Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level 3

General Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

Level 5 Subpages

People History and geography History Geography Arts and everyday life Religion, philosophy, mythology and culture Society Science and mathematics Technology

Creative and cultural figures Thinkers and researchers Authorities and leadership figures

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: 01:23, 4 June 2026 (UTC) ()
• 30 days ago was: 01:23, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
• 60 days ago was: 01:23, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Add Burial ◎ 4

Common way to honor a dead person.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 22:37, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Shocksingularity (talk) 01:07, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Per nom. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 02:43, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
4. 飞车过大关 (talk) 11:42, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Level 3 is over quota. Cognsci (talk) 06:41, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
2. Per Carlwev. Burial is not a cultural universal. KhaiDo (talk) 14:49, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
3. See below  Carlwev  16:13, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
4. Per Carlwev and KhaiDo. Melozone crissalis (talk) 23:30, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Level 3 is over quota. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:20, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

It is very common, maybe the most common? but would funeral be better? does that include burial plus other forms of culturally honoring the deceased and physically dealing with the body, such as cremation, mummification, and more?  Carlwev  23:50, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Burial in and of itself, putting a corpse in the ground may or may not come with rites, although usually does. Other death rites may include Cremation, Mummification, Excarnation, Entombment, sea burial and more. Although burials sometime happen without rites like mass graves from war disease famine massacres, or criminal. Most of the time people think of burial is as part of a funeral, and the article and topic of funeral is wider scope and includes more methods and rites than just burial and so I think Funeral would be more appropriate for the 1000 list. Death is in the 100, so I guess the article about death rites and ceremony "funeral" would be OK for the 1000 list, unless someone can think of a better one.  Carlwev  16:13, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

A few basic psychology adds

The VA3 psychology section is pretty small right now.

Oppose all

1. Oppose all, level 3 is over quota. Cognsci (talk) 11:01, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
2. Oppose all per above.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:42, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Add Cognition ◎ 4

Aka thinking.

Support

1. As nom. Shocksingularity (talk) 00:29, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
2. Supplement to mind, emotion and logic whcih all are all level 2 articles. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:12, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
3. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 08:20, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
4. Interstellarity (talk) 20:41, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
5. I learned general and educational psychology as part of my major. From that perspective, Perception ◎ 4, Feeling ◎ 4, Thought ◎ 3, Imagination ◎ 4, Memory ◎ 3, and Attention ◎ 4 are all cognitive processes. KhaiDo (talk) 10:17, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Too much and too specific. Consciousness, Thought and Mind are already listed. (talk) --Thi (talk) 09:16, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Perception ◎ 4

Pretty basic.

Support

1. As nom. Shocksingularity (talk) 00:29, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
2. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 08:20, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
3. Interstellarity (talk) 20:41, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Trust (social science) ◎ 4

Likely the first interpersonal emotion experienced. Even babies can feel trust.

Support

1. As nom. Shocksingularity (talk) 00:29, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
2. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 08:20, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
3. Interstellarity (talk) 20:41, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --Thi (talk) 21:21, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
2. I think this is too closely related to Belief ◎ 3 and that is more general. KhaiDo (talk) 10:22, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Empathy ◎ 4

Basic human experience, important evolutionarily.

Support

1. As nom. Shocksingularity (talk) 00:29, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
2. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 08:20, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
3. Ipedecha (talk) 10:31, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
4. Interstellarity (talk) 20:41, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --Thi (talk) 21:21, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Grief ◎ 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.

---

This recently was promoted to level 4, and I'd like to see it go further. The flip-side of Love ◎ 3.

Support

1. As nom. Shocksingularity (talk) 00:29, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Too specific and not very necesary at this level. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 21:21, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
3. Interstellarity (talk) 20:41, 18 March 2026 (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.

Add Mood (psychology) ◎ 4

We have Emotion ◎ 2.

Support

1. As nom. Shocksingularity (talk) 00:29, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --Thi (talk) 21:21, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
2. Interstellarity (talk) 20:41, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

Shocksingularity (talk) 00:29, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Add Java ◎ 4, remove Jakarta ◎ 3

Jakarta is often mentioned in discussions about the 1,000 most important Wikipedia articles as a weak city because it is gradually losing its political significance in Indonesia. This is partly due to the gradual rise in sea levels and the potential relocation of the capital to another city. Meanwhile, Java, as the most populous island in Indonesia and the most populous island in the world, could be a potential candidate for a new article and to replace Jakarta. Currently, we do not include any island on the list of 1,000 articles, nomination of Greenland failed. At present, we have individual examples of rivers, lakes, seas, and mountain ranges, but no islands, even though the article Island is also a third-level article. An island with a population larger than that of over 150 countries worldwide is likely the best candidate.

Java has fewer page views than Jakarta but an incomparably larger population. I am neutral regarding another possible consensus, namely including both of these articles, as long as the total number of articles remains 1,000. Overall, as a nominator, I was opposed to having neither of these two articles because I believe we should have one island at this level. Jakarta, as a city, although currently losing its geopolitical significance in the country, has also become the largest metropolis in the world (according to many sources).

Support

1. I am the nominator. Dawid2009 (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2026 (UTC)
2. 飞车过大关 (talk) 08:57, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
3. Support addition, but am reluctant on removal, as Jakarta is often stated as the largest city by population in the world. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 07:27, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
4. Interstellarity (talk) 20:47, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Support add, oppose removal

1. Support addition, oppose removal. Jakarta is still the 2nd largest city in the world at a population of 33 million and has massive significance to the island of Java and the broader region of southeast asia. I support the addition of java though, which is the most populated island in the world and has lots of volcanos providing fertile soil, unique for a region of Earth. Dylan240 (talk) 17:54, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
2. 🍋‍🟩 OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 20:37, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose add, neutral swap

1. Level 3 is over quota. Cognsci (talk) 10:44, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

Add some more animal

After a couple of discussions above, I decided to run through all the animal until I got to the highest interwiki VA4 bird (Owl, 170)

Oppose all

1. Oppose all, level 3 is over quota. Cognsci (talk) 10:28, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
2. Oppose all per above.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:45, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Add Ant

204 Interwikis

Support

1. As nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:57, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
2. Ipedecha (talk) 13:12, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Probably the most important Insect ◎ 3, but I think the class is sufficient considering their diminished impact on humanity compared to most mammals. Dess Dedalus (talk) 06:50, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
2. Not at L3. Aszx5000 (talk) 22:54, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

Add Snake

201 Interwikis

Support

1. As nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:57, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
2. Very important culturally, the snake that temped adam and eve, most dragons are related to snake, the creator goddest of chinese mythology, the winged snake was the most important god of meso-america, they are also every where, their poison cost a lot and kills ton of people. Also reptile representation. Ipedecha (talk) 13:12, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
3. Tenatively (would like to see more comments here) Dawid2009 (talk) 15:28, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Reptile ◎ 3 is sufficient. Dess Dedalus (talk) 06:50, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
2. Not at L3. Aszx5000 (talk) 22:54, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

IMHO, culturally not on the level of elephant, comparable to eagle and dragon but one thing which makes snake decent candidate as specific example is being reptilie IMHO. Dawid2009 (talk) 06:29, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

As alternative reptilie there is also turtle (BTW also appeared on World Elephant) and as alternative to insects there are also fly, apid, mosquito apart from spider and ant. Dawid2009 (talk) 09:23, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Add Goat

190 Interwikis

Support

1. I actually think this one is a fine add when we're under quota. Humans across the world use them for all kinds of purposes, both agricultural and as pets or companions. These also might be more culturally/mythologically influential than the other animals proposed such as tigers or elephants. This is the only proposed one I think is on the level of horses, chickens, etc. in terms of impact on humanity. Dess Dedalus (talk) 06:50, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
2. Tenatively (would like to see more comments under this discussion here). Dawid2009 (talk) 15:25, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
3. Per Selina Dedalus. Dylan240 (talk) 18:02, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Too much livestock, isnt variety the reason we list so many bios even tho in grand scheme almost none them are that important? Less important than the elephant in terms of impact to humanity, they are almost always a second fiddle lifestock to sheep, cow, water buffalos, chicken and others. Elephants also have Ivory ◎ 4 Ipedecha (talk) 13:14, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
2. Not at L3. Aszx5000 (talk) 22:54, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Neutral

1. As nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:57, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Spider

184 Interwikis

Support

Oppose

1. Per above discussion of insects. Dess Dedalus (talk) 06:50, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
2. Not at L3. Aszx5000 (talk) 22:54, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Neutral

1. As nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:57, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Camel

184 Interwikis

Support

Oppose

1. Too regional for V3. Dess Dedalus (talk) 06:50, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
2. Not at L3. Aszx5000 (talk) 22:54, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Neutral

1. As nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:57, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Bat

179 Interwikis

Support

Oppose

1. Plenty of mammals I've already voted against that I would add before the bat. Dess Dedalus (talk) 06:50, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
2. Ipedecha (talk) 13:12, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
3. Not at L3. Aszx5000 (talk) 22:54, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Neutral

1. As nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:57, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

Swap: Move Asthma ◎ 3 from VA3 to VA4, Move Respiratory disease ◎ 5 from VA5 to VA3

There are many respiratory diseases important to human life. Asthma is probably the most important of them, but I feel that the others are critical enough we ought to use the category here.

Support

1. As nom. Dess Dedalus (talk) 08:26, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
2. Strong stupport. This better complies with the vital arcticle criteria. In terms of skipping levels, Wikipedia:Ignore all rules GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:30, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. That is too big of a jump. Bluevestman (talk) 04:35, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
2. If the category of respiratory disease is really so vital, you should have no problem moving it to level 4. Cognsci (talk) 19:01, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

   Comment: This is a major problem with the project, it is just formalized Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling. Going through level 4 to get to level 3 would take months, and is very disruptive to the lists. Requiring a swap at level 4 means finding something you might otherwise be fine with just to make a temporary step. It took me over a year to get to the point where I could propose a set of minor changes at level 3, multiple discussions, and then by the time everything was ready, many editors who had previously supported were no where to be found and it was struck down by a slim margin of votes. Completely wasted my time, and as the topic is something I have a doctorate in, I can say certify that part of the list is bad, and we should feel bad. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:34, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

We actually also have Pneumonia ◎ 3 and Tuberculosis ◎ 3. KhaiDo (talk) 11:42, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Signature

Dess Dedalus (talk) 08:26, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

African city additions

These African cities are important. Africa only has two cities unlike Europe.

Add Kinshasa ◎ 4

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 14:35, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
2. Far more populous, growing faster, & the largest Francophone city in the world if I’m not mistaken. Has a longer history than Nairobi, and Anglophone Africa has representation in Lagos ◎ 3. Dess Dedalus (talk) 16:07, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
3. Per Dedalus. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 03:53, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
4. The Account 2 (talk) 17:22, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Not at L3 in terms of impact on humanity / human history. Aszx5000 (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
2. Oppose addition of new cities. Might support a swap. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:38, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
3. Cognsci (talk) 10:07, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Add Nairobi ◎ 4

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

---

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 14:35, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Shouldn’t add too many right now. Nairobi would likely be my pick for a 4th African city, but I prefer Kinshasa for the above reasons. Dess Dedalus (talk) 16:07, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
2. Not at L3 in terms of impact on humanity / human history. Aszx5000 (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
3. Oppose addition of new cities. Might support a swap. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:38, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
4. Cognsci (talk) 10:07, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
5. 飞车过大关 (talk) 06:12, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

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

Add Adenosine triphosphate ◎ 4

Considering the above proposal to remove Eating ◎ 4 and Drinking ◎ 4, I think we should include this instead. ATP is what all Life ◎ 1 gets Energy ◎ 2 from through the process of Cellular respiration ◎ 4, a form of Metabolism ◎ 3. Probably the next-most important Molecule ◎ 3 after Water ◎ 2 and Carbon dioxide ◎ 3 (aside from compounds like H₂ or O₂ which are covered by the pages for their elements).

Support

1. As nom. Dess Dedalus (talk) 17:51, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 10:59, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
3. Sure. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 11:19, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Level 3 is over quota. Cognsci (talk) 09:51, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
2. Per above, and it may be sufficient to just have Metabolism ◎ 3.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:38, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
3. Too detailed for the level 3 list.飞车过大关 (talk) 10:32, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

Signature

Dess Dedalus (talk) 17:51, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Splitting this page along with level 4

I opened up a discussion on the level 4 about splitting this page and level 4 regarding splitting this page (discussion). Please see my reasoning there. If you feel that separate discussions are better for this, feel free to comment here instead of the level 4 talk page. Interstellarity (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Don't split this page. There is only one list for level 3, so there should be only one talk page. The abundance of discussions here seems to be temporary. As recently as last September, it was under 50,000 bytes. Melozone crissalis (talk) 19:07, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Swap Henry Ford ◎ 3 for Goods ◎ 4

Economics ◎ 2 is the study of the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services. Service (economics) ◎ 3 is here, so this is a glaring omission.

On the other hand, we'll likely be overquota after the additions of Theology ◎ 3, Old age ◎ 3, Video ◎ 3, and probably Morocco ◎ 3. Hence, I think it's a perfectly reasonable move to cut an entry like Henry Ford. Unlike most other fields where it's pretty clear which few stands at the top, Businesspeople has been extremely controversial, with past proposals to swap him with, or straight up adding, John D. Rockefeller ◎ 4, Andrew Carnegie ◎ 4, and J. P. Morgan ◎ 4. Only listing Ford creates a great imbalance. The Meta list does not even have a section for businesspeople, instead list Ford under inventors, which I believe was just an alternative to having him alone in a different section and not because his status as an inventor was anything but a footnote to his legacy. That list also has 12 explorers, of which our list only has 1 after all the, I would say, necessary trimming.

On our current list, there are Thomas Edison ◎ 3 and Walt Disney ◎ 3 for businessmen and Mansa Musa ◎ 3 who was insanely rich. Unlike Ford's cars, Edison's electricity and Disney's films speak more to a universal audience, i.e., indiscriminate of their class or nationality. Edison in particular was even a friend of Ford, so we're listing two white American businessmen from the same time period who lived in close proximity. In recent decades, Ford Motor Company hasn't been the dominant automobile company either. Ford is now mostly remembered for pioneering modern Mass production ◎ 4, which was an important but not the sole most important part of the Second Industrial Revolution ◎ 4. Considering we don't list actual inventors like James Watt ◎ 4 who basically started the first Industrial Revolution ◎ 3, or Alexander Graham Bell ◎ 4 who revolutionized Telecommunications ◎ 3, I'd say we're giving a little too much credit to the guy who saw how slaughterhouses worked and copied it for his car company.

A data-based ranking of the top 100 historical figures by Time, who straight up admitted their methodology resulted in bias for the Anglophone world, did not include Ford. We've also recently removed the Father of History, so the bar is set pretty high, a bar which I don't think Ford passes.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 09:15, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
2. (mobile formatting is a nightmare, this is a vote) support removal only, neutral on addition -1ctinus📝🗨 16:19, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
3. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 23:10, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
4. Aye. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:50, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
5. The Account 2 (talk) 10:47, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
6. Support removal. --Thi (talk) 18:54, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
7. 飞车过大关 (talk) 12:26, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. In The 1-3 failed straight remove in June 2024 discussion was light. However, the October 2025 4-7 straight remove vote was a fairly clear consensus against removal. I don't think we need to rehash Ford every year. As the first person to oppose in the October 2025 vote, I stand by that vote on the remove here.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:53, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
2. Oppose removal, support addition. Ford is a cut above all other businessmen because his transformation of labor-social relations still stands. He didn't invent mass production or scientific management, but his high-profile success led to them becoming standard practices. He didn't edit or write for it, but his purchase of a widely-read newspaper set a precedent for today's media empires. He didn't come up with the concept, but the five-day work week he championed is now ubiquitous to most of the world. As for the addition, Supply and demand ◎ 3 could go to make space for it. Johnnie Runner (talk) 17:08, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
3. Bluevestman (talk) 20:52, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
4. Per Johnnie Runner. GuzzyG (talk) 02:31, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
5. Per Johnnie. Kevinishere15 (talk) 10:36, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose addition, neutral swap

1. Level 3 is over quota. User:Cognsci (talk) 11:16, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

KhaiDo (talk) 09:15, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Science swaps

Swap Momentum ◎ 4 for Velocity ◎ 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.

---

Momentum is Mass ◎ 3 times Velocity ◎ 3, Speed of light ◎ 3 is listed, and there's not much seperating momentum from other fundamental concepts like Work (physics) ◎ 4 or Inertia ◎ 4.

Support

1. As nom. KhaiDo (talk) 13:41, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
2. 飞车过大关 (talk) 16:33, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
3. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 02:06, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
4. Bluevestman (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
5. --Thi (talk) 19:52, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

Swap International System of Units ◎ 3 for Unit of measurement ◎ 4

The SI was only established in 1960. I think the broader article presents a more complete picture of the origins and development of units throughout history.

Support

1. As nom. KhaiDo (talk) 13:41, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
2. 飞车过大关 (talk) 16:33, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I think Unit of measurement ◎ 4 is a little too close to Measurement ◎ 3 itself. What makes units distinctly vital is their ability to be systemized, which this article doesn't really get into, and SI does on an unparalleled level. It's like listing the United Nations ◎ 3 over the concept of an International organization ◎ 5. Johnnie Runner (talk) 18:30, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
3. Bluevestman (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

Swap Skeletal muscle ◎ 4 for Muscle ◎ 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.

---

Muscle is an obvious add, while skeletal muscle has overlap with it and Skeleton ◎ 3. I also couldn't find any past discussions regarding adding or removing either of these articles, so this must have been an oversight.

Support

1. As nom. KhaiDo (talk) 13:41, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
2. 飞车过大关 (talk) 16:33, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
3. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 02:06, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
4. Johnnie Runner (talk) 18:06, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
5. --Thi (talk) 18:51, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
6. Bluevestman (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

Swap Acid–base reaction ◎ 4 for Base (chemistry) ◎ 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.

---

To be consistent with the addition of Acid ◎ 3 and to avoid redundancy.

Support

1. As nom. KhaiDo (talk) 13:41, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
2. 飞车过大关 (talk) 16:33, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
3. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 02:07, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
4. Johnnie Runner (talk) 17:52, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
5. --Thi (talk) 18:50, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
6. Bluevestman (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

Swap Carbon dioxide ◎ 3 for Salt (chemistry) ◎ 4

There isn't enough room for specific compounds at this level, with the only exception of Water ◎ 2 which is obviously way more essential to Human ◎ 1, Life ◎ 1, and Culture ◎ 2. Oxide ◎ 4 isn't even listed. On the other hand, salt rounds out the basic types of compounds.

Support

1. As nom. KhaiDo (talk) 13:41, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
2. 飞车过大关 (talk) 16:33, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
3. Bluevestman (talk) 20:10, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I'll weakly oppose the removal, as carbon dioxide is probably important enough for level 3, if water can get to level 2. I support the addition though. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 02:09, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

Swap Redox ◎ 4 for Analytical chemistry ◎ 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.

---

The proposal to add Redox was a swap with Electrolysis ◎ 4, where the only rationale was that the latter was a subset of the former. I think now it's safe to say there isn't room for specific types of reactions. Analytical chemistry ◎ 3, on the other hand, completes the map of chemistry, alongside Biochemistry ◎ 3, Inorganic chemistry ◎ 3, Organic chemistry ◎ 3, and Physical chemistry ◎ 3.

Support

1. As nom. KhaiDo (talk) 13:41, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
2. 飞车过大关 (talk) 16:33, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
3. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 02:05, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
4. Support removal. --Thi (talk) 18:50, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
5. Bluevestman (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

KhaiDo (talk) 13:41, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

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

Swap Dentistry ◎ 3 for Health care ◎ 4

Not sure what sets dentistry apart from branches like Pediatrics ◎ 4 or Oncology ◎ 4. In contrast, healthcare is a very broad and important concept concerning multiple fields, from science to society and politics.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
2. 飞车过大关 (talk) 18:01, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 18:48, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Bluevestman (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
2. Oppose addition for being too similar to Medicine ◎ 2 itself (Public health ◎ 4 might fit better). Undecided on removal because dentists are probably visited more often than any other kind of doctor besides a general practitioner. Johnnie Runner (talk) 20:55, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

   I'm not sure how they can be considered "too similar" when healthcare also involves many other topics like Nursing ◎ 3, Pharmacy ◎ 4, Psychology ◎ 2, Exercise ◎ 3, etc. Hospital ◎ 3 is a healthcare institution. This would be like listing Bank ◎ 3 but not Finance ◎ 3. KhaiDo (talk) 05:06, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

KhaiDo (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Add Respiratory system ◎ 4

Similar in importance to Circulatory system ◎ 3.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 20:42, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
2. Only support as a swap with Breathing ◎ 3. KhaiDo (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
3. Swap with Breathing ◎ 3. This article is much more comprehensive, as it isn't limited to just our mode of respiration. Johnnie Runner (talk) 18:46, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
4. Support swap with Breathing ◎ 3. Melozone crissalis (talk) 23:20, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Level 3 is over quota. Cognsci (talk) 08:42, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

   @Cognsci: You could support the swap instead. KhaiDo (talk) 04:57, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Remove Gene ◎ 3

There is already Genetics ◎ 3, DNA ◎ 3 and RNA ◎ 3 i dont think the article adds enough for it to be v3, it would be better include more unique stuff like Cnidaria ◎ 4 or Leather ◎ 4. While yes, one could argue that the three germanic classical musician who live at almost the same time period have more overlap, western cannon artist are this projects most special boys and will not be removed.

Support

1. As nom. Ipedecha (talk) 13:56, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
2. Support a swap with Tissue (biology) ◎ 4, which lies between Cell (biology) ◎ 2 and Organ (biology) ◎ 4 among biological organisation levels. Muscle ◎ 3 is a type of tissue. KhaiDo (talk) 05:12, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
3. Cognsci (talk) 13:38, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Gene is vital. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:06, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 07:59, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

Remove Supply and demand ◎ 3

An article suggested for removal by someone in the previous discussions. It is covered by other articles on economics.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 00:50, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 10:38, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
3. Not more important than Price ◎ 4. KhaiDo (talk) 18:44, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
4. Per my potshots. Johnnie Runner (talk) 18:44, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
5. Cognsci (talk) 15:12, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Remove Molecular biology ◎ 3

Too niche of a topic for level 3.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 00:58, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 10:39, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
3. The biology section is a bit bloated and Molecule ◎ 3 is enough. KhaiDo (talk) 15:39, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
4. Cognsci (talk) 15:56, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Number removals

I wanted to consider some possible trims to the number section so I put up some removals so that we can get on quota again.

Remove Real number ◎ 3

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 01:06, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 07:51, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
2. KhaiDo (talk) 18:38, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
3. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 13:44, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Remove Integer ◎ 3

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 01:06, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Likely the most important set of numbers and the focus of Number theory ◎ 3. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 07:33, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
2. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 13:44, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Remove Natural number ◎ 3

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 01:06, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
2. Redundant to integers. I hate this term because of its two slightly different meanings. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 02:22, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. KhaiDo (talk) 18:38, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
2. User:Cognsci (talk) 12:28, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Remove Prime number ◎ 3

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 01:06, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Key in Number theory ◎ 3. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 07:50, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
2. KhaiDo (talk) 18:38, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
3. Strong oppose.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 13:44, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Remove Complex number ◎ 3

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 01:06, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 13:44, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
2. Sesquilinear (talk) 05:03, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Idk, probably would remove E (mathematical constant) ◎ 3 first. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 07:44, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Discussion

To avoid sparse, incoherent arguments, I'd like to discuss the proposal as a whole here. I've opposed the removals of Real number ◎ 3, Natural number ◎ 3, Prime number ◎ 3, and undecided on the rest.

The natural numbers are foundational to mathematics, moreso than integers. The integers are just the naturals and their opposites. One of the foremost formalized systems for Arithmetic ◎ 2, the oldest branch of mathematics, are the Peano axioms ◎ 5, which primarily concern the natural numbers. The natural numbers are called counting numbers precisely because they came into existence for the purpose of counting, which was how mathematics began, a basic human activity, and the main concern of Combinatorics ◎ 4. The lack of a universal definition, regarding the inclusion of 0 ◎ 3, is largely due to the history of 0 as a number or school curriculum purposes. If I had to remove one, it would be Integer.

The primes are the building blocks, the Chemical element ◎ 2, one might say, of Number theory ◎ 3. The Fundamental theorem of arithmetic ◎ 4 is a theorem about prime factorization.

The real numbers are distinct because of their completeness, i.e. the fact that they fill up the entire number line. This is a key result in Mathematical analysis ◎ 3. Without it, you can't define a Limit (mathematics) ◎ 3, which defines other important concepts like Continuous function ◎ 4 and Derivative ◎ 4.

About the complex numbers, they have some applications in physics but not much other than that. They're important to the Fundamental theorem of algebra ◎ 4, but I'd rather include Polynomial ◎ 4 instead.

Overall, I expected a little more effort in a VA3 discussion, but I understand the overquota concerns. However, I still believe every removal at this level should deserve their own seperate rationale. KhaiDo (talk) 18:38, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Swap Abraham Lincoln ◎ 3 (politician) with Yuri Gagarin ◎ 4 (explorer)

Please read the linked biographies for more context.

With the ongoing Artemis II mission in mind, I am proposing this astronomical swap. As an American, Lincoln was a central figure in my country's history. He is associated with the American Civil War ◎ 4, Emancipation Proclamation ◎ 5, Gettysburg Address ◎ 5, and other key American history moments. However, per #3 and #4 of WP:VACRIT, the focus of WP:VA3 should be the world, free of (Western) bias. And in the grand scheme of things, Lincoln's impact was limited to the United States.

Compare this to Gagarin. He was the first human being in space. It was because of that pioneering Vostok 1 ◎ 5 spaceflight that humanity became cognizant of the effects of Spaceflight ◎ 3. More importantly, Gagarin's personification of Sputnik 1 ◎ 4 fueled the intensity of the Space Race ◎ 4 that followed. There would be no Alan Shepard ◎ 5, Valentina Tereshkova ◎ 4, Apollo program ◎ 4, Neil Armstrong ◎ 4, Yang Liwei ◎ 5, International Space Station ◎ 4, and Artemis II, among other space accomplishments, without Gagarin.

As a bonus, Gagarin is already listed on the list of 1,000 articles all Wikipedias should have. (permalink) Also, Yuri's Night, which commemorates space exploration internationally, is named after Gagarin. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 14:37, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Opposition to demotion

According to his legacy, Lincoln is said to have influenced a number of leaders outside the U.S.. His ranking by historians as one of the top three presidents affirms such a global influence. His leadership during a national civil war, and involving the institution of slavery, further defines Lincoln as an international person of interest. Hoppyh (talk) 16:28, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Support

1. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 14:37, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
2. Support removal. Abe Lincoln isn't really that important in the grand scheme of world history. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:57, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Hoppyh (talk) 16:23, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

   @Hoppyh: Can you clarify if you support, oppose, or are neutral on the addition of Yuri Gagarin? KhaiDo (talk) 23:24, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

2. Oppose. All the other space people listed are 4 or 5 and he isn't markedly more important. As an international figure Lincoln is certainly more influential. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:23, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
3. 飞车过大关 (talk) 12:17, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
4. I get that you mentioned Western bias as a concern, but wouldn't Apollo 11 be a much more academically important addition than Gagarin? And surely we have an American in V3 less important than Lincoln, like Ford or Chaplin? 3df (talk) 03:19, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
5. Yuri Gagarin's contributions are sufficiently covered by Spaceflight ◎ 3. Moderate oppose to Lincoln per Hoppyh.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:24, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
6. 🍋‍🟩 OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 20:40, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
7. Dylan240 (talk) 05:15, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose addition

1. Neutral on removal. Having Gagarin a level above Sergei Korolev ◎ 4 would be like having Steve Jobs ◎ 4 a level above Steve Wozniak ◎ 4. It is based on fame and not actual importance. It is different from a case like Christopher Columbus ◎ 3 who was the sole leader of the expeditions, giving him a lot more agency. KhaiDo (talk) 23:24, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 15:35, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
3. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 11:53, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Support removal

1. Lincoln was more important in terms of the domestic affairs of the US. If anything, FDR has had a higher influence on global affairs, was the longest serving president, and has even beaten both Lincoln and Washington in some scholarly surveys. Finally, we don't need two US presidents at V3. One is enough. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 11:53, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 08:02, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Discussion

AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 14:37, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Human spaceflight  might be worth adding to lower levels.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:24, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Swap Kurt Gödel ◎ 3 for Cai Lun ◎ 4

I wasn't able to find the original discussion that added Gödel but only one that failed. Other discussions were removal proposals that failed, so I will be addressing those points there. He is here primarily for Gödel's incompleteness theorems ◎ 4, which essentially state there could be no complete and consistent system of axioms to prove all of mathematics, refuting Hilbert's program , developed by David Hilbert ◎ 4. Right off the bat, you can see Gödel's contributions are mostly confined to Mathematical logic ◎ 4 and Proof theory ◎ 5, both of which Hilbert was a co-founder of, among many other areas that Hilbert contributed to. I think this is a similar situation to Adam Smith ◎ 3 and Karl Marx ◎ 3, where including one but not the other paints an incomplete picture of the history of the field. In this case, it is worse since most mathematicians nowadays would agree that Hilbert was overall more influential to mathematics, and Hilbert's program was only proposed some years before being ended by the incompleteness theorems, whereas Das Kapital ◎ 4 was a critique of nearly a century of influence by The Wealth of Nations ◎ 4. Since there is no realistic chance of both mathematicians at level 3 (and should not be so), it is only consistent that we list neither. Gödel also is not on Meta's 200 bio list, unlike Brahmagupta ◎ 4 who I believe to be a better VA3 candidate with the way he changed how mathematics was studied and practiced in everyday life.

About Cai Lun, there was a recent proposal to swap Zheng He ◎ 4 for him that I think was closed prematurely as there was a good chance of it entirely passing. Cai Lun's innovation in papermaking by adding pulp (which has been the default since, leading him to be credited as the inventor of Paper ◎ 3) led to widespread manufacturing and revolutionzed Communication ◎ 2 worldwide. The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History has Cai Lun at 7 right above Johannes Gutenberg ◎ 3, which is saying a lot given it was put together by a white nationalist. It is Western bias to have the German inventor but not the Chinese one of similar (and potentially greater) place in history.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 11:04, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
2. Axeledits (talk) 02:15, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
3. Makes sense to me. Oppose straight removal. Dess Dedalus (talk) 18:33, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

   Thank you for your vote but did you mean to vote for full or or partial support? KhaiDo (talk) 01:30, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

   Only support it if swap, oppose any non-swap change. Dess Dedalus (talk) 02:19, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

4. Same position as Dess. Johnnie Runner (talk) 16:19, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Parcial support

1. I support removing Kurt Godel, oppose Cai Lun. Paper is already listed, he has more stuff than just paper but thats basically the reason he is being consider, if it is to focus on material i think Leather ◎ 4 and Fiber ◎ 4 are better adds. Ipedecha (talk) 22:34, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

   Would you support removing Gutenberg because Printing ◎ 3 is already listed? KhaiDo (talk) 08:10, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

   Yes. Ipedecha (talk) 09:17, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

   That is quite an interesting stance. I appreciate the consistency. KhaiDo (talk) 11:48, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

2. Support removal. --Thi (talk) 06:58, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
3. Per Ipedecha.飞车过大关 (talk) 11:52, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

   Also support remove Gutenberg. 飞车过大关 (talk) 06:11, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removing Gödel, possibly the most important intellectual figure of the 20th century. --Trovatore (talk) 19:49, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

   What credible sources can this claim be attributed to? KhaiDo (talk) 06:20, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

KhaiDo (talk) 11:04, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

As I wrote previously, Gödel's work is on the limit of what can be logically known, which I think is as fundamental to mathematics as can be. isaacl (talk) 14:34, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Swap Hindustani language ◎ 3 for Hindi ◎ 4

While Hindustani is a combination of Hindi and Urdu, Hindi is the most widely spoken of the two thus making a swap plausible.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 12:10, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. From the articles, it seems Hindi and Urdu are registers of Hindustani, which is a fully fleshed out language by itself and not just an umbrella term for two vastly different languages. Urdu ◎ 4 is also an official language of Pakistan ◎ 3, which is not the same for Hindi. KhaiDo (talk) 01:45, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
2. Generally most linguistic information will be either common to both varieties or worth contrasting. Sesquilinear (talk) 03:12, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

Food and drinks

Remove Cheese ◎ 3

Milk ◎ 3 should be sufficent for this level. We don't have other common dairy products like Yogurt ◎ 4, Cream ◎ 4, and Butter ◎ 4.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 08:50, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
2. Per nom.飞车过大关 (talk) 05:54, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
3. User:Cognsci (talk) 12:00, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
4. Dylan240 (talk) 05:20, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Remove Chocolate ◎ 4

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

---

We don't include Dessert ◎ 4 or Candy ◎ 4.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 08:50, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
2. Per nom.飞车过大关 (talk) 06:06, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
3. VA3 is overquota and this is one of the better removal noms.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 13:21, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
4. Per nom and LaukkuTheGreit above. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:40, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
5. Cognsci (talk) 15:35, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
6. Dylan240 (talk) 05:20, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

Add Juice ◎ 4

Since there are no specific fruits and very few vegetables at this level, I think this one works well as compensation. Also on Meta's 1000-article list.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 08:50, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I would rather support the addition of Berry (botany) ◎ 4.飞车过大关 (talk) 06:08, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
2. Meta 1000-article is honestly just a primitive version of this list, after looking at it and the old version of v3, so i dont really buy it as a argumment, juice is just beaten Fruit ◎ 3, should be v4, but not v3. Ipedecha (talk) 10:15, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
3. Per Ipedecha above. Dylan240 (talk) 05:20, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Herb ◎ 4

Should be on the same level as Spice ◎ 3.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 08:50, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Why? User:Cognsci (talk) 12:05, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
2. Dylan240 (talk) 05:20, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
3. 飞车过大关 (talk) 05:31, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

KhaiDo (talk) 08:50, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Arts topics

Remove Musicology ◎ 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.

---

The only academic discipline in this section. We don't have Literary theory ◎ 5, Literary criticism ◎ 4, or Architectural theory ◎ 4.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 04:14, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
2. 飞车过大关 (talk) 18:56, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
3. ChaoticV (converse, contribs) 22:39, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
4. --Thi (talk) 07:58, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
5. Johnnie Runner (talk) 19:51, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
6. I don't believe this is more important than Music theory ◎ 4 anyways, despite the latter being described as a subset of the former. Musicology is too broad and vague, basically any academic study of music.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 13:29, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
7. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:39, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

Remove Opera ◎ 4

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

---

A Western art form under Theatre ◎ 3 and Classical music ◎ 3 with somewhat limited influence.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 04:14, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
2. ChaoticV (converse, contribs) 22:40, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
3. Per Timothée Chalamet I wouldn't call opera's influence limited at all, but I don't see what warrants listing it above all other forms of theatre. Johnnie Runner (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
4. Does have importance for History of music ◎ 3 (e.g. the influence of Richard Wagner ◎ 4) but too niche in today's world compared to artforms like Film ◎ 3; not markedly more important than Symphony ◎ 4, Ballet ◎ 4, Melody ◎ 4, Choir ◎ 4 or Drama ◎ 4; covered by Theatre ◎ 3, Classical music ◎ 3 and Singing ◎ 3 at this level.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 06:28, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
5. I think Drama ◎ 4 is more important.飞车过大关 (talk) 06:33, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --Thi (talk) 08:56, 18 April 2026 (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.

Remove Orchestra ◎ 3

Another Western art form covered by Classical music ◎ 3 and Musical instrument ◎ 3.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 04:14, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
2. ChaoticV (converse, contribs) 22:40, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --Thi (talk) 08:56, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
2. There is 3 classical musician and none of them is more important than a Orchestra. Ipedecha (talk) 09:28, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

   A great deal of classical music (including that of Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven) is not intended for orchestras, but rather for vocalists (see Choir), soloists (see Concerto#Without orchestra and Sonata), or small ensembles (see Chamber music and Quartet). And to correct myself, orchestra is not an art form, but simply an ensemble of instruments. How is it more important than the actual music in its own repertoire like Baroque music ◎ 4 or Symphony ◎ 4, or actual forms of performing arts like Magic (illusion) ◎ 4, Puppetry ◎ 4, or Mime artist ◎ 4? KhaiDo (talk) 12:45, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Narrative ◎ 4

The lede speaks for itself. Narratives are present in pretty much all of The arts ◎ 1, Entertainment ◎ 2, and Mass media ◎ 2. They are central to Literature ◎ 2, Folklore ◎ 2, Film ◎ 3, and Journalism ◎ 3. More universal than Rhythm ◎ 3.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 04:14, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
2. Ipedecha (talk) 09:28, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
3. 飞车过大关 (talk) 10:47, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
4. ChaoticV (converse, contribs) 22:41, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
5. Support swap with Short story ◎ 3. Neutral otherwise (leaning oppose) due to overlap with Fiction ◎ 3 and Non-fiction ◎ 3.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:34, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Narratology is not very important for general reader. --Thi (talk) 07:01, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

   @Thi: This isn't Narratology  I'm nominating though? If you took a glance at the article, you'd know that it's about stories/tales in general: "A narrative, story, or tale is any account [...]." KhaiDo (talk) 10:21, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

And people know them as Film, Opera etc. --Thi (talk) 12:26, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

I think the concept of a story is easily familiar to the average person, at least more than that of rhythm. KhaiDo (talk) 14:33, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

KhaiDo (talk) 04:14, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Add Calligraphy ◎ 4

One of the most universal art forms (at least more than Opera), especially integral to the history of Writing ◎ 2 and many cultures around the world.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 07:53, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
2. Ipedecha (talk) 14:17, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
3. ARoseThorn (talk) 13:18, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Writing

Add Writing system ◎ 4

The concept of a writing system should be more vital than specific writing systems, which we list a couple of, and Alphabet ◎ 3, which is a type of writing system. If Writing ◎ 2 is VA2, then I think this should make it to Level 3.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 16:02, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
2. 飞车过大关 (talk) 03:48, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Level 3 is over quota, support swap with alphabet. Cognsci (talk) 18:29, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

   Level 3 is overquota by 3, which will be a non-problem after the 4 specific alphabets right below are removed. These two noms are basically a swap but I just seperated them for simplicity. KhaiDo (talk) 00:43, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

Remove specific alphabets/family of alphabets

I feel like the scripts are redundant and inferior to their respective group of languages. Specific languages involve Speech ◎ 3, Literature ◎ 2; they have monumental cultural and historical significance to somewhat justify their inclusion. The same cannot really be said for specific alphabets, which are just means to express such languages in written form. We currently list 4:

• Arabic script ◎ 3
• Brahmic scripts ◎ 3
• Cyrillic script ◎ 3
• Latin script ◎ 3

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 16:02, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
2. Ipedecha (talk) 16:25, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
3. The Level 3 list should avoid specifics.飞车过大关 (talk) 03:49, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
4. Cognsci (talk) 18:35, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Swap Chinese characters ◎ 3 for Logogram ◎ 5

By similar reasoning. Logographic systems, including Chinese characters, are the second most common type after alphabets. They also include Cuneiform ◎ 4, Egyptian hieroglyphs ◎ 4, and Mesoamerican systems like the Maya script ◎ 4. I think all of this justifies the level-hopping.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 16:02, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
2. Ipedecha (talk) 16:25, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
3. If someone proposes adding Logogram in the Level 4 discussion, I will definitely support this swap.飞车过大关 (talk) 03:59, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I don't like the proposal that ignores the Level 4 list. I still suggest that you bring it up again on the Level 4 discussion.飞车过大关 (talk) 03:54, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

•While i support this i pretty sure it needs to v4 for this swap to happened. Ipedecha (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

WP:IGNORE should apply here. KhaiDo (talk) 16:38, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

True. Ipedecha (talk) 16:55, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Swap Arabic numerals ◎ 3 for Numeral system ◎ 5

The (Western) Arabic numerals are what had been adopted and evolved in Europe from the Hindu–Arabic numeral system ◎ 5, which is based on the Brahmi numerals . In many contexts, "Arabic numerals" refer to the general Hindu–Arabic numeral system, which consists of the Eastern Arabic numerals  used in the Middle East and the Indian numerals used in the Indian subcontinent. And while the Hindu-Arabic numerals (specifically the Western ones) are used worldwide, many parts of the world still consistently use their native systems by default or a combination of both, like China, Japan, or Thailand. Furthermore, non-decimal systems like the Roman numerals ◎ 4 and Tally marks ◎ 5 are still popular. Thus, I think it is best to list the general concept of written numbers.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 16:02, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
2. Ipedecha (talk) 16:25, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
3. If someone proposes adding Numeral system in the Level 4 discussion, I will definitely support this swap.飞车过大关 (talk) 03:59, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

   I've made the proposals here. KhaiDo (talk) 06:22, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I don't like the proposal that ignores the Level 4 list. I still suggest that you bring it up again on the Level 4 discussion.飞车过大关 (talk) 03:56, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
2. My thoughts on this are the same as my thoughts on the International System of Units ◎ 3 vs. Unit of measurement ◎ 4. Arabic numerals are so profoundly ubiquitous compared to every other numeral system that they outweigh the broader concept. Johnnie Runner (talk) 20:03, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

KhaiDo (talk) 16:02, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Nota bene: the article scope of this and similar articles was part of the contention behind WP:ARBMAG. Sesquilinear (talk) 22:49, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Remove Wu Zetian ◎ 3, Add Ming dynasty ◎ 4 or Emperor Taizong of Tang ◎ 4

Wu Zetian ◎ 3 is merely the only woman in Chinese history to formally assume the title of Emperor. Yet, driven by identity politics, the Level 3 List has elevated her to the ranks of the most important leaders in history, placing her alongside Mao Zedong ◎ 3 and Qin Shi Huang ◎ 3. I find this utterly absurd.

Apart from capitalizing on the legacy of Emperor Taizong of Tang ◎ 4 and Emperor Gaozong of Tang ◎ 5 to maintain the Tang dynasty ◎ 3's power, she achieved no groundbreaking political impact. She never advanced the status of women throughout her reign; instead, she implemented a failed authoritarian dictatorship that even pushed the country into regression—it was not until Emperor Xuanzong of Tang ◎ 4 ascended the throne that the Tang Dynasty entered its most prosperous era. For centuries, her contributions were condemned by the populace. It was only after the founding of PRC that leftist historians, swayed by her unique gender, pedestaled her as one of the excellent emperors in Chinese history.

Of course, I don't personally dislike Wu Zetian that much. However, seeing her placed on the Level 3 list ahead of giants like Emperor Gaozu of Han ◎ 4, Emperor Wu of Han ◎ 4, Emperor Taizong of Tang ◎ 4, Emperor Taizu of Song ◎ 4, the Ming Founder, Kangxi Emperor ◎ 4, and Sun Yat-sen ◎ 4 left me deeply unsettled. Therefore, I resolved to remove her from the list and proposed potential candidates to take her place.

1. Emperor Taizong of Tang ◎ 4: He is universally recognized as China's greatest statesman and military strategist, as well as the founder of the Tang dynasty ◎ 3. Despite having 50 interwikis, unfortunately, simply because he is not female, his count falls short of Wu Zetian's.
2. Ming dynasty ◎ 4: It is one of the most important dynasties in Chinese history, boasting 130 interwikis.

Support removal only

1. We already have 2 other women in politics, would be better to add ones of cultural/artistic significance, if any. Similarly, 2 articles (Han dynasty ◎ 3 and Tang dynasty ◎ 3) should be enough for Chinese history at this level. I don't think there's any country with 3 entries in the History section. KhaiDo (talk) 18:16, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Rome if you count the HRE or the Ottomans has 3 or 4. But either way India/Bangladesh should have the Chola dynasty ◎ 4 or/and Maurya Empire ◎ 4. I find the ideia of a country can have more 6 people, but history (which is more important) cannot have more than 2. Funny how bios who are very friendly to a bunch of British/Usonians (at least in the way its framed in this project Shapur I is more important than Walt Disney, but there needs to be artist rep) can have 0 limit to the amount of same country, but history which priveleges the most populated and some oldest countries on earth have a limit. Ipedecha (talk) 15:05, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Individuals at this level are important on a global level, regardless of their country of origin (although such information should be noted to avoid geographical bias). Euclid ◎ 3, for example, isn't representative of Greece but rather mathematics and especially geometry, which is studied across the globe. KhaiDo (talk) 09:52, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

I never studied euclids in mathematics i studied what he study/discover, there is zero point in learning the biography of scientist, cause you learn nothing of what actually makes them important, not to mention, especially the most recent one, every thing they discover would been discover 50 years later anyway. Also i actually got it wrong, India/Pakistan have three history articles Indus Valley Civilisation ◎ 3, Mughal Empire ◎ 3 and Gupta Empire ◎ 3 Ipedecha (talk) 14:30, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

The Mughal Empire is now part of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan, the Byzantine Empire was predomiantly Greek and makes up like 9 modern countries in 3 different continents, the HRE was predominantly German and spanned most of Central and Western Europe, and I shouldn't need to explain the Ottoman Empire. That is a lot more variety than 3 imperial dynasties with similar territory ruled by the same ethnic group. KhaiDo (talk) 09:44, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

If we count the Jimi system, the Ming Dynasty's sphere of influence once extended to Northern Vietnam (see Fourth Era of Northern Domination), Laos, Myanmar (you can search "三宣六慰" for reference), and even parts of Sumatra (see Old Port Pacification Superintendency). In fact, it could be considered the dynasty with the most extensive control over Southeast Asia in Chinese history, albeit for a brief period. 飞车过大关 (talk) 13:57, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware the of the Ming Dynasty's influence and especially familiar with the eras of Northern domination in Vietnamese history. The issue is that these 3 dynasties are all ruled by the same ethnic group with pretty much the same cultural identity and administration every time. Their rise and fall aren't the same as, say, the collapse of the Byzantine Empire due to the fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans. KhaiDo (talk) 07:06, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Support swap with Emperor Taizong of Tang ◎ 4

Support swap with Ming dynasty ◎ 4

1. I have always believed that Wu Zetian's impact on human history falls short of that of Isabella I of Castile ◎ 4 or Queen Victoria ◎ 4.飞车过大关 (talk) 11:39, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
2. You definitly sell wu zetian short in this analysis (to be fair i also do this sometimes), her reign was very properous economically and culturally and does have a good (in terms of size, but i would say in term of perspective right now) legacy, but i do agree that is basically impossible for her to be consider more important than the Ming dynasty and its not on v3 level. Personally i think the Sasanian Empire ◎ 4 should be the next empire to be added, i think its impact on the world was imense (more than the Byzantines even if it was way shorter), but i do think the Ming should be v3. The problem of woman representation can be solve by removing more male bios as i do think wu zetian is better than having 3 germanic classical musician from almost the same time period, Rembrandt and the printing guy i would removed them first. Ipedecha (talk) 14:25, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

   I must point out that the claim that the Tang Dynasty enjoyed great economic and cultural prosperity in Wu Zetian’s reign is by no means a consensus among historians. Having read multiple books on Chinese history, I have long known that the Tang economy only achieved genuine prosperity under Emperor Xuanzong of Tang ◎ 4, and the renowned Tang poets Li Bai ◎ 3, Du Fu ◎ 4 and Wang Wei ◎ 4 all lived in his reign, not Wu Zetian’s. In fact, subsequent generations have held a highly negative view of Emperor Xuanzong due to the An Lushan rebellion ◎ 4, so why do many still regard him as a ruler of great contributions? Precisely because he inherited a mess left by Wu Zetian, actively appointed talented people and carried out reforms, thus leading the Tang Dynasty to true prosperity. If China under Wu Zetian’s rule had really been so prosperous and culturally thriving, Emperor Xuanzong’s tremendous contributions would not stand out in such sharp relief. 飞车过大关 (talk) 16:27, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

   In fact, there are quite a few historians who have underestimated Wu Zetian. For example, Lü Simian, one of the most distinguished Chinese historians of the 20th century, once said that during the twenty-one years of Wu Zetian's reign, she accomplished almost nothing and left no political achievements. Of course, I think this view is somewhat inappropriate. After all, Wu Zetian did purge a number of aristocrats and promote some new talents, which enabled Emperor Xuanzong of Tang to have a pool of capable people at his disposal, including the famous Guo Ziyi, Song Jing, Yao Chong and others. 飞车过大关 (talk) 16:43, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

3. Doesn't really matter much if they're male or female, as their influence at the time, and their legacy matter a lot more, and Wu Zetian is simply not as influential as higher and more influential leaders like Mao Zedong or Abraham Lincoln. Dylan240 (talk) 23:41, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Swap Atlantic slave trade ◎ 3 for European colonization of the Americas ◎ 4

Latest proposals to add or remove these articles:

• Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level 3/Archive 4#European colonization of the Americas (October 2025) (1)
• Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level 3/Archive 6#Add Atlantic slave trade ◎ 3 (January 2026) (2)

Arguments for support in (1) were the overlap with Age of Discovery ◎ 3 and Colonialism ◎ 3, as well as being "too specific". I'd argue that there is less specificity and overlap here than Newton's laws of motion ◎ 3 has with respect to Scientific Revolution ◎ 3. The nominator in (2) agreed that the Atlantic slave trade can be best "slotted under" European colonization of the Americas, which had already been removed, and hence, avoided any argument regarding the redundancy between the two.

Clearly they do have quite a lot of overlap, and it is clear to me that one is better to list. Simply because you can cover the migration that affected Africans as a result of colonization, but you cannot possibly squeeze the genocide of the indigenous peoples of the Americas into the slave trade article. European settlement had caused 56 million deaths, i.e. 90% of the indigenous population at the time, in only a century.

Regardless, I don't think either of these articles are too specific to be considered, when we have Spanish Empire ◎ 3, American Revolution ◎ 3, George Washington ◎ 3, and Simón Bolívar ◎ 3.

Support both

1. KhaiDo (talk) 19:09, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
2. Makes sense to me. Only reason I didn't support the latter was the recency of its removal. Dess Dedalus (talk) 21:46, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Support add, oppose remove

Oppose add, support remove

Oppose both

Discuss

KhaiDo (talk) 19:09, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Swap: Add Trimurti ◎ 5, Remove Contemporary history ◎ 3

Yes, I realize this is skipping a level, but it's for good reason. The Trimurti is a triple deity in Hinduism encompassing the three most vital gods: Brahma ◎ 4, Vishnu ◎ 4, and Shiva ◎ 4. Consequently, this also encompasses the avatars of Vishnu, such as Rama ◎ 4 and Krishna ◎ 4. Consequently, this means **five** different Hindu gods are encompassed by the Trimurti, and these are the most well-known gods with the highest number of devotees. Even though it's skipping a level, it should be patently obvious to everyone that the Trimurti properly contains these Level 4 gods (as they are part of the Trimurti). I think skipping a level is fine here to ensure proper pyramidality.

Meanwhile, Contemporary history ◎ 3 has only 24 iwikis and is defined as history from 1945-present, while Information Age ◎ 3 covers approximately 1947-present. This is ridiculous overlap and the Trimurti is far more deserving of a spot than this article which adds nothing to our current list.

Support swap

1. As nom. Dess Dedalus (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Partial support

1. Only support remove, and I do not believe that the concept of Trimurti holds more significance than the Three Pure Ones  in China or the Sasanian Empire ◎ 4.飞车过大关 (talk) 13:38, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
2. Support remove, oppose add. All the other time period articles are at level 2 are to avoid bias and, well, for periodization purposes. At level 3, we have the quota for regional history so there is no need to have more of these. On the other hand, none of God in Christianity , God in Islam , Trinity ◎ 4, or Allah ◎ 4 are remotely close to being at this level. KhaiDo (talk) 17:04, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

   Four Abrahamic religious figures are, though: Moses ◎ 3, Jesus ◎ 3, Abraham ◎ 3, and Muhammad ◎ 3. The Buddha ◎ 3 is also represented. The lack of inclusion for figures of Hindu religious worship is a bit ridiculous for a religion with a subcontinent-sized tradition, and the triple diety encompassing the three most important deities in Hinduism makes sense at this level. Dess Dedalus (talk) 07:28, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

   Well for starters, Jesus, Muhammad, and Gautama were all real people that founded their respective religions, which Hinduism does not have (though this is already compensated by including Adi Shankara ◎ 3). Secondly, the followers of Abrahamic religions have made up more than half the world's population for several decades now, so I think it's completely fine to have Abraham and Moses who are essential to all of them. Then you have to consider that unlike those religions, Hinduism isn't centered around deities, but rather the concept of Dharma ◎ 4, which is also important to the other major Indian religions (Buddhism ◎ 3, Jainism ◎ 3, and Sikhism ◎ 3). If we were to add anything, it should be Dharma. KhaiDo (talk) 10:04, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The Trimurti is not the most essential thing in Hinduism. Information Age needs to be removed. --Thi (talk) 22:50, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

Signature

Dess Dedalus (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Swap Robotics ◎ 3 for Robot ◎ 4

Just as we list

• Human history ◎ 1 before History ◎ 2
• Earth ◎ 1 before Geography ◎ 2
• Life ◎ 1 before Biology ◎ 2
• Computer ◎ 2 before Computer science ◎ 3,

I think this is an appropriate swap. Robotics are a bit too technical for the average reader to be concerned with when there are only 1000 slots. Robot, on the other hand, is more general and covers more areas such as its portrayal in popular culture.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 17:39, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
2. 飞车过大关 (talk) 21:20, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
3. Dylan240 (talk) 19:33, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
4. --Thi (talk) 08:00, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

KhaiDo (talk) 17:39, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't think the examples are all the same situation here, and disagree with some of them. For example, geography studies Earth, Human ◎ 1 is level 1, History ◎ 2 history studies human records of the past and is level 2. I can only describe placing human history above history and at the same level as human as wildly inconsistent and illogical; however I don't believe most are using logic or trying to keep the list consistent when they vote. The only one that I think is actually equivalent is listing computer before computer science, and I don't feel strongly about which one we list first. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:11, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

  Per the FA on History, "History is the systematic study of the past, focusing primarily on the human past." In other words, history mostly studies human history, which is why we list the latter above the former. The same goes for geography and Earth. I'm not sure what is inconsistent here. KhaiDo (talk) 06:14, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Swap specific vehicles with modes of transport

Vehicle ◎ 3 is only at Level 3 while being a subtopic of Transport ◎ 2, which is at level 2. Hence I think it would make more sense to list the modes of transport, which are closer to the overarching topic than specific vehicles. In addition, modes of transport are also broader as each concerns a variety of vehicles, as well as the related infrastructure, engineering, operation process, and laws. Considering we don't even list specific colors at this level, this seems completely rational to me.

Remove:

• Aircraft ◎ 3
• Bicycle ◎ 3
• Car ◎ 3
• Ship ◎ 3
• Train ◎ 3

Add:

• Aviation ◎ 4
• Maritime transport ◎ 4
• Rail transport ◎ 4
• Road transport ◎ 4

There are other modes that clearly don't belong in this conversation. There is also Land transport, but it doesn't hold much weight on its own and mainly consists of rail and road transport, so I think listing the two is much better.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 18:41, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
2. aye.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:04, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
3. Never thought about that. Does make sense. And one slot is very valuable here. Ipedecha (talk) 10:01, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Like my earlier opposes, I think this leans into broadness to the point of being less informative. I see it less like why we don't list individual colors, and more like why we list specific elements instead of periodic groups. Pageviews are always a supplementary metric at best, but I think they provide some relevant information here. Johnnie Runner (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

   Except the modes of transport aren't just groups of vehicles but also involve a plethora of other ideas, as I have already explained. I have no idea how they can be assessed as "less informative". This situation is more like my proposal to swap Journalism ◎ 3 (the field/industry) with News ◎ 4 (one of the specific things that field/industry is concerned with) above. KhaiDo (talk) 11:37, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

   Sure, but that applies vice-versa as well. The article for car for instance covers many important topics that road transport doesn't, such as environmental impact, traffic accidents, design elements like engine types, the industry, and motorsport, all of which can be applied to the 10% of road vehicles that aren't cars. Johnnie Runner (talk) 17:56, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

   10% of road vehicles that aren't cars? First off, there have always been significantly more bicycles than cars worldwide but Bicycle ◎ 3 is listed anyway, so I've digressed. However, last year the Motorcycle ◎ 4 industry saw 65 million sales, while the figure for vehicles tracked by the International Organization of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers, which include cars, truck, buses, etc. is 99 million. Even if you somehow still convince yourself that developing countries don't exist and everyone travels by car all the time, how on earth are the environmental impact, traffic accidents, etc. completely the same for all of these vehicles? What kind of mental gymnastics is this? KhaiDo (talk) 18:54, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

   And if you check the other articles like Aviation, they do get into areas like environmental impact and traffic control. This is just the Road transport article not getting due editorial attention despite its large scope and importance (which is the exact type of article this project should focus on). KhaiDo (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

   I used 10% as just a way of saying that cars are by and large easily the most common road vehicle. My main point is that motorcycles, trucks, and buses all use engines that produce carbon emissions, can get into accidents, are manufactured in the same factories, and so on. I never said they're exactly the same, but that they all exist in those same terms. As for what these articles should cover, it's not just editorial neglect, but also that they're spread thin as a consequence of being so general. The road transport and aviation articles are about the same size, so how much space can road transport use for carbon emissions and the automotive industry when it's also intending to cover horse-drawn carriages and innovations in road design dating back to the Romans?

   Side note on aviation, aircraft is already an umbrella article and should absolutely cover environmental impact. Aviation is just the design and operation of aircraft. Johnnie Runner (talk) 21:31, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

   Any vehicle can get into accidents, how can an article concerning only car accidents provide coverage for all road vehicles? And again, cars are not the most common road vehicle, bicycles are. And if you meant motor vehicles, you're still grossly misrepresenting the porportions. Cars are indeed the most common motor vehicles, but not to the extent that all the other ones are rarities by comparison. This obviously reflects your biased worldview, due to probably growing up in a country dominated by automobiles. In many other countries, they're a luxury, and the streets are filled with motorcycles instead. And what's wrong with giving some room for pre-modern transportation? Is it not important? Is importance based solely on how technologically advanced something is? The list would be plagued with recentism. KhaiDo (talk) 10:39, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

   As I said, the proportion is beside the point. What matters is that the automobile is the archetypal motor vehicle. It was the first of its kind, remains the most common form (not literally 90%), and its key traits can be generalized to other motor vehicles, which is good enough for Level-3. Bicycles and horse-carriages are fundamentally different types of vehicles and should be differentiated even at a high level, which they are as Bicycle ◎ 3 and Horse ◎ 3. Johnnie Runner (talk) 20:28, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

   The fact we list specific elements at different levels is ridiculous and arbitrary. There isn't a metric that would clearly define Helium ◎ 4 is less vital then Hydrogen ◎ 3, there is no reason that Iron ◎ 3 is more vital then Lead ◎ 4. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:58, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

2. Only support the removals. Cognsci (talk) 15:44, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
3. Per Johnnie Runner-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:51, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
4. 飞车过大关 (talk) 05:41, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

I've also just noticed that the modes are also how we currently organize the Transportation section at level 4. KhaiDo (talk) 18:52, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

KhaiDo (talk) 18:41, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Add Republic ◎ 4

I'm quite astonished this is missing. Republics are the dominant form of goverment of contemporary history, in direct contrast with Monarchy ◎ 3. And while monarchies have dominated most of recorded history, examples of republics date as far back as 6th century BCE, with the likes of Vaishali (ancient city) . And of course, Roman Republic ◎ 4 is doing the heavy lifting in preventing Ancient Rome ◎ 3 from being swapped with Roman Empire ◎ 4.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 16:29, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
2. Support. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:09, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Level 3 is over quota, support removing monarchy.Cognsci (talk) 13:09, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
2. Democracy is more essential concept. Support removal of monarchy. --Thi (talk) 13:20, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

   @Thi: See List of forms of government. Democracy is a form of goverment classified by power source, republic and monarchy are classified by power ideology. Democracy has nothing to do with being a republic or monarchy: constitutional monarchies are democratic, the Roman Republic was not. All three are very broad and encompass a multitude of different types. If anything, we should remove Dictatorship ◎ 3, which is a type of Autocracy ◎ 4. We also list 9 ideologies in the Politics section, including stuff like Fascism ◎ 3. Government ◎ 2 is level 2, Ideology ◎ 3 is level 3. The French Revolution ◎ 3 revolved around overthrowing a monarchy and replacing it with a republic. KhaiDo (talk) 15:18, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

KhaiDo (talk) 16:29, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Swap Jainism ◎ 3 with Supernatural ◎ 4

Previous discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level_3/Archive_1#Remove_Jainism_◎_3

Per previous nom, the supernatural is broader than Jainism, as it encompasses religion.

Addressing arguments against:

@GeogSage “it has major historical significance” I beg to differ. “It is one of the worlds oldest religions” Sources for this claim please. “and had impacts on Alexander the Greats campaign.” Alexander the Great is a level 3 article, this is not a good argument for keeping Jainism at level 3. “There are many other articles that could be moved down” This is the second nomination to remove Jainism from level 3, I think people generally disagree with you on this point.

@DaGizza “Oppose per above. All of the world's major religions are key topics that are covered in traditional encyclopedias.” Even if we accepted that Jainism is a “major” religion, Wikipedia is not a traditional encyclopaedia it’s just an encyclopaedia. Cognsci (talk) 01:28, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Support

1. Per nom. Cognsci (talk) 01:30, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

   @Cognsci: You can withdraw the nomination as an alternative to this. KhaiDo (talk) 17:08, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

2. Support remove, oppose add.飞车过大关 (talk) 12:23, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose swap, could support addition if a different swap is proposed. Addressing points: Jainism is one of the three oldest surviving Indian religious traditions, and one of the oldest religions in the world. In the West, we tend to focus on the big three monotheistic religions and act like they exist in a vacuum, while relegating the Eastern religions to foot notes. Jainism has had a continuous history of similar length to Judaism and Buddhism (It is hard to tell when a lot of these actually first started). During its long, continuous, history, Jainism has impacted and been impacted by other cultures. I don't think we should have biographies at level 3 at all (or at least very few), and think a religion over 2,000 years old is more vital to the understanding of humanity then Alexander the Great. I think that people voting are mostly Westerners who generally think that if they don't know about something, it must not be vital. I'm not impressed with the impact this has had on the project. Britannica Article on Jainism for a starting point if you actually want a source. Furthermore, if you look at pageviews and compare the stats for Janism and supernatural, you'll see that Jainism is significantly higher across the board when it comes to stats, with Supernatural only having a higher number of redirects. I've created a table to facilitate comparison and placed it in the discussion section below. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:52, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
2. Supernatural refers to phenomena, religions are socio-cultural systems. The former does not encompass the latter. Jainism is definitely a major religion, per GeogSage. KhaiDo (talk) 17:09, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

page	watchers	pageviews	pageviews_offset	revisions	editors	created_at	links_ext	links_out	links_in	redirects
Janism	1368	73,074	30	12624	4246	9/22/2001 20:47	272	1541	8541	31
Supernatural	1,245	19,235	30	2,735	1366	7/06/2002 18:44	153	1413	4559	32

Remove Medical imaging ◎ 3

Very specific and modern type of Health technology . In a list where Medical diagnosis ◎ 4 is omitted and adding Health care ◎ 4 is controversial, I think this is a safe removal.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
2. In my opinion, this is certainly no more important than Elephant ◎ 4 or Bee ◎ 4.飞车过大关 (talk) 05:39, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
3. I completely forgot about this thing. I was going to propose swaping this. Ipedecha (talk) 17:11, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
4. Not more important than Medical diagnosis ◎ 4.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 10:41, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

KhaiDo (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Add South Asia

I'm suprised that South Asia isn't at level 3 status, given that we have east asia, the middle east, southeast asia, and central asia, but for some reason, south asia isn't included, and although India, pakistan, and bangladesh, which make up the majority of influence on the region, is at level 3 status, we also have east asia, which includes China, Japan, and South Korea, all of which are also level 3 and also make up the majority of influence, other than north korea and taiwan, both of which have 50+ million people, like Nepal and sri lanka which has a similar population, yet east asia is level 3, and south asia is at level 4, and south asia is more relavant then central asia right now, especially due to the 3 major countries, and encompassing the rest in a level 3 vital article south asia, would keep consistency alongside east asia, and represent the countries of nepal, bhutan, Sri Lanka, Maldives, better than Asia at level 2, which is the whole continent. Dylan240 (talk) 04:19, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Support

1. (nom) Dylan240 (talk) 11:18, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
2. Swap with Central Asia ◎ 3. Although that would do nothing to fix the inconsistencies in the Geography section, it would be pretty absurd to list all subregions of Asia but none of Africa or Europe. KhaiDo (talk) 17:14, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

   You're right, especially for West Africa, since that's much more important and more globally influential than central asia, and that may actually be the better add than even south asia for me Dylan240 (talk) 05:24, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Remove Great Lakes ◎ 3

I find it ridiculous that this is listed while African Great Lakes ◎ 4 and Lake Baikal ◎ 4 aren't. Per the articles:

• "Collectively, [the African Great Lakes] contain 31,000 km³ (7,400 mi³) of water, which is more than either Lake Baikal or the North American Great Lakes."
• "The total surface [of the North American Great Lakes] is 94,250 square miles (244,106 km²), and the total volume (measured at the low water datum) is 5,439 cubic miles (22,671 km³), slightly less than the volume of Lake Baikal (5,666 cu mi or 23,615 km³, 22–23% of the world's surface fresh water)."

I think Caspian Sea ◎ 3, which is by far the largest lake by both surface area and volume, is enough at this level, especially if we only list one sea with Mediterranean Sea ◎ 3 and after the proposal to add South China Sea ◎ 4 was unanimously opposed. The only thing the other lakes have in their favor is their freshwater as oppose to the Caspian Sea's seawater-level salinity. But we list like 5 rivers here, and rivers, as bodies of freshwater, are simply more important culturally and historically.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 17:17, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
2. That's a bit too specific.飞车过大关 (talk) 17:21, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
3. Aye. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:47, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
4. --Thi (talk) 07:04, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
5. The Account 2 (talk) 18:01, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
6. Not widely influential enough to humanity.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 20:30, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

   Is the Caspian Sea really that important either? Melozone crissalis (talk) 05:59, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

   No. Would support removing it as well. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:05, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I would support adding the African Great Lakes to level 3 instead, since they are extremely important to the region of central-east to east africa, arguably more so than the great lakes of the US and canada, and both, alongside the caspian sea, are very important to their respective regions, and are much more important than lake baikal, which has an impressive depth, but has nowhere near the same population and impact around the surrounding area. Dylan240 (talk) 19:20, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

   The South China Sea is arguably more geopolitically important to its respective region (China and half of Southeast Asia), with all the territorial disputes and conflict, than these 10 lakes combined. It is also more globally important: one-third of the world's maritime trade passes through it. KhaiDo (talk) 18:24, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

2. Per Dylan-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:53, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

KhaiDo (talk) 17:17, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Swap Voltaire ◎ 3 with Miguel de Cervantes ◎ 4

This swap would keep our writer count at a clean 10.

Voltaire is major figure in the Age of Enlightenment ◎ 3, but between John Locke ◎ 3, Immanuel Kant ◎ 3, and Adam Smith ◎ 3, it's a very well-covered period of history. Voltaire arguably isn't even the most influential French writer of his generation, getting serious competition from Jean-Jacques Rousseau ◎ 4 as far as French philosophes go, and Johann Wolfgang von Goethe ◎ 4 as far as 18th century writers go overall.

Miguel de Cervantes on the other hand killed an entire genre (Chivalric romance ◎ 5) and created the modern blueprint for the Novel ◎ 3, the most common and archetypal form of Fiction ◎ 3 in the world. From this alone, his contribution to the conventions of literature worldwide is probably second only to William Shakespeare ◎ 3 (maybe third after Homer ◎ 3). His magnum opus, Don Quixote, was voted the most meaningful book ever written by a panel of 100 eminent authors from 54 different countries. Spanish, the second-most common first language in the world, is often called the language of Cervantes, and the largest organization in the world dedicated to Spanish culture (including Hispanic America) is called the Instituto Cervantes.

Support

1. Johnnie Runner (talk) 19:53, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
3. Only support remove.飞车过大关 (talk) 04:56, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
4. Only support remove. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:24, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
5. Only support remove. The Account 2 (talk) 14:00, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
6. Dylan240 (talk) 05:18, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
7. His list of works seems much more abundant than that of Murasaki Shikibu ◎ 3, whom we also list despite being chiefly known for The Tale of Genji ◎ 4, and Don Quixote is a lot more recognizable. His impact on the Spanish language ◎ 3 is comparable to that of Dante Alighieri ◎ 3 (who you could argue is also chiefly known for Divine Comedy ◎ 4) on the Italian language ◎ 4. There's also the Miguel de Cervantes Prize, the crowning achievement in Spanish-language literature. I think it's disingenuous to leave out Cervantes here. KhaiDo (talk) 10:50, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose adding, see Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level 3/Archive 4#Demote Miguel de Cervantes to level 4.飞车过大关 (talk) 04:56, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
2. Oppose adding. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:24, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

1. Also inviting the users who were involved in the past removal talks @GeogSage, The Account 2, Shocksingularity, Interstellarity, and Dawid2009:飞车过大关 (talk) 05:01, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

For the record, I oppose removing Voltaire if the addition fails. Johnnie Runner (talk) 05:53, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Add Classical antiquity ◎ 4

We already have Post-classical history ◎ 2 and Middle Ages ◎ 3, the latter of which covers post-classical history exclusively from a European point of view. Classical antiquity ◎ 4 can be considered a European period within Ancient history ◎ 2 Cadevo86 (talk) 00:11, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Support

1. Nominator Cadevo86 (talk) 00:11, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Swap Middle East ◎ 3 for West Asia ◎ 5

The name "Middle East" is a geopolitical term that originated in the UK during the 1850s and was popularized by the US during the later half of the 20th century due to the region's strategic value. For this reason, it is often condemned as a Eurocentric and colonial term. Geographically, the Middle East is just West Asia minus the South Caucasus ◎ 5 (Armenia ◎ 4, Azerbaijan ◎ 4, Georgia (country) ◎ 4, Abkhazia ◎ 4, South Ossetia ◎ 4) plus the North African part of Egypt ◎ 3 and the East Thrace ◎ 5 part of Turkey ◎ 3. Since Egypt and Turkey have their own entries at this level, it would make more sense to cover the South Caucasus countries. All the world's subregions in the UN geoscheme are currently VA4 or higher, so I think we can uncontroversially skip level 4 here.

Support

1. KhaiDo (talk) 11:14, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Procedural oppose: I think we still need to respect the existence of WP:VANOSKIP. It hasn't been repealed (and probably can't be). If we really choose to ignore all rules and act, why even hold a vote? 飞车过大关 (talk) 18:51, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

   I have made a proposal at level 4. KhaiDo (talk) 04:53, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

2. West asia is just Middle East with the inclusion of Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Georgia (country), and the term Middle East is far more widely used in english compared to West Asia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylan240 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

   That is exactly because the Anglosphere is a Western-led sphere of influence. And it is odd that you tangentially reiterated my point about the difference between the two regions but decided not to engage with it. KhaiDo (talk) 13:22, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

3. Per 飞车过大关 and Dylan240-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:25, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Discuss

KhaiDo (talk) 11:14, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Entries listed under Iron Age

At level 3, Ancient Greece ◎ 3, Ancient Rome ◎ 3, Achaemenid Empire ◎ 3, Gupta Empire ◎ 3, Han dynasty ◎ 3, Silk Road ◎ 3 are listed under Iron Age ◎ 3, but I think all of them were after the Iron Age, except the beginning of Ancient Greece. Do you agree? Melozone crissalis (talk) 19:10, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

It looks like this is true, but also that Iron Age is not really a well defined term so I might prefer a different periodization anyways. Sesquilinear (talk) 05:15, 18 June 2026 (UTC)