Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/3

General Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

Level 5 Subpages

People History and geography 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: 13:07, 16 April 2025 (UTC) ()
• 30 days ago was: 13:07, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
• 60 days ago was: 13:07, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Swap Humour  3 Alcoholism  3 for Greed  4

What drives humans to obtain more Money  3 than what they need, leaving others in economic hardship? What motivates an autocratic government to hoard Power (social and political)  3 and minimize democratic processes? The answer to what causes people to want more of both level 3 vital article concepts is Greed  4. More than ever, it is essential that Wikipedia defines greed, the philosophy and psychology behind this personality trait, and how it had and still continues to affect humans for the entirety of written Human history  1 from complete and reliable sources. [Google Scholar results] indicate that scholars had and still continue debates regarding how greed should be defined, how necessary it is within economics, and whether greed can be "good" morally from a philosophical angle. For better and for worse, greed is one of the most omnipresent and important traits in human history. No other level 3 vital article, as far as I'm aware, covers human self-interest and its effects to the extent that greed ever could if it's eventually improved and fully expanded. Assuming that we're still trying to balance the number of level 3 vital articles, I would suggest that Humour  3 be swapped since it generally is a specific part of Happiness  3 as a concept and therefore could theoretically already be partially covered there. Assuming that we're still trying to balance the number of level 3 vital articles, I would suggest that Alcoholism  3 be swapped since it is simply a specific variant of Addiction  3, which is at the same level. We can also remove Smoking  3 from the level 3 list for similar reasons.

Support

1. As nom. PrimalMustelid (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Support adding greed, it is one of the most important emotions, it provides psychological insight into most social behaviours of many animals. It serves as one of, if not the strongest motivator for human progress, perhaps in the modern world. That being said, its Wikipedia article is woefully insufficient considering its importance. Idiosincrático (talk) 08:28, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Support without swap/support with alternate swap

1. I'd be on board if we ditched both Alcoholism  3 AND Smoking  3. Smoking has significantly fewer views during the past decade. If we remove one under Addiction  3, we can remove both and make room for some other broad article topic. Just ditching one, and the more viewed one at that, seems inconsistent. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:53, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Support removing Alcoholism, adding Vertebrate. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 18:34, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Greed is rare topic in general encyclopedias. --Thi (talk) 18:05, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Weak oppose, per Thi and because there it's inclear what is proposed as there have been too many options suggested. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 15:11, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral on adding Greed. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 18:34, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

Isn't a sense of humor regarded as one of the most important traits a person could have. Surely Humour could not be the least vital at level 3.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Humour was added nine years ago 5-0 support Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Archive_10#Add_Humour, I don't remember it being questioned since. When we added humour, Comedy was also already listed, but that was was removed in 2019 Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Archive_15, so if we remove humour the concept would not be covered at all. The only things that will cover it is say, happiness, emotion, entertainment, which I think are too wide for the 1000 list to not have humour. When I think about how much of of arts and entertainment is based around humour, how many people watch TV shows, movies, live performances that are humour based, compared to say how many people watch or listen to something Jazz based, just to pick something add randon, Jazz has itself, and a person, but seems less vital to humans than humour.

Greed has only just been added to the 10'000 list with a vote of 5-2, with two opposing a level 4 add for greed, a level 3 add seems less likely. The article on greed itself states with a ref Modern economic thought frequently distinguishes greed from self-interest, even in its earliest works The idea suggested with this thread is that the whole idea of people working for money, wanting things, and getting things by buying them or by other means is covered only by the greed article. That anyone who wants to buy something that isn't completely necessary to their survival is greedy and/or suffering from greed, that the idea of greed itself as an emotion is necessary to explain the economy and human behavior . But the article itself describes it as It may at the same time be an intent to deny or obstruct competitors from potential means (for basic survival and comfort) or future opportunities; therefore being insidious or tyrannical and having a negative connotation. Describing greed is an excessive or destructive or over the top desire for things, not just any desire. I thought the idea of buying things was covered in some sense by capitalism, property, and economy. Basically The fact that people want things, and buy or sometimes take things meaning all humans suffer greed and it should be included is like saying, all humans exist due to parents having sex, so we have to list Lust as an emotion to explain that. Is the idea of greed, an excessive want for more than one needs, covered in any way by Addiction which is at level 3? However I don't think Greed is a terrible suggestion, I am just not over the Moon about the idea that all humans have it all the time and it's the reason for all human activity.

Off topic, but I previously tried to remove Alcoholism but it failed. I thought Seeing as we have alcoholic beverage, and addiction, it seems odd to have addiction to alcoholic beverages as well, also most people that consume alcoholic beverages are not alcoholics, we list smoking but not tobacco or smoking/tobacco addiction which doesn't even appear to be an article. I would think addiction to tobacco is more widespread but I may be wrong on that. But in my head the argument all people want things and buy and so must suffer from greed also sounds like, many people drink alcohol so must suffer from alcoholism. At first glance though Greed could be said to be more significant than alcoholism. (being that we have alcoholic beverage and addiction) The want/need for alcohol seems lower than the want/need/desire for anything.  Carlwev  16:48, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I have kept in mind the confusion behind the level 4 proposal for the greed article and made sure to elaborate on it more for this level's proposal, so I wouldn't say that the greater reluctance for it in level 4 translates to even greater reluctance in level 3 automatically. Something we need to keep in mind here is that the greed article on Wikipedia... isn't in good shape and is far from reflecting modern academic research on the concept. With the usage of very old sources to define greed and just one sentence for the lede, readers are not introduced to the concept particularly well. Greed can certainly be defined as "excessive," but excessive does not equal rare or minimal in impact. Hell, not everyone agrees that "greed" is "inherently" excessive; this journal article says that some scholars argue that "greed is inherent to human nature and that all people are greedy to some extent. Some argue that being greedy is vital for human welfare (Greenfeld, 2001; Williams, 2000) and that it is an important evolutionary motive that promotes self-preservation (Robertson, 2001; Saad, 2007)." The concept of greed transcends beyond just one field, none of which can touch upon human overconsumption of wealth or power adequately enough by just themselves. It is frequently covered in the likes of psychology, philosophy, economics, religion, politics, history... in other words, greed as a concept is absolutely everywhere within the humanities, arts, and social sciences. I think that it is vital (heh) that at least 1 article represents a central human flaw in wanting more than one needs to the detriment of others in the 3rd level. It may be hard to admit this, but human history and we as individuals have been largely influenced by greed from ourselves and greed from others; in my opinion, greed is extremely ubiquitous that we as humans would be better served by understanding its heavy weight over our own lives. I also wouldn't say that greed is normally seen as addictive; it has a very negative reputation because it's typically seen as a choice that one actively makes in complete and blatant disregard for others.

On that note, I'm willing to change the proposed article swap from Humour  3 to Alcoholism  3, since the latter is simply a specific variant of Addiction  3. And I agree that the concept of greed is obviously far broader than alcoholism, a point in the former's favor. PrimalMustelid (talk) 19:22, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I personally would leave smoking. For booze we have alcoholic beverage and alcoholism, for smoking we only have smoking. article says over 1 billion smoke, one eighth of world population. Tobacco is not listed, perhaps significant crop, more than soybean? but smoking primarily about tobacco, but covers other drugs like cannabis and more,  Carlwev  20:24, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

While smoking is a popular form of ingesting these drugs, there is also chewing tobacco and edibles when it comes to cannabis. The most popular drug in the world is Caffeine  4, and you consume it through drinking it. Tea  3 aand Coffee  3 are both level 3, so a case could be made for Tobacco  4, but a similar argument may include, Opium  4 and Cocaine  4. I think I'd support swapping smoking for Tobacco before I'd support a swap with soybean, which has widespread production and consumption. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:34, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Carlwev. Alcoholism is included in Alcoholic beverage  3 and Addiction  3 at the same level. Smoking is its own topic, though it can be discussed in Addiction. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 18:38, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Hey, just want to write here that this nomination has been stagnating for some time, so if you all can offer your inputs here, that'd really be appreciated, thanks. PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:19, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Add Invention

I could see a case for this article being covered by other articles, but these are things that humanity has created throughout history, most of which influenced the things we use today.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I'd probably argue that Innovation  5 is a more important concept than Invention  4. Sure an invention like the light bulb was important, but innovating the light bulb subsequently brings movie projectors, LED tech, x-rays, fibre tech, solar, television and global electrification. Inventions are rare, innovation is everywhere and everyday, its how we got from the Model T to the Corolla, VHS to Netflix and Apollo 11 to Falcon 9. Idiosincrático (talk) 08:51, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Level 3 is over quota. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:45, 20 March 2025 (UTC) Per LaukkuTheGreit. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 01:42, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Probably (ought to be) covered well enough by Technology  1.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 12:28, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

Open question... Apologies if I sound negative. I'm not sure how to handle this, but here are my thoughts. If we think of tools or technology, (or methods) they all were invented. We list the important kinds of invention, car, wheel, computer etc. The overview could be said to be technology or tool which are listed. An invention, is only an invention in regards to the inventor, something did not exist, someone invented it, then it did. What could be added what is not in tech and similar articles ;like tool. For non-physical systems ideologies, ideas, systems that exist, capitalism, monotheism, communism, agriculture, Jazz. At one time they did not exist, someone had to have had the idea, then they existed. Why would idea therefor not be considered vital for that reason.

I am just unsure how invention is different enough from tech or tool. It may be be different considering how tight or loose one uses words in the language. But consider

"The printing press was an important tool created by Johannes Gutenberg in 1440...." --

"The printing press was an important technology created by Johannes Gutenberg in 1440....

"The printing press was an important invention created by Johannes Gutenberg in 1440....

If the single examples of important types such as printing are in themselves listed, and overviews of tool and technology are covered by those articles, what information would be covered at invention that is not already covered and duplicated at tool and tech.? Also History of technology is at level 3, which loosely covered the idea of these things did not exist, but were invented at this time by these people to do this job. Carlwev  14:56, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Add Meteorology (4), remove flood (3) (or something else)

Meteorology as a subject encompasses all of weather. Much more important than flood IMO, on par with paleontology. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 19:22, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 18:13, 2 March2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Meteorology is redundant with weather and its six subtopics on this list. Flooding is one of the most notable types of natural disasters. Cobblet (talk) 18:32, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Per above. Idiosincrático (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Per above; meteorology is level 4 because weather is level 3, and meteorology is dependent on weather. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:06, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

Add Late modern period

I am nominating this to possibly replace Modern era, but I have no opinion on that swap just yet. This article used to be level 2, but it somehow got replaced with Modern era. I understand we are over quota, so I’m hoping we can sort that out before closing the discussion.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 14:56, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Not itself a well-developed periodisation in historiography—generally understood as the mere complement to Early modern period. Remsense ‥ 论 19:51, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Largely undefined in historiography per above. Idiosincrático (talk) 20:23, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Remove History of India

Above it looks like we are soon going to need three removals to stay at quota. Looking at Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/3#History_by_region, I do not feel that the only individual country history remaining at V3 should be India. It is fine at level 4 with other important countries.

Support

1. as nom.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:30, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Idiosincrático (talk) 20:15, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Per nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:06, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
4. I accidentally proposed this removal, not knowing that this was already here. But, yes, I still do believe this article should be removed. In my proposal, I suggested that this article could be swapped with History of Southeast Asia, as that article covers a broader area of Asia, similar to History of East Asia  3 and History of the Middle East  3. It's also worth mentioning that many Southeast Asian countries are listed at V3, so this would be a good article to include to represent all of them together.SameOldSameOld (talk) SameOldSameOldSameOld (talk) 01:02, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The article is more or less about the history of the region of India. Not the history of the country itself. Looking at it from that perspective, I think that this article is probably comparable to History of East Asia  3, which definitely belongs at this level. λ NegativeMP1 18:20, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

   If it is truly covers South Asia (Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, the Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka) as a History of South Asia article, it should be renamed as such or maybe that redirect should point to this article.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:21, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

   That's exactly what the article is though. India also refers to the Indian subcontinent  5, and if you look at our own article for South Asia  4, you'll find that the only differences in land between South Asia and the Indian subcontinent is whether or not Afghanistan is included on South Asia. λ NegativeMP1 20:40, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

   Do any of the other V3 History articles stop in 1947? Shouldn't a V#-level history of the Indian subcontinent include important 1947-present elements of the history.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:33, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

   Actually, the South Asia article refers readers to History of India. Maybe "History of India and South Asia" would be a better rename, though. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:13, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

2. Oppose: I think it makes sense to have an India section, based on the logic that it's a region rather than a country. Although articles may need to be removed, I don't agree with the rationale for this one. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:14, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Oppose, the three sub-Asia regional history articles currently cover the 3 cradles of civilization in the old world. I don't see the logic behind removing one of those 3. CMD (talk) 01:23, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

\;Neutral

Discuss

I did not review the article before the nomination during a half hour break, because the title made it look so out of place. I now see the hatnote regarding History of India (1947–present), Outline of South Asian history and History content in South Asia. The article needs to be retitled.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:24, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:30, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Bold the discussion reminder text

The other vital level pages have their equivalents bolded, but Level 3's "Any modification to this list should only be made after a discussion on the Level 3 talk page." isn't. The others also have the "only be made" in caps as well. Is there a reason for this? LilShpeeThatCould (talk) 19:17, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Reworking stages of life starting by removing Infant  3

As I look at the V3 level presentation of stages of life at Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/3#Family_and_kinship, I wonder if we should work towards Youth  5 or Minor (law)  5 , Adult  3 and Old age  3. rather than three different types of youths/minors: Adolescence  3, Child  3, Infant  3. At the very least, Infant does not seem necessary hear in the presence of Child. Let's remove infant and also have a discussion about stages of life in general.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:02, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

P.S. here is a V5 look at the topic: Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Everyday_life#Stages_of_life.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:29, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Support

1. as nom.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:02, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Weak support for removing infant because level 3 is over quota. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 17:05, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Idiosincrático (talk) 06:56, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak oppose to replacing child with youth. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 17:05, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Oppose Child and its subtopic early childhood do not cover infancy. Level 3 is not over quota anymore. Infant gets more page views than child, adult or old age. Cobblet (talk) 07:46, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:02, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Add Drama  4 or Play (theatre)  5

Speaking of broad, I am surprised the following are just at V4. Play, in fact, is just a V5. To me these are broader concepts that the ones I suggest for removal above. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:00, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:00, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Support Drama only. Idiosincrático (talk) 07:00, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Why does Drama need to be added if Threatre is already there? Mrfoogles (talk) 20:23, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Only Theatre is relevant at this level. --Thi (talk) 09:36, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Remove Employment

Employment  3 seems too redundant with Work (human activity)  3 for level 3, especially given that level 3 is over quota.

Support

1. As nom. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
2. per nom. --Thi (talk) 04:39, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Idiosincrático (talk) 07:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
4. Per this discussion. Hyperbolick (talk) 03:34, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
5. Per nom. PrimalMustelid (talk) 21:19, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. We are now under quota, and the social relationship of employment is a different thing than work (performing tasks), and is ubiquitous in our modern society. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:25, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

Lophotrochozoa (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Add a separate subheading for stages of life

Stages of life are listed under the heading "Family and kinship" but they don't have much to do with family. Note that according to the letter of the rules, we are not allowed do do any changes to the list without enough votes, and my proposal to make it easier to move entries has mostly been ignored. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:06, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Support

1. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:06, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Good idea. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:06, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Expanded list buttons

@NegativeMP1: regarding this edit, I just saw the buttons as misleading as, without any context, I interpreted them as implying that they would lead to individual lists of the same L3 articles with more information on each of them. Thank you for reverting my edit, but I believe some changes should be made to clear up this confusion. Thanks, it's lio! | talk | work 02:31, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

@HKLionel: I don't see how to make it clearer. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 21:55, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Add Humanities

One of four broad academic topics (the others being the natural sciences, social sciences, and the arts), the humanities covers philosophy, religion, literature, history, linguistics, and more. Would make for an excellent article to replace Philosophy  1 at level 1, but baby steps first.

Support

1. As nom. PrimalMustelid (talk) 05:34, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Support. Umbrella topics should be higher levels then specific sciences, and because of rules complicating the process, it is impossible to nominate this for a higher level (where it likely belongs) and instead must be forced to pass through other levels as a transition. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 15:30, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Overlaps with the arts and the social sciences. Umbrella topics, particularly ill-defined ones, should be kept to a minimum here. Cobblet (talk) 07:28, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Oppose Specific sciences are more useful at this level. --Thi (talk) 09:35, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Per Cobblet. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

Add Gun  4

At Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/4/Technology#Projectile_weapons there are many things listed under {{VA link|firearm]] and gun is also listed. I think this should be listed at level 3.

Support

1. As nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:48, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:14, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Too redundant to Firearm  3 at this level. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:51, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Oppose Firearm covers this. --Thi (talk) 03:42, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Idiosincrático (talk) 11:32, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

Swap Paul the Apostle  3 with History of religion  4

This swap was proposed in a previous straight add proposal, but didn't get much commentary from opposers. History of religion is certainly a vital topic, as Religion  2 was a driving force for much of human history, and is a Level 2 vital article.

As for the removal, we list three figures from Christianity: Jesus  3, Paul, and Martin Luther  3. That seems a bit excessive when Christianity  3 itself is only VA3. Jesus obviously isn't going anywhere, so that leaves Paul and Martin Luther. Out of the two, I think Martin Luther is more vital as the inventor of Protestantism  3, which is a major part of Christianity. Meanwhile, Paul is not a central figure, simply being the author of several Bible books. He is not at the same level of importance as Jesus and Moses  3.

Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:27, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:54, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose for the same reason as before: Religion is such a broad topic that a single article covering history of all religions doesn't seem vital at this level. Religion is also somewhat ill-defined. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 18:56, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

   @EchoVanguardZ: The same could be said about History of science  2, History of mathematics  3, History of art  3, History of technology  3, etc. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:38, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

2. Support removal, oppose addition Current History of religion is only a stub. Histories of specific religions such as History of Christianity are more important in an encyclopedia. --Thi (talk) 03:41, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

   An article being a stub is more of a reason to include it at higher vital levels, as the goal of the vital article project is in large part to improve articles. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:50, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

• I also find it rather strange to include Joan of Arc but not Paul the Apostle. Paul had far more influence on Christianity. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 22:20, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Add Non-fiction  4

We are currently slightly under the quota for Level 3. We list Fiction  3, as well as the subtopics Novel  3 and Short story  3, so I think we should also be able to make room for non-fiction as the other main type of Literature  2.

Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:25, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
2. We should, it's a very important concept. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:49, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

1. Needs a swap, not a straight add.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:13, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

   @GeogSage: Actually, VA3 is two articles under quota, so we don't need a swap. Regardless, I would be willing to swap out either Novel  3 or Short story  3 if necessary, with a preference towards removing short story. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:16, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

   Oh yeah. I had been trying to get Human geography  4 and Physical geography  4 added as part of something I'd been working on for over a year, but it failed right when we had the openings 5-4. I'm actually a bit frustrated with the project as a whole because of this. That said, I'm not in a rush to fill the two open slots we have, and think we should keep trying to do swaps for as long as possible because it will inevitably fill up. Would support either short story or novel. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:23, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Replace Drug with Recreational drug use or Substance use disorder

My nomination to replace Drug with Vertebrate hasn't got enough votes either for or against removing Drug  3 to close it, so I'm relisting it.

As I've explained before, Drug  3 covers two topics that are important to medicine in different ways: Medication  3, which is already listed on level 3, and Recreational drug use  4/Substance use disorder  4.

Support

1. As nom. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:57, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Drugs are "any chemical substance other than a nutrient or an essential dietary ingredient, which, when administered to a living organism, produces a biological effect." This is broader then either recreational drug use, or substance use disorder. A drug can be used recreationally or to treat an illness, the main point is to get a biological effect. The stigma around drugs in the U.S. is mostly the result of a few decades of propaganda, but in medicine drug does not have the same stigma. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 14:30, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

@EchoVanguardZ: and @Idiosincrático: voted against my first swap proposal. What do they think about this one? @GeogSage: and @Mrfoogles: have expressed disagreement with my reason for this proposal. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 10:56, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not informed enough to have a strong opinion about this. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:00, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

@Lophotrochozoa: It is standard practice on the Vital Articles talk pages to put your own name in the support section if you support your own proposal. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Swap Comet for Shoe

A Shoe  4 is far more relevant to most people than a Comet  3.

Support

1. As nom. 73.92.176.221 (talk) 20:21, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Support adding shoe  Carlwev  20:33, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Space is cool, but comet doesn't strike me as V3. Not as much as shoe. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:52, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Strong support addition, weak oppose removal. Kevinishere15 (talk) 03:17, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
5. support swap.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:25, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
6. Seems OK. We have Asteroid, so we don't desperately need comet. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:53, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removing commet. Adding shoe might be okay. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Oppose removing Comet  Carlwev  20:33, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Oppose Comet is essential topic in an encyclopedia. --Thi (talk) 08:23, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Strong support addition, weak oppose removal. Kevinishere15 (talk) 03:17, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
5. Oppose removing Comet Idiosincrático (talk) 11:33, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

Add Village  4

City  2 is V2. Village is about as important - until recently, most humans lived in villages, not cities. Human settlement  3 is V3. Mhm. Village could be swapped for it, or added here, but it is more crucial than V4, surely. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:51, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:51, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
2. support  Carlwev  15:27, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Per nom. Kevinishere15 (talk) 05:49, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Cities are important for human culture. I haven't seen Village among the main articles in any encyclopedia. --Thi (talk) 20:13, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

   What do you mean by "main"? https://www.britannica.com/topic/village _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:23, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

2. Oppose without swap. Idiosincrático (talk) 11:28, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

1. This needs a swap, not a straight add. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:13, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
2. We have no reason to demote Human settlement  3 back down to VA4. But there's an open proposal for Human settlement to replace City  2 at VA2, so adding Village  4 to VA3 may be sensible. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 04:26, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Add Bangkok

It is the most visited city in the world and contains 13% of Thailand's population.

Support

1. As nom. Sahaib (talk) 15:20, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Per discussion, but also would add that Bangkok has not been at the centre of human history, I think that plays a big difference between V3 and V4 when it comes to cities. In Asia, I think Tehran probably has more relevancy, 10% of Iranian population and 6,000 years of history, as opposed to Bangkok's 500 (written) history. Exclusively big or highly visited cities should stay V4. Idiosincrático (talk) 11:16, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

1. needs a swap, not a straight add. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:13, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

1. @GeogSage: maybe swap with Jakarta  3 which only contains about 4% of Indonesia's population and is going to be replaced by Nusantara (city) as the country's capital in the future due to overpopulation and land sinking. Sahaib (talk) 16:33, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

   Jakarta is still the largest city in one of the largest countries that is also at V3. I think a swap with Singapore  3, if anything, would be better. λ NegativeMP1 17:37, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

   I asked ChatGPT  5 for statistics (see below). Sahaib (talk) 19:37, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

   ...I'm not sure that is a good use for ChatGPT. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:35, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Comparative Statistics

Category Bangkok Singapore Notes Metro Population ~17 million (Bangkok Metropolitan Region) ~5.9 million (entire country) Bangkok has a significantly larger urban population. GDP (Nominal) ~$164–200 billion USD ~$450 billion USD Singapore has a higher total GDP. GDP per Capita ~$18,000 USD (estimated) ~$82,800 USD (2023) Singapore leads in per capita income. Tourist Arrivals (2023) ~22.8 million international visitors ~13.6 million international visitors Bangkok ranks among the world’s top tourist destinations. Cultural Heritage Capital since 1782; never colonized; home to 400+ temples and royal sites Multicultural heritage; globalized and modern culture Bangkok is a national cultural and religious center. Founding / Historical Significance Capital of Siam/Thailand since 1782 Founded as British trading post in 1819; independent since 1965 Both have significant historical roles. National Role Capital of Thailand (population ~70 million) Independent city-state Bangkok represents a much larger national population and identity. Global Financial Role Regional commercial and industrial hub Global financial, logistics, and tech hub Singapore is more prominent globally in finance. Infrastructure & Urban Planning Expanding mass transit; developing Highly efficient and modernized Singapore leads in infrastructure quality.

• I would put Bangkok slightly ahead of United Arab Emirates  3. The UAE and Singapore  3 are remarkably similar in GDP. The UAE has 1.8 times the population than Singapore, and Bangkok metro has about 1.6 times the population of the UAE. The UAE has about 2.3 times the GDP of the Bangkok metro, but Bangkok may be more historically significant than that country. Although Dubai is also one of the world's top tourist destinations. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 04:39, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I am in general more forthcoming to add geography articles compared to most users, although I seem to like nations more than cities. We do list Thailand already, there was a time a time when we did not. I was unaware Bangkok was so "visited" that is a genuinely interesting point. I supported adding Thailand and tourism in the past to level 3. The nations of Germany, Iran, Vietnam, DRC, Ethiopia, Philippines, and Bangladesh have greater population than Thailand, they have no cities listed. What reasons would Bangkok be higher than the capitals and/or the biggest cities of those nations. Also... The article global city lists cities of importance due to several criteria in several different lists/rankings. In different rankings the cities Dubai, Sydney, Los Angeles, Chicago.. Then later, San Jose, Seattle, San Francisco, Melbourne, Zurich, Osaka, Madrid, Barcelona, Seoul, Amsterdam, Berlin, Geneva and Toronto are listed. Bangkok is not listed anywhere on that page... but then neither is Jerusalem or Mecca, and Rome is listed but not as high up as I would have thought. Plus...List_of_largest_cities Bangkok is at 34, there are 20 bigger cities we don't list like Dhaka, Kolkata, Tehran, Manila etc. but again it doesn't list Rome, Mecca or Jerusalem. I am open to adding more geography and/or cities, but I would like to discus why Bangkok is higher priority than all the cities I mentioned above, or those other articles mention. In addition... The nations of Sudan, Uganda, Algeria, and Afghanistan have populations just under or over 50 million, I would probably support those first. Morocco is also quite significant.  Carlwev  08:31, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Featured article review for Augustus

I have nominated Augustus for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:43, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Remove Rumi  3

Persian poet and Islamic scholar. Certainly makes VA4, but I'm not seeing the level of impact that would make him worthy of VA3. He's influential, but there are many VA4 authors who have also heavily influenced society, like Franz Kafka  4 or George Orwell  4. We don't even list Ptolemy  4 at this level. Fuzuli (poet)  4 is an example of another Arabic poet with a similar level of influence, and he is at VA4. I can think of a lot of other articles I would include at VA3 before Rumi.

Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:32, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Rumi has much more influence than Fuzuli in the Western world at least. He is one of the most famous poets worldwide, and has been famous for many centuries unlike Kafka and Orwell. Ptolemy might be a sensible addition, although we already have a number of Greeks. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:10, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

I believe there should be multiple Christian/Catholic/Protestant religious leaders listed at VA3. Somebody will probably say, or has said in past discussions, that we need multiple Muslims if we have multiple Christians _pbp 22:06, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

@Purplebackpack89: We have two important Muslim figures on the list, Muhammad  3 and Ali  3. We list three Christian figures currently, but Saint Paul is seemingly going to be removed soon. If we can go down to two Christians, we can go down to two Muslims as well. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:10, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

@QuicoleJR Are you referring to Thomas Aquinas and Martin Luther? Their impact was specifically on Christian topics. Immanuel Kant and Dante Alighieri also influenced Christian beliefs, while Avicenna and Ibn Khaldun are also described as influencing Muslim thought. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 22:18, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

TBH I forgot about Aquinas, I was referring to Luther and Jesus  3. Still, I don't think 1-to-1 parity is necessary, and I'm not seeing how Kant is a Christian figure. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:32, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Remove History of India  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.

---

I don't think we should list the history of any specific countries in V3, especially India. Perhaps this could swapped with History of Southeast Asia, since both History of East Asia  3 and History of the Middle East  3 are listed, and many Southeast Asian countries on their own are already V3.

Support

1. As nom. SameOldSameOldSameOld (talk) SameOldSameOldSameOld (talk) 20:30, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

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

Add Non-binary gender under the Gender section along with Man and Woman

I was surprised to see that this had not been added yet. Nonbinary gender is currently a level-5 vital article, but I feel like we should not "prioritize" certain genders over other genders? Obviously we wouldn't put "Man" as V3 and "Woman" as V4, so we shouldn't put "Man" and "Woman" as V3 and "Non-binary gender" as V5.

This may have happened because "Non-binary gender" is a recent rename of "Genderqueer", which didn't so obviously fit the pattern. Not proposing to swap anything out because we are at 998, under our quota of 1000 -- and in any case, this should be done anyhow, so if quota is a concern removal could be discussed later.

Support

1. As nom. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:59, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak oppose. I'm sorry, but they are a small minority of people, and they don't have millennia of major cultural importance. I would support bumping non-binary gender up to Level 4, but I sadly don't think Level 3 has the room. (also there are procedural issues with this and you have to nominate it at Level 4 first) QuicoleJR (talk) 13:24, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Per QuicoleJR _pbp 17:56, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Non-binary gender  5 isn't eligible for VA 3 yet. It needs to get VA4 support first. Not sure I would support there, but here oppose is merely procedural.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:22, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Idiosincrático (talk) 11:53, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

1. Not involved enough in this literature to have any opinion, just want to say that currently the "concensus" is that articles aren't allowed to skip levels. I don't agree with this rule, and this proposal might be an example of why it is dumb, but we will have to see. Also, would still like to see swaps proposed, "under quota" will not last long and we should not design proposals without regard to it. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:48, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Doesn't non-binary have to be at VA4 before it can be nominated for VA3? _pbp 02:51, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

As stated above, that is the current rule yes. I don't agree with that rule as it generally makes more work for proposals like this, where you can spend 8 months on trying to get something moved and then it fails, rather then just proposing it outright and saving the trouble. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:53, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Add Atlantic slave trade

Atlantic slave trade  4 is just as important as many other history topics on this list.

Support

1. As nominator. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 21:33, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Support. Important, had a massive impact on modern demographics in North America, and probably needs to be watched carefully to avoid unpleasant vandalism. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:45, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak oppose: sure it's covered in Colonialism  3, Slavery  3, the Spanish Empire  3 and the British Empire  3, but it is obviously important. I also hope we don't get too new world-centric in Early Modern History. Idiosincrático (talk) 11:50, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

1. Is this not already covered sufficiently by the articles for Colonialism  3 and Slavery  3? λ NegativeMP1 02:03, 1 May 2025 (UTC)