Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/2

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

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

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

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

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

For reference, the following times apply for today:

• 15 days ago was: 17:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC) ()
• 30 days ago was: 17:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
• 60 days ago was: 17:11, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Swap Sport  2 with Play (activity)  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.

---

Play is an activity that is much less formal then sport, but engaged in by all as both entertainment and a way of learning. Play is not exclusive to humans, and is a higher category then sport, which is a form of highly structured play. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. as nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. There's not too much difference between play and Entertainment, which is already listed as the broadest container in this area. Sport is important enough to include as a subtopic at this level, so I don't think it'd be an improvement to try to zoom out to play. Sdkb ^talk 00:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
2. Weak oppose. Idiosincrático (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
3. Per SdkbQuestions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 00:37, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

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.

Swap City  2 with Human settlement  5

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 another discussion this came up, but is a glaring issue I think we should address. The concept of the "city" is ambiguous, and overly narrow. A city is a type of Human settlement  5 that is relatively new, and the majority of humans in history have not lived in what we consider to be urban cities. Cities are big and obvious, but only one type of human settlement. I base this argument on Wikipedia:Vital articles#What makes an article "vital"?.

1: Human settlement is broader in its scope then city, and encompasses cities.

2: Human settlement is vital to other Wikipedia articles, such as Town  4, Hamlets. Human settlement can also be applied to semi-permanent settlments, like Military camp or {Military base  5. Most human settlements in history are not cities, and most people did not live in cities until recently.

3: Both are notable, but cities being notable contributes to the notability of human settlment, as cities ARE human settlments.

4: The emphasis on cities as a form of settlement might be a bias towards the post colonial European view of the world.

5: City gets more pageviews, but not by such a large margin that I'd consider it to outweigh the fact cities are a subset of settlements.

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. as nom GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:32, 15 December 2024 (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.

Swap Water  2 with Chemical compound  3

We include Chemical element  2 as a level 2 vital article under Chemistry  2, but the only other thing under chemistry at level 2 is Water  2, a chemical compound. Now, I agree water is an important chemical compound to life on Earth, but there are MANY vital chemical compounds that are also vital. DNA  3, Carbon dioxide  3, Silicon dioxide  5 and Adenosine triphosphate  5 for example all are "vital" but we can't include every vital compound at level 2. Based on the first criteria of vital articles that they "tend to "cover" more topics and be broader in their scope," and to be consistent with the inclusion of chemical element, I think we can move water down for an article with a broader scope that is inclusive of water.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Food  2 (190 interwikis), Water  2 (271 interwikis) and Air-->(redirect)Atmosphere of Earth  3 (130) are about as basic/important as it gets. Chemical compound  3 (135) is a little bit lower priority for an encyclopedia.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Oppose Absolutely not. Firstly, water is what makes Earth fundamentally special; it enables life at a basic level that the other compounds you mentioned do not. The only other chemical substance I would consider just as fundamentally important for life is carbon. But the unique properties water are not just fundamental to life, but also to abiotic geologic processes, so I'd give water the edge overall. Secondly, chemical bond is the fundamental concept behind the formation of compounds – it explains the chemical structure of pure elements and non-stoichiometric mixtures as well. But if you're thinking about adding an article on chemical bonding, you have to consider that we don't include physics topics like electron or electromagnetism or force which are arguably more fundamental. Bottom line is, it's far from clear to me that bonding or compounds represent a uniquely glaring omission on the list when it comes to abstract scientific concepts. But when it comes to things whose importance is immediately understood by scientists and non-scientists alike, water is right up there. Think of how water is traditionally perceived as a classical element in all sorts of cultures around the world, for example. Cobblet (talk) 04:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

It's unfortunate and misleading for WP:VITALCRITERIA to be a numbered list, as that could be read (as this nomination apparently does) that the earlier-listed criteria are more important. That isn't the case; these are factors that have to be balanced against one another. If all that mattered was coverage, then the most vital article would be Universe. Cobblet (talk) 04:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger, @Cobblet we include Sea  2 already (I think this should be swapped for something more general, but that will be another proposal and I'm sure hassle), which covers a lot of how water makes Earth special. We don't even include Air (classical element) as a vital article at all at any level, so I fail to see why water being a classical element should matter. Carbon  3 is level 3, DNA  3 is level 3, so critical to biology doesn't seem to hold things to level 3. While water is involved in erosion, the Atmosphere of Earth  3 is level 3. If you disagree with this, could Chemical element  2 should be removed? We could remove it, and add Molecule  3 under physics to sit next to Atom  2. At least that would be a bit more consistent compromise of what is and is not at level 2.

I don't consider interwiki links to really be that good of a metric for vital articles, it's a lot like pageviews, except pageviews are listed as a criteria for vital articles. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

The sea is just one component of the water cycle. And by focusing on how we assess one article related to classical elements (you didn't mention how Air is a redirect to Atmosphere of Earth), you miss the point regarding the everyday cultural significance of water vs. the relative lack thereof for other substances or abstract scientific concepts. What other substance or concept has articles on socio-cultural aspects as diverse as Human right to water and sanitation, water conflict, and water and religion? Even for something as basic as air, AFAIK we have no article along the lines of right to clean air. If that's true, does that not tell you something about how society perceives the importance of water?

Chemical elements are the building blocks of chemistry, much as cells are to life, or atoms are to matter. A molecule is held together by covalent bonding, so if anything it seems to be a worse choice than chemical bond. Cobblet (talk) 06:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I tried to address the statement that air as a classical element isn't included at all. Air as a redirect to "atmosphere of the Earth" is level 3, which is where I think water should be, but that doesn't seem likely.

Would dropping chemical element and adding Chemical bond  3 be better then? GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

User:GeogSage, VA is an attempt to enumerate the most vital articles for the improvement of the encyclopedia. Levels 1, and 2 are broad brush subjects. These are items in the trunk of the tree of knowledge. Air (classical element) is a philosophical consideration of air that is very different from the encyclopedia users' interest in air (Oxygen, CO2, etc.). I would oppose it or vote to remove it from VA5. I personally think Chemical substance  4 and Chemical element  2 are more vital than either Chemical compound  3 or Chemical bond  3.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I understand these are the broad brush subjects, I have a different opinion on what constitutes a broad subject though. For example, City  2 is level 2, which excludes all other forms of human settlement, making it a very narrow term to have at level 2. I believe water is very specific and we could have more broad topics, like chemical compound, or chemical substance, instead. The reason I brought up Air as a classical element was because of the 2nd oppose vote mentioning the classical elements to try to increase how vital water was. As the classical elements are not vital articles, I don't think that really matters when we're discussing water. I'd agree with swapping chemical substance with chemical element, but here we bump into the bane of my existence with this project: We'd need to nominate chemical substance at level 3 first, swap out some level 3 article to level 4, and then proceed to discuss moving it to level 2. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 07:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

As VA progresses it will become rarer and rarer that we find subjects that are multiple levels removed from their rightful place. I currently have several nominees that are actively listed for level 5 that I think will achieve consensus at level 4. E.g., we have Electric battery  3 and several examples of Rechargeable battery (Lead–acid battery  5, Nickel–iron battery  5, Nickel–metal hydride battery  5, Lithium-ion battery  5, Lithium polymer battery  5). It seems quite natural to me that Rechargeable battery should be nominated at VA4. By the time I can, 2 nominations to remove rechargeable batteries are likely to be completed, but I feel strongly that Rechargeable battery should be VA4. I also think Snout, Fang, Outer ear, Nostril, Whiskers, Tusk, Membrane, Pouch (marsupial), and Stinger is a list that includes a lot of subjects that can help WP:VAB fill its 1480/1500 quota deficit at level 4. I think Gate, Chimney, Fence, Moat, Sewerage might also displace some current VA4 tech subjects. Feedback at level 5 will help me assess these possibilities.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Bonding is a quantum description of the behaviour of atoms; our understanding of bonding comes from the development of modern atomic theory in the early 20th century. The notion of a chemical element goes back to Boyle and Lavoisier; it was one of the fundamental developments that transformed alchemy into chemistry, and that development is what led to Dalton's atomic theory. So I think it makes sense to list atom and chemical element, but not chemical bond.

Happy to have a separate discussion on city. I think it could be argued that if you had to sum up the history of human settlement in one word, that word would be urbanization. If you think that's an overly reductive perspective, fair enough. I do appreciate that at least you've looked at the geography topics from a holistic angle, because that is the constructive approach to take.

I cringe a little whenever someone says that our goal here is to determine the "most vital" articles. That perspective assumes that it is always possible to say that one article is "more vital" than another. Anyone who has put a significant amount of thought into these discussions will realize that that isn't the case. Clinging to that idea impedes consensus-building and leads to unproductive discussions. At the end of the day, the forest matters more than the trees. Cobblet (talk) 16:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Cobblet, some people do believe that the VA project attempts to determine the most vital articles. That belief does not make their votes or comments any less helpful.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

You may believe whatever you wish to believe. I have interacted with many people here (forest) besides you (tiger). My comments summarize my experience and are not specifically directed at your contributions. Cobblet (talk) 16:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)