Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:Vital articles
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Carlwev (talk | contribs) at 01:53, 29 October 2025 (→Remove Music: no.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
General Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
Level 5 Subpages

People History and geography Arts and everyday life Society STEM

Introduction

The purpose of this discussion page is to manage the Level 2 list of 100 topics for which Wikipedia should have high-quality articles (e.g. at WP:FA and WP:GA status). Since changes to this list affect lower-level lists, discussions regarding its composition are best initiated at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles.

All Level 2 nominations must be of an article already listed at level 3.

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

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

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

For reference, the following times apply for today:

  • 15 days ago was: 03:00, 20 October 2025 (UTC) (Purge)
  • 30 days ago was: 03:00, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
  • 60 days ago was: 03:00, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Swap Business  2 (or Trade  2) for Love  3

FAILED
Not swapped 3-4 HwyNerd Mike (tokk) 17:21, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's cliche, but most people across the whole of human history would likely agree that love is the principal drive, desire, and goal of humanity, whether that's love of God  3, love of Family  2, love of Life  1, even love of Power (social and political)  3. If we look at Level 2 as the 100 most important subjects to understanding humanity/the universal human perspective, no list is complete without mentioning love: humans wear Clothing  2, humans live on Land  2, humans develop Ethics  2 and Law  2, humans perceive Time  2, humans love. Unlike say Fear  3 or Anger  3, love is also universally considered to be something that goes beyond just an emotional state. It could just as easily be categorized under Philosophy  1 as under Emotion  2.

Why I think Business  2 should be the replaced subject is because unlike the other three subjects we have at Level 2 under the umbrella of Economics  2 (Agriculture  2, Manufacturing  2, and Trade  2), business can't really be defined independently of those three concepts. Sure, saying business is just complicated trade is kind of like saying computers are just complicated electricity, but defining electricity doesn't cover computers to nearly the same extent that defining trade covers business. There have been previous attempts to kick business off of Level 2, but the most recent one was four years ago and failed because Film  3 (which is now Level 3) and History of science  3 (which is likely to fall to Level 3 soon) were argued to be more important to remove first.

Support
  1. Johnnie Runner (talk) 23:47, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support swap with business. Love is a universal concept in humanity across many cultures throughout history and is a key part of philosophy and psychology. Meanwhile, the topic of businesses seems like one step below manufacturing and trade. Lazman321 (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support addition as a concept that is present everywhere, be it culturally, philosophically, religiously, etc. The Blue Rider 13:33, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose - there are many emotions, emotion is enough for the top 100, emotion and love together but leaving off other emotions that are currently at level 3, like fear happiness or humour wouldn't sit right. That said, I feel trade is more important than business, if I was forced to choose one.  Carlwev  13:40, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. We already have Emotion  2 and Human sexuality  2 at Level 2. Business  2 and Trade  2 have been at the cornerstones of human development and evolution. Aszx5000 (talk) 11:28, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per others.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 08:48, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Weak oppose proposed swap. Love might be level 2, but these aren't how I'd make room. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 02:30, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral/Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Civilization

FAILED
Not removed 1-4 Lazman321 (talk) 01:55, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Considering that we just added Human settlement, there is some overlap between the two terms. I think with the direction the list is going, we can remove this and swap it for something else.

Support
  1. Interstellarity (talk) 23:18, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Civilization and settlement are sufficiently different topics pbp 23:40, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose, the two concepts are very distinct, and in my eyes civilization is broader more important and more written about than settlement.  Carlwev  23:53, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Purplebackpack89 and Carlwev. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 14:06, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Lazman321 (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Matter  2, propose several possible removals

Propose adding matter, and several possible removals. Hope at least one removal also passes to make room, but if others do it can open space for other articles.

PASSED
Closing 5 to 0, it has bee n over the 15 days and there is no opposition. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 17:50, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Add Matter  2 to level 2

It is a bit odd to me we are missing something as fundamental as matter at level 2, when we list Energy  2, Electricity  2, and Atom  3. Matter is more fundamental then Atoms, and includes Dark matter  4, Subatomic particle  3, and other exotic stuff. Per vital article criteria, I think matter should be on the list as it broad in scope and covers many other topics.

Support
  1. As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 19:30, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Lazman321 (talk) 17:44, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 11:23, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Thi (talk) 12:10, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Shocksingularity (talk) 00:53, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
Closing early as nom 4 to 4 so I can propose a swap based on discussion here. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 17:30, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Move Sport  3 to level 3

We only list one example under Entertainment  2. I think sport can be moved down with pages like Game  2 for consistency and to make room for other topics.

Support
  1. As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 19:30, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Lazman321 (talk) 17:44, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 11:23, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Thi (talk) 12:11, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose  Carlwev  16:22, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Like Entertainment  2, is too large an area of human activity not to be at Level 2. Aszx5000 (talk) 16:23, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Carlwev and Aszx5000. I would, however, probably support a swap with Game  2 considering card, video, and board games, and sport itself. J947 ‡ edits 22:06, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:40, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mixed
  1. Support only a swap with game, oppose simple removal. Kevinishere15 (talk) 03:38, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Would agree with that swap 100%. I had proposed a swap with play last year. Game would work better then sport as well in my opinion. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:43, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discuss

There is not much reasoning here, and the only reasoning is flawed. There is only one type of entertainment? That only appears to be the case due to how the list is arranged and how people categorise topics in and out of Wikipedia. Level 2 contains music, performing arts, visual arts, mass media, and literature, mostly under arts, which are all commonly regarded as forms of entertainment, only they've been placed under art here. There is an argument that sport maybe an art, martial arts is so named for example. Sport in some form is millennia old, probably older than literature, definitely older than mass media, it's pretty universal accross the world and through history, most if not all human cultures have had sport in some form.  Carlwev  16:22, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sport is a type of entertainment. All sports are a Game  2, but not all games are sports. Play (activity)  3 is only level 3, and all games are a form of play. By vital article criteria, game would be more appropriate then sport if we're going to have one form of entertainment, but I really don't think we need an example of entertainment at all. Music, performing arts, and literature are not exclusively for entertainment, they can be used for education, expression, communication, etc. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 16:37, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if Entertainment  2 is the problem here? In the same way we would never drop Performing arts  2 as being a sub-category of Entertainment (even it partly is), I don't think we should drop Sports. I do think that there is a case for dropping Entertainment as being too-broad aggregator of things like Performing arts and Sports? Aszx5000 (talk) 16:58, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is a backwards approach to the vital article levels. Vital articles at higher levels tend to "cover" more topics and be broader in their scope. For example, Science 1 is a Vital-1 article, while Scientific method 3 is a lower level of vitality. A broad aggregator of things is more vital then specific topics. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 23:12, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not always, there are times when an aggregator is itself not as distinctive / vital as its components (e.g. per earlier Level 3 discussions on Eurasia  4 vs Europe  2 and Asia  2). Aszx5000 (talk) 23:34, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one who nominated Eurasia. Not only is that failure disappointing and against the actual vital article criteria, it demonstrates the deep Eurocentrism in the project. People vote based on vibes and first impulse, there is almost no consistency or logic to the list overall. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 01:02, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Closing 5 to 1. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 17:02, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Move Atom  3 to level 3

As listed above, we list Dark matter  4 and Matter  2 below atom. Subatomic particles like Proton  3, Neutron  3, and Electron  3 are at level 3, and other stuff like Neutrino  4 are below that. I think we can move Atom down to make room for the more broad Matter, at the very least.

Support
  1. As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 19:30, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. You know what, since the other removal proposals are likely to fail, I will support this one to make room. Lazman321 (talk) 14:06, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This one should go if we are going to add Matter. Interstellarity (talk) 00:54, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. 飞车过大关 (talk) 13:39, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Reluctant support, after all we don't list things like Photon  3 at this level.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 08:32, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose

# I would say atom is just as important as matter, given that all matter is made out of atoms. Lazman321 (talk) 17:44, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral
Discuss

I wonder whether Chemical element  2 would maker more sense to remove, as it relies on the concept of the atom. Then again, Matter  2 now covers atoms on VA2, reducing that issue.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 08:54, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
Closing 1 to 5, Not a snowballs chance at this point. It has been moved to Geography section, so something good came out of this. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 18:01, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Move Atmosphere of Earth  2 to level 3

We list Climate  2 at level 2, and pages like Earth's crust  5 and Earth's mantle  4 are far from level 2.

Support
  1. As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 19:30, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. I see Atmosphere of Earth  2 as the "Air" part of the trio that has Sea  2 and Land  2? Aszx5000 (talk) 12:14, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Should it be moved under the geography section then? It is currently under "Science and medicine.," while Sea  2 and Land  2 are under geography. (Also, "sea" is a really poor choice for level 2, it is fairly ambiguous and used inconsistently). GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 16:25, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I think it should. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:20, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agree with Aszx5000, would support move to the Geography section. Lazman321 (talk) 17:44, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose removal.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 11:23, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Thi (talk) 22:18, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose removal, but we should move it to the geography section. Best Minoo (talk) 22:52, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discuss

GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 19:30, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Closing early as passed 6 to 1. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 17:55, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Swap Sport  3 and Game  2

Per previous discussion, @Kevinishere15 mentioned a swap with sport and game, and @J947 mentioned they would potentially support this as well. We currently list only one example of Entertainment  2 at level 2, Sport  3. Per the vital article criteria 1 "Vital articles at higher levels tend to "cover" more topics and be broader in their scope. For example, Science 1 is a Vital-1 article, while Scientific method 3 is a lower level of vitality." All sports are games, not all games are sports. Game is a more broad form of entertainment that includes Board game  3, Video game  3, Card game  3, etc. Game is also related to Game theory  4, in which a game is a a situation in which players make rational decisions according to defined rules in an attempt to receive some sort of payoff. I believe game is essential to other pages on Wikipedia, is notable as a topic historically, and spans cultures so western bias isn't really an issue. I think the game article needs some improvements as well, so potentially moving it up will increase the priority for making those changes. I think that if we are going to include one an example under entertainment, game is more appropriate then the more specific sport.

Support
  1. As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 17:45, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. J947 ‡ edits 20:36, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Lazman321 (talk) 22:01, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kevinishere15 (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I've wanted to do this for a while. Game covers sport but also covers Board game  3, Card game  3, and Video game  3, on top of several other topics that aren't VA3. It is a much broader term than sport and deserves to be at a higher level. Also, games like Tag (game)  4 definitely cover the physical activity aspect, even ignoring the fact that sports are games. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:10, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Shocksingularity (talk) 00:51, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. The Game does not cover the aspect of physical activity. Folklore, Ethnicity and Deity are less essential. --Thi (talk) 22:18, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is incorrect, sports are games. Professional sport and Spectator sport are both listed as examples in the lede, and it specifically says games can serve as a form of exercise. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 22:36, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 17:45, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Remove Computer

Computer is not that important especially we removed Book from this list.

Support
  1. Interstellarity (talk) 12:49, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Weak oppose. We have likely developed as much technology since the development of the digital computer as before its invention. It is likely as influential as other simple machines at this point. I could see this going if we restructured the list in a few ways, but not as it currently sits. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 16:43, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @GeogSage Please note that this is the top 100 articles, so "as influential as other simple machines" wouldn't qualify it for this level. Computer  2 is the only type of machine listed at level 2. 12.50.145.130 (talk) 16:48, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair point, bad example, and I should know, I've been working to move those up on level 3. Change my example to "at least as influential as Mass media at this point" Thanks for the catch. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 16:53, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

Remove Music

We already list Mass media which covers Music. Consider that we removed Book.

Support
  1. Interstellarity (talk) 21:41, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. J947 ‡ edits 22:08, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Uh...no? I mean, the article literally says that music is a cultural universal. Lazman321 (talk) 00:26, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Music is not covered by mass media, and music is not the same as a means of recording knowledge. Music has existed since before humans were homo sapien. Would sooner cut mass media. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 00:54, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss
  1. Oppose, I never thought someone would suggest this. Music has been part of human expression since before we were human, people at every time and place in history and today have had music..it is many times older than mass media and not covered by it. Wouldn't remove architecture as redundant to visual arts. If there was a list of only 30 articles music would probably be in it.  Carlwev  01:53, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/2&oldid=1319316481"