see  going to V2.  Vileplume  🍋‍🟩 ( talk ) 00:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 4) Support removing history of film, which is too recent to have a history article at this level. Gizza  (talk) 23:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose history of music and history of film.  Architecture is a subset of art, the others, less so.  pbp  16:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose --Thi (talk) 17:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose all. Logic is the same as pbp's but on top of that, I think architecture is a distinct enough field from art to warrant its own history article. Aurangzebra (talk) 05:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose All three are vital at this level. Jusdafax (talk) 05:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Discuss

Swap for
Why is Hatshepsut V3? She is just your above-average pharaoh. But hey, there's a perfectly good swap: Cleopatra, a much more famous female pharaoh. 81 interwikis vs 145, 1.5k daily views vs nearly 150k! (yes, check yourself, maybe there's some data error?). Cleopatra has List of cultural depictions of Cleopatra and many more entries in Category:Cultural depictions of Cleopatra vs Category:Cultural depictions of Hatshepsut. Sems like a no brainer here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:10, 24 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) As nominator. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) Support for Cleopatra, I think i read somewhere that it was the top read historical article on the en wiki in 2023 or something very close. Neutral on Hatshepsut. Respublik (talk) 18:01, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 3)  Vileplume  ( talk ) 22:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 4) Support, especially since we already have a pharaoh of the New Kingdom. Generalissima (talk) 18:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 5) Support swap per nom/disucssion below.  starship .paint  (RUN) 14:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 6) Support swap per nom. Interstellarity (talk) 13:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 7) Support swap per nom. Easy call. Jusdafax (talk) 00:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 8) Support swap per nom. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Re data error: Hey Google.  J 947  ‡ edits 02:16, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Refrained from commenting on this initially to let someone more in the know comment, but as that isn't coming then oppose as per previous discussions, Cleopatra is generally agreed to be historically unimportant especially outside of her involvement with  and  (both listed). Hatshepsut was not only actually influential in and of herself but also from a less represented era of history.  J  947  ‡ edits 20:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per previous discussions. The list is not just about page views; it's also about breadth of coverage and avoiding redundancy. Caesar and Augustus's articles already cover Cleopatra's significance. Cobblet (talk) 16:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per above and my comments in the past. Gizza  (talk) 23:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Discuss


 * @J947 Nice! So before the data became messed up there, "the annual views on Cleopatra were around 2.5 million." which seems to be ~<7k. So not as crazy but still supporting my argument that she is much more vital. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Swap for
At V3 in Artists we have 6 articles: Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, Rembrandt, Hokusai, Pablo Picasso and Frida Kahlo. I don't think Kahlo is at the same level as the other 5. A quick look at WikiProject Visual arts/Popular pages suggests van Gogh is more popular, and arguably, more famous, impactful and vital. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:37, 23 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) As nom. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) Per nom; while representation is important, it should not be too extreme. Kahlo does not rank even close to the other V3 artists, while Van Gogh does. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 3) Per nom; Van Gogh is iconic. Jusdafax (talk) 05:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 4) Per nom; Van Gogh is more impactful -- EleniXDD ※  Talk  09:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 5) per above. In terms of the 114 most vital humans, Kahlo does not spring to mind, and van Gogh is more likely to be on that list.  starship  .paint  (RUN) 14:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 6) -- Laukku  TheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 08:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 7) Support swap. Per nom. Later eventually Khalo could be readded but as swap with another biography. Dawid2009 (talk) 12:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 8) Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 13:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose both per previous discussions. There's the representation problem.  J  947  ‡ edits 10:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) Kahlo is an highly influential activist and painter to the Mexican culture, arguably the most famous women painter. Van Gogh is as vital as its expressionist counter-part, that is, .  The Blue  Rider  Postal horn icon.svg 01:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. May support a swap of Van Gogh with . Kahlo is far more well known than Rembrandt who is fairly obscure and |Frida_Kahlo page views over the last decade backs this up. Kahlo gets almost quadruple the number of readers as Rembrandt consistently. Gizza  (talk) 02:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per previous discussions. Cobblet (talk) 19:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Discuss

Clarification that early modern period ends in 1815
Discission at VA5  pbp 22:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Soliciting comments on 2 vital articles
Hello. I'm soliciting comments on Talk:Mars and the Talk:Solar System to brainstorm about future improvements to the article. Feel free to chip in your ideas. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Move to level 3
At the level 4 discussion of History of philosophy, it was suggested to have it as a level 3 vital article. For comparision: is level 1, like  and. The corresponding history articles of those two fields of inquiry are and.

One possible swap could be with, since itself is just level 3 article, but I confess that my knowledge of vital article swap-practices is rather limited. There is currently a proposal to reduce the level of History of film. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) As nom. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) Per nominator.  The  Blue  Rider  Postal horn icon.svg 21:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 3) Per nom. Aszx5000 (talk) 08:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 4) Looks like it'd be in good company.-- Laukku  TheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 08:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 5) Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 13:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose

In the hope of getting more feedback, I'll ping the editors involved in the VA 4 discussion of this article. if you have the time, your input would be appreciated. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Discuss

Coalition to cite all statements in Vital articles with reliable source
It's time to make the Vital list more useful. How about making a coordinated effort to eradicate all cn in the Vital articles? We can start with Level 1 articles and gradually move downwards to level 2, 3, 4, and finally level 5 articles if we have the time. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I would be interest!  The Blue  Rider  Postal horn icon.svg 16:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Nice :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Add
We list its history at V3, but not the region itself. It contains over a fifth of the world population and over a quarter of the world GDP. Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 ( talk ) 12:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) As nom.  Vileplume  🍋‍🟩 ( talk ) 12:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) Reasonable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  10:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose The list contains alla East Asian countries except Mongolia and North Korea. Those articles or History of China would be better choices. --Thi (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I would support the removal of 🇹🇼 if it weren’t the twenty-first largest economy.
 * Speaking of nominal GDP, I don’t know if we should start a discussion on this, but with 🇨🇭 set to hit $1 trillion by next year, we should decide if it should be V3. It has a comparable population to 🇮🇱 and, which are countries partially listed for their economies. Vileplume  🍋‍🟩 ( talk ) 19:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe nominal GDP is worse than PPP when it comes to vital country lists. In that case, would be more vital. Aside from that, 🇮🇶 is probably the next country we should be promoting to V3.  Vileplume  🍋‍🟩 ( talk ) 21:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose All major East Asian countries are already included. Switzerland has minimal geopolitical significance compared to Israel or the UAE. Cobblet (talk) 15:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose overlaps too much with many countries that are listed per above. Gizza  (talk) 04:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Neutral


 * Discussion

Remove
Don’t see how a continent/region of 46 million needs its history at a higher level than that of much more important countries, regions, and non-geographical topics. Even two V4 countries (🇺🇬 and 🇸🇩) have higher populations. Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 ( talk ) 20:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) As nom.  Vileplume  🍋‍🟩 ( talk ) 20:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 3) Trivial at that level. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Strong oppose The histories of all of Earth's inhabited landmasses should be included at this level. Oceania is one of the first places on Earth where agriculture was developed, the earliest example of humans' ability to drastically alter natural environments, the location of the most technically remarkable human migration ever, the most linguistically diverse place on Earth, and ground zero for climate change – no well-educated person should be ignorant of Oceanian history. Cobblet (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Cobblet, Oceania's history is important to humans-- EleniXDD  ※  Talk  09:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per above. Cannot see how the history of a region inhabited by humans for a very long time can be ignored at this level. Gizza  (talk) 04:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Neutral


 * Discussion
 * 1) On an unrelated note, between the two countries mentioned above, I’d probably support Sudan at V3, and I’d be neutral on Uganda, a country with little influence internationally.  Vileplume  🍋‍🟩 ( talk ) 21:16, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I have nominated Oceania for removal at level 2. Discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/2. Interstellarity (talk) 11:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Move Bread and Cheese from level 3 to level 4
Within the "Food and drink" section on level 3, there are several staple foods and crops, such as Salt, Spice, meat, fruit, and vegetable as well as the staple cereal crops of maize wheat and rice, and crops like potato and soy bean. Milk is listed under beverages.

Bread and cheese stand out as the only two prepared food items within this list. These two are also very Euro-centric, should we add "noodle" or "tofu"? If we are going by significance, "beer" should be listed under "alcoholic beverage," as it is the third most popular beverage after water and tea, and possibly older then "bread" and "cheese."

Bread and cheese are significant, but they are out of place in the list and open the door to the questions of why we include those but not others. Removing them would open space for other pages. GeogSage ( ⚔Chat?⚔ ) 05:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Support  GeogSage  ( ⚔Chat?⚔ ) 05:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) Per nominator.  The  Blue  Rider  Postal horn icon.svg 11:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 3) Support removing cheese If we have to make some cuts (and we do), I think listing milk is sufficient to cover dairy products. Cobblet (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) A lot of cuisines (incl. non-European ones) use bread as the major staple (e.g. Lebanese cuisine), and cheese is also widely used by them (incl. Nepalese and Bhutanese cuisine, though no doubt rarely used in East Asian and Southeastern Asian cuisines), thus both cheese and bread are no Euro-centric.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Bread is also known as cultural symbol (sacramental bread, Bread and Roses). Oppose removals unless it means space for really vital topics such as states. --Thi (talk) 19:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose bread, it is not Euro-centric, we have articles on Indian bread, List of Pakistani breads, List of American breads, read Category:Breads by country - Australian, Brazilian, Chinese, Egyptian, Indonesian, Jamaican, Japanese, Mexican, New Zealand etc. Neutral on cheese.  starship .paint  (RUN) 09:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose bread, weak oppose cheese.  Vileplume  🍋‍🟩 ( talk ) 23:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss
 * Comment @User:Thi and @User:RekishiEJ, Wine is also a cultural symbol, and there is a while List of foods with religious symbolism. The importance of bread and chees are not universal, and while more cultures then Europe enjoy these staples, they are not as important to everyone everywhere. In terms of symbolic foods and making space for "really vital topics," egg is a level 4 vital article, not level 3, much less Eggs as food. Eggs are both important in biology, reproduction, and obviously as a food item for humans. With topics like egg, Yogurt, butter, beer, and wine not making it to level 3, I struggle to see the justification for bread and cheese, and the list really seems inconsistent. GeogSage  ( ⚔Chat?⚔ ) 22:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Can someone propose a swap between and  and ?  Vileplume  🍋‍🟩 ( talk ) 20:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Swap for
Vincent van Gogh is more iconic than Rembrandt. Comparing |Vincent_van_Gogh|Frida_Kahlo|Hokusai|Michelangelo|Pablo_Picasso|Leonardo_da_Vinci all pageviews data (back to 2015), van Gogh has more pageviews than all Level 3 artists except Leonardo da Vinci. van Gogh also has more than twice the edits of any of the Level 3 artists, and the second highest number of page watchers behind da Vinci. Meanwhile, Rembrandt has less than 25% of van Gogh's pageviews, and is the least viewed Western artist of Level 3.  starship .paint  (RUN) 01:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support
 * per nom.  starship .paint  (RUN) 02:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Van Gogh is now Level 3 due to swap with Kahlo so in my opinion this is moot. - your vote indicates that you seem to agree?  starship  .paint  (RUN) 03:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes I do, we can close this now as done. thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)


 * 1) Rembrandt's pageviews are much lower than those of Kahlo or Van Gogh.  Vileplume  🍋‍🟩 ( talk ) 12:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) Van Gogh is V3, but so is Rembrant.  The issue is that Kahlo should be swapped out to V3 (per nom above). Aszx5000 (talk) 10:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per my comments above. Gizza  (talk) 01:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Per previous discussions, van Gogh is unimportant in the grander narrative of art history and is largely a figure of popular culture.  J  947  ‡ edits 02:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * To be fair, Kahlo is mainly known as a pop figure as well; Mexico really did a good job popularizing her.  The Blue  Rider  Postal horn icon.svg 14:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Or to paraphrase J947, van Gogh is culturally significant, more than a century after his death.  starship .paint  (RUN) 15:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose We do not have room to list three modern artists, and Rembrandt is the only representative of European art between the Renaissance and modern periods. Cobblet (talk) 15:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

who voted above in Kahlo vs van Gogh.  starship .paint  (RUN) 02:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Discuss
 * I'd rather prefer my proposal to swap him with Frida Kahlo to pass :P Abstain here as I think Rembrandt is also more vital than Kahlo. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This is the right call - Van Gogh should be swapped in for Frida Kahlo. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Move to Level 3
I think is a definite Level 4. However, it is the head topic for the established Level 4 sub-topics of and of, as well as other Level 5s (e.g. ).  It also includes the Olympic sport of climbing, which is Competition climbing, and should itself be at VA 5 (there are other climbing sub-topics which should also be at VA 5). Climbing is also equivalent to other Level 3 R&E topics such as. I therefore think Climbing should really be at Level 3. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)


 * If it had to be swapped with another Level 3 article, I would suggest also from R&E. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Discussion
 * I thought that the proposal of having to have topics move through the levels (i.e. become Level 4 before Level 3), was proposed but never agreed to (did some find it was too bureaucratic)? Aszx5000 (talk) 15:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I see that it was passed Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 76 that proposals to move through the levels. thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 16:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Remove
We are over quota, and this is not top rated by the Mathematics Wikiproject. Less than 700 views per day. Seems more suited for V4.  starship .paint  (RUN) 07:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) As nom.  starship  .paint  (RUN) 07:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) Support compared to the other level 3 geometry articles, the scope of this one is rather narrow. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 3) -- Laukku  TheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 08:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 4) I can see this at V5 but not anywhere higher. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  10:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. per nom. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Remove
Its influence on mainstream politics is limited. --Thi (talk) 12:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) As nom. --Thi (talk) 12:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) It might be limited now but it certaintly wasn't in the 19th and 20th century.  The  Blue  Rider  Postal horn icon.svg 16:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) I wouldn't base removals/additions from V1-V3, or even V4, off of RECENTism. This is still a significant ideology, even if its influence today is limited. λ  Negative  MP1  16:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 3) TOOSOON to remove this given its importance in the last two centuries, actually seems to be making a comeback imho. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Remove
We are over quota at 1,003. Piano is the only musical instrument listed at V3. I am really not sure why, is it more significant than wind instruments like the flute, string instruments like the violin, or percussion? Something has got to go here.  starship .paint  (RUN) 09:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) per nom.  starship  .paint  (RUN) 09:49, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) support. I made a separate post suggesting this before reading this. Piano makes no sense to be included if drums and flute are not included, and really none are necessary in level 3. The Piano is an extremely modern instrument and not super universal in terms of culture. The cost of maintenance means until recently, they were limited to a limited group. GeogSage  ( ⚔Chat?⚔ ) 19:08, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 3) feminist🩸 (talk) 02:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 4) SailorGardevoir (talk) 19:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 5)  Vileplume  🍋‍🟩 ( talk ) 21:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 6) Aszx5000 (talk) 13:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Too important. --Thi (talk) 11:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * - care to explain what's so important about the piano?  starship .paint  (RUN) 14:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The piano's tonal range covers most orchestral instruments. You can play classical music, pop, rock or jazz. The list needs something you can do with your hands, for example Handicraft is not listed. --Thi (talk) 18:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Discuss

Move and  to Mythology or Abrahamic religions
This is self-explanatory, these articles are listed in this section on all other levels. Vileplume ( talk ) 20:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) As nom.  Vileplume  ( talk ) 20:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 22:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 3) Support if you mean under 'Abrahamic religions'. If you specifically mean Mythology, oppose. Aurangzebra (talk) 06:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 4) Support moving under Abrahamic religions. Cobblet (talk) 03:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 5) Support, this makes a lot of sense. I would suggest treating other non-historical figures similarly, because they too are in fact not people. Off the top of my head, this would mean Homer could go under Literature, and Laozi could go under Philosophy, perhaps under Eastern philosophy next to Confucianism. There are probably a couple of others that I'm forgetting, so if there are any more I would support moving those too. Ladtrack (talk) 15:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 6) Support per above.  starship  .paint  (RUN) 14:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 7) Support moving to Abrahamic religions (as they are not at the same level of, , or ); however, I would question whether they are really at Level 3? Aszx5000 (talk) 17:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Hm? They are religious figures, clearly.  The  Blue  Rider  Postal horn icon.svg 00:27, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think OP means under Religion which is where Abraham and Moses are slotted at every other level. Aurangzebra (talk) 06:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * They are already under Religious figures.  The Blue  Rider  Postal horn icon.svg 00:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * And they aren't under that in all subsequent levels is the issue. Don't really mind either category but I do support consistency. I lean towards keeping them under Abrahamic religions since their existence is disputed (there is no unequivocal guarantee that they were real people). Aurangzebra (talk) 05:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Moses is more hitorical than Homer for example. See also PBP's comment below and Rregan007 comment here. We reached usance to list Abraham and Moses along with all other religous figures and I do not see reason why change it. Dawid2009 (talk) 12:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. I don't see why? They belong to 'Religious figures'. The current placement makes more sense than the proposed ones, which contain no biographical articles at all. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  08:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Neutral

Looking at Ladtrack's list, we're talking semi-legendary figures here. Neither biographies nor mythology is a perfect fit.  pbp 15:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Discussion


 * I feel the need to clarify that my list was based on what the apparent rationale for placing them in that area in levels 4 and 5 to begin with. I was not actually involved in placing them there and cannot confirm that that is why they are there, but it seems overwhelmingly likely considering the other figures that are similarly placed in level 4. As for perfectly fitting, while it seems somewhat oddly placed on face value, I think the lower levels have it right in this case. There are several biographical articles placed in the mythology section in level 4, and they are placed there because they are considered mythical figures due to lack of historicity. Achilles, for example, falls into the same vein of maybe-possibly based on something. The sacking of Troy is generally regarded as a real thing and the Iliad's Achilles could conceivably have been based on someone. This is more or less the same level of historicity that is attributed to Moses, for example. The historicity section in the Moses article discusses potential Moses-like figures, and the strongest evidence of his historicity is that some version of the Exodus is generally regarded to have happened and that there may have been a central figure in it resembling his depiction in the Torah. But if Achilles was brought into this level, he surely would not be in the people section. This leaves us with the view that the only reason that Moses and Abraham are listed as people and Achilles would not be is simply because large groups of people currently believe in the former two figures, as opposed to the ancient Greek religion which is functionally dead. This does not strike me as a particularly good reason to leave them in the people section. I do think that placing them in mythology, as level 4 does, seems a bit harsh for figures in living religions, so religion feels like a reasonable compromise. After all, they are undoubtedly religious figures, real or not. Ladtrack (talk) 17:07, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Remove
I think is more important to humanity than calligraphy, which has overlaps with  and.  starship .paint  (RUN) 03:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) as nom.  starship  .paint  (RUN) 03:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom. GeogSage  ( ⚔Chat?⚔ ) 04:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 3) SailorGardevoir (talk) 19:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 4) Interstellarity (talk) 09:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 5) Support per nom. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose

Calligraphy was mentioned in the academic paper article about VA and meta's list:, they quoted one editor who said something this way: ''For example, for two of the most important cultural worlds, the Chinese (China, Japan, Corea) and the Muslim (Arab and Persian cultures) the most important art is not painting or even music, (arguably) it’s calligraphy. There is not a single calligrapher in the list.'' Dawid2009 (talk) 13:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Discuss
 * Just a note, Chinese calligrapher is V4.  starship  .paint  (RUN) 06:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Swap with
In weapons, we have Armour, Bow and arrow, Firearm, and Knife. The one that sticks out is Nuclear weapon. I suggest swapping this for Bomb, as nuclear weapons are a type of bomb. While nuclear weapons have had a tremendous impact on modern geopolitics, they have only been used twice. Bombs have been used since the 11th century. GeogSage ( ⚔Chat?⚔ ) 19:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) as nom. GeogSage  ( ⚔Chat?⚔ ) 19:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom.  starship .paint  (RUN) 09:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 3) Bomb is the more vital topic. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 4) Without the bomb, there would have been no nuclear weapon. λ  Negative  MP1  16:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 5) SailorGardevoir (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 6) Per nom. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 7)  Vileplume  🍋‍🟩 ( talk ) 18:17, 19 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Military history is a level 3 article. Nuclear weapon is one of the most important scientific discoveries of all time. It is a key concept for existential threats for the whole Earth, anti-war movement and geopolitics. --Thi (talk) 11:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Discuss