Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/3

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

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

For reference, the following times apply for today:


 * 15 days ago was:, (UTC)
 * 30 days ago was:, (UTC)
 * 60 days ago was:, (UTC)

Remove
We already list Telephone at this level which should cover all phones. Interstellarity (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support
 * 1) Interstellarity (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) Support.  The  Blue  Rider  Postal horn icon.svg 13:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)]
 * 3) Support per nom. GeogSage  ( ⚔Chat?⚔ ) 20:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Important in economy and culture. Telephone is more like history topic. --Thi (talk) 09:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - mobile phone covers smartphone, but telephone does not. We need to have either mobile phone or smartphone here.  starship .paint  (RUN) 09:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose, at least one of or  should be Level 3. Aszx5000 (talk) 15:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Neutral
 * 1) I would support swap with -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't have an opinion on the swap just yet, But I would fine with it if other people think it would be OK. Interstellarity (talk) 01:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I would also support Smartphone at V3, which has had a massive global impact. Aszx5000 (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Swap Catherine the Great for Peter the Great
Peter is one of the key rulers that changed Russia totally. There is even such expression "pre-Petrine Russia", there is no such expression as "pre-Catherinian Russia". Russian history is clearly divided into before (with the boyars, without any schools, without navy) and after Peter (with Governing Senate, with Academy of Sciences, with a big navy). His importance cannot be overstated. Interstellarity (talk) 13:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support
 * 1) Interstellarity (talk) 13:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) Support addition  Vileplume  🍋‍🟩 ( talk ) 22:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose We don't list key rulers of all sorts of countries, but we do need some significant historical women on the list. Cobblet (talk) 15:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Cobblet (although Russia is a huge country and at times a huge Empire, so perhaps we could have them both)? Aszx5000 (talk) 10:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 3) I strongly oppose the removal of Catherine the Great, but I'm very much open to the addition of Peter the Great. Catherine II was a pivotal figure during the European Age of Enlightenment and served during the height of Russia's imperial evolution. Peter the Great would be a very good inclusion as he played an enormous role in Russian history, but that would mean a third Russian/Soviet leader in the list alongside Stalin and Catherine II (Egypt has three so I guess it wouldn't be unprecedented). Idiosincrático (talk) 16:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Neutral


 * Discussion
 * 1) Going to reserve judgment on Peter the Great because I'm not a huge expert on Russian history but it is worth nothing that a proposal to remove Catherine the Great recently | lost 6-2 and I think Grnrchst's reasoning on that thread is pretty compelling. I would vote again to reject any proposal that wants to remove Catherine the Great. Aurangzebra (talk) 05:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Swap: Remove, add
Under, we currently list four industries within the Primary sector of the economy: , , , and ; and two industries within the Secondary sector of the economy: and. We do not list any industry within the Tertiary sector of the economy at Level 3 or above.

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


 * Support
 * 1) As nominator. feminist🩸 (talk) 08:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: agreed, definitely remove first. At best it's a subtopic of Hunting or . feminist🩸 (talk) 02:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) Support swap with .  Vileplume  🍋‍🟩 ( talk ) 12:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom.  Gizza  (talk) 04:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC) Support the original proposal of removing hunting and adding service. Oppose the new swap of removing Bow and arrow (which is both a significant hunting tool and military weapon) and adding service.  Gizza  (talk) 01:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 3) Support removal --Thi (talk) 12:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Both removal and swap. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Bow and arrow should be removed first. --Thi (talk) 09:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, Hunting was the only way all of humanity fed itself for over 90% of its existence, before agriculture was common. Food and Agriculture are at level 2, at level 3 we start listing several animals and food and drink types and crops, I would prefer to keep hunting, seems more vital in the long run than soybean, cheese, tea, chicken, egg. I also agree hunting may be more vital than bow and arrow.  Carlwev  12:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Discuss
 * - the nomination has been changed.  starship .paint  (RUN) 09:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * - could you make your vote explicit on Bow and arrow and Service? Which is more vital?  starship .paint  (RUN) 09:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Remove
We are over quota at 1,003. Jainism has only around 5 million followers. Compare to (15+ million),  (25+ million),   (500+ million)....  starship .paint  (RUN) 14:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) as nom.  starship  .paint  (RUN) 14:54, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 18:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per nom.  It's importance has waned sufficiently to downgrade. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose as strongly as possible. While Jainism may have fewer followers today then other major religions, it has major historical significance. It is one of the worlds oldest religions, and had impacts on Alexander the Greats campaign. There are many other articles that could be moved down. GeogSage  ( ⚔Chat?⚔ ) 18:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per above. All of the world's major religions are key topics that are covered in traditional encyclopedias. Gizza  (talk) 01:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Discuss

Add (no swap with Catherine)
There are plenty of editors that suggested a straight addition rather than a swap with Catherine. My reasoning is in the above discussion. Interstellarity (talk) 11:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Support
 * 1) Interstellarity (talk) 11:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) Meh, weak support; while he is probably fit for this level, we are over quota at V3 and I'm afraid it'd overrepresent Russia in that regard (Peter, Catherine, and Stalin) since we don't have key rulers of all sorts of countries, such as .  Vileplume  🍋‍🟩 ( talk ) 12:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. When I look at the names on Vital Articles, I can't see Peter the Great as being as influential.  I also think that, , and possibly  should also not be on this list (i.e. they are more celebrity-notable than as politically influential as the others on this list). Aszx5000 (talk) 16:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * i.e., would easily rank well ahead of these three (and Peter). Aszx5000 (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * i.e. should be ranked alongside  and  as the biggest leaders of the 20th century (and Roosevelt took American out of the Great Depression). Aszx5000 (talk) 16:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Joan of Arc would probably come to mind if I was asked for the ten most vital women to world history. She should be kept, especially since we removed . Vileplume  🍋‍🟩 ( talk ) 18:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That makes sense to me. Aszx5000 (talk) 18:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - Russian representation is sufficient as it is. Also much less important than e.g. Green Revolution which was recently removed. Gizza  (talk) 00:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Neutral


 * Discussion
 * - any other article you would like to propose to remove, or any support for any removals listed above?  starship .paint  (RUN) 03:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think we should remove an article since we are over quota. Calligraphy seems to make the most sense being removed since there are other topics more important. Interstellarity (talk) 09:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Swap: Remove, Add
We should list over  since we have broad coverage of the whole Korean Peninsula. The broad coverage of the Korean Peninsula and its history is more vital than the country of South Korea itself. At level 4, we list History of Korea while History of South Korea and History of North Korea are at level 5. We should do a similar thing at this level. Interstellarity (talk) 16:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Interstellarity (talk) 16:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) Per nom. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 3) Korea has been unified for most of its history; South Korea, throughout its short-history, is most certaintly not a level 3 country.  The  Blue  Rider  Postal horn icon.svg 12:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Ukraine is also a relatively recent social construct that was part of Russia or the Commonwealth for the majority of its history in the past millennium. It is also significantly less vital than South Korea. Vileplume  🍋‍🟩 ( talk ) 17:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Strong oppose; South Korea is no doubt a vital country at V3, and I'd much rather add 🇰🇵 than Korea.  Vileplume  🍋‍🟩 ( talk ) 23:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose History of East Asia is listed at this level. --Thi (talk) 09:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Neutral


 * Discussion
 * If we're adding more regions as opposed to countries, let's start with the . Vileplume  🍋‍🟩 ( talk ) 23:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Contra the supporters, the country list at VA3 is much more from a modern perspective than a historical perspective. If we want to change that fact, first priority is removing .  J 947  ‡ edits 22:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Due to the country's geopolitical significance, it seems reasonable to list either the UAE or Dubai at this level. I might support a swap with 🇮🇶, though. Vileplume  🍋‍🟩 ( talk ) 01:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Move Laozi and Homer to other categories
We moved Moses and Abraham out of people and into religion because they were not placed into people at level 4. As I understand, the reasoning for not placing them there at level 4 is because historians generally consider them legendary figures and not real people. But I can't figure out why this would only apply to religious figures. In level 3, and, in particular, are widely considered to be not real people. Both are generally believed to have been invented to be writers for the works now attributed to them, which were actually written by various other people. I suggest moving them out of the people category because they are not people. As to the new destinations, I suggest under literature for Homer and under Eastern philosophy next to Confucianism for Laozi. I believe those are the only two non-people remaining in the people category, but if I am mistaken let me know and I'll add that to the list. Ladtrack (talk) 07:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support


 * Oppose
 * 1) I don't think that  is considered a "legendry figure", and the debate still goes no re .  Can't see a clear case for moving unless their status as "legendry figures" was more clear-cut/widely accepted. thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Both are pretty widely considered not real people. I didn't really want to go into it because I thought it'd be more well known than it appears to actually be, but here we go.
 * The page Homeric Question, which surrounds the authorship of the Iliad and Odyssey and whether Homer exists, has the line "Most scholars, although disagreeing on other questions about the genesis of the poems, agree that the Iliad and the Odyssey were not produced by the same author, based on "the many differences of narrative manner, theology, ethics, vocabulary, and geographical perspective, and by the apparently imitative character of certain passages of the Odyssey in relation to the Iliad." This is sourced to four different publications, and nearly every other source that comments on the matter will agree with it. Both the Iliad and the Odyssey are generally believed to be a set of oral traditions that were rewritten to fit into a single storyline afterwards. Most importantly, they were collated by different people, according to writing analysis. The existence of the poems themselves are considered the strongest evidence (frankly, pretty much the only evidence) for the existence of the author, and since they weren't written by the same person, that leaves pretty much no room for a historical Homer. Even if a historical Homer existed, such a person could have only made one of the two epics at most, and most of the biographical details must have been invented later. Anyway, the scholarly consensus strongly trends toward no, there wasn't a real Homer. If you want more, go to the Homeric Question page, which covers this in more detail than I could ever hope to.
 * Like with Homer, the page Laozi says "By the mid-twentieth century, consensus had emerged among Western scholars that the historicity of a person known as Laozi is doubtful and that the Tao Te Ching is "a compilation of Taoist sayings by many hands", with an author being invented afterwards. The book's conspicuous absence of a central Master figure place it in marked contrast with nearly all other early Chinese philosophical works." This is also well-sourced, and the next paragraph notes that fragments of what later became the Tao Te Ching have been found without being attached to the rest of the document, dating back from before Laozi was said to have been born. This strongly suggests that Laozi was not a real person, but rather, as the article states, a name attached to a book written by many. It is a little hard to come to a consensus surrounding this because Laozi is sometimes considered a religious figure, but frankly virtually no historians would legitimately argue that the Tao Te Ching was actually written by a single author.
 * Is it possible that Homer and/or Laozi existed? Yes, it is. But the works attributed to them could not have been written by them in the way that the legends say they were, there is no contemporaneous evidence supporting either of their existence, and there is substantial evidence against the possibility of both of them existing. This project moved Moses and Abraham out of the people section because Level 4 did not have them there, which is because historians consider them to not be real people. Well, this is the same deal. If anything, there is more evidence for Moses than for either of these two. Scholarly consensus strongly trends against both of their existence. Ladtrack (talk) 03:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is not the forum to make these arguments, it should be on the article pages where Homer is considered a real person and Laozi is a source of debate. thanks. 08:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC) Aszx5000 (talk) 08:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per above. --Thi (talk) 15:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Neutral


 * Discussion

Add to "Leaders and politicians"
Founder and most prominent ruler of important. He is what was to the. Will regularly appear in the top 10/20 lists of "greatest leaders in history". We have the space to add him without swapping out existing political leaders, but if we had to, he would solidly rank above some other "early leaders" such as, and obviously or , but I think they are merited on having a diverse list; however, this should not stop us from having the biggest names, and  (and probably ) are huge omissions here. Aszx5000 (talk) 08:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) As nom. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) Weak support; FDR is probably sysbias since we already list Washington and Lincoln for the US and Hitler and Stalin for WWII.  Vileplume  🍋‍🟩 ( talk )


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Rome is sufficiently represented. Emperors in general are also well represented on Level 3. Far less important to know about than e.g. Green Revolution which was recently removed. Gizza  (talk) 01:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Timur represents Asian leaders, Joan of Arc women and Mandela modern 20th century leaders. Rome and history of Christianity is well represented. --Thi (talk) 10:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose fundamental misunderstandings here, as is typical of a WikiProject which likes to talk about articles without engaging with them. Constantine did not found the Byzantine Empire, and so cannot be its most prominent ruler (for more information see Byzantine Empire, rewritten by me). If you want to nominate a Byzantine emperor, it has to be Justinian I. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:13, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Many do regard Constantine as the founder/first Emperor of Byzantium (even on Wikipedia per here, but there are many scholarly articles on this).  is also a good candidate, but I think when you search for greatest rulers in history, Constantine make most credible top 20 lists whereas Justinian I features slightly less so. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You have clearly not bothered to even read the lead of List of Byzantine emperors, so this conversation is not worth having. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * - could you kindly elaborate for a non-expert such as myself? I mean, when I read that list and that lead, I am seeing Constantine featured.  starship .paint  (RUN) 00:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Discussion
 * Rome is not Byzantium, which ran for 1,000 years after the fall of Rome. We only have Augustus for Rome, which is probably the most/or joint-most impactful Empire in history, and we have nothing on Byzantium which lasted for 1,000 years after Rome and was the most important Empire in the Western world for most of that period.  Any search for "greatest leaders" will contain Constantine (even ChatGPT), and thus I think it is important we have such candidates to maintain the integrity of the lists. thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)