Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/3

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 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.

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: 22:09, 19 October 2025 (UTC) ()
• 30 days ago was: 22:09, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
• 60 days ago was: 22:09, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Add Storm  3

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.

---

Another possible addition worth considering.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 10:57, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
2. ALittleClass (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
3. Lazman321 (talk) 22:49, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
4. Support add. We should then move Tornado  4 Tropical cyclone  3 down to level 4.
5. The concept of a storm is more important than the concept of a tornado or hurricane. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:19, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
6. Support per VA Criteria 1, storm is broader in scope then many examples of storms we list.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:30, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. We already have Tornado  4, Tropical cyclone  3 and Wind  3 under Weather  3? Aszx5000 (talk) 18:28, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

# Per above. --Thi (talk) 22:49, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

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

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

---

Remove Heat

Listing because there's many proposals above for additions. I think there's enough coverage of this area with Temperature  3 and Thermodynamics  3.

Support

1. As nominator. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 22:21, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Lazman321 (talk) 18:33, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
3. Interstellarity (talk) 22:17, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
4. Eh sure. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:18, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
5. Weak support, due to overlap with articles mentioned by OP.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 17:37, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

Move Bible  3 out from under Christianity  3

The article very much equally treats the Christian Bible and Hebrew Bible—though the latter making up the bulk of the former gets its own article too. I see what was meant by ensuring Talmud  3 is featured under Judaism  3, but it seems likely to me regardless that Bible  3 should be its own top-level entry in the Abrahamic religions section. I am fairly certain this is acceptable given the relative esteem with which Muslims view the Bible, with much of it more intimately familiar due to there being similar Biblical narratives in the Quran. Remsense 🌈 论 00:08, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

If no one minds, I'd prefer to just discuss this first before we start !voting, since there might be a better solution I'm not thinking of. Remsense 🌈 论 00:10, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

List All of the Simple machine  3, propose some swaps

We somehow have failed to include all of the simple machines on the list at level 3, while having some incredibly niche concepts. We include Wheel  3 and not Wheel and axle  4, which I'm not going to touch right now. Instead, I'll focus on five of the six; Screw mechanism, Pulley, Lever, Inclined Plane, and Wedge. I believe these all speak for themselves.

I don't think these are terrible idea, but in my opinion I'm not sure they cut it. I'd be more inclined to add solid, liquid, and gas under state of matter, before all the simple machines.  Carlwev  09:42, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

We include artificial intelligence, mobile phone, and others pages. These are about as basic as it gets. Not saying we shouldn't add solid liquid or gas, but the simple machines are some of the most vital concepts to human civilization we can note. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:20, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Given that these are all includes under Simple machine  3, why unpack them and list them individually. Same issue with State of matter  3 below? Aszx5000 (talk) 10:00, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Additions:

Add Screw mechanism  4

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.

---

Support

1. As nom.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:30, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
2. Interstellarity (talk) 14:30, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
3. Lazman321 (talk) 16:03, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:15, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
2. Already under Simple machine  3. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:01, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 22:21, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

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.

Add Pulley  4

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.

---

Support

1. As nom.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:30, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
2. Interstellarity (talk) 14:30, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
3. Lazman321 (talk) 16:03, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:15, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
2. Already under Simple machine  3. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:01, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 22:21, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

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.

Add Lever  4

Give me a large enough lever and I'll move the world. Give me support so I can move lever to level 3.

Support

1. As nom.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:30, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
2. Interstellarity (talk) 22:18, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
3. Lazman321 (talk) 23:52, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
4. Obviously. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
5. Weak support ChaoticVermillion (talk) 10:33, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Already under Simple machine  3. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:01, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
2. Per above. --Thi (talk) 22:52, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

Add Inclined plane  4

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.

---

Support

1. As nom.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:30, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
2. Interstellarity (talk) 14:30, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
3. Lazman321 (talk) 16:03, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:15, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
2. Already under Simple machine  3. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:01, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 22:21, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

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.

Add Wedge  4

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.

---

Support

1. As nom.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:30, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
2. Interstellarity (talk) 14:30, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
3. Lazman321 (talk) 16:03, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:15, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
2. Already under Simple machine  3. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:01, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 22:21, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

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.

Removals:

I'm proposing six removals. I don't expect ALL to pass, but hope that they can AT LEAST make room for adding the five proposed simple machines above. I pulled ALL of them from the technology section to avoid conflict between sections, and base them on the order I think they could be considered.

Move Genetic engineering  3 to level 4

We include Electrical engineering  4 at level 4, and Engineering  2 at level 2 that I think can serve as an umbrella for all the different types of engineering. Biotechnology  3 at level 3 I believe can serve as an umbrella for this.

Support

1. As nom.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:30, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
2. Interstellarity (talk) 00:17, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
3. Lazman321 (talk) 23:52, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
4. I could maybe see this being readded in 20 years, but it doesn't reach Level 3 yet. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:55, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:15, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
2. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:57, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

Move Civil engineering  3 to level 4

We include Electrical engineering  4 at level 4, and Engineering  2 at level 2 that I think can serve as an umbrella for all the different types of engineering.

Support

1. As nom.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:30, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
2. Interstellarity (talk) 00:17, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Responsible for creating the structures that society / humans rely on. Aszx5000 (talk) 18:56, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
2. Lazman321 (talk) 16:03, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

Add Chocolate  3

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.

---

A widely consumed food with historical importance.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 13:44, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
2. Support, but was looking for an appropraite swap last night for this. Probably will need one, but based on both the contemporary widespread consumption and historic significance to various Native American civilizations, it should be included. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:31, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
3. Lazman321 (talk) 23:52, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
4. Per GeogSage. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:57, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
5. Per above. Side note: I love chocolate. HwyNerd Mike (tokk) 06:46, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Don't see it being in the 1,000 most important topics to humanity? Aszx5000 (talk) 22:51, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

1. It probably meets the bar needed for V3 but is the broad article for Candy  4, which Chocolate is a sub-topic of at the V4 list, not more important? λ NegativeMP1 00:08, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, while chocolate is considered a candy here, it is a food. "Chocolate is a food made from roasted and ground cocoa beans that can be a liquid, solid, or paste, either by itself or to flavor other foods." GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:07, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

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

Add International relations  4, remove Diplomacy  3

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.

---

International relations is a broader topic. It also directly affects more people and more people are involved with it.

Support

1. As nom. 23.24.255.49 (talk) 00:08, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Given that international relations is an academic discipline, while diplomacy is the act itself, I do not think they should be swapped. I think a better argument would be moving Foreign policy  5 to this level. Lazman321 (talk) 18:33, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
2. Agree with Lazman321. Interstellarity (talk) 14:31, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 10:47, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

• FYI, diplomacy is a part of international relations, but international relations is much more broad than that. The Blue Rider 11:08, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Thi: I think you put your vote in the wrong place. This is the discussion section. Lazman321 (talk) 13:57, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Corrected. There weren't enough empty lines. --Thi (talk) 14:20, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Should Cognition  4 replace Mind  2 at VA2?

I think something like Thought  3 or Cognition  4 would be better than Mind  2 in a list of 100 main topics as it refers to specific processes and abilities that everyone does/uses constantly, rather than a more nebulous topic of Mind. I thought cognition would be better as it seems broader, but I see thought is already listed at a higher level. 23.24.255.49 (talk) 00:14, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Support

1. Support addition. Cognition is huge part of psychology and encompasses aspects of the mind such as thought and memory. Lazman321 (talk) 16:03, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:08, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

   @GeogSage: Why? Lazman321 (talk) 16:21, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

   So first the technicalities.

   • This would be quite a jump first of all. I'm not a big fan of the rules on Wikipedia:Vital_articles#No_skipping, but this wouldn't be the exception I'd make for jumping levels. Even if this add is just to level 3, I'd want an appropriate swap.
   • The Wikipedia:Vital_articles#Eligibility states "All Wikipedia extended confirmed editors are welcome to propose an article that should be added, removed, or demoted from one of the Level 1-4 vital article lists (which are ECP-protected from here), and/or !vote or comment on any existing proposal. Any editor can make a proposal at Level 5." I'm not a huge fan of IP editors voting, as I think it makes socking way to easy.

   Then statistics. Pageviews and language links are the metrics most looked at for vitality. I like including site links, editors, and watchers as well. Looking at the values for for mind and cognition:

   • Mind has 172 site links compared to cognitions 89
   • Mind has 34,215 30 day pageviews compared to cognitions 28,345
   • Mind has 143 Language links compared to cognitions 80.
   • Mind has 1,284 editors compared to cognitions 1,009
   • Mind has 3,201 links to the page compared to cognitions 3,297
   • Mind has 1,187 page watchers compared to cognitions 1,405

   Of these metrics, cognition only beats mind in number of links to the page, and number of watchers. These are values that I personally think are really important, but aren't as popular on the project yet.

   Then the proposal itself.

   • On first impulse, I don't personally think cognition is more vital then mind.
   • After reviewing the articles, I still don't think cognition is more vital then mind.

   Based on these factors, I oppose the swap. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:03, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

• Added Support and Oppose to this discussion. This is only for the sake of whether Cognition should be added to L3. Interstellarity (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
• Per WP:VANOM, I think this should be deleted / struck out, unless an ECP editor wants to make the nom. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:53, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

  Hi, sorry to have to undo this removal but I only just noticed it and want to talk about that section. I'm not sure where you got the idea that non-ECP editors aren't allowed to vote/propose/comment except at VA5. The discussion linked at WP:VANOM concerned the lists, not the talk pages. J947 ‡ ^edits 07:07, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

  Hi J947 and understand your revert now. I do remember !voting on ECP protection of the VA1-4 lists, but I had also always assumed that you had to be ECP to propose or !vote on Levels 1-4, due to the fact that - unlike in other areas of WP - the !vote was a straight count (i.e. no closer discretion). However, I cannot find a discussion on this in the archives? Maybe we should re-discuss this on the main VA talk page and put it to the community to clarify one way or the other? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 11:35, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

  @Aszx5000: discussion created. J947 ‡ ^edits 21:49, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

  Eligibility: "All Wikipedia extended confirmed editors are welcome to propose an article that should be added, removed, or demoted from one of the Level 1-4 vital article lists (which are ECP-protected from here), and/or !vote or comment on any existing proposal. Any editor can make a proposal at Level 5." This is specifically talking about talk page proposals, and does not seem ambiguous at all. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:08, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

  I am quite aware that sentence exists. The person who actually wrote that down has suggested this path of action lol. J947 ‡ ^edits 04:18, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not sure where you got the idea that non-ECP editors aren't allowed to vote/propose/comment except at VA5. It looks like you weren't aware of it, because the eligibility section would be where someone might get the idea IP editors couldn't propose stuff outside level 5. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:24, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

  Pardon? I was asking why Aszx5000 added that sentence. I even linked to it. J947 ‡ ^edits 05:18, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

  Sorry, I read this without knowing Aszx5000 was the one who originally wrote that. It looks like you're questioning where they got the idea for their stance in this discussion without that context. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:06, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Remove Orbit  3

I don't see how Orbit is vital on its own. We already list articles like Gravity  3 that cover this well.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 22:51, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
2. I don't see Orbit on same level as the other L3's under the L3 Astromony section, such as Black hole  3, Planet  3, Star  3. Feels more like an L4 topic to me. Aszx5000 (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
3. Lazman321 (talk) 16:03, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
4. Changing votes. I think we could make room for other topics. Maybe in the future orbit will be swapped back in, but it is a feature of gravity. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:21, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

# Oppose. Orbital and orbital mechanics are an extremely important topic to multiple disciplines. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:10, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Remove Environmentalism  4

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.

---

I think this of one of those topics that is better to put in level 4 rather than level 3. We already list several articles related to this topic like Climate change  3, and Pollution  3. I think this article needs to go.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 22:31, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
2.  — Amakuru (talk) 05:47, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
3. Lazman321 (talk) 23:52, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
4. Aszx5000 (talk) 23:13, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
5. Not necessary for Level 3. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:59, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

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 Solid  3, Liquid  3, and Gas  3

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.

---

We list State of matter  3 and listing these would be good.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 00:19, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
2. Support  Carlwev  12:17, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
3. Support. Level 3 is full of a lot of very specific topics that should be bumped to make room for things like this. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:41, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
4. --Thi (talk) 10:49, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
5. Lazman321 (talk) 16:03, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
6. Three of the most notable things in science. HwyNerd Mike (tokk) 06:25, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Since we already have state of matter which covers the whole topic, these more specific subarticles aren't required.  — Amakuru (talk) 05:44, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
2. We are struggling to make space in L3, so having State of matter  3 captures all three efficiently. Aszx5000 (talk) 23:21, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

I could go either way between listing Solid  3 / Liquid  3 / Gas  3 (Plasma (physics)  3?) or listing State of matter  3 but we definitely shouldn't have both. J947 ‡ ^edits 06:01, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

We list fossil fuel then 3 examples under it, chemical element then several examples under it, renewable energy then several examples under it, mammal and several examples under it, engine and 3 examples under it and so on. I am open to discussion about whether this is vital or not, but the fact we have states of matter, is worth considering, but I do not think, can be said to be a hard and fast reason alone to not include solid liquid and gas when comparing to other sections of the list that have something, then examples of underneath as well. I think when one starts learning physics and chemistry at school, we learn about the properties of solids liquids and gases before individual elements. Air is a gas. Water is a liquid. Water and Air (Atmosphere of Earth) are listed at level 2, it feels odd to have liquid and gas a whole 2 levels lower than water and air. Bose–Einstein condensate is listed under state of matter at level 4, I would have thought Solid liquid and gas were higher up then that. (Not sure about plasma, on the one hand it feels lower, and can kind of be considered a special kind of gas, and on the other hand, it's the most abundant state of matter in the solar system and the universe as a whole, excluding dark matter.)  Carlwev  12:17, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Add Chronology of the universe

It occurred to me that the article on the history of all things across all time as we understand it is quite important.

Support

1. As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 07:28, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
2. We include Human history and History of Earth, but not this article. Interstellarity (talk) 18:53, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
3. Lazman321 (talk) 16:30, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Should be captured by Physical cosmology  3 - which is definately V3. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:43, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

• This is a very similar topic to Physical cosmology  3 proposed for removal above, so why not? Though I would prefer keeping Physical cosmology as it's broader in scope. 204.195.97.109 (talk) 01:36, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

The case of Shen Kuo  3

One glance at the infobox reveals he was active in a mind-boggling amount of areas of study, and made lots of discoveries such as the magnetic needle compass and a lot of important work in geology (among a lot of other things). However, for this level he is.... VERY niche, at least in the west. In terms of pageviews he is not only the lowest viewed VA3 person but among the lowest viewed at VA4. There's seldom any biographical youtube videos that pass over 1000 views. I would have to gander (and if anyone from China knows otherwise I will be happy to be proven an ignorant westerner) that in China itself, he is not really in the highest echelon of historical figures, with figures like Sun Tzu  4 being significantly more famous and even a current VA5 figure like Guan Yu  5 getting around 10x as many pageviews (~300k yearly on Shen Kuo's 30k)

However, I also understand that keeping worldwide representation is a keystone rule of the list. If this figure was removed there would be no Chinese figures in the scientist list, which is not good. And I can see that his discoveries were definitely important to Chinese science. But at the same time, I don't really see the person being in the global canon at this level of importance. I'm a bit torn here. ALittleClass (talk) 21:38, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree with replacing him with Sun Tzu. Interstellarity (talk) 14:35, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

I think Shen Kuo is the prime example of why VA3 shouldn't be approached as a popularity contest, but by how large of a shadow something casts. Listing Compass  3 and Magnet  4 on their own (for instance) wouldn't do VA3 justice because those articles don't (and shouldn't) describe the cultural background and course of history that made them important to the world; it's Iron  3 without the Iron Age  3. Including Shen Kuo gives precise credit to the role China has played in science and world history, ironically as far down the line as Western imperialism in Asia  3, since without his work, navigation technology develops some way other than spreading from China to the Arab world and Europe, where it goes on to enable global colonialism.

If anything, more Chinese figures should be added (in particular Cai Lun  4, who is as important as Johannes Gutenberg  3 to mass media, and Emperor Wu of Han  4, who is comparable in influence to Augustus  3 the same way Qin Shi Huang  3 can be compared to Julius Caesar  3). Johnnie Runner (talk) 21:41, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Add History of life

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.

---

Life  1 is VA1.

Support

1. As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 22:22, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Interstellarity (talk) 05:45, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 12:05, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
4. I do like "of" topics, case by case of course. This is important. Currently History of life  3. I can see it bumped. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:13, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
5. Honestly, this is analogous to Human history  1, History of Earth  3, History of mathematics  3, History of science  3, and History of technology  3, all history articles of VA1 articles. There's an argument to be made that these topics are so important that how they developed is very much of vital interest to a researcher or an encyclopedia. Lazman321 (talk) 17:08, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. In general, I don't like "_____ of _____" articles. For example, Italy  3, History of Italy  4, Economy of Italy  5,Music of Italy  5, Culture of Italy  5, are 5 of our articles, and are summed up adequately with just the main article on Italy. Including just these 5 means we can argue for the inclusion of these four for ALL of the other 193 member states of the United Nations, or 965 articles, almost 2% of the vital article space. Now articles like Geography of Italy and Sport in Italy could also be included, and I suspect we have several other "______ of <country>" articles I missed on this quick search. Overall, I think we should move almost all "_____ of _____" articles to level 5, or remove entirely from project.— Preceding unsigned comment added by GeogSage (talk • contribs) 21:52, 1 September 2025 (UTC)-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:59, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
2. I agree with the above from Tony. Aszx5000 (talk) 22:55, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

   Not to be that guy, but that statement was from GeogSage, not Tony. Tony just added the signature. Lazman321 (talk) 15:39, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

   Thanks, my bad. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:42, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

1. On one hand, it overlaps with at least 80% of Abiogenesis  3 and History of Earth  3. On the other, that last 20% is pretty important. Johnnie Runner (talk) 02:37, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

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

Move Poland  3 and/or Netherlands  4 from level 3 to level 4

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.

---

We have a lot of additions without a lot of proposed swaps, so I looked at the list and some of the statistics for countries. In our level 3 countries, we have 8 from the European Peninsula of Asia, 6 from Southeast Asia, 3 from South America, 3 From North America, and 8 from Africa. I believe there is a bit of European/Western bias in these inclusions. Among the European Countries, Poland and Netherlands are the ones I believe are easiest to trim. We don't include many European countries such as Switzerland  4, Belgium  4, Norway  4, Finland  4, or Denmark  4, for example. Looking at the numbers I collected in June, I believe these two countries are the lowest performers in the various metrics of those we currently list on the European Peninsula. As we need to make room for several current proposals likely to pass, I think one, or both, of these countries can be moved to level 4.

Support Remove both

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:53, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
2. Lazman321 (talk) 19:50, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
3. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 10:43, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

   The economic argument doesn't convince me, although I suspect Piotrus has some arguments for Poland's importance which might. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:05, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Oppose remove both

1. Poland  3 is the world's 20th largest economy and Netherlands  4 is the 18th per List of countries by GDP (nominal). Aszx5000 (talk) 11:35, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

   20th and 18th largest economies are arbitrary, Switzerland  4 is the 21st largest economy, and Belgium  4 is 22nd (if we don't count the independent country of Taiwan  3 at least.) Europe has more money then most of the world, so if we go by size of economy it will dominate the countries we include at level 3. There are Federated states in the United States with bigger economies then countries on the top 10 largest economies of the world, the inability for European states to play nice and federate doesn't make them more vital then California  4 or Texas  4, both of which have larger economies then Canada  3, much less these two Middle powers GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:40, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

2. Oppose  Carlwev  17:45, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
3. Because I'm generally in favour of removing cities and adding countries. I disagree with the assertions that Netherlands isn't clearly more vital than Sweden and Portugal: I think it's clearly more important both historically and currently, having nearly twice their population. J947 ‡ ^edits 21:59, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Remove only Poland

Remove only Netherlands

1. I do appreciate the ping, QuicoleJR. I'll also ping others, so that they may check my argument: Lazman321 . My oppose is to some degree colored by the fact that I am Polish; but I think Poland's is V3 for the following reasons: 1) removing it would remove any and all Eastern Europe countries outside Russia and Ukraine, and I find it strange to argue Ukraine is more important (outside the recent war making news) 2) I believe Polish culture is important to the EE and broader region, justifying its inclusion. Now, the above is my opinion, here's what ChatGPT said defending Poland, when asked by me to do so: "Poland is NATO’s frontline state with Russia and Belarus. Since 2022, it has been a key logistical hub for aid to Ukraine, giving it unprecedented global relevance. It is also central to EU politics: Poland is one of the largest member states in Central/Eastern Europe, often shaping debates on security, migration, and democratic governance. Poland has been a major actor in European history for centuries: The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was one of Europe’s largest powers in the early modern period; Poland’s partitions shaped the geopolitics of 18th–19th century Europe; Its fate in World War II (invasion, Holocaust, post-war Soviet domination) is central to global memory of the 20th century; The Solidarity movement was pivotal in the collapse of communism and the Cold War’s end. Poland has a rich literary, artistic, and scientific tradition, with multiple Nobel laureates (Marie Curie, Wisława Szymborska, Olga Tokarczuk). It is a key part of the Catholic world (home of Pope John Paul II) and thus of global religious history." See also my discuss comment above. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:11, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
2. I can kinda see the reasoning to remove the Netherlands when countries such as Sweden  4 are V4. However, I don't think Poland should be removed, per Piotrus' reasoning. λ NegativeMP1 02:41, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
3. Per Piotrus, I think Poland has enough impact historically and in the modern day to be listed. However, I still don't think the Netherlands has enough importance to be listed this far above Sweden and Portugal  4. I'd also probably remove Ukraine. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:10, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

   As I've stated, our selection criteria is completely arbitrary, and it is extremely problematic to weigh countries as more or less vital then other countries. Until we have a quantitative definition where we can justify the exact 44 countries we have, all we have is the bias of Wikipedia editors picking what countries they think is the most important, based on whatever. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:09, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

   Our selection criteria is completely arbitrary could be said about the vital articles project as a whole. I disagree that this is any worse than prioritizing certain authors or historical events over others. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:49, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

   The whole vital articles project is based on subjectivity and inconsistencies fused together by consensus. I am almost certain that everyone is aware of this fact. I know I am. I do not think listing historically important countries/empires like France  3 or Ancient Rome  3 at a level higher than countries like Portugal  4 or New Zealand  4 is a significant issue in that regard. λ NegativeMP1 19:27, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

   @NegativeMP1, @QuicoleJR, the nature is only completely arbitrary if we have no thought put into the broader organization. Trying to compare which country is more vital then others is something I don't believe is possible without some form of bias, which violates the criteria for vital articles. To mitigate this, we can just keep ALL the countries on the same level, rather then ranking some over others. Saying Countries are level 4 vital articles or level 3 vital articles is still subjectively comparing the countries to other topics, but it eliminates the icky debates about what culture is more historically important. For example, in terms of global impact, I would the Portuguese Empire  4 had a major impact. If we were all raised in Brazil  3, our bias would likely be more towards the significance of Portugal  4 over Spain  3. The entire exercise in ranking countries as more or less vital then others, from an academic perspective, is pretty gross for lack of a better word. We are literally saying in many cases that countries that made massive colonial empires are more vital today because they are generally more wealthy then the now independent former colonies. The list is reinforcing that legacy of colonialism. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:07, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

   I don't know about everyone else, but I don't personally consider the current economy very much when making these decisions. My opinion is based on population and historical impact, so I list the countries that made massive empire because they made massive empires. I understand you feel strongly about this, but I don't think you'll get enough support to remove all countries from this level. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

   The vital article criteria are Coverage, Essential to Wikipedia's other articles, Notability, No (Western) bias, and Pageviews (although this one is controversial). Articles on countries all cover the same number of topics, and have the same amount of depth in scope. All country articles are Essential to Wikipedia's other articles, missing one would be a huge detriment to the project. Notability is debatable, but at least all UN member states are notable in that they are recognized as Sovereign states. When it comes to the criteria of no bias, trying to debate which is more notable, which had a bigger or smaller empire, and which had a greater historical empire is not really possible without accusations of bias. Even if we had extremely specific criteria, the criteria we choose can be accused of underlying bias. Pageviews as a metric aren't really popular, but if we go by them alone it will be hard to justify the list as it currently exists.

   The purpose of the vital articles is to prioritization of improvements of English Wikipedia articles, measurement of quality of overall English Wikipedia, and to serve as a centralized watchlist of English Wikipedia's most important articles. I fail to see how having some countries at a higher level then others accomplishes this, we are indefensibly in violation of the projects core criteria. Smaller countries, especially those that have had their histories erased by massive empires, are likely to need greater prioritization for improvements then the great powers of the world. These countries are even more likely to need to be on a centralized watchlist. I understand it is unlikely to get much support, most people are not actually working within the vital article criteria, and pointing out that the vital articles have such deeply baked in bias is not going to be popular among those who either are unwilling to admit that there is a bias, or think that it is acceptable. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:27, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

4. Interstellarity (talk) 01:08, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

• Before I asked ChatGPT to defend Poland, I gave him the full list and told him to choose two least important countries. It chose Netherlands and UAE, so before removing Poland I think (agreeing with AI's analysis) that we should remove UAE instead. AI's rationale: "1. United Arab Emirates (UAE). Reasoning: While economically important (oil wealth, Dubai as a global hub), the UAE is a small country in both population (~10 million, with most being expatriates) and land area. Its political and cultural influence is relatively narrow compared to its West Asian peers: Saudi Arabia (religious/political role), Iran (regional power), Turkey (historical and strategic influence), and Israel (geopolitical significance). Conclusion: The UAE is regionally important but not of the same vital global weight as the others in the Middle East. 2. Netherlands. Reasoning: The Netherlands has major historical importance (colonial empire, trade, early capitalism) and still plays a role in the EU and global economy. However, compared to other European entries (France, Germany, UK, Russia, Italy, Spain, Poland, Ukraine), its present-day population, territory, and geopolitical influence are smaller. Conclusion: It could be seen as less “vital” globally than, for example, Poland (large EU state, historical crossroads, recent geopolitical centrality) or Ukraine (ongoing global-impact war). Both UAE and the Netherlands are significant countries, but relative to the rest of the list, they are the least globally “indispensable” for a Vital-3 snapshot."." Oh, and here are two swaps its suggested when I asked him what he would swap in, if we were to remove two countries: "Sudan (swap with UAE or Netherlands). Why add: Largest country in Africa until South Sudan’s split; still very large in area and strategically located (Nile, Red Sea, Sahel). Recent civil wars and humanitarian crises have had massive global implications (refugees, instability, international interventions). Historically, a crossroads of Arab and African worlds. Why missing matters: Africa is underrepresented relative to Asia, and Sudan is more globally impactful than UAE. 2. Iraq (swap with UAE) Why add: Birthplace of Mesopotamian civilization — one of humanity’s most important historical regions. 20th–21st century wars (Iran-Iraq, Gulf War, 2003 invasion, ISIS) were world-shaping events. Population ~45 million, larger than Saudi Arabia’s or Canada’s. Why missing matters: Iraq is far more significant long-term than UAE, both historically and demographically."--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:11, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

  Not really interested in what ChatGPT has to say on this. The reason I selected Poland is because the European Peninsula is over represented. UAE is in the West Asia category, which has 5 countries overall as opposed to the European Peninsula's 9. You've made a great case to remove the UAE, and I would not be opposed to removing it, and probably Ukraine as well. Look at the country Ghana  4, with a population only 3 million less then Poland. Ghana is reasonably active in the African Union  4, and a fairly big regional player in Africa. Morocco  4 has a population similar to Poland as well, (I think less then a million difference in population), and Morocco is the 5th largest economy in the African Union. From a historical perspective, Morocco has historical and strategic influence, and has had humanitarian crisis and civil wars that make it relevant globally. Belarus  4 is a frontline state as well, and we don't include it at level 3. Venezuela  4 is a country of 30 million people, as is Peru  4, and we only list 3 countries from South America. Including Poland and not countries like Ghana seems like Western Bias to me. Ultimately, I think all the countries should be on the same "vital level," because what makes a country vital inevitably devolves into nationalistic rhetoric, but this proposal is about finding room and balancing the list for now. Having 43 countries listed as "vital" over the rest of the world is only ever going to be based on arbitrary and qualitative metrics. Using criteria we have, I could likely find a reason to justify a swap between one of the excluded countries over one we include. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:09, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

  If someone votes for the removal of the United Arab Emirates  4 from this level I'll support it. I cannot think of any plausible reasoning as to how the UAE is more important than any of the countries you just listed, as well as Iraq  4. I just don't see it. Most of the UAE's global importance is concentrated in Dubai  4 as far as I'm aware, and that's only been the past few decades or so give or take? I personally think that there are some countries that belong at V3 while the others go to V4, but I don't think the UAE is one of them. λ NegativeMP1 19:49, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

  While I am very open to dealing with sys bias, we also need to avoid setting up some arbitrary criteria to represent stuff just because they are not Western etc. Economy of most African countries doesn't matter much. Some of them are much more popolus than Poland - so what? Their economic impact is very limited (generally only to themselves and maybe their direct neighbours). So arguing we should list Ghana as well as Poland sounds pretty ridcolous to me. Economy of Ghana is much smaller, much less important to the world, and much less vital than Polish. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:33, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

  We could move the 44 countries down, and replace them with regions such as Middle East and North Africa (I should note, this region is not currently on even level 5, which is shocking to me.) GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:29, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

• Figuring out a consensus from these votes is gonna be fun... Kevinishere15 (talk) 03:43, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Proposal signature

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:53, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Remove English literature  4

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.

---

I know this was already proposed months ago, and as such, this might be a long shot, but I strongly disagree with the reasons why the prior proposal failed. In my opinion, no literature of a particular language should be listed at this level, as such topics will inherently be far less broad than the topic of Literature  2, or even the different forms of literature, like Fiction  3. To illustrate how narrow a topic like English literature is, an article on literature, and below that an article on fiction, could discuss multiple highly important writers such as Homer  3, Murasaki Shikibu  3, William Shakespeare  3, Miguel de Cervantes  3, and Leo Tolstoy  3, along with their contemporaries and those influenced by them, but among those writers, an article on English literature can only discuss Shakespeare and his kin. Given the limited space on this level, surely there are better topics to be represented. As such, I think English literature should be removed from this level.

The prior proposal was rejected because, per Thi, English literature is "[v]ital in a list tailored to the English Wikipedia". To me, that seems very biased and against the spirit of the vital articles list. I mean, one of the criteria for determining a vital article is to have no Western bias, saying "While the vitals list is for English Wikipedia, the focus is on the world." After all, the English Wikipedia is supposed to be documenting information about the world, not just the Anglosphere, so the most important articles should be global in nature. Saying that English literature should be kept on this level because this is the English Wikipedia, in my opinion, perpetuates a Western bias and goes against the spirit of this project.

Support

1. As nom. Lazman321 (talk) 15:37, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
2. I do believe that English is probably the most vital language (although not by an overwhelming margin) and also the most vital language for literature, but this article essentially functions as a "History of" article, and I believe its gratuitous to cover a subsection of literary history at this level. The main article History of literature  3 is sufficient. ALittleClass (talk) 20:43, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
3. Yeah. Kind of the definition of Western bias to have this and not other language literature listed here. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:38, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
4. I've wanted this one off the list for a while. Textbook example of SYSBIAS. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:07, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
5. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:37, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
6. This is the only language-specific literature article at this level. That is too much imbalance.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 19:34, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Realistically this is clearly the most vital literature by language. I don't agree that it's necessarily wrong to only list one of a set of language- or country-specific articles – e.g. Chinese ceramics  5 is the only country-specific ceramics article listed at VA5 and that seems reasonable. Blanketly not allowing that creates perverse outcomes. Just because it makes the list looks imbalanced doesn't mean that it is imbalanced. However, I'm not convinced of the value of language-specific literature articles in generalising various literary traditions in said language. It's a lot different to a history-by-country article where everything is connected by cause and effect. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:57, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

"Realistically this is clearly the most vital literature by language." Based on what metric, exactly? In terms of List of languages by number of native speakers, Chinese is first with 990 million speakers, followed by Spanish with 484 million, and then English with 390 million. Based on raw population numbers, Chinese literature  4 has a better case. The average Wikipedia editor is a westerner though, which is reflected in these kinds of systemic bias. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:35, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

This wasn't an off-the-cuff remark. Britain and the U.S. have both had extremely influential literary traditions (probably the two most important, though China challenges that), and English has worldwide influence too. Latin, Chinese, and maybe Spanish are vying for second place. It dominates the Nobel Prizes, despite their bias towards northern mainland Europe. Sure, there's a slight bias towards English literature across the VA list, but it's telling that about 95 English writers are listed at VA4 as opposed to 15–20 Chinese, or of any other language. Listing this was a means of rectifying only listing one writer in English at VA3. J947 ‡ ^edits 02:01, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

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

Remove United Arab Emirates  4

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.

---

Rationale is above, in the discussion about Poland and the Netherlands (TL;DR: UAE is less important than them and many other mentioned entities). We may want to consider a swap for Iraq  4. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:35, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Support (removal)

1. as nom --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:35, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
2. Yes, and I'm increasingly questioning how we can justify having countries at level 3 while others are at level 4. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:03, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
3. Long seemed an outlier on this list for me. Wouldn't have been near it 20 years ago. J947 ‡ ^edits 11:30, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
4. This inclusion is recentist. The UAE does not rise to this level of importance. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:13, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
5. Lazman321 (talk) 16:57, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
6. Absolutely does not belong at V3. λ NegativeMP1 19:23, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
7. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:35, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
8. I'd be in favour of only having a handful of the biggest world powers and such on VA3.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 19:37, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
9. Not V3. Kevinishere15 (talk) 07:47, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Support (swap for Iraq)

Oppose

Neutral

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 Ukraine  4

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.

---

Another country that several folks have suggested is not up what we list at V4 in recent discussions. While we can quibble about its history, it was not an independent entity until a century ago (and that was very brief). It is reasonably large for Europe and involved in a major modern war, but I fear that's not enough (a lot of recentism here; until that war nothing in Ukraine mattered for anyone except itself and its neighbours, and I feel V3 requires a broader or longer impact). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:44, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Support (removal)

1. as nom --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:44, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
2. Too many of the current countries listed are European and Ukraine is one of the weakest inclusions. Definitely not more vital than Sweden  4, Denmark  4, or Portugal  4. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:07, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
3. Lazman321 (talk) 17:00, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
4. Support. As stated, the countries we include at level 3 are arbitrary, and I'd prefer to keep all of them on the same level. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:10, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
5. Would argue Sweden  4 is more important historically and yet I wouldn't advocate for its inclusion at V3. I don't see why Ukraine belongs at V3. λ NegativeMP1 19:24, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
6. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:36, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
7. Some pluses like high wheat export and high tourism (before the Russo-Ukrainian war), but too recentist an inclusion as an independent entity for VA3 standards.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 19:57, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Support (swap for Iraq)

Oppose

Neutral

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 Machine  3

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 always surprises me how far the vital article list is from the criteria set forth for what makes something "vital." The word "Machine" is " a physical system that uses power to apply forces and control movement to perform an action." The Wikipedia page for Computer  2 states "A computer is a machine that can be programmed to automatically carry out sequences of arithmetic or logical operations (computation)." Aircraft  3 and Engine  3 are also examples of machines. This should not be a hard one to correct.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:47, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Arguably V2. Kevinishere15 (talk) 07:40, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
3. Lazman321 (talk) 01:51, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
4. --Thi (talk) 10:49, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
5. Interstellarity (talk) 00:24, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

This has come up several times before, most recently here. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:59, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

So it was supported by 5 and an IP editor, opposed by 5. The argument against, that Machine is redundant with Mechanical Engineering makes absolutely no sense to me. Mechanical engineering is a discipline, machines are physical systems. Aerospace engineering  4 isn't redundant with Aircraft  3, and aircraft is at the higher level. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:23, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Do IP editors not count as real editors or what? They (singular) were a frequent contributor to VA and other areas. J947 ‡ ^edits 01:34, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

I literally have that question open right now on the main vital article talk page. My understanding is (based on overarching Wikipedia policy, in combination with vital article policy) they can propose stuff at level 5, but their votes don't count. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:03, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Pardon? They're not disenfranchised at VA since they're not disenfranchised practically anywhere on the project, except RfA (for reasons of experience, IIRC). There's a big problem of people failing to recognises that Wikipedia:IP editors are human too and I can't help but class those sorts of opinions as falling under that category. J947 ‡ ^edits 02:08, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Article you cited is where I got that notion actually, specifically the section Vote as distinct from the essential comment: "On the few occasions when decisions (usually not content-related) on Wikipedia are decided by democracy (e.g. request for adminship, elections to the arbitration committee) unregistered users may not vote; they may participate in the discussions." The vital article project is entirely decided by democracy. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:02, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Ok, well that's an overgeneralisation then. J947 ‡ ^edits 23:17, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

What do you mean? The Wikipedia:Vital_articles#Eligibility states that levels 1-4 are limited to extended confirmed editors, and that at level 5 anyone can propose things. The essay you cited states that IP editors can't vote in things decided by direct democracy, but can participate in discussions. Nothing is stopping an editor from logging out, and voting as an IP editor on a proposal otherwise. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:30, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Oh dear why is that there? I see your issue. But unless I'm seriously missing something there has not been discussion prohibiting IP editors from creating proposals, let alone all non-ECP editors as that implies. The linked discussion concerns an entirely different thing, protecting the actual lists (which is perfectly reasonable). That landing page needs to be clarified ASAP; it's not good to have it misleading editors with regard to an apparently exhaustive list of criteria for inclusion eitehr. In the mean time I would suggest not taking what it says as gospel since it appears some of what it says lacks affirmative consensus. J947 ‡ ^edits 01:51, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it is there, but I'm just going off what is written, as that would be the consensus. As far as I can tell, on Wikipedia as a whole, IP editors are allowed to discuss things, but their votes are not counted to avoid people casting multiple votes. We would need a discussion to create an exception to this. The main page needs some updates, yes. Once we have a criteria though, we should generally try to follow it. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:11, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Without consensus, we default to the status quo, and the status quo is that IP editors are allowed to vote at VA because... they have always been allowed to do so. That's how it works. Since no policy/guideline or information page with a similar level of status says anything otherwise, you will need to consensus to change that. J947 ‡ ^edits 06:45, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

The status quo written on the page is that they can propose stuff at level 5, and the status quo on Wikipedia is that the votes of IP editors aren't counted when straight democracy is the way the decision is made. Of course, in the vital article space most people are just making stuff up as they go. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:09, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:47, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

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

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 Vehicle  3

Again, it always surprises me how far the vital article list is from the criteria set forth for what makes something "vital." We have at least 8 different types of vehicle at level 3, based on the first criteria for an article to be "vital," it should cover more topics. Clearly this covers more topics then the specific examples we give.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:49, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
2. Support but as a swap for car, which is much more limited of a concept. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:06, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
3. Lazman321 (talk) 20:21, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
4. Support add with no swap. Car  3 is important enough for this level too. Kevinishere15 (talk) 00:27, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
5. aye.飞车过大关 (talk) 06:23, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. We already have Car  3 in under the Transport  2 section of L3. I think "vehicle" is a very broad and weakly defined term that I am not sure is very useful or vital on WP - in fact, most people would consider vehicle to mean a car? Aszx5000 (talk) 18:49, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

   Absolutely not. Based on the article "The term "vehicle" typically refers to land vehicles such as human-powered vehicles (e.g. bicycles, tricycles, velomobiles), animal-powered transports (e.g. horse-drawn carriages/wagons, ox carts, dog sleds), motor vehicles (e.g. motorcycles, cars, trucks, buses, mobility scooters) and railed vehicles (trains, trams and monorails), but more broadly also includes cable transport (cable cars and elevators), watercraft (ships, boats and underwater vehicles), amphibious vehicles (e.g. screw-propelled vehicles, hovercraft, seaplanes), aircraft (airplanes, helicopters, gliders and aerostats) and space vehicles (spacecraft, spaceplanes and launch vehicles)." Higher vital levels should be very broad, with lower levels being more specific. Car is a type of vehicle, and the importance of it is an example of recency and likely western bias. Countries more focused on public transportation are not going to consider vehicle and car to be synonyms. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:00, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

2. Too broad concept. --Thi (talk) 10:50, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:49, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

User:GeogSage what are the 8 types listed here?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:39, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Do you mean: human-powered vehicles, animal-powered transports, motor vehicles, railed vehicles, cable transport, watercraft, amphibious vehicles, aircraft, space vehicles. I count 9, do you mean what level they are at? GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 15:42, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Can you present a list with {{VA link}}?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:59, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

I want to see a list. Does a Wheelbarrow count? What about Skateboard and Surfboard? Roller skates, Inline skates, Ice skates is a redirect?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:03, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Ah! My mistake. Human-powered transport/Human-powered land vehicle, animal-powered transports links to Working animal  5, Motor vehicle  5, railed vehicles links to Rail transport  4, Cable transport  4, Watercraft  5, Amphibious vehicle, Aircraft  3, and Space vehicle are the categories linked in the lede of vehicle. The specific examples are Bicycle  3, Tricycle  5, Velomobile, Horse-drawn vehicle, Carriage  4, Wagon, Bullock cart, Dog sled, Motorcycle  4, Car  3, Truck  4, Wagon, Bus  4, Mobility scooter, Train  3, Tram  4, Monorail  4, Cable transport  4, Elevator  4, Boat  4, Ship  3, Underwater vehicle, Screw-propelled vehicle, Hovercraft  4, Seaplane, Airplane  4, Glider (aircraft)  4, Aerostat  5, Spaceplane, Launch vehicle  4. I will point out the wild inconsistency in this list, and the fact Balto  5 is listed at 5 but dog sled isn't listed at all is rediculous. We have more then 10,000 biographiies but not "Mobility scooter" or "Wagon." How many specific fighter jets do we list, but not "seaplane" or "Amphibious aircraft." Vehicle is a very broad term, as noted above, and covers a lot of concepts. I believe Skateboard  5 would be a a human powered vehicle, as would Wheelbarrow  4. Surfboard  5 is a traditional water craft from Hawaii, and I believe was used for practicle transport/fishing in a similar way to a Canoe  4. These edge cases can be discussed, but based on the vital article criteria, it should be at least level 3, if not 2, to serve as an umbrella for the level 3 vehicles we include like car, train, ship, and aircraft. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:23, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

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

Move Malaysia  3 to level 4, move Eurasia  4 to level 3

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 Eurasia  4

When it comes to continents/regions, we use the model of Western model of Continent  3 at level 2, where Europe  2 and Asia  2 are separate entities. If you look at the page for continents, outside of the West, Eurasia is a common term to describe the landmass. As part of the broader reshuffle of geography that I believe should emphasize different concepts of often overlapping regions, Eurasia should be at least at level 3.

Support

1. As nom GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:17, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Discussions of continental models is useful, but there's no real added vitality to covering the same topic in both two articles and one article. That just creates three heavily overlapping vital articles which should have mostly the same content. CMD (talk) 01:22, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

   We can remove Europe and Asia, and swap in Eurasia then. Save a slot. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:24, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

   It's not a bad idea. More immediately however, Continent  3 should probably be more vital than all of these, as it covers the cultural conceptions and the continents themselves aren't really natural features. CMD (talk) 01:28, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

   Would prefer the more abstract concept of Region  4 be promoted. Continent is kind of the Race (human categorization)  4 of geography, was once the best we had, now it's kind of dated and problematic. Viewing land masses as regions, which are more ambiguous and have blurred often overlapping edges, is the new meta. That said, would prefer to move the continents down and other stuff up long term. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:11, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

2. Eurasia  4 is ranked to Europe  2 and Asia  2, as Americas  4 is ranked to North America  2 and South America  2. I don't think Eurasia  4 and Americas  4 are more vital than L4 as they are not really used due to the fact that while connected geographically, the seperate regions are so different. Aszx5000 (talk) 18:39, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

   "They are not really used due to the fact that while connected geographically, the seperate regions are so different." They are not really used in the West. Vital articles at higher levels should be broader then those at lower levels, and we should avoid western bias. Based on both of these criteria, the list is upside down. Also, Europe is as much a continent as Florida, geologically speaking. It only makes the list because of some historic Western centric world views. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:44, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

   It is not simply about aggregating topics into broader topics, it is also about whether individual topics are themselves vital vs. the broader category that they could fit into. thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 11:37, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

   Literally, the first criteria we list for what makes something vital is "Vital articles at higher levels tend to "cover" more topics and be broader in their scope." A topic being broader makes it more vital then more specific individual topics. The vital article list is absolutely filled with nonsense because people are mostly listing what they "feel" is more vital by vibes, rather then following the criteria. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:10, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

   The "criteria" are meant to be descriptive, not prescriptive – they were made as an introductory guide for newbies: a set of general principles very open to interpretation. Their introduction does not adequately reflect, less still overturn approaching two decades of the precise development of said principles. If people aren't following that list, then maybe the "criteria" should be changed (and people are saying this). J947 ‡ ^edits 21:34, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

   Without a prescriptive criteria, there is absolutely no discernable method to the vital article list. Without a top down set of criteria to guide the list, we have a popularity contest among 4 to 10 editors. Without some guiding criteria, the entire project is meaningless at best, and in reality, actively contributing to systemic bias.

   I've been looking at the list for a while, and there is little pattern I can see, no way we could re-write the criteria to reflect what we're doing. We have no grounding in outside literature that could possibly justify most of the choices we make either. It mostly appears to be a popularity contest to make the worlds most convoluted Listicle, based on the snap decisions of a few editors, not an actionable list to prioritize improvements to an encyclopedia. What changes would you suggest we make to the criteria, exactly, that would justify the current approach? GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:59, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

   The guiding principle of VA is listing the most important topics for a general encyclopaedia (with reference to balance considerations). If you want to see that as an entirely meaningless pursuit, since there are no one or two things that define the importance of a topic (if there were an easy statistical formula, there would be no VA), then so be it. But everyone has a notion that Los Angeles is important than Albuquerque, or Churchill more important than Liz Truss. Many see Derek Jeter's importance as frankly overrated or Norman Borlaug as actually the most important person of the 20th century. Comparing and contrasting those ideas with relevant facts is what this project is about. I understand your frustration, but it's impossible to marry such feelings with a prescriptive notion of importance. If you want, you can see it as a popularity contest, or you can set your biases aside and vote without an agenda like many people try to do. After all, this is for the encyclopaedia. Britannica had the Propædia; this is an equivalent. J947 ‡ ^edits 22:25, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

   People are not setting their bias aside, they are voting with their biases. The notions you describe are literally just a collection of biases people hold, and that is evident with the heavy western bias in the vital articles.

   The discussion on what constitutes a vital article should be more then a notion, in my opinion, we should have solid arguments that we apply consistently. For example, discussing ABQ vs Los Angeles, you can look at population, economics, long term history, and international relevance. ABQ has some pretty major stuff going on in the chip, nuclear, and general research industries that might surprise you. If we're focusing on nuclear weapons and defense, ABQ could be considered quite a major city in the United States. The film industry has started to branch out into New Mexico as well, and the Rio Grande valley has had European settlers longer then California, so there is quite a bit of history. Los Angeles is a major Primate city  5 in California, but comparing cities is always going to be challenging. Within the United States, is New York City  3 really more vital then Los Angeles  4 or Washington, D.C.  4? What metric are we looking at, finance, geopolitics, population, or soft power like Hollywood? On an international stage, is Mexico City  3 more vital then Washington D.C.? Based on what, exactly? Washington D.C. certainly has more hard power and global influence then Mexico City, but Mexico City is the largest city in North America. Maybe we can base it by the number of atomic weapons aimed at each city by Russia, they certainly have considered what is the most "vital," and we have some estimations on that here. With that metric, there are some extremely vital cities in Montana. Nuclear weapons targeted at cities might not be the best metric, but it is better then vague "notions" that are nothing more then the bias and prejudice of psudo-anonymous Wikipedia editors.

   On another note, I put together a dataset and a prototype for a "easy statistical formula" to help guide vital articles. You can read here, I've been trying to find some rhyme or reason to our choices for a while now. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:45, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

3. Per below. J947 ‡ ^edits 02:19, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
4. --Thi (talk) 10:45, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
5. Lazman321 (talk) 16:03, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

A swap would be necessary; nothing in the article is vital outside Europe and Asia. I'm fully open to it, but I'd like to see a breakdown of which cultures break Afro-Eurasia into three separate continents and which leave it at two. Our article does not show any societies which do so but I'm sure they exist (outside the Soviet definition of "Eurasia" which is different). This could be accomplished by looking at pageviews of a variety of different language editions or through other means. J947 ‡ ^edits 01:42, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

@GeogSage: if you want this to pass you're going to have to answer this question. J947 ‡ ^edits 01:15, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Didn't see this comment. The following map/table is available on the page for Continent. Ideally, I'd like to move the term Region  4 up to replace continent, because "Continents are generally identified by convention rather than any strict criteria. A continent could be a single large landmass, a part of a very large landmass, as in the case of Asia or Europe within Eurasia, or a landmass and nearby islands within its continental shelf. Due to these varying definitions, the number of continents varies; up to seven or as few as four geographical regions are commonly regarded as continents." The continents are the geographic equivalent of Race (human categorization)  4, an antiquated model based on outdated imperialistic and racist ideas. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:35, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Okay. Well if that table is accurate, it looks like most of the world's population divide Europe and Asia when describing regions of the world. I've no doubt it's rooted in imperial ideology (just the same as how people near the Europe/Asia "border" or near the Americas border don't see the divide as truly extant), but we're here as a tertiary source to reflect the reality of what most people think, not to right great wrongs. So it's best to keep things as it is. J947 ‡ ^edits 02:19, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Racist imperialistic ideas that aren't based in science (Europe is a Peninsula, it has the same claim to being a continent as Alaska, While India has it's own tectonic plate and is lumped with Asia) violate Criteria 4. The concept of continents really needs to be sidelined in the same way that Race has been as a way to categorize humans, it really isn't an accurate way to divide the worlds regions meaningfully. Bigotry and bad science isn't right because a lot of people think it is right. From a regional perspective, Eurasia makes a bit more sense and is a larger umbrella over Asia and Europe. Placing the higher order region beneath the two sub-regions is illogical. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:53, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Map and Table

Color-coded map showing the various continents.
Similar shades exhibit areas that may be consolidated or subdivided.

Number	Continents							Sources	Comment
Four	Afro-Eurasia (Old World or World Island)			America (New World)		Antarctica	Australia		Continuous landmasses
Five	Africa	Eurasia		America		Antarctica	Australia		Physiographic regions
Six	Africa	Eurasia		North America	South America	Antarctica	Australia		Geological continents
	Africa	Asia	Europe	America		Antarctica	Australia		UNSD continental regions
Seven	Africa	Asia	Europe	North America	South America	Antarctica	Australia		"Parts" of the world

• The seven-continent model is taught in most English-speaking countries, including Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States, and also in Bangladesh, China, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Suriname, parts of Europe and Africa.
• The six-continent combined-Eurasia model is mostly used in Russia and some parts of Eastern Europe.
• The six-continent combined-America model is taught in Greece and many Romance-speaking countries—including Latin America.
• The Olympic flag's five rings represent the five inhabited continents of the combined-America model but exclude the uninhabited Antarctica.

In the English-speaking countries, geographers often use the term Oceania to denote a geographical region which includes most of the island countries and territories in the Pacific Ocean, as well as the continent of Australia.

References

Remove Malaysia  3

I'm not a fan of having the countries at different levels as it is. That said, recently we've trimmed Europe and the Middle East a bit, so in Southeast Asia Malaysia is the country with the smallest population we list. Not wanting to dig into it deeper than that really as it gets really nasty.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:17, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
2. @Aszx5000: I don't particularly care about the economies of the countries, and it shouldn't be the deciding factor. Malaysia has the smallest population and the least internationally impactful history among Southeast Asian countries at VA3. I'd certainly remove it before Myanmar. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:16, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Exacerbates systemic bias. J947 ‡ ^edits 01:32, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

   Only solution to systemic bias is to have all countries at the same level. With Ukraine, the Netherlands, and the UAE on the chopping block, a Southeast Asian country should be next up. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:14, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

   I'm still confused how you have reached said conclusion. It seems to be premised on the notion that making one choice of a country over another, potentially subject to bias, opens a Pandora's box of other choices – so we can't choose to list India above Tuvalu. Why does this logic not apply to religions, cities, leaders, or other topics in which nationalism and/or Western bias are prevalent? If you decide to not prioritise any one country over another, doesn't that itself open a Pandora's box of topics we should refrain from ranking? J947 ‡ ^edits 02:24, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

   Our list is extremely problematic in regard to Western Bias across multiple categories. We should probably avoid ranking topics related to peoples over each other. When we rank Hydrogen  3 higher then Helium  4, it is weird and fairly harmless. When we rank History of Scotland  5 above History of Ghana  5, it is a bit more of an issue. Unfortunately, trying to resolve it in one go rustles jimmies. The list would be a fantastic opportunity for someone doing research in Critical theory, I'm fairly certain the list would be eviscerated in an academic context. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:40, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

   What problems does it cause? J947 ‡ ^edits 03:08, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

   It is a product of western bias and has nationalistic undertones. What good does Ranking one over another do? What quantifiable metric can we use to justify ranking countries? Economics is going to largely reflect legacies of colonialism. We might as well just base it on amount of money spent on their military. Any metric we choose though can be argued against, and the selection of one metric over another will be due to a bias that values certain characteristics over others. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:11, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

   Personally I think there's a much easier way to oppose Western bias that doesn't involve trying in vain to create a consensus to remove all countries from VA3, that being opposing this proposal. J947 ‡ ^edits 21:24, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

2. I think that if we were to remove one it would be Myanmar  3, which is a much smaller Asian economy. Aszx5000 (talk) 18:43, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

   This is part of why comparing countries and having them at separate levels is not a good idea. Myanmar has a much larger population then Malaysia, and I would tend to think the number of people in a country generally is more important then the GDP. The historic reasons for why some countries are more wealthy then others are diverse, and often represent some of the ugliest parts of human history. I would prefer all countries to be at the same level, think using GPD will introduce major bias into the list. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:39, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

3. --Thi (talk) 10:43, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
4. Lazman321 (talk) 16:03, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss Both

Proposal Signature

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:17, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

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

Add Homicide  3, propose several swaps

Per @QuicoleJR at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4, proposing adding homicide to level 3. Going to add a few possible removals for swaps. Hopefully at least one removal passes if we do add homicide, and if more pass then one we can make some more room on the list.

Add Homicide  3

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.

---

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:53, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
2. The concept of people killing other people. Death  2 is VA2, and this is certainly an important enough subtopic to list. This should have been added a long time ago. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:51, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
3. Lazman321 (talk) 16:40, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
4. Diamondarmorstev (talk) 01:20, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
5. Interstellarity (talk) 00:23, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

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.

Move Welfare spending  3 to level 4

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.

---

A bit specific for level 3 in my opinion.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:53, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Johnnie Runner (talk) 21:23, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
3. Diamondarmorstev (talk) 01:21, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
4. Lazman321 (talk) 19:03, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
5. Kevinishere15 (talk) 03:15, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Welfare spending is at the heart of advanced economies (and an increasingly larger part of all Western economics, which will create its own problems), and has had a massive effect on the shape and structure of modern societies. Aszx5000 (talk) 23:44, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 10:44, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
3. Per Aszx5000. J947 ‡ ^edits 21:47, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

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.

Move Philosophy of science  4 to level 4

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.

---

Not a fan of "________ of ________" articles in general. This is the only "Philosophy of _________" article at level 3, other level 1 articles don't have their philosophy page on level 1, such as Philosophy of mathematics  4.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:53, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
2. Too similar to Epistemology  3. Johnnie Runner (talk) 21:23, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
3. Per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:52, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
4. Per nom. Aszx5000 (talk) 23:48, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
5. Lazman321 (talk) 19:03, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

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.

Move Henry Ford  3 to level 4

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.

---

Not a fan of biographies at level 3 in general. I don't think many individuals are among the top 1,000 most vital topics of all time. Henry Ford is our only business person, and I don't know why he would be included over other American business people, much less be the sole representative of all business people over all of humanity over all time. I don't really think we need to include specific business men at this level. Just looking at Americans, page views over the past year or so, Ford doesn't stand out much. He got fewer views then Bill Gates  4 and John D. Rockefeller  4, and has a daily average that is only 1,000 more then Andrew Carnegie  4. As these four are all at level 4, I think Ford should be moved to this club.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:53, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 08:41, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
3. I'm unconvinced by the representation argument, and he seemingly did not invent much of anything. He can go down to level 4. I would also be willing to support a swap with Assembly line  4. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:54, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
4. Important, but not one of the 100 or so most important people ever. Fitting for V4. Ameri-centrism. λ NegativeMP1 16:47, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. He invented the assembly line, making mass production possible. I don't know why his bio emphasizes Fordism, but the assembly line is what we were taught as kids in America.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:59, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

   Kids in America are mostly taught to sit down, shut up, and obey authority so they can work in a factory. The information given to them is filled with half truths and lies, and when an American industrialist (who had Nazi sympathies no less) is painted in an extremely positive light, you should probably start questioning the sources. First, Ford did not invent the assembly line, if you look at the history for it, it goes back centuries before Ford. Ford pioneered the Moving assembly line, and if you look at the article for him, it states "contemporary sources indicate that the concept and development came from employees Clarence Avery, Peter E. Martin, Charles E. Sorensen, and C. Harold Wills. (See Ford Piquette Avenue Plant.)" The idea came from other places, such as Chicago slaughter houses, according to Ford's Ghost writer.

   Henry Ford is generally regarded as the father of mass production. He was not. He was the sponsor of it.

   — Charles E. Sorensen

   Elon Musk is not inventing the SpaceX Starship. In a century, maybe they will teach that Elon Musk invented Electric cars, self driving cars, satellite internet, and Reusable launch vehicles, but that will be no more true then saying Ford invented the moving assembly line. Assembly line  4 is level 4 a level 4 article. Swap Ford with that if it is really vital, there isn't even a separate article on Moving assembly line. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:43, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

   Well, I'd say Musk and Ford are a bit more than randos masquerading as innovators. This is a tough call. At the 3/4 level we are looking at whether something is in the top 0.14% or 0.014% of all articles on ENWP. We have room for very few bios, but Ford is historically important. I am not sure how much it diminishes his importance to carve up assembly line innovation and say that Ford was only the innovator for the moving assembly line. So there was some prior type of assembly line in which there were not conveyor belts or something and people passed stuff around or all worked around a common area. The moving assembly line is what moved industrialization forward. Saying that he invented that still gets him VA3 if you ask me. If the history of the wheel were better preserved there my be a rival to Ford. Suppose the inventor of the wheel, proved that a Wheelbarrow is a huge upgrade to buckets, but someone else popularized multiwheel vehicular transport. It would be the latter person who was probably more important.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:58, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

   Cosimo II de' Medici was the patron who sponsored Galileo Galilei  3, We list Galileo at level 3, his sponsor isn't even at level 5. Richard Trevithick developed the first high-pressure steam engine and the first working railway steam locomotive, we don't even list him at level 5. Ford didn't invent anything, he sponsored and invested in things, and in many cases we have the names of the workers he sponsored to do the actual work of developing things. For example, the moving assembly line was a product of Clarence Avery, Peter E. Martin, Charles E. Sorensen, and C. Harold Wills who were working for Ford. Like Galileo, I think these names are more important then the investor bankrolling them. Musk hasn't personally invented anything, he used his parents money to pay others to invent things. Ford is no more historically important then any of the other billionaires of his time. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:59, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

2. I believe our selection of people deserves at least one slot dedicated to a modern businessperson/industrialist, in a similar way that we have quotas for explorers or mathematicians, because they embody key progress in human history, and the industrial revolution is objectively the fastest, and in my opinion the most important shift ever in human history. No, he didn't invent cars, or assembly lines, or the five-day work week, but he was really the "father" of these things in terms of getting them into our society. Despite the fact that Elon Musk didn't invent electric cars, his company was the first to really get electric cars out there and mass-produced in the world, and Ford's company was the first to get cars period out there and mass-produced in the world. The fact that he takes credit for a lot of things he does not actually invent, like Thomas Edison  3, actually makes him better embody what a businessman is. You may disagree with placing importance on those types of people, but our society still does. ALittleClass (talk) 23:44, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

   I disagree with the placement of most biographies on level 3, the question is why Ford and not one of the other business people? There is no single metric that justifies his inclusion that wouldn't justify several dozen others, like Andrew Carnegie  4. Without the Bessemer process that Carnegie invested in, Ford would not have had the Steel to make cars with. Without the massive amount of oil refined through companies started by John D. Rockefeller  4, there would not have been cheap fuel for Fords cars. Including Ford over the others seems to be a case of bias towards the status quo, there isn't a reason for us to list Ford and not someone else.

   Furthermore, if we only list one person, and that person is an American that lived in the past century, it is highly likely the listing is an example of bias. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:18, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

3. Henry Ford  3 is our only business person at level and had a much greater effect on the course of human development than say Charlie Chaplin  3. We should probably also add Steve Jobs  4 who is probably the only other person with a business impact on human development on the same level as Ford. Aszx5000 (talk) 17:25, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

   I'd support removing Charlie Chaplin  3 as well if you want to nominate them, but that's beside the point. The question that needs to be answered is why Ford is our only business person, and not any of the other people? Level 3 is limited to 1,000 articles, and biographies already take up more then 10% of the space we allocate. If we keep Ford, and add Jobs, why not Elon Musk  4? In fact, if we're adding American billionaires based on their impact, Donald Trump  4 has more then 25X the page views of Henry Ford  3, and then 30 million more views then Jobs during the period between 8/20/2024 - 9/9/2025. The arguments for Ford leads to level 3 being more over run by billionaires then a golf course on indigenous lands in the range of several endangered species. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:34, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

   Elon Musk  4 is probably the only other business person I can think of who could potentially go Level 3, but his Space x is WP:TOOSOON. Ford and Jobs dramatically and materially changed the trajectory of human development on a material scale (regardless of wealth, although they became very wealthy), whereas Donald Trump (and the vast bulk of all other billionaires) - from a purely business perspective - did not. Page views is irrelevant to me, it is their lasting impact on the course of humanity, and I think Ford and Jobs make that grade. Aszx5000 (talk) 17:57, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

   I also think that the Wright brothers  4 are also very close to Level 3 in terms of impact. Aszx5000 (talk) 17:58, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

   Christ, we have Michael Jackson  3 - will historian care about this guy in 100 years? Aszx5000 (talk) 18:01, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

   Pageviews are one of the actual Vital article criteria listed out, other metrics thrown around are not formalized. I would support removing Michael Jackson as well, I'm not a fan of biographies at level 3 at all, really, and think we should have maybe 10, as level 2 has zero. I have listed several billionaires that had material impacts on industry and society, who is more or less influential to society is a matter of qualitative debate. Ford is talked about a lot in American public education, that is the only reason he is more or less vital then others. He really didn't do as much as people credit him for in terms of industry, these people throw money around and others do the actual work. We already list Adolf Hitler  3, so we have the Antisemitism publisher/author covered, although maybe the The Dearborn Independent should be added to level 5. More then 10% of level 3 is biographies, and one billionaire is inconsistent and reflective of our western bias. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:51, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

   They will. The way Michael Jackson has influenced music (not just pop) and the perception/role of public figures is singular, and with the advancement of mass media since his peak, likely unreplicable. Same with Charlie Chaplin on film production and the identity of movies as a whole. Sure those topics don't save lives or popularize technology, but they still play a fundamental role in human development because culture is an essential part of human development. Johnnie Runner (talk) 21:05, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

4. Per above. Kevinishere15 (talk) 00:23, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
5. American society and history will probably be defined by historians by it's elevation of and unique relation to capitalism (maybe pop culture too, which we also cover). European society and history is dominated by nobility and royalty. No other society has mixed business people to the level the Americans have. It is not Western bias, to have Ford. (unlike say, removing Mandela would be). Ford is just more universal globally than Rockefeller or Carnegie. American history summed up in 5 people is Washington, Lincoln, Ford, Marilyn Monroe and MLK. (last two too specific for this page). Remove Walt Disney. GuzzyG (talk) 08:53, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

   American history summed up in 5 people is Washington, Lincoln, Ford, Marilyn Monroe and MLK. Hard disagree, the biographies of individuals have very little to do with the United States as a whole. What those people did might be important, but American Revolution  3, American Civil War  4, Assembly line  4, Actor  4, and Civil rights movement  4 are more complicated then any persons life story. We have a serious issue with simplifying the complex efforts of large groups by attributing them to one charismatic person, and this is largely why I don't think we should have many biographies at all. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:34, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

   This list should be a sum up of history with a segmented structure to represent different types of things. Or we would list the whole periodic table etc. Biographies are one of the major forms of historiography. On a pop culture general encyclopedia like this one, it would be a failure not to have any bios or any not well written, hence we have a biography section to hold them too. General fields may be technically more important, but not as important to have well written in comparison. We have 147 Society and social sciences articles. Number 148 isn't going to improve a well rounded coverage if we push it to say 200 after the bios are gone. We just lose bios and get more technical in another section. GuzzyG (talk) 11:31, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

6. Bluevestman (talk) 02:50, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
7. Lazman321 (talk) 19:03, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss All

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:53, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

• User:Aszx5000, I hate this passive aggressive ill-will against Charlie Chaplin  3. You keep mentioning him as the least important VA3 article in your mind. Please either nominate him for removal or stop cluttering up discussions with comparison to him.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:46, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

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

Remove NATO  3

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.

---

Lots of people suggested removing NATO in the African Union discussion and I agree with that. It doesn't have the same level of importance nowadays as the European Union and back during the Cold War.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 01:10, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
2. Weak support. Super national organizations are higher level then countries IMO, so I'd prefer NATO, EU, and African Union to individual countries. For consistency though, sure. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:48, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
3. The Account 2 (talk) 12:26, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Given their role in the War in Afghanistan (2001–2021) and the Russo-Ukrainian War, the latter of which led to Finland and Sweden's recent admission, NATO remains internationally important beyond the Cold War. Lazman321 (talk) 16:52, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
2. I do think that the NATO  3 screens well in any list of top 5 "international organizations" (its level 3 section). We are probably missing the International Monetary Fund  4, World Bank Group  4 and World Trade Organization  4, which are probably also at V3 in terms of their impact on humanity. Aszx5000 (talk) 12:43, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 13:40, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
4. -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:36, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Add Roman Empire  4

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.

---

Both the Byzantine Empire  3, and the Holy Roman Empire  3 are at Level 3 but not the Roman Empire  4. The Roman Empire is just as significant as these two empires. ChaoticVermillion (talk) 08:52, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Support

1. nom
2. Wow - didn't spot that - major omission (more vital than Charlie Chaplin  3 I think). Aszx5000 (talk) 09:04, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

   Per Tony below, I would support as a SWAP with Ancient Rome. Aszx5000 (talk) 15:36, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

3. Per others, Support a swap. I believe we should remove more then just Ancient Rome though to reduce clutter and Western Bias. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:42, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

   And why? Why is Roman Empire a more vital topic than Ancient Rome as a whole? 96.95.142.29 (talk) 13:53, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

4. Definitely, could swap for something else. Idiosincrático (talk) 13:25, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I could support a swap with Ancient Rome  3, but oppose a straight add.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:02, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
2. (Since most discussion is leaning towards a swap) I think listing the Empire over the entire Roman period undercuts the importance of the Republic. Roman ethos and culture developed immensely during the near-500 years of the Republic, most of Rome's territorial expansion happened under the Republic, not to mention many of its most famous conflicts (Punic Wars  4, Gallic Wars  4, Caesar's civil war  5, War of Actium  5), and many of Rome's most important figures either only lived during the Republic (Cicero  3, Cleopatra  3 (bending the rules a little there), and Julius Caesar  3) or spent much of their life in the Republic (Augustus  3 and Virgil  3). Johnnie Runner (talk) 01:55, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
3. Ancient Rome is the more general and better topic to list. The civilization is important more than one example of it.
4. --Thi (talk) 10:52, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
5. Lazman321 (talk) 16:03, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

• Very tempted to automatically support this, but trying to figure out what the current structure is. "Ancient history" includes Ancient Rome  3, which supposedly covers the Roman Empire period up to the Byzantine period give or take a century and some historiographical distinctions. Theoretically that covers the Roman Empire, but >1,000 years is a lot for one article, so the questions are was the Roman state vital throughout this whole period, and if so is it vital to divide into two(+) separate entries? CMD (talk) 09:25, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

  Good point. Perhaps we should just SWAP them (per Tony above). It is a perennial question at L3 as to whether the aggregation of a topic (Ancient Rome) is more vital than one of its components (Imperial Rome). I suspect that we should go with a SWAP for Imperial Rome. Aszx5000 (talk) 15:36, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

• I would support a swap with Ancient Rome  3 Byzantine Empire  3, and the Holy Roman Empire  3. Roman Empire is more vital then all three of those, and we can reduce clutter/make room for more pages. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:42, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

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

Move Charlie Chaplin  3 from level 3 to level 4

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.

---

Per above discussion between @TonyTheTiger and @Aszx5000, nominating to move Charlie Chaplin from level 3 to level 4. Level 3 is full and there is still much that I think is missing, I believe others would agree, and therefore difficult cuts have to be made. In general, I don't believe that individual biographies are among the top 1,000 most vital topics of all time. I think that 11% of the articles at level 3 being biographies, while level 2 has none, is a major problem. We list two people involved with film, both English speaking westerners, and as far as I can tell no individual films. We don't list Louis Le Prince  5 or other pioneers in the development of film, and that is fine, because I don't tend to believe that individuals life story are as important as their contributions. We list Film  3, and Camera  3, but not Video camera  4. I don't think a single film maker is more vital then the video camera. If anyone wants to add, please do so.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:17, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
2. Support. A highly notable figure in Western cinema during two decades, but not remotely amongst the 1,000 most important topics to humanity. Aszx5000 (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

   To be at +V3 level (and possibly V4) the topic must have an 'enduring vitality', a bit like the Vital Project version of WP:NTEMP for notability. I can't see in +100 years time that Charlie Chaplin (or Michael Jackson) will feature on a future V3 list - Augustus  3 will, but I don't think Chaplin or Jackson. Aszx5000 (talk) 08:58, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I don't quite understand the history of it completely, but I believe he was the leading star of the early film era and had a prominent role in film becoming a major form of entertainment. I think that is why he is here at level 3. The ebbs and flows of page distributions always annoy me. A sudden rush to remove bios at VA3 is not something I support.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:16, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
2. Chaplin's impact on art really is on the same level as The Beatles  3 or Pablo Picasso  3, and I think our list would lose scope without him. Federico Fellini  4: "He was a sort of Adam, from whom [filmmakers] are all descended", Andrei Tarkovsky  4: "He is the only person to have gone down into cinematic history without any shadow of a doubt", Satyajit Ray  4: "I am sure Chaplin's name will survive even if the cinema ceases to exist as a medium of artistic expression. Chaplin is truly immortal". Really he's everything we could want from a VA3 bio: internationally recognized to the point of being more symbol than man, foundational to an essential art, and enduring despite how far the medium has come since his time. Johnnie Runner (talk) 02:16, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
3. Per above. Kevinishere15 (talk) 23:18, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
4. Film studies is now a almost universally acknowledged thing in academia. More than popular music. Chaplin has a place as a summation of films history. Biographical dictionarys are an essential encyclopedic piece, the campaign against bios is not reflective of what encyclopedias cover. It is anti intellectual history to deny their place in the role of human history. GuzzyG (talk) 08:57, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

   Biographical information has a place, I've written a few biographies on Wikipedia. Vital articles are limited at the various levels, and for a biography to take some of the real estate they need to be "Individuals within the People section represent the pinnacles of their field with a material impact on the course of humanity, such as Albert Einstein 3 in "Inventors and scientists", William Shakespeare 3 in "Authors", and Genghis Khan 3 on "Leaders"." I don't believe that more then 10% of the vital articles at level 3 should be biographies when 0% of levels 1 and 2 are biographies. The big limiter in my opinion is "material impact on the course of humanity," very few people meet this criteria. With 1,000 articles at level 3, listing Charlie Chaplin  3 means excluding an article, like Silent film  4. If we moved an article up, would C (programming language)  4 be more or less "vital" then its creator Dennis Ritchie  4? I would tend to think the language itself is more vital then the biographical information, and I would think the concept of the silent film is more vital then a single person involved with them. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:50, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

5. Bluevestman (talk) 02:49, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
6. Lazman321 (talk) 16:03, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:17, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

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

Add Plasma (physics)  3, propose several possible removals.

Proposing an add and several possible removals. I hope at least one removal passes, but if others do we can use them to free up other space for adds that are missing swaps above.

Add Plasma (physics)  3

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.

---

Above we are discussing adding the three states of matter. The fact we don't already have these listed while having very specific topics at level 3 astounds me. To round out the list, suggest adding Plasma, the fourth traditional state of matter. To quote the page, "Plasmas are by far the most common phase of ordinary matter in the universe, both by mass and by volume." While on Earth we are used to Solid, liquid, and gas, the Universe is filled mostly with Plasma.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:15, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 10:48, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
3. Lazman321 (talk) 15:10, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
4. Per GeoSage cmt below. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:01, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
5. Interstellarity (talk) 00:26, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

1. Just a note, Solid  3, Liquid  3, and Gas  3 were added to level 3 recently. Plasma is the most common phase of matter in the universe, so should probably be included. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:52, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Move Sahara  3 from level 3 to level 4

We include the term Desert  3 at level 3, and only list one specific example, the Sahara. It seems odd to me to include just one desert example and I believe we can move this down with Arabian Desert  4 and Gobi Desert  4.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:15, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
2. Lazman321 (talk) 16:03, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
3. Interstellarity (talk) 00:26, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
4. aye.飞车过大关 (talk) 06:24, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. There are some times that listing one example of a thing on a list of arbitrary size makes sense. This looks like one of those times. There are 38 deserts at VA5 and 10 at VA4, so if one has an importance that is clearly greater than the rest, it logically warrants listing at VA5. Given its climatological and societal importance to Africa, the Sahara is the standout (mentioned 25 times in the Desert GA, as opposed to 7 for the Arabian and 4 for the Gobi). Clearly more important than Mississippi River  3 or Lake Victoria  3, in my opinion.
   Note that there is actually one or two more desert examples: Antarctica  3 and to an extent Arctic  3. J947 ‡ ^edits 05:24, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

   Antarctica is listed because of its status as a "continent," not because it is a desert. I'd support removing both Mississippi and Lake Victoria as well if you want to nominate them. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 07:18, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

   Articles can be multiple things. J947 ‡ ^edits 08:16, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

   they can, but Antarctica is a poor example. I would not support adding it just because of its climate. I believe the Sahara is completely on the African plate  5. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:12, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

   Whatever you say, but the conclusion that we only list one desert remains false. J947 ‡ ^edits 22:57, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

   We only list one article that is exclusively a desert. Articles can be multiple things, and the reason for listing Antarctica is not because it is a desert. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:06, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

2. --Thi (talk) 19:51, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
3. Oppose ` Carlwev  18:23, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

The Sahara reaches into 11 countries. The Sahara is bigger than all but 6 of the woulds countries. The natural barrier that the Sahara creates means the people either side of it are incredibly different racially, culturally, linguistically. It's had a huge impact on the recent and distant history of humans, more than Antarctica or Uranus which were only seen for the first time in the last few centuries. The Sahara has also had an immense impact on the other forms of life within it and on either side. There's a reason why it's the only desert at level 3.  Carlwev  13:23, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Move Amazon rainforest  3 from level 3 to level 4

We include the term Forest  3 at level 3, and only list one specific example, the Amazon rainforest. It seems odd to me to include just one forest example, especially when the broader Tropical rainforest  4 is at level 4. I think we can move this down, especially as Congolian rainforests  5 (the worlds second largest rainforest) is only level 5.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:15, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
2. Lazman321 (talk) 16:03, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
3. Interstellarity (talk) 00:26, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose  Carlwev  18:25, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

It's definitely an extremely important and very large area of the world, but I'm leaning towards thinking it's redundant with Amazon River  3. Rivers are individually unimpressive; they're more trivial boundaries than deserts or mountain ranges and house less land. Rivers are not listed because of their intrinsic impact but because of the impact on the land around them. The Amazon is vital because of its basin. Listing both amongst the few individual geographic features that are listed might be overdoing it. J947 ‡ ^edits 02:39, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Move Nelson Mandela  3 from level 3 to level 4

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.

---

I'm not quite sure why Mandela is at level 3. He is a significant figure of the 20th century, but I don't think he had the same impact as the other people in our list.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:15, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
2. Diamondarmorstev (talk) 13:09, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
3. Solid V4 but when you compare with all the other leaders in V3, is not at that level. Gandhi led c. 1 bn people to their own independance (and split it into two large countries), which is way beyond the impact of Mandala. Aszx5000 (talk) 23:40, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Probably the most famous leader from Africa, and an international symbol of civil rights activism in general. About the same impact as Gandhi tbh Lazman321 (talk) 16:06, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
2. Per Lazman-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:42, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
3. Bluevestman (talk) 02:52, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
4. Oppose; fundamental politician to the history of the world. Africas most important politician yet. Definitive late 20th century leader.GuzzyG (talk) 11:04, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

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.

Move Abraham Lincoln  3 from level 3 to level 4

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.

---

I know most of our editors are American's and the American education system has deified Lincoln, but outside the United States the American Civil War  4 is barely a blip. I believe the American Civil War itself is more vital then any one person involved, and it is level 4. We include George Washington  3, I believe that is enough representation for American presidents at this level.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:15, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 21:28, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
3. Whilst Lincoln is generally perceived as more important to the U.S., I can't help but think FDR is more important to the world for his role in establishing the New Deal and role in WWII, in a longer period of influence than Lincoln. J947 ‡ ^edits 01:09, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
4. Support swap with Franklin D. Roosevelt after some consideration. Lincoln is personally my favorite US president, but in terms of impact on both the United States and the world as a whole, I cannot deny that Roosevelt has greater significance due to his leadership throughout the Great Depression and World War II. Lazman321 (talk) 15:18, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
5. Per nom. Diamondarmorstev (talk) 15:50, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The U.S. became the U.S. because of Washington. Without Lincoln we would be at least 2 countries and would probably be more like when russia started splitting up. We would be the Fractured states of America-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:36, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

   Okay? Oliver Cromwell  4 is regarded as one of the most important figures in British history because of his role in the Wars of the Three Kingdoms  5 and creation of the Commonwealth of England. We don't list him at level 3, and I believe he is more important to the UK then Lincoln is to U.S. history. Lincoln's inclusion is American bias, you used the word "we" when describing us, but "we" are in theory an international group of Wikipedia editors. The list should reflect this, and this is another example of our blatant western bias. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:49, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

2. George Washington  3 is the only other American President at V3, so Lincoln makes sense. Franklin D. Roosevelt  4 would be net in line but 3 US Presidents would probably be too much. Aszx5000 (talk) 23:38, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

   Why should we have two American presidents? If we must have American political leaders, there are three other branches of government without representation at all. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:28, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

   I don't think that any holder of an office in a branch of the US government would match the impact of those three presidents? Maybe Dwight D. Eisenhower  4 is closest but then he became a president. Aszx5000 (talk) 08:52, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

   The president is head of state, the head of government, and the commander-in-chief of the United States. If anyone from the US government is worth representing at this level, it would be a president. Lazman321 (talk) 14:53, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

   They are the head of the executive branch of the Federal government. There is a legislative and judicial branch as well. Presidents are the face of a large machine and are largely famous due to broader circumstances when they were in office. We give to much credit to individuals because it is easier then recognizing the many people who actually advise and implement stuff. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:28, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

3. The American Civil War is only a blip largely because of Lincoln, but I think what really makes him VA3-worthy is his symbolic impact. Yes he's venerated even more than Washington is in the U.S., but he's plenty beloved around the world too. Tolstoy said that Lincoln is history's "only real giant", and even the remote tribes he visited had heard of Lincoln as a legendary figure. FDR probably had a stronger material impact on the world (and if we could, both should be listed), but I think Lincoln's sheer legacy puts him ahead, which I personally think is just as important to consider as a figure's direct effect on history. Johnnie Runner (talk) 17:57, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
4. Bluevestman (talk) 02:51, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
5. Oppose; fundamental world leader in the context of being one of the big countries defining figures. Europe historically had a small population in comparison to the US. By proportion of representing people, it's not over the top to list Lincoln, the defining historical figure of US history. FDR should be separate. Listing Disney over Lincoln is ludicrous. The USA not having two leaders and yet multiple pop culture articles would be shocking. We should list figures important to their country based on the global importance of the country, not some imagined global importance that does not actually exist, acting like say Genghis Khan is important to Ghana or Fiji history rather than important to the Mongol Empire which is a important empire to history. Same applies to the US/Lincoln, when the US breaks up, then we can revisit the list and cut down their figures to 1 or 2. (like ancient rome or greece). That's how i understand the process and how i interpret it. Wrong to consider the US over represented when the European population pre 1600 is minor and yet this list is dominated by them, because historically Europe had a head start on bias. GuzzyG (talk) 11:04, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

   While I disagree with the arguments here, I am unsure of the factual accuracy of some of the statements. I don't think Europe historically had a small population in comparison to the US. Demographics of Europe shows Europe had a population of 127 million in the 1700's. Demographics of the United States shows the US didn't have a larger population then that until 1935. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:17, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

   So 2000 years of Europe history from Plato to the 1700s, the time frame of history which dominates this list and yet the population was only 127 million, but the US, which got that in 150 years is the one argued as overly dominating this list in proportion to relevance. One better ignore the Demographics of Asia; if you're claiming American adds are the problem. Elizabeth I's British Isles had a population similar to El Salvador today. Cromwell's about 2 million higher, yet you'd argue he's more important than Lincoln. You can say Britain grew in importance, but that justifies the American additions too. European history is the one misplaced here, in comparison to something like Asian history. Proportion by current population is the only accurate measure, otherwise it's subjective, that is if you actually want global diversity and not just using that to remove every bio (or say, targeting the diverse bios first as theyre the weak spot). If Africa dominated deep BC via Egypt and Asia had the greatest population and technologies, with Europe only holding global dominance from say 1500 to 1900; backed by technological revolutions financed by slavery, i don't know how it can be argued so many European spots on here. Exemplified by Cai Lun not being on but Johannes Gutenberg is. Lincoln isn't the problem here. It's stuff like Marco Polo GuzzyG (talk) 04:19, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:15, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

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

Add Waste  4

It is a quite broad concept, certainly on par with many other concepts at level 3. It does have some overlap with pollution, but it certainly stands on its own in many other aspects.

Support

1. Diamondarmorstev (talk) 01:16, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 09:36, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
3. Distinct from pollution. We should probably also move pollution out from under Discrimination, another overlapping topic but not the core concept. CMD (talk) 13:14, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
4. Lazman321 (talk) 17:51, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

# Sure, but at level 3 I'd prefer a swap be included. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:59, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

There are multiple removal proposals on this page already. I don't think a swap is necessary. Lazman321 (talk) 19:02, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

We are also currently 3 under quota (total). Diamondarmorstev (talk) 20:14, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm aware we are currently under quota, I am supporting this. I've been working to get some room for other proposals, and in time, we will fill that space. That said, I'd rather not rush to fill it with straight adds, and where possible prefer swaps. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:26, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

1. Interstellarity (talk) 10:45, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Changing vote to oppose unless we get a swap. We are now over quota. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:51, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

Adding?

Is it okay if I add the article Wikipedia:Vital articles/Figures timeline as a see also under the people section of this article? Wikieditor662 (talk) 21:13, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Go for it. (Although the bot might kick up a fit if you do so, so you might have to place it outside of the list section – not sure.) J947 ‡ ^edits 21:49, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

A see also on Vital articles/Level/3 could mess with a few bots/scripts. I know it might throw a wrench into one of the scripts I'm working on. Could you just add it to the template? GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:17, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

@J947 @GeogSage Alright, thanks for your help, I've added it to the template only. Let me know if you'd like for me to put it anywhere else in addition. Wikieditor662 (talk) 00:56, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

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

---

Add Biography  4

An important concept since many of Wikipedia’s articles are biographies.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 18:45, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:46, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Not useful at this level. --Thi (talk) 20:08, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
2. Can't see it as in the 1,000 most important topics. Aszx5000 (talk) 20:37, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

   If the concept of a biography is not one of the top 1,000 most important topics, then individual biographies certainly aren't. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:26, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

   That doesn't follow. Many of our L3 'biographies' were known and vital (in a pre-Wikipedia sense) long before their first "biography" was ever written. The world didn't need 'biographies' to produce the charachters that feature in our L3 lists. I do think Biography  4 is vital as they have been inspirational to other humans (and thus do affect development), but not at L3. In fact, I'm not convinced that Biography is L4 (but it is definately L5). Aszx5000 (talk) 21:38, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

   Haha what? Listen to yourself. If the concept of an Encyclopedia entry isn't one of the 1,000 most important topics, then individual encyclopedia entries certainly aren't. J947 ‡ ^edits 22:33, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

   Encyclopedia  4 should probably be level 3. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:25, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

   How's that relevant? J947 ‡ ^edits 23:46, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

   Encyclopedia entry is not included, but Encyclopedia is, and likely more then adequate as an umbrella for multiple high profile encyclopedia's on the list. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:18, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

   The article Encyclopedia is an umbrella for multiple high-profile encyclopedias. So it can also be said that the article Biography is an umbrella for multiple high-profile biographies. Consider those two sentences. Here, high-profile biographies doesn't mean Genghis Khan or Socrates – it means Life of Samuel Johnson or Eminent Victorians. J947 ‡ ^edits 04:34, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

3. J947 ‡ ^edits 04:34, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
4. Lazman321 (talk) 16:03, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

# Support only as a swap with at least one of our existing biographies at level 3. Preferably more. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:48, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Biography is just an article about a person. The article "Article (publishing)" is not even listed at level 5, but perhaps it should be. The concept of people/humans is vital, and some articles about specific groups and individual people can be pretty important, I cannot see why an article about articles that are about individual people would be important, maybe not on the same level as novel. Although biography articles have their own specific style, a biography is just an article about an individual person, that language has made a specific word for. Countries are important, but articles specifically about countries don't have a separate word separate from article. I would be be open to discussion about reducing the number of biographies at level 3 but I'm not sure I agree that "biography" is more important than all biographies; "biography" is not the same as "human". We have thousands of articles higher than the article about "article" itself, so biographies higher than "biography" is not an issue in itself in my eyes. Besides we list the continents before continent, Earth before planet, human before animal and mammal, 2 Portuguese explorers before Portugal. etc etc.  Carlwev  22:28, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Human  1 does have an article on it, as does Human history  1, and they are both level 1. Biography is a form of writing about people, we have a whole wikiproject on the doing this. I don't think the articles about specific individual people are very broad or important, but like Scientific method  3, Poetry  3, and other topics, I think biography is an important set of methods and styles of recording information. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:58, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

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

Add encyclopedia, propose several removals

Above discussion made me look into this. Propose adding encyclopedia and several possible removals, hopefully at least one removal goes through. At time of writing there are several other removals I have proposed, so had to dig a bit deeper on this to avoid being redundant.

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 Encyclopedia  4

219 langauge links, 4,352 average daily page views, 3,902 editors, 1,781 watchers. Wikipedia  4 is among the highest scoring articles on most of the article statistic metrics, and Encyclopædia Britannica  4 is level 4 as well. Encyclopedia is a broader article then that can serve as an umbrella for those two.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:47, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 23:53, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I simply don't think it's anywhere near prominent enough in comparison to the other literary forms listed, especially prior to the last 20 years. We need to be conscious that contributors here are obviously going to have a massive inbuilt bias in favour of listing this. I think Dictionary  4 is more important but if we need to consider any representation, I think Reference work  5 is the best candidate (though it will need to reach VA4 first). J947 ‡ ^edits 23:58, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
2. I'm not really sure anyone under the age of 25 knows what an "encyclopedia" is today. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 06:31, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

   ...We're currently on Wikipedia  4 a free online encyclopedia. I teach college kids, even the 18 year olds are aware of what an encyclopedia is. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 07:24, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

   That's not mutually exclusive. Younger folks may know and use Wikipedia while also not valuing the general idea of encyclopedias. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 15:23, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

   Young people are not a monolith, and even if they were, people under the age of 25 not knowing what something is has nothing to do with the vital article criteria. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:05, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

   Yes, it's a generalization, and if you ran a survey I'd be shocked to find it disproved. Anyway, my point there was that "encyclopedia" is currently less relevant/vital than Wikipedia and is very likely to continue to be. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 16:25, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

3. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:34, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
4. Lazman321 (talk) 16:03, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

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

Move Paul the Apostle  4 to level 4

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.

---

We include Jesus  3 and Martin Luther  3 at level 3, I believe one Christian figure is adequate for this level.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:47, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 23:53, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
3. Lazman321 (talk) 16:03, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
4. Johnnie Runner is correct but unfortunately Jesus has globally by far subsumed Paul, too close together and it'd be two listings for one thing. Too much for this level. As in the case of Lenin/Stalin type of thing. GuzzyG (talk) 04:37, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
5. Interstellarity (talk) 10:47, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Without Paul, Christianity likely becomes a short-lived messianic Jewish sect. I would argue his teachings about Jesus are more influential than Jesus' actual teachings. Johnnie Runner (talk) 18:07, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

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

Move Martin Luther  3 to level 4

We include Jesus  3 and Paul the Apostle  4 at level 3, I believe one Christian figure is adequate for this level.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:47, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 23:53, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
3. Lazman321 (talk) 16:03, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. One of the most notable figures at L3 in terms of impact on course of human development and thinking. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:33, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
2. The Reformation  3 is the (a) defining event of the European early modern period, as it starts the trend of authority-rejection all the way up to the French Revolution  3. Johnnie Runner (talk) 18:07, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
3. J947 ‡ ^edits 21:38, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
4. More of a global contribution to history than every European monarch listed, one of the true fundamental European historical biographies. GuzzyG (talk) 04:37, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Move Ali  3 to level 4

We include Muhammad  3 at level 3, I believe one Muslim figure is adequate for this level.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:47, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 23:53, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
3. Lazman321 (talk) 16:03, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Comparable to Martin Luther in that he is the focal point of the single biggest schism in Islam, and while the Reformation has since globally thawed, the Sunni-Shia split continues to be a sore spot to say the least in some places. Johnnie Runner (talk) 18:07, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
2. J947 ‡ ^edits 21:38, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
3. Per Johnnie Runner, the Sunni-Shia divide resonates today, a fundamental bio to represent Asian history. We have so little here in comparison to Europe that this one does not hurt. GuzzyG (talk) 04:37, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Move Olympic Games  3 to level 4

Very specific at level 3, this is a specific event rather then a type of sport.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:47, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
2. The environmental impact and corruption have faded the spirit of the Olympics. --Thi (talk) 23:53, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
3. Lazman321 (talk) 16:03, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
4. Interstellarity (talk) 10:47, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Having a single high level entry is better than listing individual instances for perennial things like this. This is consistently enjoyed by billions and a major economic force. ALittleClass (talk) 19:44, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Discuss All

1. I'm hesitant to remove the Olympics because even though apathy towards them seems to be building with every Game, it's still the exemplar of sports as an international forum. There's a reason why cheating is such a big problem: there's serious national prestige in a gold medal. Johnnie Runner (talk) 18:07, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

   It isn't a removal, it is moving it from the list of top 1,000 most vital topics of all time, to the list of top 10,000 most vital topics of all time. I believe it is a bit specific for the top 1,000, and would be more consistent next to FIFA World Cup  4 and Tour de France  4. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:33, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

   Fair enough. Even if the Olympics are more storied, the World Cup is way more likely to be important to the average person. Johnnie Runner (talk) 06:45, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

   Did you want to vote on this so we can close? GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:07, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

   I sympathize with ALittleClass's argument enough that I don't personally want the Games removed, but I don't plan on standing in the way of removing them either. Johnnie Runner (talk) 20:26, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:47, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Reogranization of geography: Add Physical geography  4, Human geography  4, and Technical geography  4, several removals

I've been working on a geography overhaul, slowly, for more then a year. Some of my proposals have gotten rejected and I needed to go back to the drawing board. That said, geography should be organized in a way that reflects outside literature. The current organization of the geography section, specifically at level 2, is not really in line with literature on the discipline and is using explicitly Eurocentric world views. This violates the vital article criteria. The section is more then a bit outdated, and is not in line with the academic literature on the topic. Organizing this really requires a pretty deep dive into the history of geography and ontology of the discipline, I can provide citations if needed, but would suggest reading Geography#Branches if you want some further background information. In short, while there are many ways to slice the discipline, there are 3 ways in the literature that I think are particularly useful: branches, themes, and traditions. I'm attempting to use the branches model as the main structure for organizing the project, with some respect to themes and traditions (such as the currently open [Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/4#Add_Region_5 discussion] to add Region  4 to level 4). This proposal to add the three main "branches" is a major part of this.

It has been 6 months since the last proposal failed 5 to 4, and based on a previous discussion with @User:QuicoleJR, I'm reopening a repackaged version. The ultimate goal is to reorganize level 2, but the no-skip rule is something I've been dealing with since March 2024 so this is a step towards that. Previous discussions that are relevant:

• Moving Physical, human, and technical geography up in their hierarchy: First post from 2024 I believe. @The Blue Rider is the one who informed me of the no skip rule here. I thought this could be a quick fix at the time.
• Reorganization of geography section discussion: Closed as noted by @Zar2gar1 January of 2025. @Makkool prompted me for more detailed plan.
• Broad reorganization of geography: Main discussion and response to prompt for detailed plan. Closed as "IN PROGRESS" January 2025.
• Add Human and Physical geography: Previous proposal in attempting to implement part of discussed plan. Failed to pass 5 support 4 oppose, closed by @PrimalMustelid April 2025.
• Create a sub-page for geography titled "Basics and technical geography": Passed 4 to 0. Closed October 2025. Currently implementing.
• Reorganizing the categories of the level 4 and level 5 vital articles relevant post by @ Interstellarity discussing reorganization of parts of the project.

Add Physical geography  4, Human geography  4, and Technical geography  4 to level 3

On the main page for Geography  2, the main method to organize the discipline is using the applied branches (physical, human, and technical) used to organize geography within the UNESCO Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems. This is also the method used to organize the geography topics template (linked above). I believe that human geography can be used as the broad umbrella to hold our cities and countries, and human centric place articles. Physical geography is already a sub-page at level 5, and I just created the new subpage for basics and technical geography per discussion. Each of these three terms have over a century of literature i can point to.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:38, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom, very important to Geography  2. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:57, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
3. As above. Diamondarmorstev (talk) 01:48, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. STRONG oppose to Technical Geography. Um, the article has 3 interwikis. And googling it, I'm not sure how commonly used the term "Technical Geography" is to describe this specific field, to me this just seems to be the natural intersection between Technology  1 and Geography  2, and there are many other sorts of things which intersect with technology, like Applied mathematics  4 intersecting with Mathematics  1. I do not think we should be listing many subdisciplines of fields at this level when there are entire fields we don't have that definitely more vital than subsections, like Neuroscience  4. ALittleClass (talk) 19:56, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

Removals

There are several removal discussions I've opened above that I think can make room for this, and most of the corresponding adds are not likely to pass. Here are several additional removals to consider.

Move Nth root  3 to level 4

I believe this is a bit specific for level 3.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:38, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 20:22, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
3. Exponentiation  3 covers it. Johnnie Runner (talk) 03:35, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
4. Interstellarity (talk) 00:27, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Dicsuss

Move Dante Alighieri  3 to level 4

I believe that Divine Comedy  4 is probably more vital then Dante himself, and that is level 4. While I would possibly support adding the Divine Comedy, I think we can move Dante to level 4.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:38, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
2. Italian isnt more important to cover than German and Johann Wolfgang von Goethe was cut. This is local European history, with Virgil, it's fundamentally 2 Italian poets listed. Divine comedy is not the one artwork that should be listed either, so no on that front aswell. GuzzyG (talk) 04:26, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 20:20, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
4. Interstellarity (talk) 10:49, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I think it's generally better to list authors over their work at VA3 just as an expedient since some authors have only one essential work (Cervantes, Murasaki, Dante) but others have multiple (Homer, Shakespeare, Tolstoy). If we listed only essential literature, we would have less space at VA3, and if we went case-by-case, both our authors list and our literature list would look patchy. Even then, Dante is one of the few writers whose countenance is immediately identified with their work. Johnnie Runner (talk) 03:35, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Dicsuss

Move Rembrandt  3 to level 4

We list 6 artists, 5 of them are Westerners. Looking at pageviews over the last 5 years for these 5, Rembrandt is significantly lower then the next lowest Michelangelo. He also has 25 fewer language links then the next highest in this list. I think we can remove him to reduce western bias, and make room.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:38, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
2. Netherlands itself was recently removed. With the more recentish (bad) addition of Vincent van Gogh, this list now has two painters from a country which isn't listed by itself. Rembrandt is the weakest link here. GuzzyG (talk) 04:26, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
3. Because the Netherlands was removed. --Thi (talk) 18:08, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Being the weakest of a group of 6 of something at level 3 does not mean you deserve to be removed so we can add more of something else. This guy has created The Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Nicolaes Tulp  5, The Night Watch  4, The Return of the Prodigal Son (Rembrandt)  5, Self-portraits by Rembrandt  5, and The Storm on the Sea of Galilee  5.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:21, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
2. Rembrant would make almost all main top 10 lists and most top 5 lists. The one we don't have is Claude Monet  4, and the one that would not appear in any top 10 lists is Hokusai  3, but then it is important to have a wider list (which I understand and support). Aszx5000 (talk) 09:31, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

   If you are only looking at western art history, sure. These artists all lived within a very narrow time frame, and fairly narrow geographical area. There is a world of highly under represented art that we are missing. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:16, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

3. 飞车过大关 (talk) 06:25, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Dicsuss

Move History of East Asia  3 to level 4

East Asia  4 is level 4. Other regions tend to be the level above their "History of _______" article, I struggle to think one should be above the region itself.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:38, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
2. East Asia and South Asia should be VA3 if Middle East is. Johnnie Runner (talk) 03:35, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
3. Interstellarity (talk) 00:27, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
4. --Thi (talk) 19:51, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Dicsuss

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 History of India  4 to level 4

India  3 is level 3, South Asia  4 is level 4, and we don't list the India plate. Other regions tend to be the level above their "History of _______" article.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:38, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
2. Johnnie Runner (talk) 03:35, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
3. Shocksingularity (talk) 00:50, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
4. Interstellarity (talk) 00:27, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
5. --Thi (talk) 19:51, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Dicsuss

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.

Move History of the Middle East  3 to level 4

Middle East  3 is level 3, other regions tend to be the level above their "History of _______" article.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:38, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
2. Johnnie Runner (talk) 03:35, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
3. Interstellarity (talk) 00:27, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
4. --Thi (talk) 19:48, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Dicsuss

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:38, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Discuss proposal

• Some of this proposal, taken together, defeats your stated aims. If the coverage is Eurocentric, then why would you remove History of East Asia, History of India, and History of the Middle East from level 3, where they are currently at the same level of History of Europe? If you think those regions are each equally as important as Europe, then they should be at the same level. History of Eurasia or something of that form is really not enough for level 3, because a large majority of the human population has lived on the Eurasian continent for thousands of years (maybe tens of thousands) and the majority of written history has happened there. Eurasia is the origin of 17 of the 18 religions listed at VA3, 24 of the 40 countries, 17 of the 20 cities, and the great majority of the individual people listed as well. This isn't a vote because IP editors can't vote here, but I have no idea why adding technical geography, and removing the histories of three regions of Asia, would reduce Eurocentrism in any way. 69.59.210.198 (talk) 23:12, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

• First, above there are other removals I've proposed, and the ideal two from geography would be Amazon rainforest  3 and Sahara  3. I would prefer that we remove the two biographies I proposed or Nth root from this batch. If you look at the link to "Broad reogranization of geography," ideally, I want to move away from the "continent" model entirely at level 2. Right now, Europe  2 is a level 2 article, and I have already tried to propose a swap with Eurasia  4, but proposal didn't go well. As I stated my reasoning in the proposal, but we include History of Asia  3, and East Asia  4 is a level 4 article, I don't think History of East Asia  3 should be above the region. India is at the same level as History of India, while Europe the region is one level above the history of article. The inclusion of these specific sub-regions is odd, as we are missing many sub-regions, such as History of the Caribbean  4. I've also proposed adding Middle East and North Africa else where, and would like to see that region at higher level then the more narrow Middle East. Please look at the Talk:Europe for my opinions on Europe, I'm actively trying to advocate away from a continent model on Wikipedia overall. To make these changes, it involves awkward swaps as I can't just be bold, and instead have to awkwardly work towards a goal in piecemeal over the course of a year.

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:47, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

• @ALittleClass: The major issue with a basic Google search is that various books use similar or identical terms to describe the same thing, or they use a sub-discipline without diving into the full ontology. There are several models of geography, and this is part of one of them, and one I think makes the most sense to actually use. If we fail to use an actual model to organize our pages, then we are doing original research. Our current organization does not reflect the discipline of geography, this will bring us into something defensible within the literature. Please look at the page for Geography  2, and see that it does not include exhaustive links of cities, countries, or physical landforms, these are fairly low importance to the discipline overall. As it stands, professionally, the list is an ignorant racist fantasy in complete violation of criteria 4. The broad proposal I've been working on for over a year now aims to fix that, and this is part of that. Would support adding Neuroscience as well. We should list sub-fields and fields of study before considering biographies, IMO.

Defense of technical geography based on the Vital article criteria:

1 Coverage: technical geography covers topics like Cartography  4 and Geographic information system  4. Sub-branches of Geographic information science  5, Geoinformatics  5, Quantitative geography  5, and Geomatics are also under the umbrella. Part of the issue you'll find using Google is that people use those four terms without describing how they fit into the broader "geography," often as synonyms for technical geography.

2 Essential to Wikipedia's other articles: 478 pages link to technical geography. It is a high level Category in geography, specifically under Category:Branches_of_geography. It is also now a part of the sub-page at level 5 in Vital articles Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Geography/Technical. It is a major section in the Geography  2 page.

3 Notability: Historically, the term goes back to the 1700s at least, see source here. Used by the UNESCO Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems to organize the discipline, see a sample of the text here. If you want to see its use in the discipline, you're going to want to use a Google Scholar search. I trimmed the section when it was going through Good article review, but you can see a list of several geography programs that use it in their description in my Sandbox.

4 No (Western) bias: I don't believe this would be a western bias article. The current list of assorted place names is though, and I'm trying to improve upon that.

5 Page Statistics: Another reason that Wikilinks (and general page statistics) are not a good stand alone metric. The pages for physical and human geography are more then 20 years older then technical geography. The coverage of geography, from an academic perspective, is really really bad on Wikipedia. There are still several pages we are missing that are elementary, and I've been working on fixing that. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:22, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

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

---

Remove Marco Polo  4

@GuzzyG mentioned this under the Abraham Lincoln discussion above, and I think he makes a great point.

Although his book was immensely popular and influential in Europe, I can't see how he had a great influence on a global scale across all time to justify VA 3.

Support

1. Diamondarmorstev (talk) 01:38, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
2. He had a major role in starting the Age of Discovery  3, but listing that is enough and we also list Christopher Columbus  3 to further represent that period of European history. Listing Polo as well is redundant. As famous and important as he is, I think he should go down to Level 4. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:50, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
3. Aye. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:52, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
4. --Thi (talk) 21:31, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
5. λ NegativeMP1 21:37, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
6. 飞车过大关 (talk) 13:45, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

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.

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 Tornado  4 to level 4

It looks like Storm  3 will pass and be promoted. Tornados are quite spectacular, but relatively rare storms. They are most common in North America, and not as relevant elsewhere. I think we can move this one down to make room for the more broad storm.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:52, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
2. Culturally significant, but not to the same extent as Lightning  3. Not as globally significant as Tropical cyclone  3, Earthquake  3, or Flood  3. Tornado is the weakest of the natural disasters at Level 3, and it can be demoted to make room for Storm  3. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:56, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
3. per QuicoleJR Diamondarmorstev (talk) 02:11, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
4. --Thi (talk) 21:31, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
5. Shocksingularity (talk) 15:30, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:52, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Swap Soybean  3 with Bean  4

Soybean is very specific compared to the other stuff at level 3. I believe most it is the only specific species we include besides Rice  3 and Maize  3, and those have many more cultivars then Soybeans. Beans are a broader category and were a major staple of the Native American civilizations, as well as Southeast and East Asia. I might have proposed Legume  5, but that is level 5. I think beans are vital enough for level 3, just remember, Wikipedia:Don't stuff beans up your nose.

Support swap

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:44, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
2. Obvious swap. Diamondarmorstev (talk) 14:05, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
3. Interstellarity (talk) 10:50, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Support straight add of bean

1. Failing a swap. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:44, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:44, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Trim some geographic features: Move specific lakes and mountains from 3 to 4 to make room.

We are over quota. It is always easier to add then remove at this level, so I have some hard proposals to make room on the list by taking some from the geography section.

Move specific mountain ranges from 3 to 4

We include Mountain  3 at level 3, I believe we can move the examples of mountain ranges to level 4. I think they should all go for consistency, but proposing the four individually. Should note, having four ranges can be viewed as a bias against culturally significant mountain ranges elsewhere. Furthermore, our selection criteria seems to favor young and large, excluding ancient weathered ones.

Move Alps  3 from level 3 to level 4

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:28, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
2. The Account 2 (talk) 14:38, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Considering supporting due to Western bias. Only the 31st longest mountain range in the world. Would rather list more mountain ranges than rivers, but between the Rockies and the Alps/Urals is a sensible place to make a cut-off. J947 ‡ ^edits 22:50, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

At this point, we are over quota. Rivers are harder to go after, and our list is more defensible then mountains or lakes. Level 3 has 1,000 slots, every article we include is something excluded. We have some serious hoarder problems in the list, it's always more popular to propose an add then a removal. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:59, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Move Andes  3

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:28, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Longest (above-water) and most important mountain range by a long way. J947 ‡ ^edits 22:50, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Move Rocky Mountains  3

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:28, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. J947 ‡ ^edits 22:50, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Move Himalayas  3

If we kept ONE example, this should probably be it. Still think we can remove though.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:28, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --Thi (talk) 19:48, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
2. J947 ‡ ^edits 22:50, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss mountain proposal

Move specific lakes from 3 to 4

We include Lake  3 at level 3, I believe we can move the examples of lakes to level 4. I think they should all go for consistency, but proposing the four individually. Should note, having three lakes can be viewed as a bias against culturally significant lakes elsewhere, and is probably even more of an issue then mountain ranges as we only have 3 examples. The selection criteria is odd, I'm not quite sure how we settled on these ones when Lake Baikal  4, the deepest and largest freshwater lake by volume on Earth.

Caspian Sea  3

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:28, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. J947 ‡ ^edits 22:50, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Great Lakes  3

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:28, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. J947 ‡ ^edits 22:50, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Lake Victoria  3

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:28, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
2. Some African country instead. --Thi (talk) 19:47, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
3. aye.飞车过大关 (talk) 06:21, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
4. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:07, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose straight removal. J947 ‡ ^edits 02:31, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

Would probably support a swap with African Great Lakes  4. J947 ‡ ^edits 22:50, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Discuss lake proposal

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:28, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

It seems to me that the fewer lakes (or mountains etc.) are listed, the inclusions become more obvious and fewer people are going to be unhappy that certain lakes are listed and certain aren't, if that's the issue? J947 ‡ ^edits 22:50, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Baikal pales in comparisons to these options in terms of historical, current-day cultural significance, and surface area. Unusual for something in the Old World, it was only "discovered" in 1643. But if a 4th were listed, it would probably be the one. J947 ‡ ^edits 22:50, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

If we want to look at historical, significance, Sea of Galilee  5 would be hard to ignore. Geologically significant, Lake Baikal. Also, Lake Baikal has a tremendously long history as well, just not by Europeans really. We have no representation from South America. Trying to balance this list would require several additions, easier to just move everything down a peg for consistency. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:05, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Well yes, but we're looking all of those elements together. One doesn't think the Sea of Galilee is one of the 3 important lakes and lake systems on Earth.

One from the Americas and two from Afro-Eurasia is a very sensible geographic balance and doesn't demand the inclusion of Lake Titicaca  4. We've got a much easier task on specific physical geography inclusions at VA3 than VA4. I do not remotely understand why you think it is wrong to just include a small number of lakes; why does that number apparently need to be either 0 or greater than 5? A list of the 1,000 most important articles is naturally going to end up with some areas having 1–4 examples. J947 ‡ ^edits 23:59, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Important is a relative term, I don't really think there is a list of top 3, 5 or 10 lakes that is definitive. When it comes to physical geography, I'm looking at this list with the perspective that the terms in images like this should be what we're aiming to include before listing specific examples of stuff. Basic terms like Mesa  4, Oasis  4, River delta  4, Canyon  4, Plateau  4, Fjord  4, Tundra  4, Gulf, Bay  4, Cliff  4, Alluvial fan  4, etc. etc. etc. are all level 4. Without these broad landforms and features, listing specific examples of mountains and lakes is silly. While I'd rather have 111 individual geographic features then 111 biographies at level 3, the lakes and mountains are one place to start while we're still missing the basic fundamentals. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:44, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

There may not be a definitive list of the 3 most important lakes. But my point is there's definitely a much less definitive list of the 38 most important lakes (the status quo at VA4). This project is predicated on making decisions that are not definitive.

While yes, specific geographical features are more important to understanding physical geography as an academic discipline, they're not so helpful for understanding the Earth and its culture. There's a terminology problem: "geography" is used to mean multiple things. At VA3, more articles are listed under "geography" than any other academic discipline: be it history, biology, chemistry, physics, mathematics, economics, philosophy, literature, or psychology. I'm sure you understand that your discipline isn't the most important of all; I'm pretty sure it has less academics than all those ones I mentioned. So many "geography" articles are listed because specific countries, cities, or physical features are not just important to academic geography – they're not really; they're important to every discipline. In simplistic terms, "lake" is important to understanding geography; Lake Victoria is important to understanding Africa and the world. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:59, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Importance is a relative term, I don't really think there is a most important discipline. Geography as a discipline in the west has been salami sliced between specialized departments, it's a "mother science." Earth science, natural resource management, urban planning, etc. have a lot of overlap, and taken some of the slack geography. There is some history I could get into, but that is an entire lecture on history of geography and why we curse the name of Marland P. Billings. You can read about it a bit more in the article “Academic War Over the Field of Geography”: The Elimination of Geography at Harvard, 1947–1951 assuming you are interested. Not really important, but we don't have a problem finding jobs for our majors, can't say the same about all the other departments you listed.

Under the geography category, we list a bunch of really specific things, like specific countries, specific features, etc. Geographic features are not just important to geography, they are important to every discipline. Lake Victoria is a specific lake, the Nile is a specific river, the concept of a River Delta is important to the understanding of the world, the concept of a fjord, a bay, a canyon, etc. is absolutely more important to a basic understanding of the world then Lake Victoria. "Vital articles at higher levels tend to "cover" more topics and be broader in their scope," yet we have literally the least broad topics (individual places, countries, cities, structures, and biographies), taking up a large portion of level 3. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:22, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Cut specific Architecture articles

We include Architecture  2 at level 2 and two specific structures at level 3, the Great Pyramid of Giza  3 and Great Wall of China  3. I don't think this approach is very good in terms of vital article criteria 1 Coverage, and while not necessarily "Western" bias, including some famous mega structures but not others is a bit arbitrary. I think we should probably include broader concepts and traditions before specific examples, such as Pyramid  4, Wall  4, and Skyscraper  4 , or Gothic architecture  4 and Modern architecture  4. This would take a lot of restructuring though, and I'm not sure how to add stuff up with only two slots while avoiding bias. I do think that these two specific examples are problematic though, and can be trimmed to make room for other stuff in the mean time.

Support moving Great Pyramid of Giza  3 to level 4

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:11, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 19:46, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
3. While internationally famous, "architectural feats" aren't vital enough for VA 3. Diamondarmorstev (talk) 14:15, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
4. aye.飞车过大关 (talk) 06:20, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
5. I don't think it's a good idea to list specific structures at VA3, too specific IMO. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:13, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Support moving Great Wall of China  3 to level 4

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:11, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 19:46, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
3. While internationally famous, "architectural feats" aren't vital enough for VA 3. Diamondarmorstev (talk) 14:15, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
4. aye.飞车过大关 (talk) 06:20, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
5. I don't think it's a good idea to list specific structures at VA3, too specific IMO. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:13, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose moving Great Pyramid of Giza  3 to level 4

Oppose moving Great Wall of China  3 to level 4

Neutral

Discuss

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:11, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Add Walking

A very human thing to do. We already list Running.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 01:01, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
2. Shocksingularity (talk) 05:22, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
3. Basic mode of human communication, everyone does it everyday unless they are bedridden. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:20, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. oppose without at least one proposed swap. We are currently over quota at level 3, and there are a lot of proposals floating. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:36, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Swap Continent  3 for Region  4

Animated, colour-coded map showing some continents and the region of Oceania (purple), which includes the continent of Australia. Depending on the convention and model, some continents may be consolidated or subdivided.

Region just moved up to level 4. I believe it is a better article to organize places then "continent." We have a section for "Continents and regions" that contains 11 articles as it is, and I believe region is a better descriptor then continent for the section. First, region is one of the Four traditions of geography (also known as the "area studies" tradition). Second, the continents ARE regions. Continents are kind of like Race (human categorization)  4, created when we didn't know better and therefore today no one agrees on an actual definition and the ones we use have old prejudice baked into them. There isn't actually an agreed upon set of continents, despite what you may have been taught in Elementary school. The model that includes "Europe" as it's own continent is a bit Eurocentric, to say the least (I have sources on this). Region has the ambiguous, overlapping, and imprecise nature baked right into the definition, and does not pretend that human geographical regions and physical geographical regions have to overlap.

Therefore, region is broader then the term continent, and avoids the western bias involved in picking a single continent model to organize our pages with. This satisfies vital article criteria.

• (Note: This proposal ties in with above proposals "Reogranization of geography: Add Physical geography 4, Human geography 4, and Technical geography 4, several removals" and "Trim some geographic features: Move specific lakes and mountains from 3 to 4 to make room" as part of a broader reorganization of the geography articles to better reflect the discipline/literature and minimize western bias.)

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:10, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
2. I'm going to be in the minority here and say that I consider this a fair swap, although I'd be open to a straight add. GeogSage is the geography expert, and his arguments make sense. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:03, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

I am not aware of any rule change that allows a swap across multiple levels. You would have to either have region promoted to 4 or continent demoted to 4 before this swap could be considered.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:38, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

It is at VA4 now but was only just promoted so the template hasn't updated. J947 ‡ ^edits 08:01, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Yikes, sorry for the confusion. I didn't notice the template problems. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:34, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

1. Oppose - strong oppose to losing continent, week oppose to adding region.  Carlwev  12:02, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
2. Continent is more useful at this level. --Thi (talk) 12:34, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
3. Strong oppose for removing continent, weak support for adding region. While region is more broad, continent is definitely level 3. ChaoticVermillion (talk) 10:30, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

A similar argument could be made to other parts of the list, eg, to remove star, planet moon etc and replace with Astronomical object. I think including an article which is technically wider in scope isn't helpful in every single case, if the slightly narrower term is much much more widely used, and does have a pretty defined description and scope, even if it's slightly blurry. Region is even more blurry. Kind of any area space or volume can be a region if we say it is, it is so broad to be less helpful. Continent is pretty well defined, even if there is not 100% agreement on whether Europe and Asia is one or two etc, it's still helpful and mentioned in the article. There's not 100% agreement on what a species, country or planet is either, like Pluto deniers, Taiwan, Palestine etc. But we include them, and they are helpful articles non the less.  Carlwev  12:12, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

First, look at the words used to describe the sections, we have:

• "History by region," not "History by continent."
• "Philosophy by region and period" not "Philosophy by continent and period"
• "Continents and regions"

Region is more widely used then continent, this is already reflected in the project because when it comes to human geography, regions are a lot more meaningful then tectonic plates. Geography is the inconsistent section here. Continents are a type of region, but the model we use is extremely problematic. There is not one model of continent, which is why I included the fun GIF, and the vital article criteria states clearly we are supposed to avoid western bias. Why do we use the model that lists Europe as a continent, rather then the other (more logical) models? Why is India not a continent, while Europe is? The reality is Europe is a region, just like the Middle East is a region, but geologically these are both (mostly) part of the Eurasian plate. The only reason it is listed as a continent is Western bias. Continent, applied to humans, is an antiquated term, like race, and unless we are talking about geologic continents (and I don't see Zealandia  5 being moved up any time soon, despite having an actual claim to being a continent, unlike Europe), region is a much more useful term without as much baggage. The only reason we have any debate on what a continent is, is because Europe continues to identify as one and no definition can include Europe and end up with the 7 continent model we use while applying a consistent definition to all places. We don't list our biographies by race, we should move towards better models for geography as well. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:33, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

• Note, to avoid Western bias, I'd like to organize things closer to the United Nations geoscheme. The highest level of organization here is a "continental regions." The word region here is an important qualifier. Continents, as we teach them, are not particuarlly useful as absolute areas and are only one level of region under one schema for dividing the world. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:55, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Colonialism removals

European colonization of the Americas

We already list the Age of Discovery and the Colonialism articles itself.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 23:52, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
2. Too specific for V3. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:36, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 09:21, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
4. Weak support. I'd ultimately like this to go along with some other topics, but it isn't a good look as the list currently stands. Cuts do need to be made, and this is slightly redundant. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:46, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
5. Shocksingularity (talk) 17:52, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Just because this topic doesn't have a fancy name associated with it like European history topics contemporary with it like Reformation  3 doesn't detract from its importance to world history. Absolutely crucial for understanding two continents and all the people thereon. Frankly, I'd rather remove Age of Discovery  3, which is a fancy name associated with a Eurocentric and less coherent concept. J947 ‡ ^edits 02:30, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

Not removed 1–6 (2020). J947 ‡ ^edits 02:30, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Western imperialism in Asia

Similar reasons as previous nomination.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 23:52, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
2. Too specific for V3. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:36, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 09:21, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
4. Weak support. I'd ultimately like this to go along with some other topics, but it isn't a good look as the list currently stands. Cuts do need to be made, and this is slightly redundant. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:46, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
5. Shocksingularity (talk) 17:52, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Decolonization

Similar reasons as previous nomination.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 23:52, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. That one seems pretty vital to me. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:36, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
2. Oppose. This is the other half of the coin with colonialization. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:46, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
3. Shocksingularity (talk) 17:52, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Add Eating  4, Drinking  4 and Breathing  4

Basic aspects of being alive. Sleeping redirects to Sleep  3 which is V3 already. Reproduction  3 is V3. Defecation  5 is just V5 - I am proposing to bump it up to V4 at the very least, but likely should be here as well. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:36, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Support

1. Shocksingularity (talk) 17:51, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
2. As nom.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:19, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

1. Oppose without some sort of swap offering. Do you mean to support your own proposal? GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:48, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, forgot to sign, fixed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:18, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Swap James Cook  3 and Neil Armstrong  4

James Cook  3 was certainly important, but he wasn't nearly as influential, culturally or historically, as the other explorers at level 3. Neil Armstrong  4 was the first man on the moon, and his first steps were watched by 530 million people, which was 20% of the population at the time. People still use the phrase "one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind". You could argue recentism, but it's been almost 60 years and most people alive today weren't alive (or were very young) when the Moon landing happened.

Support

1. As nom. Shocksingularity (talk) 01:55, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Support removal of James Cook  3

1. Aye.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:56, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Support addition of Neil Armstrong  4

Oppose

Discuss

Armstrong had significantly less agency than Cook. I'm also not sure what separates him from Gagarin. Selection of previous discussions: Removed 10–5 (2014), not added 1–5 (2019), not added 0–6 (2021). J947 ‡ ^edits 02:14, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Add Body of water  4

Since several specific geographical features are possibly getting axed, I figured this would be a good time to suggest this one. Body of water  4 is broader than Sea  2, Ocean  3, and Lake  3, which are levels 2/3. I'd be open to a swap with any of the articles about a specific body of water.

Support adding Body of water  4

1. As nom. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:12, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. I think I nominated this recently but it failed. Was part of the broad reorganization of geography I proposed. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:55, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Support swap

Oppose

Discuss

This makes sense from the outer, but when you look at the article it's just a lede and couple of long lists. The question is whether it should remain that way or it should absorb some information from articles like Lake  3, and whether that would make it one of the 1,000 most important articles to prioritise. To the former question, I think probably; to the latter, I think probably not. J947 ‡ ^edits 02:20, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

A vital article being low quality and needing improvment is an argument for inclusion, not exclusion. We're trying to target important articles to improve as part of the function of the project. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:55, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

It's not an argument for inclusion or exclusion. Which is why I didn't make that argument. J947 ‡ ^edits 20:53, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Trim some oceans

Looking at page views for our oceans shows that unsurprisingly the Arctic and Southern oceans are lower then the others. From a human perspective, these are not quite as vital historically, and like how Antarctica  3 is lower then Asia  2, I think we can bump these two down to bring up articles like the above proposed Body of water.

Remove Southern Ocean  3

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:17, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 21:04, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
3. ChaoticVermillion (talk) 10:47, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Remove Arctic Ocean  3

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:17, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The Arctic Ocean is significant enough with natural boundaries, unlike the Southern Ocean, which is just the ocean under a certain latitude ChaoticVermillion (talk) 10:47, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Discuss proposal

Some topics related to countries

Add Sovereign state  4 to level 3

We list Country  2 at level 2, but this term is a bit ambiguous. Sovereign state is the more correct/specific term for "a state that has the highest authority over a territory." Despite country, Sovereign state, and nation often being used as synonyms, they are unique. I think we should list these broad concepts before specific countries.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:35, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. There's already two articles listed covering very similar concepts (Country  2, State (polity)  3). The subtle differences between the various words used for these concepts are effectively the only things communicated by adding a third, which covers a combination of the two concepts. You're not going to seriously convince me that those distinctions are more important to readers of any persuasion than the country of Myanmar. I'm not opposed to changes around these concepts as a rule – swapping State and Country at VA2 and then Country and Sovereign state at VA3 seems to me to be a reasonable course of action that warrants a good deal of thought. But if the primary result is more of a tight quota of 1,000 being gobbled up by terminology debates, then I'm unsupportive. J947 ‡ ^edits 21:20, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

   I'm not quite sure what to do with the country article as it is a colloquial term, but I do want to bump it down and possibly move both state and nation to level 2. If you look at pageviews for state, sovereign state, and country, they're close. The concept of a sovereign state has tremendous geopolitical ramifications, as the Member states of the United Nations are all sovereign. While state is a broad topic, it does not imply sovereignty, and when most people think of a "country," they are really thinking of a sovereign state. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:49, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

2. --Thi (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Add Nation  4 to level 3

An extremely important term that is distinct from Sovereign State, although often used as a synonym. "A nation is a type of social organization where a collective identity, a national identity, has emerged from a combination of shared features across a given population, such as language, history, ethnicity, culture, territory, or society."

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:35, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss additions

Move Democratic Republic of the Congo  3 to level 4

We list 8 African countries. This is the largest country by size in Africa, and 2nd largest by population, but in terms of international politics it is not very prominent.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:35, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Not remotely an option. Population is a very strong proxy for a country's importance – when you write about a country you think about what's inside of it, not its international impact. The DRC has a population of around 114 million and is 13th in the world. The most populous country not listed is Sudan with a population of 52 million and ranked 28th in the world. J947 ‡ ^edits 21:03, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 21:04, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
3. Oppose  Carlwev  13:13, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Move Myanmar  3 to level 4

This was mentioned as a possible removal from SE Asian.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:35, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
2. If we only list 40 countries, this is not one of the 40 most vital.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:03, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

   What ones would you put ahead? J947 ‡ ^edits 06:47, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

   You did the work below. Certainly Iraq  4 and Afghanistan  4. These countries are among the top 30 in my mind in terms of countries that we should place editorial emphasis on due to their political prominence on the world stage. Maybe Uganda  4--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:38, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --Thi (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
2. One of the weaker countries listed, but in my opinion it's not the weakest (Taiwan, Poland) nor is there a pressing need to cut countries. If anything, too few countries are listed. J947 ‡ ^edits 21:10, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
3. Oppose  Carlwev  13:13, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

   Please, in a perfectly quantitative way, tell me why Myanmar is "weaker" then Poland and Taiwan. Fundamentally, unless we list everything at the same level, or have extremely clear criteria to justify why we have some elevated above others, the list of countries is nonsensical. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:04, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

   Well firstly I'm not saying that it's a fact Myanmar is weaker than Poland and Taiwan; I'm saying the opposite and I'm saying so subjectively. Just like I said, it's only my opinion, because I consider population and history to be particularly important.

   There's no remotely accurate quantitative analysis here; if there were, these discussions would be moot. Objectivity is impossible because there's a ton of different factors. Even if the sum of the world's knowledge could be boiled down to a number like we're Hari Seldon, some considerations will always be subjective such as coverage and redundancy.

   There's always going to be arbitrary decisions made between the 1000th and 1001st articles listed – I don't understand why listing between 0 and 200 countries provokes such ire. I take it that if Brazil split into 10,000 separate sovereign states, you'd still want to list China and India at VA4 even though that would result in listing some countries but not others. J947 ‡ ^edits 02:35, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

   There are easy ways we could objectively define this. I'm not a fan of calling some groups of human more important then others, but if we insist on having some countries on a pedestal above others, we could say "Top ____ in population, size, and economy globally, AND top in population, size, and economy in _____ regions." We don't have any criteria because the list is put together piecemeal, and therefore have significant subjective bias and inconsistency baked in. The issue is rarely the obvious inclusions, it is the edge cases, where inclusion of a middle power invites the inclusion of ALL middle powers. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:40, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

   Yes there are easy ways to objectively define the importance of a country. Since the main aspect of subjectivity in the country list is in global coverage and representation – and overlap with other articles listed – an objective list would probably look very similar. If the list was judged on population alone, for example, there would only be 5 out of 39 changes (Sudan, Iraq, Uganda, Afghanistan, and Uzbekistan in for Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Australia, Taiwan, and Israel). Incorporating size and economy in, there would probably be less. There is very little inconsistency in this list. So why try for complete objectivity over flexibility? J947 ‡ ^edits 06:26, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

   So why try why try for complete objectivity over flexibility? What you see as "Flexibility" I see as embedded western bias and legacies of colonialism. There is little benefit to holding some countries above others, and if we do we need to be extremely clear about why we're doing so. I go to a lot of conferences, and have sat through many lectures on Critical geography  5/Critical cartography, and while I tend to be in different lines of theoretical work then them, I do think they make compelling arguments. Based on this body of literature, elevating one group over another is... not a good look for the project. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:32, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Move Delhi  3 to level 4

I believe India is the only country with two cities at level 3. I believe Delhi should be trimmed over Mumbai  3 as we are generally listing most populous cities over capital cities (For example, New York City  3 but not Washington, D.C.  4).

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:35, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss removals

Swap Nomad  4 with Tourism  3

An important concept to every day life for humans for much of history. Many groups today continue to exist as nomads. Trying to find swaps is always difficult, but I believe looking at "Recreation and entertainment," tourism is one of the least broad/historically significant articles.

Support swap

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)}

Support add Nomad

1. Failing swap GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:55, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Support remove Tourism

1. Failing swap or add. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:55, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removing Tourism.  Carlwev  13:12, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

I suggested adding this over 10 years ago, 5 support - no opposition. My argument loosely was... Major part of the modern world growing since Victorian times, I believe this is a topic that would be covered before listing several artists and musicians and writers, filmmakers. It's a global multitrillion dollar industry, very large percentage of the western world travel or go on holiday/vacation. According to the article China alone spent over 100 billion US dollars in one year on tourism, and article says that services needed by tourists accounts for 30% of worlds services and 6% of world goods and services in general. To not have it in a 1000 list seems odd (I would probably have it personally if the list was only 500 entries). If we remove it the only things that cover it at all would be, transport, trade, and industry which are way too broad and definitely don't make it redundant.  Carlwev  13:12, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln

Is it really relevant to show that the FA article Abraham Lincoln is also a FFA? Shouldn't the FFA icon be removed, now the article is a FA again? Gfgdfgfd (talk) 09:56, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Remove Holy Roman Empire  3

I previously proposed adding Roman Empire above, which failed, so I'll suggest removing Holy Roman Empire, because it wasn't as influential as the Roman Empire. ChaoticVermillion (talk) 03:05, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Support

1. I would also support adding Roman Empire instead, but my previous proposal failed. ChaoticVermillion (talk) 03:07, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Makes sense. I'd support a swap, but if we can't have both, it makes no sense to have HRE and not RE. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:40, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 10:05, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose  Carlwev  13:02, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

I agree the Roman Empire seams more vital than the Holy Roman Empire, but they are both pretty vital. That being said, we list Ancient Rome. Ancient Rome covers the Roman Empire but not the Holy Roman Empire. People thinking we should swap the Holy Roman Empire for Roman Empire, this would mean we cover Roman Empire twice but Holy Roman Roman Empire not at all. I would disagree with this.  Carlwev  13:02, 2 November 2025 (UTC)