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

Doodles?
Why is doodles a level 1 vital article? 77.139.103.156 (talk) 19:12, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Main page
History of the world appears to be the only level 1 article never linked from the main page. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 12:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Why is History of the world the level 1 article instead of just History? Rreagan007 (talk) 18:45, 17 July 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)
 * Earth with Geography
 * History of the world with History
 * Culture with Society

Was discussed. You end up having an article on the study, rather than the topic (i.e. methods of geography, rather than what people are interested in (the earth's maps).)96.238.184.111 (talk) 13:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Religion
I do think "Religion" should be here though. It has been a huge aspect of man's experience. Could replace Philosophy or perhaps Culture.96.238.184.111 (talk) 13:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

yes i agree culture already covers art and religion should defiantly be here The Heakes(talk) 04:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Religion certainly has been important in human history, but it is really just a subset of Culture and Philosophy. As broad as "religion" seems, it's just too specific for this group of 10 articles.Rreagan007 (talk) 18:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Comparison to CORE 1.0
The articles here are a bit inconsistent with []... I have made a post on the talk page there as well. I think we should build a consensus and have the CORE pages match the VA Level 1 articles. Voyaging (talk) 20:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Replace Science with Natural Science
I think what is named "science" here is perhaps actually what describes the article Natural science. (See Level 2) Social sciences are in a way included/represented by some other of the articles. If it's better to refer to the object instead of the study, I suggest Nature. --André Oliva (talk) 21:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Human
I would replace Culture with Human. 64.189.101.182 (talk) 12:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm glad someone else brought this up, I have thought for a while now "Human" should be a vital level 1 article, Art, Language, Philosophy, Culture, Technology and History all cover topics that are almost human exclusive. I'm not completely sure what human should replace if included. I was kind of thinking about suggesting human to replace Philosophy myself, but culture I could understand too. Carlwev (talk) 18:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Human is not a broad topic, its a species. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * But "Humanity" is a very broad topic, and really that's what the "Human" article is about. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with the OP, and will be bold and make the change. Culture is synonymous with human expression, and the only two articles on the list that don't deal with some aspect of that are Life and Earth. So I think it's appropriate to replace this article, which deals with one aspect of humanity, with the article that covers all aspects of humanity. Cobblet (talk) 02:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking at the Level 2, it seems that Life really should refer to human life, not to biology. -- Ypnypn (talk) 00:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The list is definitely constructed from an anthropic point of view, and I don't think modifying it further in that direction is a good idea. I don't mind it the way it is now, and if anything I would prefer to go the other way and swap Life for Universe. Cobblet (talk) 02:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * What I meant is that the section (formerly) called Life on VA2 includes both Life and articles about Everyday Life, thus misunderstanding what Life is about. -- Ypnypn (talk) 01:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. - This needs more discussion before this can be said to be consensus. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  16:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Add Human
General question. Do we want human in but not sure on what to remove at this stage? just to find out, not to get an 11 long list.


 * Yes
 * 1) Yes as nom. see discussion Carlwev (talk) 04:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Yes - Ypnypn (talk) 14:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Yes - for the reasons that Carlwev has stated. Barryjjoyce (talk) 21:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) YesUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Yes--24.59.92.67 (talk) 06:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Yes Malerisch (talk) 08:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Yes --Melody Lavender (talk) 11:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 8) Yes as long as the article focuses on all aspects of humanity. Currently the article is heavy on the biological side of things. Gizza  ( t )( c ) 03:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Logical1004 (talk) 18:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 10) Yes 147.129.136.102 (talk) 04:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 11) Support --Thi (talk) 17:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * No


 * Discussion

This seems worth bringing up, it has been discussed a lot but it has not been "voted on" yet the way we have for everything else. It was swapped for culture but reverted because of not enough consensus first. Before we decide what to boot out if anything, it would be good to find out if we want Human in the vital 10 at all before deciding on a swap candidate, as more than 5 users may agree they want human in but disagree on what to remove. If we do want it, what are our ideas on what it should replace, many said culture, someone said technology a while back, my own idea is leaning toward a swap for culture. This isn't going to push it to 11 articles, but establish if there is a consensus human should be here, before identifying what it could replace.

As said before most of the vital 10 are articles that are human specific. 6 are almost completely human specific, while another 2 are fundamental things that could be said to be discovered or created by humans. History of the world is about "human" history. Follow too, Human culture, human art, human language, human philosophy, human technology. Life is about all living things, maths and science are kind of fundamental but the study is a human thing, and then there's Earth. So human looks important as it kind of covers at least 6 things already. Carlwev (talk) 04:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Swap, Add Human, Remove Culture
See discussion above, in previous discussion it appeared culture was possibly a good swap candidate, some like the idea, although some did not. It was swapped but reverted once already due to lack of consensus. Like the idea of this specific swap or not? If we have other ideas discus above. Carlwev (talk) 04:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 04:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 14:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Cobblet (talk) 06:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support culture to some extent overlaps with art, language, philosophy and technology. Gizza ( t )( c ) 01:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose I would support a swap Human > art/philosophy. Culture is the basis for on which humans build art, language, philosophy and technology. Art and philosophy are the least vital of those.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Maunus. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:01, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - Per Maunus.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:03, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Logical1004 (talk) 18:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Culture is just an anthropological term used to describe human expression. Specific forms of human expression are more meaningful to a general audience and have more encyclopedic value. Britannica doesn't even contain an entry on "culture". Cobblet (talk) 04:23, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * No it is not. And no they do not.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:38, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Swap: Add Human, Remove The arts
From the above discussion, there is clear support to add Human but disagreement over which article to remove. Culture and The arts have the most overlap based on the following definitions:

Merriam-Webster defines culture as "the beliefs, customs, arts, etc., of a particular society, group, place, or time," and Oxford as "the arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively."

Since culture is the more general topic, the arts should be removed.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 08:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Redundant with culture.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) I oppose arbitrarily removing coverage of one aspect of culture based on a selective interpretation of dictionary definitions (philosophy also clearly fits both). Cobblet (talk) 03:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose : Logical1004 (talk) 18:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose --Thi (talk) 17:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

We may have to try these all one by one, I think I probably support this one, but for some reason in my head culture or philosophy were the ones I was going to try. But thank you for your help here, I'm sure we'll get somewhere, soon I hope. This page seems to have a lot less activity than the 10,000 list talk page, although not exactly correct, I often wonder if these discussions should happen there just for more viability?  Carl wev   12:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * I also think that philosophy is the weakest after culture but I can see the point of view that the arts and culture overlap so one of them should go. Gizza  ( t )( c ) 01:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia article on culture focuses on what "culture" means and how it's studied; Britannica doesn't even bother to have a separate article (a similar discussion is recorded under social science::cultural anthropology). A philosophical debate among anthropologists should not be the subject of one of Wikipedia's ten most vital articles. I thought we replaced art with the arts because a discussion of the products of artistic expression is more vital than a discussion of what artistic expression is in the first place. I think the same is true with respect to elements of "culture" (be they material like art and technology, or non-material like philosophy, language and science) vs. how exactly one conceptualizes that word. Cobblet (talk) 03:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Let me preface the following comments by first saying that I understand your argument, and based on the current coverage of the Culture article alone, I am hesitant on its inclusion in the Level 1 Vital Articles list.
 * However, I think it's worth taking a brief look at the history of the article. As far as I can tell, the relevant part starts with this nomination of the article for a good article reassessment 5 years ago due to issues with the scope of the article. In response, the article was unilaterally changed by a user (diff) to focus more on the concept of culture, of which a significant portion still remains in the article. These revisions elicited a negative response, and the article was delisted due to a dispute between that user and the reviewer over its coverage.
 * Since then, a section on "Aspects of culture" was readded to the article until it was removed half a year ago—not for wrong coverage but for original research (see this).
 * As a result, the Wikipedia article on culture is C-class ("The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains much irrelevant material."), which I believe is justified. I wouldn't consider its coverage or scope to be final. To be clear, if Wikipedia had an article along the lines of "Culture of the world," I would swap Culture on the Level 1 list with that article, but that article doesn't exist, and the article on culture is therefore where that information should be.
 * Meanwhile, I don't think we should be using Britannica to determine what articles are essential, considering that I was unsuccessful in finding Britannica's equivalent of History of the world. Instead, history is split up into the histories of different subjects, much like how there is no article on culture as whole, just sections in other articles about that subject's culture.
 * Onto dictionaries: to make this as fair as possible, I'll pull the definitions from the list of dictionaries here.
 * Collins: "the total of the inherited ideas, beliefs, values, and knowledge, which constitute the shared bases of social action"
 * Dictionary.com: "the quality in a person or society that arises from a concern for what is regarded as excellent in arts, letters, manners, scholarly pursuits, etc."
 * Merriam-Webster: see above.
 * Oxford Dictionaries: see above.
 * Oxford Learner's Dictionaries: "the customs and beliefs, art, way of life and social organization of a particular country or group"
 * Longman: "the beliefs, way of life, art, and customs that are shared and accepted by people in a particular society"
 * Cambridge Dictionaries: "the way of life of a particular people, esp . as shown in their ordinary behavior and habits , their attitudes toward each other, and their moral and religious beliefs"
 * Macmillan: "activities involving music, literature, and other arts"
 * 6 out of 8 isn't unanimous, but it is a majority. As a bonus, both Outline of culture (it's the first bullet under "Elements of culture"!) and Wiktionary cite The arts as part of culture. Philosophy, on the other hand, is not included in any of these definitions and is only mentioned tangentially in the outline of culture. Whatever overlap philosophy may have, it's much smaller than that between culture and the arts.
 * I hope you understand my reasoning, even though you may not agree with them. Malerisch (talk) 01:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough regarding Britannica, which hardly has an article on philosophy either. But the word "beliefs" pops up in 5 of 8 of your definitions and that is clearly the realm of philosophy, unless you want to add Belief to the list in place of it. I could've picked "a set of ideas, beliefs, and ways of behaving of a particular organization or group of people" from the last dictionary and now the count becomes 6 of 8 in favour of beliefs/philosophy and only 5 of 8 for the arts. We could also play this game with Dictionary.com ("the behaviors and beliefs characteristic of a particular social, ethnic, or age group") or Oxford ("The ideas, customs, and social behaviour of a particular people or society") as well: where's art in those definitions?
 * You may say we should go by the first dictionary definition. But no matter how much anthropologists squabble over how to approach the study of culture, their notion of "culture" includes most of the aspects of human experience, of which art is a notable but by no means dominant component. Does the opinion of a handful of dictionary editors on what they consider the "primary" definition of culture trump the consensus of academics who actually study the subject?
 * Ignore everything I've just written: are you comfortable with the conclusion that we should remove the arts from the list rather than philosophy, because six dictionaries think there's overlap between the arts and culture, while only five of eight dictionaries think there's overlap between beliefs and culture? Cobblet (talk) 20:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I wouldn't say that belief = philosophy (we titled the section "Philosophy and religion," not "Belief and religion"!), and the editors would have included the word "philosophy" in their definitions if they thought that philosophy was really a major element of culture. Regarding which definition to choose, I picked only the first one because it seemed the most fair. I could have put check marks beside all 8 otherwise (arts is in the #4 definition in Collins and the #2 definition in Cambridge here).
 * As to your question, I don't believe either the arts or belief should be on the list based on the overlap with culture. Philosophy is not interchangeable with belief, so it should be on the list. Malerisch (talk) 23:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying belief = philosophy any more than you're saying the arts = culture. I'm trying to point out the irony I see in going to a dictionary to decide what should be considered essential encyclopedic content: if you and others are perfectly comfortable with doing that, I have nothing more to add. Cobblet (talk) 00:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Jugding from the dictionary definitions we might as well eliminate Life, because the word appears just as often in these definitions. But the discussion above makes it clear that most users would decide on the swap based on overlap. Maths is included in science, so for me Mathematics is one option. Mankind may have always been able to count, but mathematics started to be developed only a few thousand years ago. The Arts were there longer. --Melody Lavender (talk) 11:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The word "life" appears in the phrase "way of life" in all the definitions, so I think it's referring to this instead of life. Malerisch (talk) 23:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Right now I prefer swapping Culture and Life for Human and Society. By putting life on the list we're basically singling it out as the most important thing for science to investigate, over Universe: it seems to me we should either have both or neither. Cobblet (talk) 23:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Different voting procedure?

 * Looks like this will be hard to settle the traditional way, in the "do we want human" and "swap culture for human" a total of 9 users agree it should be in, but we may never agree which it should replace. Perhaps a different method could be used, where people state or vote on what to add from scratch, rather than what to take away, leave open for a while and the top 10 articles get in? Vaguely similar to what happened in regions at the 10'000, but less of a bulldozer. Just a thought?  Carl  wev   17:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I was thinking along the same lines. We have to consider a different voting system. I could give an order of preferences for which articles I want removed in exchange for Human. By that I mean that I would consider to remove Maths first, then Arts, then Philosophy. So I would give Maths 3 points, Arts 2 points and philosophy 1 point. They use a voting system on the TAFI-Project where each user gives three preferences, in descending order. Then the positions are attributed points and added. --Melody Lavender (talk) 11:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I have noticed no one has said they don't want human; only they don't want to remove a specific article in a swap. I'm open to complicated but thorough or more accurate methods like the one you suggest, in fact I personally prefer them, in an ideal world as I think they get a truer reflection of what multiple people want. An alternative but similar way could be to ask users to list the 11 articles (or more if they any others come up) in the order of importance as they see it, work out the average place of each entry, keep the top 10 and remove the bottom 1. Similar to your idea, which lists peoples bottom 3 only. However in the real world I find more complicated methods put people off, and your idea is simpler. I do think however if people list their bottom 3, they should be allowed to place human in their bottom 3 if they wish, as I get the impression no one wants to exclude it, but I don't know for sure, and this would be a way to show if they oppose it (bottom 1) or think its fairly important but not top 5, so place it at bottom 3 perhaps. What I mean is, we have to allow human in the race to be fair, we should allow the possibility for human itself to come in last place, a chance for people to oppose it as it were. Have I made sense?  Carl  wev   13:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The more complicated the method the less likely people are to participate in it; we can't afford that. I have an equally radical idea, even though it ironically involves doing what we've always done: add Human to the list, so we have 11 articles. We can let people keep debating what they want to remove. Cobblet (talk) 16:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that is the best approach.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd accept that, it has after all got a total of 9 people stating they want it in, and no one specifically saying they don't want it in. Also all the other level lists have at times been too big or too small in number rarely exactly on target, so if we treated this the same then we could just add it. Do we want human alone has 7-0 support.  Carl  wev   18:01, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As an alternative we could put a dead stop to all levels at exactly 10, 100 etc. I'd prefer that. --Melody Lavender (talk) 10:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I have one more suggestion. We can put Science and Technology in one section as Science, technology and society or as History of science and technology. This can make a place for Human in the list of 10 articles. Science and technology can be listed as one article for the most vital articles category and can be put separatel in the Vital articles level 2 category. Any suggestions? Logical1004 (talk) 18:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Philosophy, Add Human
There's overwhelming consensus to add Human to the list but no consensus on what to remove. Somebody mentioned removing philosophy might be a possibility; what do others think?


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 01:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Support  Carl  wev   07:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Support ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Support I'd still support removing culture and replacing it with society. Gizza  ( t )( c ) 06:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Philosophy seems to be the weakest article, and there is some overlap with culture. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose

I suppose philosophy and religion are covered partly by culture. Culture kind of covers philosophy, arts, technology and itself, so it makes sense one of those could go. Tech I really want to keep though, arts and culture are failing, philosophy is a little weak I think too, so is good idea and next in line to try. There is overwhelming consensus to add human, but not what to swap it with. If every single swap we try fails maybe time to discus another method?  Carl wev   07:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Culture, Add Society
Since this has been mentioned in previous discussions we might as well put it to a !vote. Most of those parts of culture which are not already covered by other articles on the level 1 list (language, the arts, technology) would be covered by the article on society. The culture article discusses "what is culture?" without actually describing aspects of culture, which I think would be more in line with the other articles on this list – compare art to the arts and notice how it's the latter that's listed. Human already acts as a high-level overview of all aspects of human behaviour including culture – if we had a level 0 with just one article, that would likely be it.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 21:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per above. Gizza  ( t )( c ) 12:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose – culture is the broader term.  Compare Outline of culture to Outline of society.
 * 2) Support --Thi (talk) 21:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC) Oppose. Add Universe. --Thi (talk) 20:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. With not much discussion about this, I have to favor the status quo. Finnusertop (talk &#124; guestbook &#124; contribs) 20:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. I think that culture has a deeper meaning than society. Society just describes how groups of humans behave together, but even an individual living by himself in seclusion still has culture. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:16, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Assessment automatic?
Hi, quick question: about the article classes next to the name of the articles (FA, GA, B, ex-GA, etc.), are those generated from classifications that were inputted on an individual article's talk page, or were the lists on this page constructed manually? If it is automatic, is there any way that I could learn how to put the symbols next to the article? Interested for a WikiProject. Thanks, Icebob99 (talk) 20:36, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * They're updated manually, sorry. Cobblet (talk) 20:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh well! Thanks, Icebob99 (talk) 14:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * These are now updated automatically. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 22:13, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Philosophy?
What about Philosophy? it ain't even on da top 100! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bulldozer BILL (talk • contribs) 15:39, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Replace history of the world by philosophy

 * Support
 * 1) As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC) changed the replacement 15:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) History is rather important on it's own, and if philosophy needs to be included, it would be better to have it replace something else (given the already high overlap between it and other subjects in the list). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 18:38, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I support adding philosophy back but to replace culture instead of history of the world. There is overlap between the arts and culture since all artistic pursuits are among the primary reflections of culture. Gizza ( t )( c ) 04:01, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Discuss
 * I'd definitely like to have philosophy back at this level, but I would be more in favor of removing the arts than culture, as the arts is a subset of culture. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:27, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * So is philosophy, according to the lead on culture. Cobblet (talk) 22:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Replace Science with Philosophy. Scientific Method is nothing but a subset of Philosophical Method. Science is merely 200 years old and cannot be a vital article in grand scheme of things. Realphi (talk) 21:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support

Remove technology
Technology in top 10 vital articles? My grandfather survived without technology. Realphi (talk) 22:00, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Really? Your grandfather survived without the wheel? Rreagan007 (talk) 18:13, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Add Abrahamic religion and Dharmic religion to preserve neutral point of view of Wikipedia in top 10
Add Abrahamic religion and Dharmic religion to preserve neutral point of view of Wikipedia as they are in direct competition with Science point of view. The sub-types of Abrahamic religion and Dharmic religion : Buddhism, Christianity and so on are as popular points of view as Science if not more as indicated by number of pageviews.
 * Way too specific for a list of 10 articles. If we don't even have room for the general article on Religion, we certainly wouldn't add specific types of religion. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:12, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Art and Culture overlap, Philosophy is missing
Topics discussed in the articles "The arts" and "Culture" are bound to have a lot of overlap. Wouldn't it be better to replace one of them with Philosophy, a vital subject which is missing here? (gnanvit (talk) 21:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC))

Swap: remove Culture, add Philosophy
This is an alternative to the above nomination. There seems to be support to add back philosophy, but disagreement as to what article should be removed to make room for it. Culture is covered somewhat by the arts. I think the general article on Culture is also not a particularly good article to include at this level in the same way that the general article on History isn't.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom.--Rreagan007 (talk) 18:21, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Culture overlaps the topics of Human, History of the world, The arts and Technology. Philosophy deserves a vital article on its own merit as it sums up the whole endeavor of human thinking and has overlap with science as well as religion, both important topics. Therefore support (gnanvit (talk) 13:29, 22 July 2018 (UTC))
 * 3) Support. I would really like getting Culture back, but Philosophy definitely belongs on the list. Philosophy > Science > Mathematics . w umbolo   ^^^  07:58, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Support a generic article on culture isn't very useful at this level. This is better. Gizza  (t)(c) 07:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Culture (in practice, not theory) is covered in History of the World.  Philosophy is too important not to be at this level.  Crazynast 21:50, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Article on culture must be improved, it is one of the most important topics here. As one user already said: Culture is the basis for on which humans build art, language, philosophy and technology. Swap Philosophy for something else. Linhart (talk) 10:05, 10 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Discuss

Remove Mathematics
We don't even include Philosophy at this level, and Mathematics is covered by Science and Technology.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. w umbolo   ^^^  12:16, 11 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Pure math is covered neither by science nor by technology. Cobblet (talk) 13:04, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Gizza  (t)(c) 07:23, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Too important not to list at level 1. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:44, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose --Thi (talk) 08:04, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

How is Pure math more vital than Philosophy and Logic? w umbolo  ^^^  13:07, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Discuss
 * Because I use pure math every day, but I don't adhere to any particular philosophy. Which is not to say that philosophy isn't vital: I'm not opposed to the swap of culture for philosophy, but I can't agree with swapping math for it. Cobblet (talk) 13:52, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You also breathe every day. w umbolo   ^^^  18:12, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Which is why life is also on the list. Cobblet (talk) 19:44, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Not opposed to adding philosophy back but there is a reason why every student in every modern school around the world learns mathematics as a core subject, which is not the case with philosophy. Mathematics is also one of the eight major portals on the main page. Every portal is a key field of knowledge and should be represented here IMO, either directly like science or indirectly (human represents Portal:Biography). Gizza  (t)(c) 07:23, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Mathematics is learned in schools so that people can do the every-day math (just like the every-day walking, eating and drinking), science (covered) and technology (covered). I disagree that we have to cover the eight main page portals because the goal of VA1 is not to cover the top 10 vital topics but the top 10 individual articles. We can have a discussion/survey on that below if you want to confirm it. w umbolo   ^^^  10:05, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The page says, "These are ten subjects on which Wikipedia should have corresponding featured-class articles." If math is a top 10 vital topic, having a featured-class article on math ought to be a top priority for Wikipedia, and listing it on this page would serve as a way of expressing that. Cobblet (talk) 12:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Remove Language
Definitely not vital for this level. Culture/society covers it. If this passes, we will have a difficult discussion on whether to put culture or society.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. w umbolo   ^^^  08:05, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support only an aspect of culture.Linhart (talk) 18:01, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Society is more vital article (one of the main portals on the main page). Universe is also missing. --Thi (talk) 17:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. Though we often list the broader topic articles at the higher level, this is not always the case. I think language is a better article to list at level 1 than either culture or society. These lists are about which articles are the highest priority to get to FA status, and I think language is a higher priority than culture. As I state above in my proposal to swap culture for philosophy, the general article on culture isn't a very good article to list at level 1. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:50, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Well I think culture is higher priority for FA status than Language, so its article must be improved (as I already argumented in other discussion) and exactly because of that it has to stay on the list. Linhart (talk) 10:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose (Ios2019 (talk) 14:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)).
 * 2) Oppose I think language is one of the ten most vital articles. I would favor replacing the arts with culture, though. Orser67 (talk) 05:31, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose – I disagree with the notion that language is merely an aspect of culture. Indeed, language is the founding stone of culture/society which spurs mathematics/science, though they are on a different page altogether. Without language, many of the topics on this list would be undiscovered by us.  J  947 &thinsp;(c) , at 21:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Discuss

I would say this a tough one to decide for level 1. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * When we list folklore at the level 2 but we do not list none language at the level 2, culture probably is better addition. General article about culture most centairly is more difficult to be FA than article about language but language also is not easy to be described as FA (clasiffications about various 6000 languages in the world usually are carefully described in various sources, and writing about things such like Linguistic relativity is really difficult). Beyond that if we are going to add easier article sat the level 1, someone always could arguing that there are much easier other articles at the level 2 which could be added here. History of world covers not only culture but arguably every article from level 1 so it is diffiicult to decide what is the most vital. Dawid2009 (talk) 21:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Swap: Add Food, Remove The arts
I see this list as the articles on things that are integral to our current way of life. I would say that food is such an item, and should be on this list. As for The arts, I believe it is sufficiently covered by Philosophy at this level, because art typically expresses some sort of philosophy. InvalidOS talk  18:03, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom InvalidOS  talk  13:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose --Thi (talk) 14:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose addition – I get your point . But this level is not about specific things aside from the obvious Earth, Human, and IMO Universe. They are a tier above everything else. At this level we list broad topics, like the arts. Using a different set of viewpoints and principles we could list an entirely different set of articles, e.g. Matter, Force, Universe, Food, Drink, Animal, Shelter, Culture, Society, and Job/Money. Not all of these are listed at L2, and at least one is only at L4. But I honestly like the way it is right now, and I'd say some others do to. Now as you can see, I have not explicitly opposed the addition of the arts. That is because I am thinking of (some/a) proposal(s) to replace the arts and philosophy with universe and culture/society (probably culture). TL;DR: The general philosophy of this list is broader subjects, and IMO that should stay how it is.  J  947 &thinsp;(c) , at 18:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) Now that I see the list like that, I'd like this closed.  InvalidOS  talk  20:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Discuss

STEM bias?
I wish this list did a little better job of balancing STEM articles with more social sciency articles. The only representative here from level 2's "society and social sciences" section is Language, which doesn't really come even close to covering all of society. Sdkb (talk) 08:08, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * When it was decided that culture was not a great choice for the list, we tried to swap it for society, but ended up swapping in philosophy instead. Cobblet (talk) 23:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * After looking at the archives, I'd favor swapping out math for something else. Maybe civilization, society, or universe. Orser67 (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked through the level 1 archives much yet, but based on how they pan out at lower levels, I'd be inclined to favor a swap for society. Society has 6 articles at level 2 vs. 5 for math, 148 at level 3 vs. 48 for math, and 925 at level 4 vs. 300 for math. Sdkb (talk) 08:01, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Culture was a great choice for the list, but the article itself was poor and that is why it was removed. It was a huge mistake and now this list is biased as a result. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 17:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree that a topic like social sciences is missing - I noticed that when I first saw the list. And "social sciency articles" is an even better expression for the perceived lack or bias. The solution might not be to add "social sciences", but to switch existing articles to similar topics that include human interaction: we would stay within the limit of 10 articles and the social sciency aspect is included. --Spaced about (talk) 21:42, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * languages --> communication
 * science --> knowledge
 * the arts --> culture

Swap: Remove Mathematics, add Society
Society represents a huge array of important topics not currently covered at level 1 by anything other than human. It is better represented than math throughout the rest of this project: it has 6 articles at level 2 vs. 5 for math, 148 at level 3 vs. 48 for math, and 925 at level 4 vs. 300 for math. Adding it will help remedy the dearth of social science coverage created when we removed culture (see above). Also (as a more minor point), mathematics is arguably somewhat covered by our article on science, which uses the broad definition of the term and lists math in the intro as a type of formal science. Sdkb (talk) 19:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Related discussions
 * Swapping Culture with Society (no consensus).
 * Swapping Culture with Human (failed).
 * Swapping Culture with Society (2nd; failed).
 * Swapping either The arts or Culture with Philosophy (no consensus).
 * Swapping Culture with Philosophy (passed).
 * Removal of Mathematics (failed).
 * — J 947 &thinsp;(c) , at  21:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Sdkb (talk) 19:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom Orser67 (talk) 05:20, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Strong oppose If science can be argued to cover mathematics, then science definitely covers the social sciences. IMO society is at least as much covered by human, language, history of the world, philosophy, and technology, as math is covered by science. Cobblet (talk) 00:52, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Society and social sciences are two different things, like biology and I don't know... apple. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 07:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose As previous Leijurv (talk) 07:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Society is currently quite well covered by Human. --Thi (talk) 20:53, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong oppose Mathematics, in its purest sense, is not science. It is the language of science, as it studies logic, quantity, space, and patterns. Society is a subcategory of the human experience, or social biological species in general. Society is already covered by articles Human, Biology, and the History of the World Veritas cosmicus (talk) 00:02, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Biology isn't at this level currently.  J 947 &thinsp;(c) , at  00:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * My mistake. I meant to say Life. Biology is the study of life. Veritas cosmicus (talk) 00:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Discuss
 * Note: the mathematics article has a section titled "Mathematics as Science," which notes some controversy but begins by quoting Carl Friedrich Gauss referring to math as "the Queen of the Sciences." Sdkb (talk) 19:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Society or Culture definitely need to be added, but I think philosophy would be a better removal than mathematics.  J 947 &thinsp;(c) , at  21:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Universe
How do we feel about adding Universe? I believe it should be a Level 1 article, as it encompasses space, time, life, and everything that we know of. Veritas cosmicus (talk) 00:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I've thought about replacing the arts with universe before. It's certainly an option but maybe as it is a comparatively new topic it shouldn't be included. I'd say we should have it.  J 947 &thinsp;(c) , at  00:35, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay. I'm trying to see if there is consensus in general to add it. If there is, we can decide what to remove later on. Veritas cosmicus (talk) 00:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * IMO Earth is more important than universe for readers because of we know more about earth than about the universe. There is either of Outline of geography and Outline of Earth but not either of Outline of astronomy and Outline of universe. Also, the arts and language are two weak links on the level 1. Outline of language redirects to Outline of lingustics, despite fact lingustics is not even on the level 2. Dawid2009 (talk) 23:30, 21 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support per nomination Veritas cosmicus (talk) 00:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Support; I think first we should decide whether we want this, then if we do decide for Universe to be added we should use the format at User:J947/sandbox/5 to decide which article to remove.  J  947 &thinsp;(c) , at  00:58, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Support I think it is maybe the most vital article, in principle it includes all other things. I would replace Philosophy with Universe. --Thi (talk) 13:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There's an important distinction between broadest and most vital. Universe is certainly arguably our broadest article, but it doesn't follow from that that it's the most vital. Sdkb (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Seems like the type of basic-yet-important concept that belongs at level 1. Personally, I'd favor swapping out the arts, technology, or math for universe. Orser67 (talk) 22:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Support per nom. Koopinator (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Everything on Earth is covered by Earth, and everything beyond Earth is of interest pretty much only for astronomy, which is covered by Science. Sdkb (talk) 07:37, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand that and I knew I had some reservations over adding Universe, just didn't know what they were. However, your points are the same for Science (and others): everything on Earth is covered by Earth and everything outside is not that important as merely Astronomy. I think that Universe is vital as an idea, and also as the most vital article of the first 10 billion years or so of existence. It is arguably a better article than Science as all major principles of Science are intertwined to a huge extent with the universe. Also, Philosophy revolves around the universe.  J 947 &thinsp;(c) , at  20:09, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If Astronomy were a level 1 article, I'd support a swap with Universe, but given it's not, I don't see anything I'd want to swap out for it. Wikipedia, on a very fundamental level, is made for humans, and the first 10 billion years of the universe, while a huge span of time, just don't have any relevance for humans beyond the context of astronomy. Sure, you could weave pretty much any part of science into the concept, but looking at the article itself, I maintain that adding it to VA1 would basically be similar to adding Astronomy. Sdkb (talk) 22:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Obviously, Wikipedia is written by humans, and from the human perspective. However, on a fundamental level, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia whose purpose is to compile and contain information on all branches of knowledge, comprehensively. Level 1 vital articles are already anthropo- and geocentric (The arts, Earth, History of the World, Human, Language, Technology), which, in my opinion, is okay, as long as they are balanced out with articles of the universal perspective. Veritas cosmicus (talk) 04:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You just said yourself: "Obviously, Wikipedia is written by humans, and from the human perspective." Your last statement is incompatible with this. Cobblet (talk) 05:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * From a human perspective, I still feel like Universe is more vital than Philosophy.  J 947 &thinsp;(c) , at  00:53, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I meant to say from a human perspective. We have to decide whether Wikipedia is meant to represent the "world's knowledge" or "humanity's knowledge" Veritas cosmicus (talk) 22:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong oppose Earth, human, philosophy, science are vital/important. Univrse and time belongs to the level 2, not 1 because of there are many articles on the level 3 or 4 just as existence or causality which are important for such reasons. It goes without saying. Society should be replaced with language (as Portal:Society is among very canonical outline of Wikipedia meanwhile Portal:language not so high) and culture with arts (to not favour arts above religion). Nothing else should be changed on this level. Dawid2009 (talk) 23:11, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong oppose Science is essentially the study of the universe; I would prefer to list science over universe, and at this level, having both seems redundant. The supporters' main argument seems to be that if there had to be one "Level 0" article, Universe ought to be it; so it ought to also be on level 1. Even if I were to accept the idea of nominating a level 0 article, I wouldn't choose universe at all, but rather knowledge. Per Contents: "Wikipedia is a compendium of the world's knowledge." Cobblet (talk) 05:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Fundamentally, science is a method, not the study or knowledge of any particular field. Science is the intellectual, practical activity, which studies the world through observation and experiment. It is common practice to include articles on the vital list that are on the subject, not on the study of the subject (i.e. Life instead of Biology, Earth instead of Geology, Language instead of Linguistics). The word 'world' has two meanings. First, it can mean planet Earth or other similar planets. Second, it can mean the whole of the Universe. By the way, the official Wikipedia policy (WP:NOT) does not mention the word 'world'. It simply states that "Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia". If there was one Level 0 article, I would support nominating 'knowledge' or 'information', for different reasons Veritas cosmicus (talk) 23:08, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose proposal. Though I would support swapping in universe for a few different subjects, I think it's a counterproductive idea at this level to discuss the addition of a specific article without proposing the removal of a different, specific article in the same nomination. Orser67 (talk) 21:18, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand that. That is the other alternative that we could consider. Veritas cosmicus (talk) 23:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Even though I can imagine universe on the top ten list together with a completely different constellation of the other nine articles, at this point it would only exacerbate the major problem the list has, which is the STEM bias, the lack of coverage of social sciences topics. We have to eliminate that bias first. --Spaced about (talk) 13:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Originally, I was going to propose swapping Universe for another STEM related field. I believe the list is fairly balanced between STEM and human fields. Veritas cosmicus (talk) 23:14, 3 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Discuss

Add Twin Bridges, Montana
A charming town in southwest Montana, pop. 375 as of the last census. Very friendly folks. Surely we can make room for it here, no? Sdkb (talk) 04:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) As nom. Sdkb (talk) 04:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Sounds like a cool little town. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Support; though the swap out is a hard choice. Maybe Earth? Yes, I think so. Obviously of lesser vitality than charming Twin Bridges. —&thinsp; J 947  (user &#124; cont &#124; ess), at 05:16, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) *The town basically represents Earth so I see no problem. — RealFakeKim  T  07:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 5) Support —  RealFakeKim  T  07:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose but would support at level 3. Vital articles needs some smaller places. Peter James (talk) 08:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Most iconic place on earth, more tan NYC Homeofthething (talk) 23:37, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose It doesn't list the town saloons. How can this be level 1 with this ommission?   // Timothy ::  talk  10:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Discuss

RM notice
See Talk:History of the world. —&thinsp; J 947  (user &#124; cont &#124; ess), at 23:28, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Human history, Add History
The subject matter is more important than the timeline. There are many different kinds of history.


 * Support
 * 1) Interstellarity (talk) 16:36, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose The consensus is the other way around – check the archives. Cobblet (talk) 16:38, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Please provide links to the discussion you are talking about. Interstellarity (talk) 16:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There was no dedicated discussion on the topic (at least not on this level), but if you search through the archives on this and other levels, I think you will see comments to that effect, not only for this pair of articles, but also for things like art vs. the arts (see this discussion) and Earth vs. geography. Cobblet (talk) 16:50, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. History as a field is just a subfield of the social sciences, and while those are important, they're not level 1. The history of humanity, on the other hand, encompasses everything in the past, and is perfectly suited for here. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 22:20, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Level 1 is more for the concepts themselves rather than their study. I think the Level 1 list is static as it is, and see no reason to change it with the (possible) exception of Art vs. the Arts. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:33, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Chronology of events is important to all societies. Sociology or history as discipline are important in academic level. --Thi (talk) 19:11, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Discuss
OK, I understand your reasons. I was wondering if we should make some changes to the level 1 list. Do you think religion should be added or is it covered by Philosophy. Or maybe remove Life because it is covered by science. Interstellarity (talk) 23:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm not sure a swap of philosophy for religion would be successful, but I do think if level 1 had room for 20 pages instead of 10, religion would be among them; it's one of the "upper tier" VA2 articles, so to speak. Similarly, if we had to cut level 1 down to five pages, Life would probably be chopped, but with 10, you'd have to find and argue for a compelling replacement. Just my 2c. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 03:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you think a swap for removing Life and adding back Society be successful? Interstellarity (talk) 23:10, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * People who think the level 1 list should be more anthropocentric might support it. People who think the level 1 list should be less anthropocentric might oppose it. Cobblet (talk) 23:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm one of the people who aren't so comfortable with anthropocentrism up here, especially since we already have Human and Language, and would personally oppose such a swap (although, full disclosure, I have a background in biology). I see no real changes that need to be made to this list. That said, Cobblet might be right and you're free to propose such a swap. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:52, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Life, Add Society
Per discussion above, I think this would be a better choice. Interstellarity (talk) 17:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) It is a disgrace that there is no topic about Society or Culture on the list.
 * Oppose
 * 1) Per the previous discussion. We already have Human, Language, The arts, Technology, and Human history. Those five are already half the list, and Society would be redundant IMO. Life is one of the basic concepts of human knowledge (it's what separates us from all known alien planets, life vs. death, etc.), and while I understand that anthropocentrism is inevitable and desirable on here, as it stands the only two entries on this list that aren't exclusively human domains (with the possible exception of Technology) are Life and Earth. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Wolfson Aza24 (talk) 00:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Idimoayli3388 (talk) 08:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Featured Articles
While this isn't a proposal to change something relating to the list directly, I do think it is concerning that only 1 of the 10 most important articles is a FA. It should probably be a priority to make sure all of these articles are at least GA. None of the articles should be as low as C. Gsquaredxc (talk) 21:16, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , agreed. The challenge is that writing about very broad topics is quite hard. This project unfortunately doesn't focus that much on actually improving the articles we list, but Human history is currently nominated as a potential article for improvement at TAFI. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 22:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * But that is (or at last should be) the main purpose of this project. Lists of Vital Articles "give the English Wikipedia a direction in which to work, to enhance the quality of the encyclopedia in the most essential areas." The purpose of VA is not just swapping some topics back and forth. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 09:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I absolutely agree with you. But this project needs some serious restructuring to start doing that. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 20:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * And I absolutely agree with you about that. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 21:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Removing this level or changing the quota
I think a quota of 10 articles at this level is too restrictive. I would like to either propose removing it altogether or changing the quota. I'll go through some possible options on what we could do. Please indicate which option you prefer underneath each option. Interstellarity (talk) 12:54, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

This would remove this level altogether. Level 2 would be the highest level of articles.
 * Option A


 * 1) I am equal in preference between Option A and Option D. I do think either 50 or 100 articles is a reasonable number to start with. 20 or 25 articles might be a little bit less than the ideal. Interstellarity (talk) 12:54, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Either remove level 1 or keep the status quo. I don't see how the other options help build the encyclopedia – they would only serve to generate more pointless discussion. Change for the sake of change. Cobblet (talk) 13:14, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Quota of 100 or more is needed for a useful list. --Thi (talk) 13:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The current Level 2 of 100 likes to keep complete lists of subtopics. There are lists of 5 historical periods and 6 continents, for example. There are also groups of related concepts (e.g. law/government/politics) that can be trimmed down to just one. I think a 50-article list is possible. WIKINIGHTS talk 14:01, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

This would change the quota for this level to 20.
 * Option B

This would change the quota for this level to 25.
 * Option C

This would change the quota for this level to 50.
 * Option D


 * 1) Per the comment above, I am equal in preference between Option A and Option D. Interstellarity (talk) 12:54, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) I'd prefer this. 50 -> 150 -> 500 -> 5000 -> 15000 for all levels. Current Level 5 is too large to be useful. Current Level 1 is too small to be useful; as said by someone elsewhere (I forgot), it is mere trivia. Even with current Level 2, we are very much aware that there are degrees of important within that rank. The periods of history or astronomical features can be easily removed in a list of 50. I'll make a list of what I think deserves to go in a list of 50. WIKINIGHTS talk 13:14, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * To elaborate, here are my thoughts on the levels:
 * Level 1 (50) includes only the most essential articles. FA-quality coverage of all 50 would collectively provide a complete basic summary of human knowledge. That, in a basic conciseness of coverage, fulfills Wikipedia's purpose.
 * Level 2 (150), Level 3 (500), and Level 4 (5000) would be the most useful lists from an editorial point of view. The main focus of WikiProject Vital Articles is on them.
 * Level 5 (15,000) represents about all important remaining topics. A printed, professional encyclopedia would have to cover such topics. Anything outside this is beyond the focus of WikiProject Vital Articles, where we should rather work on them in topic-focused WikiProjects.
 * Level 6 (50,000) is possible. This would be a standard level of coverage for a printed encyclopedia, open to much debate. I doubt that this list will ever stabilize, so I oppose its creation. WIKINIGHTS talk 14:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Keep the status quo.
 * Option E


 * 1) I'd prefer this--Wolfch (talk) 13:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Per my comment to Option A. Cobblet (talk) 13:14, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) I don't feel anything is wrong with the current size; the restrictiveness is intentional. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 16:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) These suggestions started to be discuss at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles soon after we have in conception excluding biographirs but I can not see why ee need make so big strukturalnych changes in whole project. Having all level ex equo and with Biographies probably is fine. I think we must/should delte Wikipedia:Vital people as whole and as soon as possible (or at least move it back tenatively to sand box/draft) . There was no 50 +RFC!Vote with admins, former ArbCom participants etc. for that new metapage which was moved from user space with no notificstion for rest of community, in fairness there was not even RFC to check how many users would oppose/disagree to start/challenging that New project. This is clear with so few (usually the same, also with similar bias/interests) active users we will have of course mess very similar to level 5, meanwhile quota for 50 Biographies (with ridiculously five two women)  is so subjective, gratutitous and annonying that most probably will cause just edit Wars and maybe later WP:own by clique of users in the end (which subjectively decide when will be time/consensus to close list, stop WP:Bold and start voting) . This is clear start level 1 with 150-200 Biographies (with at least one (not living) woman in every important field, to for example not suggest that Religion and Music are purely man activities and not miss fields where Women were dominant like nursing) would be more use full and less polemic. I would prefer back to normal level of all 1000 articles like Telepanda  suggested or start with 200 like Aza24 Somewhere suggested. I also feel that some participants confused "Priority to FA" with "Purely Historical ranking". What was reason to remove Imothep from list of 500 articles? Also, are we dropping Abraham and Moses to the level 4 despite was so strong consensus to ulttimate keep them on the level 3? We do not care about that, yes? I feel we will again have extreme bias in toward writers, how is Tolstoy on the Earth more vital than Copernicus or Gauss?, Has Copernicus less outstanding impact in comprasion to his field/astronomers than Tolstoy in comprasion of his field/Russian writers/Western canon of literature? I suggest to remove most of people from "the arts" section on level of 50 people, for more Religious figures and scientist (or if this is not possible/is subjective, start with maybe much larger quota as Aza24 somewhere duggested. Short list with people like Jesus, Aristotle Gutenberg is not neccesary). I do not belive many usets would like argue which bio is Worth to 50 entirrs but disvussion for about 200 could be more Worth of time. Can I Replace Biographies which Thi added to 50 list if will not be opposition in near future or this is waste of time? Beyond that what is purpose to exvlude biogtaphies from rest of the list? Will we later exvlude list for Women and living people too? Dawid2009 (talk) 12:17, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Prefer as is. those who find a top 10 unuseful can choose not to use, and skip straight to top 100. Perhaps the solution is to not have these rigid numerical targets at all. Perhaps a system of assigning some number of points of vitality to an article, and grouping them by threshhold. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:49, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Swap: Add Politics, remove The Arts
‎ As totalitarianism and economicism advances in current politics, this theme is more than indispensable. 2804:14C:5BB1:8AF2:DAA0:8CB9:3D76:EF83 (talk) 16:55, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support
 * 1) Law, Exact sciences and Humanities: question answered? 2804:14C:5BB1:8AF2:245A:9CBE:D8E9:7809 (talk) 16:35, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Support removal I never was fun of having level 1 separaty from the level 2 (note how close vitality can have subjects which could be in top 5-15) but the arts is not important enough to b listed at this level. Probably swap with culture would be approciate. I have no comment about addition of politics but we couldsay that philosophy (IMHO certainly the most vital article) devatedly cover politics and religion which is also missed. Dawid2009 (talk) 05:54, 23 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. Might support adding Government. Wouldn’t remove anything, but if important to add something, would expand to top 12 or so, and add as well Biology or Physics. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. The arts is clearly essential, and politics is only a particular aspect of society. If this nomination were to swap out language for society, I'd be likely to support. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 04:37, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Society is broader concept. --Thi (talk) 09:15, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) As totalitarianism and economicism advances in current politics Not only is that a quite debatable statement, but this list is supposed to be eternal, and thus not influenced by current events. In any event, I think art in some sense is important, and just as ubiquitous in general as philosophy, especially if we define it as "that which expresses the human condition". Whether the arts should be on here instead of Art, however, is debatable, but Art isn't even at level 2. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:38, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose With Prehistoric art existing in nearly every region; the arts have always been around forever and are a very vital aspect of humans. Moreso than any modern concept of politics; even if there is a rise of "totalitarianism and economicism"; it does not erase out of history millenniums of art history. Also as a (largely) pop culture encyclopedia viewership wise; arts plays a very big part into the readership here. So considering our regular readers also a important part there. It's too indispensable to miss. GuzzyG (talk) 23:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose agree with the above. If you look at Level 2, society is the parent article of politics and a better choice at L1. I could support society replacing either language, philosophy, technology, or the arts. Gizza  (talk • voy) 00:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose I agree that Society is preferable to Politics.  If you want to discuss any other swaps (and there's no point in any proposals other than swaps on a list of this size), please use the "Discuss" section rather than making an open proposal. User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 15:47, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose  The arts have higher cultural significance than politics. Dimadick (talk) 15:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Discuss
 * Might be Government. 2804:14C:5BB1:8AF2:4644:F467:62A6:CD94 (talk) 04:10, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * What article would you swap it with? Interstellarity (talk) 14:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The Arts. 2804:14C:5BB1:8AF2:2E5A:143C:3DFD:EEDB (talk) 17:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The last change to this list was in December 2018, and the last one before that was in August 2015; most edits since then have been, quite frankly, vandalism and reversions thereof. As such, it's very unlikely that many people will be watching this page, so I'll courtesy ping VA regulars, as I think should be a matter of course for discussions at this level. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd de-watchlisted this, perhaps once this discussion is done we can redirect to use the main Wikipedia talk:Vital articles for levels 1 and 2? User:力 (power~enwiki, π,  ν ) 23:07, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * i'd support the above idea. Much better to have the discussions at the most used talk page. GuzzyG (talk) 23:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I'd rather remove human history as it is a subarticle of human. And as for the addition, out of the ones proposed, I'd add society. Another thought: The Arts could be swapped but for culture. In other words, society+culture > The Arts and human history is simply not necessary. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:58, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I am Support. Good knowledge. 2804:14C:5BB1:8AF2:8AE5:1B72:9F5A:92DB (talk) 01:13, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Expand the list by a few
Top ten topics from a catalog of millions seems silly, arbitrarily small. Expand the list to twelve or thirteen or fifteen or so. Then we may without removing anything add a few really obvious ones like Physics, Biology, Government (or perhaps Law, or both), and Thought (or perhaps Mind, or both). Hyperbolick (talk) 08:33, 8 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) [nom]

Chemical is more important such as physics. Termobaric weapons is more relevant in the CEI for Russia and Ukraine, Georgia and Syria is nucked for old technology sovietic but not Central Asia or Ukraine for example. 187.20.113.226 (talk) 17:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) The first 4 levels are, and should be, the orders of magnitude; there are 10 level-1 slots, 10 times that number for level 2, 10 times that number for level 3, and 10 times again for level 4. (Sure, level 5 breaks that pattern, but that's unwieldy and controversial as it is.) The list is supposed to be restrictive, and if we increased the number to 15 there would be people asking for it to be increased to 20. I also dispute the "really obvious" additions; it would be inappropriate, in my view, to list both Science and branches of science. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Per above. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 01:47, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Every level is inherently arbitrary. In an alternate universe, each level could have been 12, 144, 1,728, etc. or 8, 64, 512, etc. but it wasn't to be. Agree with John that the small number forces us to make hard decisions and think about what is truly vital or not. Gizza  (talk • voy) 04:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Adding society instead makes sense because it covers thought, mind, law, and government, while physics and biology are already covered by science. Bill Williams 06:08, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Discuss

Swap: Remove Language, Add Society
A discussion related to this list is at the Level 3 talkpage here. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:05, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Philosophy, add Society
Philosophy is stated to be a social science, which is the study of society, therefore society should be on the list instead. If the proposal to swap society with language results in society being added, consider this a case to just remove philosophy.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Bill Williams 06:06, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Philosophy is covered by Society (ethics) and Science at this level. --Thi (talk) 08:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Support The humanities are better represented by an article on society than an article on philosophy. Cobblet (talk) 15:30, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - comparing the two, society/social science seems more fundamental to me as a field of encyclopedic knowledge than philosophy. Open to bringing back philosophy back as a swap with something else though. Gizza  (talk • voy) 01:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose in principle, philosophy is not social science, anyone with the faintest idea would know philosophy is not science at all, it's total different way of acquiring knowledge, and considered a father of modern science. Philosophy is not just ethics and science, and it's really not humanity. Philosophy in its earliest form refer to the human undertaking of the research and learning of the universe in the effort of discovering the truth. 38.94.109.226 (talk) 11:50, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong oppose per my comments at the Level 3 talkpage. Philosophy is very arguably "the" Level 0 article, as having abstract thoughts is what makes humans, well, human . It is not particularly accurate to pigeonhole philosophy as a "mere" social science, as it underpins much of science and mathematics, and ponders fundamental questions such as the nature of existence that are independent of society. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:31, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that Philosophy is important, but my point is that Society and Science together make up the entirety of Philosophy, since it is a science of society i.e. social science. Bill Williams 21:17, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * And I'm telling you that that is incorrect. Philosophy is the "love of wisdom", and a method of inquiry; its article's very first sentence defines it as the study of general and fundamental questions, such as [minds, reason, etc.], and also states that social science branched off from philosophy in the late 19th century. Indeed, there have been quite anti-social characters in philosophy such as Nietzsche. There are quite a few fundamental concepts of philosophy, such as Logic, that I feel do not fit in neatly with either science or society. Philosophy's importance is such that PhilosophyAndLogic was the second ever article created on Wikipedia, after WikiPedia itself. While I'm agnostic as to whether society belongs at this level, it sure does not deserve to knock off what I feel to be arguably the most important article in Wikipedia. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:32, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Philosophy once included even science, but that is no longer the case. Today, Philosophy is completely comprised of what is within Science, Human History, The Arts and Society. Bill Williams 21:36, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I know modern philosophy is rather comprised of nerds stuck in their lockers, and indeed even successfully nominated to remove contemporary philosophy from level 3; philosophy in general, however, from Plato to Nietzche, spans all the important and eternal questions, both about the human condition and beyond, that it can be considered the "purest" article from which all the others are somewhat attached to. Since these top 2 levels should be generally evaluated by their "purity" and abstraction, philosophy represents the pinnacle of that and should thus remain. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not diminishing its importance, but every other category affects the daily lives of every person far more than Philosophy. We are all required to learn history in school, and it shapes the everyday actions of people and their governments across the world. Science, technology, and mathematics are the basis for many jobs around the globe that make society function on a day to day and long term basis. Humans and life is what every one of us is, in addition to things that live all around us everywhere on Earth. The arts includes entertainment that a large portion of people consume every day, and clearly we are using Language right now. Philosophy does not shape the everyday decisions that most people make. Some people might think of what ancient Philosophers believed as a justification for their actions, but most people simply use basic logic or emotions, not Philosophy, as the basis for their actions. Bill Williams 21:51, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * None of that necessarily matters for the intents and purposes of this list. As said earlier, purity and hierarchy on a great chain of being is far more important than what people do in their day-to-day lives; this isn't WP:TOP25. Also, even if pure "day-to-day caring" is a criterion I find it rather a stretch to talk about "history" shaping everyone's decisions when quite frankly nobody really cares about Columbus while running errands; indeed, the fact that everyone lives on Earth might make Sagan excited but is a big whoop-de-doo to everyone else. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:56, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah you are definitely right that history does not constitute people's day to day actions, but it constitutes the world's long term actions (including those of governments). Philosophy is not the main justification for people's long term life choices or those of governments. Today, governments use history, emotion, or logic as a basis for their actions, and people usually use their own personal history or their emotions and logic as a basis of their long term actions or goals, not what Philosophers thought centuries or millennium ago. Bill Williams 22:00, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * As said earlier, it doesn't really matter what goes on in the mundane world for the intents and purposes of this list; it should be a pure and eternal list that alien civilizations can understand. That said, personal history ≠ human history, so the equivalence is false. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:04, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, Philosphy in its broadest encompasses religion and even politics and the law. Hyperbolick (talk) 23:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * All of which are Society. Bill Williams 20:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Dawid2009 (talk) 06:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Philosophy is definitely one of the top 10 articles. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Philosophy is definitely one of the top 10 articles. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Discuss
 * Eurocentrism... 187.20.19.59 (talk) 19:38, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Society is only European but Philosophy is not...? Bill Williams 19:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ignore him, he spouts nonsense like that somewhat frequently. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * = You, it's your opinion. 187.20.19.45 (talk) 16:51, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Add Society
It appears we have multiple proposals and a general agreement to add Society, while yet to reach consensus about which to remove, why not we just add Society first while we consolidate on that instead of having fragments of the same discussion everywhere.


 * Support
 * 1) As nom. - Lolitart (talk) 08:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Dimadick (talk) 10:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --Thi (talk) 11:51, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. We certainly need to keep the list to ten overall, but adding this and then figuring out what to remove is a perfectly alright process. Society is a very broad topic that deserves its place here. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 16:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Support as I have stated above. Bill Williams 20:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Per nom. Entertainment is not covered by any other article at this level. There is not reason to say tha Philosophy is less important than the arts. Dawid2009 (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 7) Support per nom. Interstellarity (talk) 14:35, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose I prefer keeping the list at ten articles. Cobblet (talk) 13:38, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Per Cobblet; if we can't agree on a removal, then the addition should also fail. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per above Zelkia1101 (talk) 11:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Discuss

Which articles to remove?
Given that there is some consensus that society should be added, but no consensus on what article should be removed in place of that, I will open up a discussion about all ten articles on this list to figure out which articles has a consensus for removal and will help us with better additions in the future. Interstellarity (talk) 14:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Remove The arts
I oppose this removal, since arts are a defining part of human culture, but I could be convinced otherwise. Interstellarity (talk) 14:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support Culture even is not listed at this level. There are Plenty things which are defining part of culture not listed. Religion or human behaviour are synonynous of culture and influence but are not listed. Society sufficently cover it. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:28, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Interstellarity (talk) 14:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose --Thi (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Cobblet (talk) 19:22, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Bill Williams 23:48, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:37, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose Rreagan007 (talk) 03:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Neutral

Remove Earth
I might support a swap with Universe, but I'll remain neutral on this one. Interstellarity (talk) 14:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Weak support Not as universal as all the others, but also not quite as niche as human; meets the baseline criteria of an "alien-civlization" list. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:37, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose --Thi (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Cobblet (talk) 19:22, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Bill Williams 23:48, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Neutral
 * 1) Interstellarity (talk) 14:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Remove Human
I think Human as the only animal listed is redundant to Life. Interstellarity (talk) 14:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Interstellarity (talk) 14:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong support Should be demoted to level 3 tbh. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:33, 14 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Cobblet (talk) 19:22, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose --Thi (talk) 19:29, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Bill Williams 23:48, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose  Gizza  (talk • voy) 05:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Neutral

Remove Human history
If human is not removed, I would support a removal since there is a section in the human article covering human history in general. Interstellarity (talk) 14:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Interstellarity (talk) 14:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose --Thi (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Cobblet (talk) 19:22, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Bill Williams 23:48, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:37, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Rreagan007 (talk) 03:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose  Gizza  (talk • voy) 02:45, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Previously the name of the article was history of the world. World history is vital and history is crucial component of encyclopedias. The current awkward name makes it sounds redundant to human itself but it is not. In the top 100, there was 9 history-related articles and in the top 1,000, 83 history-related articles (not including historical biographies which will more than double that number). This article, despite its name, is what represents that group of articles at the top 10. Gizza (talk • voy) 02:45, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Neutral

Remove Language
I could support this removal since not every animal uses language. Interstellarity (talk) 14:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Interstellarity (talk) 14:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Covered by Human and Society. --Thi (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Language is the clear outlier on this list, in that it has a narrower scope than everything else. Language is a type of communication, which is one of many important topics in biology and society. &#123;{u&#124;  Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 23:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Strong support It's already suggestive of an astounding lack of self-discipline that we even allowed this sodding list of ten (ten!) items to go one over quota. I understand that language is important, but we need to excersise a certain level of restraint in choosing which articles we include at the top tier level. Otherwise, we have failed as list makers. So again, of course language is important, but is it really one of the top 10 most important articles on this site? The answer is that, while language is extraordinarily important, it is the weakest of this list, so it must be removed. Zelkia1101 (talk) 03:48, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Support I would rather remove human, whose inclusion is a flagrant and arrogant piece of anthropocentrism in what is supposed to be an "alien-civilization" list, but this is an acceptable alternative. While language is, much like philosophy, a large part of what makes humans human, unlike philosophy it is necessarily an emergent characteristic of society, such that "private languages" are quite likely impossible. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:10, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Rreagan007 (talk) 03:38, 20 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Cobblet (talk) 19:22, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Language is essential to humanity just as much as Mathematics and Sciences, which obviously "not every animal uses". Bill Williams 23:48, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * # If we absolutely had to add Society, I would preferring removing this to removing Philosophy, but otherwise no. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:37, 14 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Neutral
 * 1) Neutral I would prefer removing philosophy but language does look like the second weakest of the 10. Gizza  (talk • voy) 05:53, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Remove Life
I would oppose this removal since life is important to the history of the universe. Interstellarity (talk) 14:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support


 * Oppose
 * 1) Interstellarity (talk) 14:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose --Thi (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Cobblet (talk) 19:22, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Bill Williams 23:48, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:37, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose Rreagan007 (talk) 03:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Neutral

Remove Mathematics
I would oppose this removal since mathematics is important in human history. Interstellarity (talk) 14:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support


 * Oppose
 * 1) Interstellarity (talk) 14:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose --Thi (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Cobblet (talk) 19:22, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Bill Williams 23:48, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:37, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose Rreagan007 (talk) 03:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Neutral

Remove Philosophy
I could support a swap for this for Religion, but will remain neutral on this one. Interstellarity (talk) 14:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support Society and Universe are better choices. --Thi (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Support The only article here whose present-day relevance is not what it used to be. I prefer listing Society. Cobblet (talk) 19:22, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Support as stated above, Philosophy is the only article on the list that is nearly irrelevant to the modern day, with it being a much more niche topic than it was milenium ago, and even then it was only well known amongst academics. It is already covered by the other categories, especially Society. Bill Williams 23:48, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per above and previous comments. Gizza  (talk • voy) 03:57, 20 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Basic concept for knowlage. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Arguably the most fundamental discipline, and the original one from which all of the present-day social sciences derive. It's not just a topic under society, as its scope extends well beyond that. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 23:56, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong oppose per my comments in prior discussions; "present-day relevance" should not matter on what is supposed to be an eternal list. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:34, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There is certainly a desire that this list be stable, but you may be the first person to suggest it should be "eternally" stable. And if philosophy is not even relevant now, it cannot be "eternally" relevant, and it would not belong on an "eternal" list. Cobblet (talk) 15:08, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Higher levels (largely, of course) imply higher abstraction, and as such the highest level of all should ideally contain the highest levels of abstraction, which should not ever change. Cites and kingdoms at level 3 may rise and fall, but math and science, for example, are timeless. (That is also why I oppose human and to a lesser extent Earth being on this list, but that's secondary to this discussion.) Philosophy represents the very idea of having ideas and abstract thought itself, and "the thinking man's original think" per Sdkb, so as I've said in prior discussion might be the "level 0" article. I am in full agreement that the "philosophy" of today is at a nadir of relevance, but if anything that means that its "core ideas" have already been fleshed out centuries or millennia ago, which core ideas (such as ethics, metaphysics, and reason) are eternal and form the backbone of the rational animal that is humanity and thus should precede science or mathematics. If you can think of a better article that represents having ideas that's at an appropriate level, I could support a swap, but reason is only at level 3 and idea isn't at level 5. You could certainly argue that Plato and Aristotle devoted themselves also to social science, and I would agree with you, but that's not particularly relevant to my point, that reason and abstract thinking itself should be on this list. A better argument against the inclusion of philosophy, as I have defined/conceptualized it here, is that it's somewhat redundant to mathematics, but philosophy is more qualitative about meaning and existence than mathematics with its devotion to pattern-seeking and calculation. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:57, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Rreagan007 (talk) 03:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Its present cultural cachet is irrelevant to what it's historically influenced - that is society at large; an astute understanding of society would need a preceding understanding of philosophy. DMT Biscuit (talk) 03:46, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Neutral
 * 1) Interstellarity (talk) 14:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Remove Science
I would oppose this removal since science plays an important role in history. Interstellarity (talk) 14:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support


 * Oppose
 * 1) Interstellarity (talk) 14:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose --Thi (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Cobblet (talk) 19:22, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Bill Williams 23:48, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:37, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose Rreagan007 (talk) 03:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Neutral

Remove Technology
I would oppose this removal since technology plays an important role in history. Interstellarity (talk) 14:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support


 * Oppose
 * 1) Interstellarity (talk) 14:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose --Thi (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Cobblet (talk) 19:22, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Bill Williams 23:48, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:37, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose Rreagan007 (talk) 03:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Neutral

swap:add sociology, retire society
If sociology is science of society, why icrease level above sociology? Phuphusi (talk) 18:23, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support:
 * 1) per nom
 * Oppose:
 * 1) As a sociologist. It's a lesser-known academic field, and while it has a huge scope studying society, society itself is more important than the field that studies it. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 19:23, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose General article is more vital than academic field. --Thi (talk) 10:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per above. Gizza  (talk • voy) 04:14, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose: per Sdkb. &#8212;CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 14:36, 1 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Discuss:

Question about including 'religion' as a level one article.
Science is a level one article. (And rightfully so.) Mathematics is a level one article. (And rightfully so.)

Why isn't Religion -- which concerns itself with uncovering immutable and eternal truths not unlike the general laws of nature (necessarily informed by Mathematics) uncovered through scientific inquiry -- too a level one article?

SpicyMemes123 (talk) 01:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

add pedagogy or freemasonry, remove philosophy
Per priority (pedagogy in the fundament of 100% of learn and masonry is born thogheter the state, vide: ziggurat)2804:14C:5BB1:8298:4993:FF09:4BFD:2320 (talk) 00:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose, sorry but philosophy is the key endeavor. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose' as philosophy has always been one of the key driving forces of progress of human civilization. &#8212;CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 06:39, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The teacher starts as the philosopher. LightProof1995 (talk) 06:20, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Philosophy is the mother of pedagogy. --Thi (talk) 10:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)