![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 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.
Employment is a subtopic of economics. In an abridged encyclopedia, employment would be a section within the economics article. Economics would cover equally vital subtopics like trade and market.
This will result in business and economics (the two parent articles covering the field) and the most important subtopic money, at this level. I also don't think there much value in having industry at L2. Too generic unlike actual industries like manufacturing, which is listed separately. Gizza ( t)( c) 01:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Recall that job used to be on the level 2 and 3 lists. When it was removed at level 3 it was also swapped for employment at level 2. Cobblet ( talk) 16:55, 13 December 2018 (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.
Note that this article is only about sleep in humans, as the hatnote explains. Sleep is no more vital than several other articles at level 3 such as Consciousness, Metabolism and Immune system, and at level 4 such as Endocrine system and Hormone. Since Hibernation is at level 4, nothing would be lost. Also notice that Breathing is listed nowhere, which might even make us remove Sleep from level 3.
#Oppose (
Ios2019 (
talk)
09:44, 23 January 2019 (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.
Less vital than popular culture, cinematography and photography wchich are not listed. I would consider swap with printing. Dawid2009 ( talk) 13:17, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Printing should be ahead of specific articles such like book, computer, film. Popularization of Printing in Europe by Gutenberg is essential to the most general periodisation. I would also add Archeology or Exploration ahead of something like book/computer/film. Dawid2009 ( talk) 21:17, 2 January 2019 (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.
Obviously and logically less vital than infrastructure. Dawid2009 ( talk) 13:17, 23 December 2018 (UTC) Confusing is also fact that travel is level 4 and several concepts of travel are listed at the level 2 or 3. 16:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
@ J947: Are you suggesting that Infrastructure could be among 30 the most important articles? Infrastructure currently is not even already listed at the level 2 but I also not necessary belive that transport is vital among 90 articles. Travel is at the level 4 and exploration is at the level 4 (at the level 3 probably we have littly too many people). Dawid2009 ( talk) 07:28, 13 January 2019 (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.
Currently exploration is at the level 4 but I think that it should be even at the level 2 because of we have articles such like space exploration at the level 3. Sport is listed at the level 2 despite fact we have none sport figures at the level 3. Exploration have a lot of representants at the 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.
Similar to community, which was removed.
When we have Earth at the level 1 it seems to me that we should list geography and geology at the level 2 (geology is foundamental topics for most articles related with geography listed at this level and level 3). If we keep ethnic group at the level 2 we will have larger chances to add ethnography and ethnology at the level 3. It is reasonable because of we do not list specific fundamental articles related with etnography/etnology (similar to ritual) at the level 3 but we list popular culture there. Dawid2009 ( talk) 20:14, 7 February 2019 (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.
Less vital than Infrastructure.
@ Wumbolo: I am quite confused why English Wikipedia does not have article about technique ( d:Q2695280) and technocal science ( d:Q12015335). In wikidata technical science in English language is described as: " engineering disciplines". Engineering seems be vital at this level as outline for science but Construction probably is too similar to architecture and should be replaced for Infrastructure. Dawid2009 ( talk) 18:13, 28 January 2019 (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.
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.
@ Ios2019: You oppose to remove crime; how crime is more vital than ethics? Dawid2009 ( talk) 12:20, 30 January 2019 (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.
"Metals are present in nearly all aspects of modern life." Metal is even more vital invention than computer, as the editor Gizza has mentioned.
Note: I've started a proposal around adding Natural resource to Level 4. J 947 ( c), at 03:55, 22 February 2019 (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.
Machines are everywhere.
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.
One of the main parts of mathematics.
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.
With 30 language versions it is not as vital as History of Earth (58) or Solar System (204).
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 is hard to describe what mind really is. [1].
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.
Earth is more vital topic.
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.
The Sun is a star and Earth is a planet. The article Universe is about cosmological models. This topic gives an introduction for space exploration and astronomy.
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 seems as much a part of someones identity as ethnic group which we have" as the editor Carlwev said.
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 that Sun was recently added, but after thinking about it some more, I really think that Solar System would be the better article to list at this level. It obviously is the broader topic and covers the Sun, as well as the Moon and the other planets.
Articles related with earth should be ahead of astronomy-related articles when we are earth-centric (earth is at the level 1 while universe does not). We even do not list Light-year at the level 3 despite fact it can give imagination about universe such like north pole and south pole can give imagination about earth. I would add Solar system rather at the seme level what galaxy/ star and keep sun at this (2) level due to fact that has been recently swapped for nature. Dawid2009 ( talk) 21:38, 29 January 2019 (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.
I think the article on printing would be a better choice to list in the technology section at this level. Yes, there were handwritten books, but that should be covered adequately by the article on writing, which is also included at this level.
The scope of the current book article doesn't seem to include ebooks. Rreagan007 ( talk) 18:38, 5 November 2018 (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.
Until we add anatomy we should add organism. Currently we list animal and plant but we do not have organism which cover many other concepcts such like fungus.
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.
Everything is made of matter.
Do we really need more articles related with science? IMO the most vital and general, needed article at this level is Infrastructure. Dawid2009 ( talk) 16:38, 28 January 2019 (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.
# Support --
Thi (
talk) 16:30, 28 January 2019 (UTC) Geology. --
Thi (
talk)
18:55, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
#Support
Dawid2009 (
talk) 17:00, 28 January 2019 (UTC) After thinkink about it more
Geology maybe is better choice. Geology is important article for study of earth (level 1) such like Engineering is importnt article for study of technology (level 1). Aalso geology seems be redutant to Gography uch like
Ethnology is redutant to
Ethnography.
Dawid2009 (
talk)
05:19, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Some time ago there was nomination for addition of Natural science. It haa been failed due to Nature covered Natureal science at the time. Recently we have swapped Nature for Sun so now we have better occasion to add Natural sciene. I think it would be littly better choice than History of earth. Dawid2009 ( talk) 19:41, 22 January 2019 (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.
In my opinion Law is more fundamental topic and poverty is perhaps as serious social issue as crime (Marcus Aurelius: "Poverty is the mother of crime.").
Unfortunately the proposal to add human behaviour is not getting much attention – it would make sense to swap crime for it. Cobblet ( talk) 17:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment: If human behavior is added, I would support swap emotion with human evolution due to emotion overlap similar field. Human evolution is not less vital for encyclopedia than history of earth and fit at this level when we have human and history of the world at the level 1. Dawid2009 ( talk) 22:33, 28 January 2019 (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.
Currently quite short article with lots of lists. Is it really vital at this level, when Machine is not listed? Is Industry more vital?
Tool is level 2 article. Machine is not on the level 3 because of we list simple machine there. How vital are all these articles? English Wikipedia does not have article about d:Q1183543 so would compare that things to technical names such like vehicle or mode of transport. I doubt all these articles should have higher priority for featured article than history of technology or philosophy of science. Some users other than me have agreed each other that history of science is not more vital than scientific method so I would consider removing tool and history of science to readded history of technology and to add philosophy of science. Dawid2009 ( talk) 20:35, 7 February 2019 (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.
Important article about study of Earth/Planet. This is the only general concept which well belong to Brittanica's outline and is not represented here. Several users suggested to add it here. If we decide add Geology we will have better chance to swap sun for solar system because of sun has been swaped for nature and geology explain some concepts which aree not described in other articles. For me Geology is even more general and important article than something like Climate.
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.
Less vital than Trade.
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.
Reasons above (I consider swap sleep and emotion with human behaviour)
Opposers: any reasons? J 947 ( c), at 21:17, 30 January 2019 (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.
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.
Would cover Sound and Radio; the latter is no less vital than Computer. Note that we have Writing, so Communication is not really needed at this level.
I am quite not sure Ideographic language can be covered by Writting. Communication probably also is quite nearly vital to language which is listed at the level 1 ( Nonverbal communication is listed ahead of Body language) Dawid2009 ( talk) 19:52, 22 January 2019 (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.
@ Ios2019: Could you give rationale to nomination? I personally do not know about electricy and electromagnetism very much but I note we have added electrity instead Internet some time ago. Dawid2009 ( talk) 06:40, 29 January 2019 (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.
"Four fundamental forces of nature are behind all that we do, from falling down to orbiting the sun." [2]
I believe the unsigned !vote is by User:UnitedStatesian. Cobblet ( talk) 20:07, 29 April 2019 (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.
It is a well-made article, but it overlaps with Culture, Arts topics and Sport.
I potentially could support swap entartaiment for something but it is one of the most vital not-science related articles. Dawid2009 ( talk) 17:08, 28 January 2019 (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.
IMO Book is the only specific article which can belong to 100 the most important topics. It exist for thousand yeras and is main topics in context of technology and in context of literature/art. Computer historically is way much less vital than something like Calendar and computer should not have higher priority for FA than Internet. Tool also does not belong to level 2. When Handicraft and Machine technology are not at the level 3 I do not see how machine or Tool would be at the level 2. Gadget even is not listed at the level 5 and other concepts similar to d:Q1183543 are not listed on any level. Historry of technology would be decent addition. It vital at leasat just as history of art and generally there are not any overlap beetween history of technology and history of science, speciffically due to fact that even exist other article: History of science and technology. When we list at the level 3: Gunpowder, Explosive material and Firearm, I think we should have here two separated article about history of cience and history of technology. Also computer IMO is less vital concept of communication than speech or even nonverbal communication and if we decide add history of science we will have better chance to add History of aviation or Space race to the level 3. These two are better human achivements than history of bicycle and are nearly vital just as history of film.
To be fair. I also remind that when Co coputer has been added we decided add it instead computing and now computing is level 4 article since computer science is level 3. Dawid2009 ( talk) 09:14, 6 March 2019 (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.
I'm surprised that everyone opposes adding Continent, but is fine with Country, City, Land and Sea at this level. wumbolo ^^^ 09:36, 17 April 2019 (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.
This topic seems be more vital than sleep and emotion
Note to closer: The article's name is actually Human behavior, American spelling. J 947 ( c), at 04:15, 11 January 2019 (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.
Several users have agreed each other that there is too many overlap between Construction and Architecture. Infrastructure is a concept which covers similar things to Construction but here there is none overlap with architecture. Infrastructure also is enaugh general and popular article for this level. It is more general than something like City/ Human settlement, Transport or Traffic. Editor @ J947: even mentioned that it belongs to 30 the most important articles.
I believe the unsigned !vote is by User:UnitedStatesian. Cobblet ( talk) 20:03, 29 April 2019 (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.
Business is important concept but after swapping Employment for Economy we have here too many overlap. We do not list Spirituality when we have Religion at the level 2 and Philosophy at the leve l so I do not think we should have Business when economy is level 2 article.
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 see no value in Home, in compare to House, when there is already family. and when compare to House, Building is more appropriate.
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.
Psychology is listed because of 10 years ago section about Every day life had name anthropology and psychology (or something similar AFAIR). Anthropology got removed but psychology still straying. It is not needed because of mind and emotion are more inportant than psychology just like music is more vital than musicology or just like ethnkic group is more vital than ethnography. Psychology and Neuroscience are two articles which we need hav on the level 3 (Neuroscience is only levwel 4 article). Some time ago I was supporting to remove emotion that it could be covered by mind, such like though is covered by mind; but now I think emotion still should be here. Emotion is pair with logic just like logical intellifence can be pair with emotioal intellifence (opposers reasons were convinted to me)
I am not really sure about it. Saying that psychology is about every day life is like saying that musicology is about folk music and saying that psychology covers mind and behaviour is like saying that meteorology covers climate and weather. We have already logic, emotion, mind and probably we will have human behaviour. I do not see how psychology is more vital than other human-centric science like anthropology. When we do not have theology ahead of literary critism we should not have two levels difference beetwen psychology and neuroscience (or something like psychiatry/neurology). I would consider keep this one space for something other. There are topics which could be added here (or readded) and these ones have less similar topics with overlap on this level than psychology does. Dawid2009 ( talk) 14:58, 7 June 2019 (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.
I've noted with great interest the article Matter which was suggested by several editors in the proposal to add Force. I am giving everyone an opportunity to go on record and see how they feel about the article Matter.
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.
Every other section for Level 2 includes the article(s) the section is named after. Why shouldn't that also be the case here? - Sdkb ( talk) 04:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
This is a section header, it looks like a phrase to catch all the loose articles that don't fit in neat sections like history, science, geography or arts etc. We used to list Personal life but removed it [ [3]]; this everyday life looks like a very similar article, and difficult to write about. Among the different size lists there are many section/subsection title headers that are not listed themselves as articles at the same level such as continents listed under continents header but not listing continent itself, music genre is a header in the 1000 list but not one of the listed articles, as is Filmmakers and businessmen and several more. Section headers could be discussed I suppose, but they serve more as convenience of navigating the list, and are probably not as important as the actual articles themselves. Carl wev 17:19, 9 May 2019 (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.
@ Rreagan007: First of all, please provide edit summaries, especially when you're reverting other user's edits: WP:FIES. I don't see how these subcategorizations help readers better navigate the list. They only seem to introduce conceptual confusion. By saying film is a visual art and not a performing art, are we implying that film is never a performing art? How is film more of a visual art than architecture? Also, a lot of electronically composed music is not "performed" in any meaningful sense of the word (e.g. video game soundtracks). I see no advantage in making these sublists and would prefer all the art genres remain uncategorized. Cobblet ( talk) 04:38, 15 June 2019 (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.
This article covers for example Wheel. The story of machines and technological revolution starts here. Only History of technology could be more general, currently not listed article.
I also think it would be reasonable to swap fire for history of technology. Cobblet ( talk) 12:07, 9 September 2019 (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.
Culturally more natural complement to Sea. Land has fewer interwiki links than Continent. Earth is more vital topic than Land.
Another way to look at it: the level 3 articles desert, island, mountain, forest, glacier, lake, and river are not subtopics of continent. They are subtopics of land on level 2, just as land is a subtopic of Earth on level 1. Cobblet ( talk) 03:07, 5 September 2019 (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.
Important, probably covers transport, which is on this list. IMO more important than logic and folklore. Extremely important, covers facilities, really vital in not just modern-day life but before as well. Complements tool. We're on 99. — J 947 ( c), at 01:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree with UnitedStatesian that it's a somewhat amorphous term. I'm currently unsure about the proposal to add it here, but some thoughts: a large portion of the categories/examples listed in the intro refer to transport, but there are also a bunch that refer to non-transport related things, and I'd like to see those covered in some way at this level. I have a few hesitations, though. First, some of those are covered by either engineering or the general technology article. Second, I think we need to resist the impulse to just turn the top VA levels into a list of all the broadest words in the dictionary, and one way to do that is to look at the extent to which the concepts under an umbrella term are associated with it. If you asked me to start describing a park or a tunnel, it might be a while until I mention it's a type of infrastructure. Overall, I'm open to persuasion and might change my vote later.
Also, those of you voting here may be interested in discussing my proposal to add some additional transport infrastructure-related articles to level 4. - Sdkb ( talk) 16:42, 28 August 2019 (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.
Art, science and technology are separate things and deserves more articles. I don't think that history of technology is covered by Science and History of science. Most important aspect of science is modern science, but history of technology covers for example prehistoric era. Fire can maybe compared to such article as Chemical reaction which is in 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.
Spirituality is the only article which completly covers things like Theism, Atheism.....etc etc. I am also not sure it is justificed to favorise articles like death, afterlife ahead of birth, beforelife. What do you think to swap death for spiritulality? Dawid2009 ( talk) 18:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
The modern concept of spirituality does not necessarily overlap with religion: see Spiritual but not religious. Cobblet ( talk) 06:24, 7 November 2019 (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.
Currently we have 99/100 articles. Which one you would propose to add next? Dawid2009 ( talk) 18:26, 29 October 2019 (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.
War and Computer were not removed years ago because of these ones are not listed in history section but among other overrepresented ones. It is incomprehensive to say that history of technology does not belong among few very the most important aticles related to history. In general every historical age is started or ended by revolution associated with technology. Inventing fire... inventing writing... inventing printing by Gutenberg... inventing Internet, so what is puropse to lis war ahead of history of technology? (how big significance get war outise historical context to put it among 100 articles and ahead of history of technology?). I also see objections to say that history of technology is more vital than history of science but in previous nomintions nobody gave arguments why in their opinions history of science is more vital. Dawid2009 ( talk) 18:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
People often say that history of technology is redundnt to technology and history but how time and energy are not redundant to universe any more than space/ outer space or matter (I do not know about physcics much so I only ask)? Dawid2009 ( talk) 18:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Proposal addition of "History of technology" probably will not be passed despite my and Thi's repeated efforts but I find some points on which we could pay attention:
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.
So it appears Beland, after some light discussion, has merged Modern history into Early modern period, Late modern period, and Modernity, and changed the page to a redirect to the modern history section of History of the world. How do we want to deal with this as it affects VA? Our main options as I see them:
Personally, I'm inclined to favor option 3, unless persuasive arguments come to light that it was a bad merge. What do you all think? Sdkb ( talk) 08:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Support option 3 Carl wev 20:34, 3 December 2019 (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.
After the discussion above about the recent split of modern history, I don't think it's premature to start a vote on swapping it out for early modern period and late modern period. My argument for doing so is that both periods are vital enough aspects of history be worthy of inclusion at this level, that they are fairly widely accepted in English-language historiography as methods of historical periodization, and that this could be beneficial in terms of reorganizing the categorization of some history-related vital articles.
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.
Continuing the discussions from here and before, Atom is covered by Chemical element and Matter is the broader topic. Sdkb ( talk) 21:52, 13 November 2019 (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.
We only list one religion article at this level,
Religion (arguably two, if you include
Folklore), which seems insufficient.
God
Deity is a good candidate for the addition because it's an important and fundamental concept to many religions around the world.
Sdkb (
talk)
21:56, 13 November 2019 (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.
@ Sdkb, Miraclepine, J947, Spaced about, DaGizza, Thi, Carlwev, and Orser67: among two overlaped articles (sun and solar system) one is certainly redundant (pay attention how plenty candidates can be added among 80-120 the most important articles). In the past I was convinced that sun is more important than solar system but after longer participating on VA, especially after discussions about removal of planets from the level 3, now I am ambivalent and feel that solar system is more needed on this level. Also, fact that users who opposed removal of sun in the previous nomination ( /info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/2/Archive_2#Swap:_Remove_Sun,_Add_Solar_System ), were used arguments that sun revolve around culture is just strongly associated with religion. Without humans' expression to deities (excuse me if my language or explaining is bad), sun historically would not be culturally important/influential. It is obvious that for eample Sun/ Solstice is associated with culture and religion. In my original view solar system was not more important than sun based on fact there are many wide topics just like galaxies or star systems but saying that article on sun is more important than article on solar system, based on cultural content, does not make any sense (reader can not read (reador can not study Sun#Religious aspects if she/he does not know what deity itself is!, check this link, please). Solar system is more important than sun from purly-science perspective as long as we have all planets on the level 3 and no galaxies there, meanwhile deity and religion are articles which revolve around solar deity and sun in culture. @ Cobblet and UnitedStatesian: Among many participants in that discusion you two said that swap would be more reasonable than straight addition (AFAIR, UnitedStatesian, your vote was during time when we were 99/100 and more than one article was nominated to addition durin that time), what do tou think about proposal to swap deity with sun? Religion deserve representation if we can list so plenty overlping articles (everywhere; for example we list entertaiment, performing arts, and sport to cover game) or when we have modern topics like modern history, computer, film etc. I also echo J947 comment. Impact of religious figures for history was incomparable and of course the most influential. Is there any reason why deity/god (parent topic and subtopic of religion) can not be ahead of Laozi or Jesus if we list film (parent topic and subtopic of the arts) ahead of filmmakers listed on the level 3? Beyond that we have quite overlap between deity and god on the level 3 and justification to list both IMO would be more rational if we decide list one of them on the higher level. I would even argue that article like theism is more vital than plenty articles listed on the level 3. Dawid2009 ( talk) 21:18, 22 January 2020 (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.
Per plenty previous discussions, now in the archives
At level 2:
At level 3:
At level 4:
— J 947 ( c), at 23:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
As a heads up, there is a discussion on making VA a consensus-building discussion at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4#Add Pocahontas. J 947 ( c), at 22:54, 23 January 2020 (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.
The meta equivalent of WP:VA does not include any history of x articles at all, and history of science and history of art are essentially sub-articles, meaning they are less vital than force and matter, which are vital concepts in natural science.
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.
Epistemology is one of the core branches of philosophy. There appears to already be consensus that epistemology should in some way be represented at Level 2, since the article on its primary subject, Knowledge, is currently included at Level 2 (for reference, the other Level 2 philosophy articles include three other core branches: Ethics, Logic, and Religion). I'm not sure what the reasons that led to this strange placement are, although I'd hazard a guess that past issues with bloat and clutter in the Epistemology article didn't help (I've been working on cleaning the Epistemology article up, although the Knowledge article is also in dire need of improvement, and I'd like to work on it too eventually).
But the point worth focusing on here is that the Knowledge article doesn't offer the same broad survey of its respective branch of philosophy (epistemology) as the other core philosophy articles. For comparison, this would be like putting Good and evil on Level 2 and Ethics on Level 3, rather than the current placement of Ethics at Level 2 and Good and evil at Level 3. Since I can't see any benefit to putting the far narrower Knowledge article in Level 2 rather than the more general Epistemology article, it seems clear to me that the two should be swapped. Drevolt ( talk) 21:47, 12 June 2020 (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.
After a concept split, all the content related to Manufacturing or Industrial society has been moved to those pages. The remaining Industry article is essentially a stub for the narrow term-of-art in economic analysis.
I made sure to reach a consensus before carrying out the split, and it's been a couple weeks now without being contested. As a result, I'd like to suggest demoting the Industry article straight from level 2 to level 4. The specific industries currently listed under it at level 3 can be regrouped under either Agriculture (primary) or Manufacturing (secondary); while perhaps not 100% accurate as a taxonomy, those two anchor the sectors the other industries fall under.
@ Zar2gar1: I'm curious to see if these changes will stick. The hatnote might be enough to get people to go to manufacturing instead, but industry, as the more common search term, might just start to gravitate more towards manufacturing over time just as it has in the past. As one suggestion, I'd remove industrial society from the hatnote and just stick to manufacturing—people will be more likely to read the hatnote if it's short, and industrial society is a more specialized page (talking about the relationship of manufacturing to society). Oh, and also, I'd go through the leads of some of the "what links here" pages for industry and change them to manufacturing if appropriate. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 07:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Zar2gar1's nom, but I think we want to have something at this level related to the concept we're talking about, so how about adding manufacturing in its place?
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 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.
Employment is a subtopic of economics. In an abridged encyclopedia, employment would be a section within the economics article. Economics would cover equally vital subtopics like trade and market.
This will result in business and economics (the two parent articles covering the field) and the most important subtopic money, at this level. I also don't think there much value in having industry at L2. Too generic unlike actual industries like manufacturing, which is listed separately. Gizza ( t)( c) 01:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Recall that job used to be on the level 2 and 3 lists. When it was removed at level 3 it was also swapped for employment at level 2. Cobblet ( talk) 16:55, 13 December 2018 (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.
Note that this article is only about sleep in humans, as the hatnote explains. Sleep is no more vital than several other articles at level 3 such as Consciousness, Metabolism and Immune system, and at level 4 such as Endocrine system and Hormone. Since Hibernation is at level 4, nothing would be lost. Also notice that Breathing is listed nowhere, which might even make us remove Sleep from level 3.
#Oppose (
Ios2019 (
talk)
09:44, 23 January 2019 (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.
Less vital than popular culture, cinematography and photography wchich are not listed. I would consider swap with printing. Dawid2009 ( talk) 13:17, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Printing should be ahead of specific articles such like book, computer, film. Popularization of Printing in Europe by Gutenberg is essential to the most general periodisation. I would also add Archeology or Exploration ahead of something like book/computer/film. Dawid2009 ( talk) 21:17, 2 January 2019 (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.
Obviously and logically less vital than infrastructure. Dawid2009 ( talk) 13:17, 23 December 2018 (UTC) Confusing is also fact that travel is level 4 and several concepts of travel are listed at the level 2 or 3. 16:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
@ J947: Are you suggesting that Infrastructure could be among 30 the most important articles? Infrastructure currently is not even already listed at the level 2 but I also not necessary belive that transport is vital among 90 articles. Travel is at the level 4 and exploration is at the level 4 (at the level 3 probably we have littly too many people). Dawid2009 ( talk) 07:28, 13 January 2019 (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.
Currently exploration is at the level 4 but I think that it should be even at the level 2 because of we have articles such like space exploration at the level 3. Sport is listed at the level 2 despite fact we have none sport figures at the level 3. Exploration have a lot of representants at the 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.
Similar to community, which was removed.
When we have Earth at the level 1 it seems to me that we should list geography and geology at the level 2 (geology is foundamental topics for most articles related with geography listed at this level and level 3). If we keep ethnic group at the level 2 we will have larger chances to add ethnography and ethnology at the level 3. It is reasonable because of we do not list specific fundamental articles related with etnography/etnology (similar to ritual) at the level 3 but we list popular culture there. Dawid2009 ( talk) 20:14, 7 February 2019 (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.
Less vital than Infrastructure.
@ Wumbolo: I am quite confused why English Wikipedia does not have article about technique ( d:Q2695280) and technocal science ( d:Q12015335). In wikidata technical science in English language is described as: " engineering disciplines". Engineering seems be vital at this level as outline for science but Construction probably is too similar to architecture and should be replaced for Infrastructure. Dawid2009 ( talk) 18:13, 28 January 2019 (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.
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.
@ Ios2019: You oppose to remove crime; how crime is more vital than ethics? Dawid2009 ( talk) 12:20, 30 January 2019 (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.
"Metals are present in nearly all aspects of modern life." Metal is even more vital invention than computer, as the editor Gizza has mentioned.
Note: I've started a proposal around adding Natural resource to Level 4. J 947 ( c), at 03:55, 22 February 2019 (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.
Machines are everywhere.
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.
One of the main parts of mathematics.
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.
With 30 language versions it is not as vital as History of Earth (58) or Solar System (204).
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 is hard to describe what mind really is. [1].
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.
Earth is more vital topic.
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.
The Sun is a star and Earth is a planet. The article Universe is about cosmological models. This topic gives an introduction for space exploration and astronomy.
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 seems as much a part of someones identity as ethnic group which we have" as the editor Carlwev said.
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 that Sun was recently added, but after thinking about it some more, I really think that Solar System would be the better article to list at this level. It obviously is the broader topic and covers the Sun, as well as the Moon and the other planets.
Articles related with earth should be ahead of astronomy-related articles when we are earth-centric (earth is at the level 1 while universe does not). We even do not list Light-year at the level 3 despite fact it can give imagination about universe such like north pole and south pole can give imagination about earth. I would add Solar system rather at the seme level what galaxy/ star and keep sun at this (2) level due to fact that has been recently swapped for nature. Dawid2009 ( talk) 21:38, 29 January 2019 (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.
I think the article on printing would be a better choice to list in the technology section at this level. Yes, there were handwritten books, but that should be covered adequately by the article on writing, which is also included at this level.
The scope of the current book article doesn't seem to include ebooks. Rreagan007 ( talk) 18:38, 5 November 2018 (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.
Until we add anatomy we should add organism. Currently we list animal and plant but we do not have organism which cover many other concepcts such like fungus.
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.
Everything is made of matter.
Do we really need more articles related with science? IMO the most vital and general, needed article at this level is Infrastructure. Dawid2009 ( talk) 16:38, 28 January 2019 (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.
# Support --
Thi (
talk) 16:30, 28 January 2019 (UTC) Geology. --
Thi (
talk)
18:55, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
#Support
Dawid2009 (
talk) 17:00, 28 January 2019 (UTC) After thinkink about it more
Geology maybe is better choice. Geology is important article for study of earth (level 1) such like Engineering is importnt article for study of technology (level 1). Aalso geology seems be redutant to Gography uch like
Ethnology is redutant to
Ethnography.
Dawid2009 (
talk)
05:19, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Some time ago there was nomination for addition of Natural science. It haa been failed due to Nature covered Natureal science at the time. Recently we have swapped Nature for Sun so now we have better occasion to add Natural sciene. I think it would be littly better choice than History of earth. Dawid2009 ( talk) 19:41, 22 January 2019 (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.
In my opinion Law is more fundamental topic and poverty is perhaps as serious social issue as crime (Marcus Aurelius: "Poverty is the mother of crime.").
Unfortunately the proposal to add human behaviour is not getting much attention – it would make sense to swap crime for it. Cobblet ( talk) 17:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment: If human behavior is added, I would support swap emotion with human evolution due to emotion overlap similar field. Human evolution is not less vital for encyclopedia than history of earth and fit at this level when we have human and history of the world at the level 1. Dawid2009 ( talk) 22:33, 28 January 2019 (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.
Currently quite short article with lots of lists. Is it really vital at this level, when Machine is not listed? Is Industry more vital?
Tool is level 2 article. Machine is not on the level 3 because of we list simple machine there. How vital are all these articles? English Wikipedia does not have article about d:Q1183543 so would compare that things to technical names such like vehicle or mode of transport. I doubt all these articles should have higher priority for featured article than history of technology or philosophy of science. Some users other than me have agreed each other that history of science is not more vital than scientific method so I would consider removing tool and history of science to readded history of technology and to add philosophy of science. Dawid2009 ( talk) 20:35, 7 February 2019 (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.
Important article about study of Earth/Planet. This is the only general concept which well belong to Brittanica's outline and is not represented here. Several users suggested to add it here. If we decide add Geology we will have better chance to swap sun for solar system because of sun has been swaped for nature and geology explain some concepts which aree not described in other articles. For me Geology is even more general and important article than something like Climate.
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.
Less vital than Trade.
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.
Reasons above (I consider swap sleep and emotion with human behaviour)
Opposers: any reasons? J 947 ( c), at 21:17, 30 January 2019 (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.
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.
Would cover Sound and Radio; the latter is no less vital than Computer. Note that we have Writing, so Communication is not really needed at this level.
I am quite not sure Ideographic language can be covered by Writting. Communication probably also is quite nearly vital to language which is listed at the level 1 ( Nonverbal communication is listed ahead of Body language) Dawid2009 ( talk) 19:52, 22 January 2019 (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.
@ Ios2019: Could you give rationale to nomination? I personally do not know about electricy and electromagnetism very much but I note we have added electrity instead Internet some time ago. Dawid2009 ( talk) 06:40, 29 January 2019 (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.
"Four fundamental forces of nature are behind all that we do, from falling down to orbiting the sun." [2]
I believe the unsigned !vote is by User:UnitedStatesian. Cobblet ( talk) 20:07, 29 April 2019 (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.
It is a well-made article, but it overlaps with Culture, Arts topics and Sport.
I potentially could support swap entartaiment for something but it is one of the most vital not-science related articles. Dawid2009 ( talk) 17:08, 28 January 2019 (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.
IMO Book is the only specific article which can belong to 100 the most important topics. It exist for thousand yeras and is main topics in context of technology and in context of literature/art. Computer historically is way much less vital than something like Calendar and computer should not have higher priority for FA than Internet. Tool also does not belong to level 2. When Handicraft and Machine technology are not at the level 3 I do not see how machine or Tool would be at the level 2. Gadget even is not listed at the level 5 and other concepts similar to d:Q1183543 are not listed on any level. Historry of technology would be decent addition. It vital at leasat just as history of art and generally there are not any overlap beetween history of technology and history of science, speciffically due to fact that even exist other article: History of science and technology. When we list at the level 3: Gunpowder, Explosive material and Firearm, I think we should have here two separated article about history of cience and history of technology. Also computer IMO is less vital concept of communication than speech or even nonverbal communication and if we decide add history of science we will have better chance to add History of aviation or Space race to the level 3. These two are better human achivements than history of bicycle and are nearly vital just as history of film.
To be fair. I also remind that when Co coputer has been added we decided add it instead computing and now computing is level 4 article since computer science is level 3. Dawid2009 ( talk) 09:14, 6 March 2019 (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.
I'm surprised that everyone opposes adding Continent, but is fine with Country, City, Land and Sea at this level. wumbolo ^^^ 09:36, 17 April 2019 (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.
This topic seems be more vital than sleep and emotion
Note to closer: The article's name is actually Human behavior, American spelling. J 947 ( c), at 04:15, 11 January 2019 (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.
Several users have agreed each other that there is too many overlap between Construction and Architecture. Infrastructure is a concept which covers similar things to Construction but here there is none overlap with architecture. Infrastructure also is enaugh general and popular article for this level. It is more general than something like City/ Human settlement, Transport or Traffic. Editor @ J947: even mentioned that it belongs to 30 the most important articles.
I believe the unsigned !vote is by User:UnitedStatesian. Cobblet ( talk) 20:03, 29 April 2019 (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.
Business is important concept but after swapping Employment for Economy we have here too many overlap. We do not list Spirituality when we have Religion at the level 2 and Philosophy at the leve l so I do not think we should have Business when economy is level 2 article.
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 see no value in Home, in compare to House, when there is already family. and when compare to House, Building is more appropriate.
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.
Psychology is listed because of 10 years ago section about Every day life had name anthropology and psychology (or something similar AFAIR). Anthropology got removed but psychology still straying. It is not needed because of mind and emotion are more inportant than psychology just like music is more vital than musicology or just like ethnkic group is more vital than ethnography. Psychology and Neuroscience are two articles which we need hav on the level 3 (Neuroscience is only levwel 4 article). Some time ago I was supporting to remove emotion that it could be covered by mind, such like though is covered by mind; but now I think emotion still should be here. Emotion is pair with logic just like logical intellifence can be pair with emotioal intellifence (opposers reasons were convinted to me)
I am not really sure about it. Saying that psychology is about every day life is like saying that musicology is about folk music and saying that psychology covers mind and behaviour is like saying that meteorology covers climate and weather. We have already logic, emotion, mind and probably we will have human behaviour. I do not see how psychology is more vital than other human-centric science like anthropology. When we do not have theology ahead of literary critism we should not have two levels difference beetwen psychology and neuroscience (or something like psychiatry/neurology). I would consider keep this one space for something other. There are topics which could be added here (or readded) and these ones have less similar topics with overlap on this level than psychology does. Dawid2009 ( talk) 14:58, 7 June 2019 (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.
I've noted with great interest the article Matter which was suggested by several editors in the proposal to add Force. I am giving everyone an opportunity to go on record and see how they feel about the article Matter.
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.
Every other section for Level 2 includes the article(s) the section is named after. Why shouldn't that also be the case here? - Sdkb ( talk) 04:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
This is a section header, it looks like a phrase to catch all the loose articles that don't fit in neat sections like history, science, geography or arts etc. We used to list Personal life but removed it [ [3]]; this everyday life looks like a very similar article, and difficult to write about. Among the different size lists there are many section/subsection title headers that are not listed themselves as articles at the same level such as continents listed under continents header but not listing continent itself, music genre is a header in the 1000 list but not one of the listed articles, as is Filmmakers and businessmen and several more. Section headers could be discussed I suppose, but they serve more as convenience of navigating the list, and are probably not as important as the actual articles themselves. Carl wev 17:19, 9 May 2019 (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.
@ Rreagan007: First of all, please provide edit summaries, especially when you're reverting other user's edits: WP:FIES. I don't see how these subcategorizations help readers better navigate the list. They only seem to introduce conceptual confusion. By saying film is a visual art and not a performing art, are we implying that film is never a performing art? How is film more of a visual art than architecture? Also, a lot of electronically composed music is not "performed" in any meaningful sense of the word (e.g. video game soundtracks). I see no advantage in making these sublists and would prefer all the art genres remain uncategorized. Cobblet ( talk) 04:38, 15 June 2019 (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.
This article covers for example Wheel. The story of machines and technological revolution starts here. Only History of technology could be more general, currently not listed article.
I also think it would be reasonable to swap fire for history of technology. Cobblet ( talk) 12:07, 9 September 2019 (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.
Culturally more natural complement to Sea. Land has fewer interwiki links than Continent. Earth is more vital topic than Land.
Another way to look at it: the level 3 articles desert, island, mountain, forest, glacier, lake, and river are not subtopics of continent. They are subtopics of land on level 2, just as land is a subtopic of Earth on level 1. Cobblet ( talk) 03:07, 5 September 2019 (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.
Important, probably covers transport, which is on this list. IMO more important than logic and folklore. Extremely important, covers facilities, really vital in not just modern-day life but before as well. Complements tool. We're on 99. — J 947 ( c), at 01:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree with UnitedStatesian that it's a somewhat amorphous term. I'm currently unsure about the proposal to add it here, but some thoughts: a large portion of the categories/examples listed in the intro refer to transport, but there are also a bunch that refer to non-transport related things, and I'd like to see those covered in some way at this level. I have a few hesitations, though. First, some of those are covered by either engineering or the general technology article. Second, I think we need to resist the impulse to just turn the top VA levels into a list of all the broadest words in the dictionary, and one way to do that is to look at the extent to which the concepts under an umbrella term are associated with it. If you asked me to start describing a park or a tunnel, it might be a while until I mention it's a type of infrastructure. Overall, I'm open to persuasion and might change my vote later.
Also, those of you voting here may be interested in discussing my proposal to add some additional transport infrastructure-related articles to level 4. - Sdkb ( talk) 16:42, 28 August 2019 (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.
Art, science and technology are separate things and deserves more articles. I don't think that history of technology is covered by Science and History of science. Most important aspect of science is modern science, but history of technology covers for example prehistoric era. Fire can maybe compared to such article as Chemical reaction which is in 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.
Spirituality is the only article which completly covers things like Theism, Atheism.....etc etc. I am also not sure it is justificed to favorise articles like death, afterlife ahead of birth, beforelife. What do you think to swap death for spiritulality? Dawid2009 ( talk) 18:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
The modern concept of spirituality does not necessarily overlap with religion: see Spiritual but not religious. Cobblet ( talk) 06:24, 7 November 2019 (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.
Currently we have 99/100 articles. Which one you would propose to add next? Dawid2009 ( talk) 18:26, 29 October 2019 (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.
War and Computer were not removed years ago because of these ones are not listed in history section but among other overrepresented ones. It is incomprehensive to say that history of technology does not belong among few very the most important aticles related to history. In general every historical age is started or ended by revolution associated with technology. Inventing fire... inventing writing... inventing printing by Gutenberg... inventing Internet, so what is puropse to lis war ahead of history of technology? (how big significance get war outise historical context to put it among 100 articles and ahead of history of technology?). I also see objections to say that history of technology is more vital than history of science but in previous nomintions nobody gave arguments why in their opinions history of science is more vital. Dawid2009 ( talk) 18:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
People often say that history of technology is redundnt to technology and history but how time and energy are not redundant to universe any more than space/ outer space or matter (I do not know about physcics much so I only ask)? Dawid2009 ( talk) 18:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Proposal addition of "History of technology" probably will not be passed despite my and Thi's repeated efforts but I find some points on which we could pay attention:
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.
So it appears Beland, after some light discussion, has merged Modern history into Early modern period, Late modern period, and Modernity, and changed the page to a redirect to the modern history section of History of the world. How do we want to deal with this as it affects VA? Our main options as I see them:
Personally, I'm inclined to favor option 3, unless persuasive arguments come to light that it was a bad merge. What do you all think? Sdkb ( talk) 08:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Support option 3 Carl wev 20:34, 3 December 2019 (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.
After the discussion above about the recent split of modern history, I don't think it's premature to start a vote on swapping it out for early modern period and late modern period. My argument for doing so is that both periods are vital enough aspects of history be worthy of inclusion at this level, that they are fairly widely accepted in English-language historiography as methods of historical periodization, and that this could be beneficial in terms of reorganizing the categorization of some history-related vital articles.
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.
Continuing the discussions from here and before, Atom is covered by Chemical element and Matter is the broader topic. Sdkb ( talk) 21:52, 13 November 2019 (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.
We only list one religion article at this level,
Religion (arguably two, if you include
Folklore), which seems insufficient.
God
Deity is a good candidate for the addition because it's an important and fundamental concept to many religions around the world.
Sdkb (
talk)
21:56, 13 November 2019 (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.
@ Sdkb, Miraclepine, J947, Spaced about, DaGizza, Thi, Carlwev, and Orser67: among two overlaped articles (sun and solar system) one is certainly redundant (pay attention how plenty candidates can be added among 80-120 the most important articles). In the past I was convinced that sun is more important than solar system but after longer participating on VA, especially after discussions about removal of planets from the level 3, now I am ambivalent and feel that solar system is more needed on this level. Also, fact that users who opposed removal of sun in the previous nomination ( /info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/2/Archive_2#Swap:_Remove_Sun,_Add_Solar_System ), were used arguments that sun revolve around culture is just strongly associated with religion. Without humans' expression to deities (excuse me if my language or explaining is bad), sun historically would not be culturally important/influential. It is obvious that for eample Sun/ Solstice is associated with culture and religion. In my original view solar system was not more important than sun based on fact there are many wide topics just like galaxies or star systems but saying that article on sun is more important than article on solar system, based on cultural content, does not make any sense (reader can not read (reador can not study Sun#Religious aspects if she/he does not know what deity itself is!, check this link, please). Solar system is more important than sun from purly-science perspective as long as we have all planets on the level 3 and no galaxies there, meanwhile deity and religion are articles which revolve around solar deity and sun in culture. @ Cobblet and UnitedStatesian: Among many participants in that discusion you two said that swap would be more reasonable than straight addition (AFAIR, UnitedStatesian, your vote was during time when we were 99/100 and more than one article was nominated to addition durin that time), what do tou think about proposal to swap deity with sun? Religion deserve representation if we can list so plenty overlping articles (everywhere; for example we list entertaiment, performing arts, and sport to cover game) or when we have modern topics like modern history, computer, film etc. I also echo J947 comment. Impact of religious figures for history was incomparable and of course the most influential. Is there any reason why deity/god (parent topic and subtopic of religion) can not be ahead of Laozi or Jesus if we list film (parent topic and subtopic of the arts) ahead of filmmakers listed on the level 3? Beyond that we have quite overlap between deity and god on the level 3 and justification to list both IMO would be more rational if we decide list one of them on the higher level. I would even argue that article like theism is more vital than plenty articles listed on the level 3. Dawid2009 ( talk) 21:18, 22 January 2020 (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.
Per plenty previous discussions, now in the archives
At level 2:
At level 3:
At level 4:
— J 947 ( c), at 23:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
As a heads up, there is a discussion on making VA a consensus-building discussion at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4#Add Pocahontas. J 947 ( c), at 22:54, 23 January 2020 (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.
The meta equivalent of WP:VA does not include any history of x articles at all, and history of science and history of art are essentially sub-articles, meaning they are less vital than force and matter, which are vital concepts in natural science.
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.
Epistemology is one of the core branches of philosophy. There appears to already be consensus that epistemology should in some way be represented at Level 2, since the article on its primary subject, Knowledge, is currently included at Level 2 (for reference, the other Level 2 philosophy articles include three other core branches: Ethics, Logic, and Religion). I'm not sure what the reasons that led to this strange placement are, although I'd hazard a guess that past issues with bloat and clutter in the Epistemology article didn't help (I've been working on cleaning the Epistemology article up, although the Knowledge article is also in dire need of improvement, and I'd like to work on it too eventually).
But the point worth focusing on here is that the Knowledge article doesn't offer the same broad survey of its respective branch of philosophy (epistemology) as the other core philosophy articles. For comparison, this would be like putting Good and evil on Level 2 and Ethics on Level 3, rather than the current placement of Ethics at Level 2 and Good and evil at Level 3. Since I can't see any benefit to putting the far narrower Knowledge article in Level 2 rather than the more general Epistemology article, it seems clear to me that the two should be swapped. Drevolt ( talk) 21:47, 12 June 2020 (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.
After a concept split, all the content related to Manufacturing or Industrial society has been moved to those pages. The remaining Industry article is essentially a stub for the narrow term-of-art in economic analysis.
I made sure to reach a consensus before carrying out the split, and it's been a couple weeks now without being contested. As a result, I'd like to suggest demoting the Industry article straight from level 2 to level 4. The specific industries currently listed under it at level 3 can be regrouped under either Agriculture (primary) or Manufacturing (secondary); while perhaps not 100% accurate as a taxonomy, those two anchor the sectors the other industries fall under.
@ Zar2gar1: I'm curious to see if these changes will stick. The hatnote might be enough to get people to go to manufacturing instead, but industry, as the more common search term, might just start to gravitate more towards manufacturing over time just as it has in the past. As one suggestion, I'd remove industrial society from the hatnote and just stick to manufacturing—people will be more likely to read the hatnote if it's short, and industrial society is a more specialized page (talking about the relationship of manufacturing to society). Oh, and also, I'd go through the leads of some of the "what links here" pages for industry and change them to manufacturing if appropriate. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 07:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Zar2gar1's nom, but I think we want to have something at this level related to the concept we're talking about, so how about adding manufacturing in its place?