Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/3

General Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

Level 5 Subpages

People History and geography Arts and everyday life Society STEM

Introduction

The purpose of this discussion page is to manage the Level 3 list of 1,000 topics for which Wikipedia should have high-quality articles (e.g. at WP:FA and WP:GA status). See the table to the right (on desktop) or above (on mobile) showing the historic distribution of Level 3 articles.

All level 3 nominations must be of an article already listed at level 4.

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

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

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

For reference, the following times apply for today:

• 15 days ago was: 07:43, 21 November 2025 (UTC) ()
• 30 days ago was: 07:43, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
• 60 days ago was: 07:43, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Should Cognition  4 replace Mind  2 at VA2?

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

---

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

Support

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

Oppose

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

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

   So first the technicalities.

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

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

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

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

   Then the proposal itself.

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

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

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 Orbit  4

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

---

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

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 22:51, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
2. I don't see Orbit on same level as the other L3's under the L3 Astromony section, such as Black hole  3, Planet  3, Star  3. Feels more like an L4 topic to me. Aszx5000 (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
3. Lazman321 (talk) 16:03, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
4. Changing votes. I think we could make room for other topics. Maybe in the future orbit will be swapped back in, but it is a feature of gravity. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:21, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
5. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 02:04, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

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

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

Add Chronology of the universe

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

---

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

Support

1. As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 07:28, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
2. We include Human history and History of Earth, but not this article. Interstellarity (talk) 18:53, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
3. Lazman321 (talk) 16:30, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
4. Shocksingularity (talk) 03:28, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Should be captured by Physical cosmology  3 - which is definately V3. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:43, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
2. Not feeling it. Per discussion. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:06, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
3. This is essentially a history nominaiton. We have Human history  1, History  2 and History of Earth  3. I am happy with this at VA4. That makes it enough of a priority. Or should I say Per GeogSage:-?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:14, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

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

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

The case of Shen Kuo  3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Add Plasma (physics)  3

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

---

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

Support

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

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

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

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

Move Sahara  3 from level 3 to level 4

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

---

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

Support

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

Oppose

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

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

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

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

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

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

   The reason is irrelevant. There is not "just one desert example". Just because Magellan was also an explorer doesn't mean he isn't Portuguese. J947 ‡ ^edits 22:40, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Neutral

Discuss

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

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

Move Amazon rainforest  3 from level 3 to level 4

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

---

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

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:15, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
2. Lazman321 (talk) 16:03, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
3. Interstellarity (talk) 00:26, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
4. 飞车过大关 (talk) 16:29, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose  Carlwev  18:25, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
2. I think we would be much better served by removing Amazon River  3 if something needs to go. In this case, the result is more important than the source. Johnnie Runner (talk) 18:09, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
3. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:15, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

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

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

Move Nelson Mandela  3 from level 3 to level 4

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

---

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

Support

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

Oppose

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

Neutral

Discuss

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

Move Abraham Lincoln  3 from level 3 to level 4

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

---

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

Support

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

Oppose

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neutral

Discuss

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

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

Add Waste  3

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

---

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

Support

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oppose

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

Discuss

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.

Adding?

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

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

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

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

Add encyclopedia, propose several removals

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

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

---

Add Encyclopedia  4

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

Support

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

Oppose

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Move Paul the Apostle  4 to level 4

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

---

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

Support

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

Oppose

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

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

Move Martin Luther  3 to level 4

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

---

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

Support

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

Oppose

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

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

Move Ali  3 to level 4

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

---

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

Support

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

Oppose

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

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

Move Olympic Games  4 to level 4

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

---

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

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:47, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
2. The environmental impact and corruption have faded the spirit of the Olympics. --Thi (talk) 23:53, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
3. Lazman321 (talk) 16:03, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
4. Interstellarity (talk) 10:47, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
5. aye飞车过大关 (talk) 16:32, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

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

Discuss All

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

---

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

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:38, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom, very important to Geography  2. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:57, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
3. As above. Diamondarmorstev (talk) 01:48, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
4. Support physical and human geography. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 21:48, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. STRONG oppose to Technical Geography. Um, the article has 3 interwikis. And googling it, I'm not sure how commonly used the term "Technical Geography" is to describe this specific field, to me this just seems to be the natural intersection between Technology  1 and Geography  2, and there are many other sorts of things which intersect with technology, like Applied mathematics  4 intersecting with Mathematics  1. I do not think we should be listing many subdisciplines of fields at this level when there are entire fields we don't have that definitely more vital than subsections, like Neuroscience  4. ALittleClass (talk) 19:56, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
2. Weak oppose physical and human geography; oppose technical geography. We don't list sub-disciplines of any other social science (e.g. Cognitive psychology  4, Social psychology  5, Microeconomics  4, Macroeconomics  4, Historiography  4) except philosophy where the separate branches are what makes the discipline important. So while we do list disciplines in biology (82 articles), physics (45 articles), and chemistry (36 articles), we don't list disciplines in psychology (16 articles), economics (10 articles). Geography, with 17 articles once places are excluded, fits more in the latter camp. J947 ‡ ^edits 23:56, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
3. I can't get over the things that are getting wiped out of VA3-VA5 so that it can get stuffed with geography terms. I missed the votes on the Great Pyramid of Giza and Great Wall of China. Those were more vital and deserving of VA3 than any of these subtopics of geography.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD)
4. 飞车过大关 (talk) 16:47, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

• @User:J947, so much for "determining specific topics' impact as evaluated by academics." Geography has 106 articles at this level. Limiting place names from the discipline is strange, as they are all examples of either human or physical geography. Geography is both a social and physical science. Technical geography would include Cartography  4 and the study/creation of navigation aids, and we include Map  3 and Navigation  3 at this level (The "technical" part of geography crosses over with technology. Catagorization is challenging). When it comes to geo-ontology, this is generally how academics would do it (I've spent the last 6 years on literature review for this exact topic). That said, the higher levels of vital are supposed to be broad, listing specific places/people is significantly less broad then the branches of a level 2 vital article. Perhaps we should be cutting place names and individuals to make room for sub-fields of the level 2 vital articles you listed. Name a person or place and propose the swap for Historiography, Macroeconomics, Cognitive psychology etc. and I'll probably support it. Would make more sense then what we currently have. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)}

  I don't think we should be swapping people and places out for more general concepts. People and places, facts and figures are the cornerstone of any general encyclopaedia. J947 ‡ ^edits 01:01, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

  More broad topics. There is an entirely separate list for list of articles every Wikipedia should have, the purpose of the vital articles is not to create a list of narrow articles for inclusion in a general encyclopedia. Especially at the higher levels, we should be emphasizing broad articles, not whatever it is we're doing. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:50, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

  I've never seen the two lists' intentions as meaningfully different. The most important articles for a Wikipedia to create and the most important articles for a Wikipedia to prioritise improvement of are very similar. Especially when articles about people or places tend to contain much more information than articles about broader but less cohesive topics. J947 ‡ ^edits 02:06, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

  If there is no meaningful difference between them, then one of them is a waste of space and energy. Articles about people and places tending to have more information than articles about broader but less cohesive topics would be a reason to list those broadly important articles for "prioritization of improvements," one of the purposes of the vital articles project listed that differentiates it from the list of articles every Wikipedia should have. To the point of subdivisions, look at the section for history going from levels 2 to level 3. At level 2, we have History  2, and the five articles Prehistory  2, Ancient history  2, Post-classical history  2, Early modern period  2, Modern era  2. At level 3, these five articles all have sub-headings. Now look at the geography section at level 2. We list the "continents" (as taught to children in countries that believe Europe is so special it deserves an honorary title of continent, at least) before the term Continent  3 or Region  4 (which I have an open swap for below, but "determining specific topics' impact as evaluated by academics" is absolutely not how votes go here, so I doubt that will pass). Imagine listing Ancient Greece  3 before Ancient history  2, because that's exactly what listing Himalayas  3 and Village  3 before physical and human geography looks like, at least as evaluated by this expert. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:38, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

  Drawing a comparison between "ancient history" and "physical geography" is inapt. Unlike physical geography, ancient history is not about an academic discipline; it is simply a summary of history and society in the specified period. The way by which world history is divided into 5 periods at VA2 is, despite your insinuations otherwise, extremely similar to the way by which the world is divided into 6 continents at VA2. J947 ‡ ^edits 03:09, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

  The category for Physical geography (Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Geography/Physical) is primarily a list of physical features on the landscape. As stated elsewhere, continents are not a good model to use for broad division of the project (but what do we care about "determining specific topics' impact as evaluated by academics"). That said, Regional geography  5 is not what we're using for the bulk of the project (the fact one of the four traditions of geography is only at level 5 while we list 40 specific countries at level 3 would be professionally insulting if I thought any professionals opinions were actually considered when making this list, not to mention the fact Region  4 was just added to level 4), and we don't split geography into categories based on regions at level 3, it is split between Human settlements, countries, Continents and regions, Terrestrial features, Hydrological features, and General. Human settlements and countries are both human geography, terrestrial and hydrological features are both physical geography. The list has plenty of space for all kinds of broad sub-fields, we just focus a lot on extremely narrow articles about people, cities, and countries. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:49, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

  You can keep ignoring my responses and shifting the goalposts if you want. But as I've explained before on multiple occasions, complaining about the list of places because it's not informed by academic geography is a bit like complaining about the list of people because it's not informed by academic psychology. The "geography" list only partially concerns what's most important to geography; it's mainly about what's most important to the world. J947 ‡ ^edits 04:39, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

  I'm directly responding to your response, physical geography is functionally both an academic discipline, and a category of features on the planet. Much like how history functionally both an academic discipline, and a category for listing events. At level 5, we have a category for physical geography that is mostly filled with specific physical locations, like how ancient history has specific dates. The issue I believe is that geographers are the ones doing geography, and geographers have given a tremendous amount of thought to "what's most important to the world," as well as how to organize these things. One of my favorite books on the topic can be downloaded for free, and is titled here The Philosophy of Geo-Ontologies. It references UNESCO Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems, specifically a chapter by Maria Sala (the geography portions editor). While you can't read it for free, you CAN get samples which have a lot of the material, and you can read much of the referenced chapter here Geography. Specifically:

  The theme has been divided into four main topics: Foundations of Geography, Physical Geography, Human Geography, and Technical Geography.

  You can see the broad list of topics covered in this Encyclopedia here, it includes topics like ' The Ocean System, Hydrology, Biogeography, Population Geography , Urban Geography, Geographical Information Systems, and Mapping and Atlas Production, all grouped under the four "main topics." Missing from these are articles on specific features or human settlements. In britannica's article on geography, it splits the discipline into physical, human, People and the environment: the physical and the human, Methods of geography, Applied geography, and The geography of contemporary geography. The "Methods of geography" section is largely a synonym for "technical geography" (common problem with that branch, people use different words to describe the same thing, makes a literature review painful). Perhaps the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization has given consideration about what is "most important to the world," maybe the Britannica gave little thought to how they split their geography article, and maybe the book on geo-ontology has considered the best way to organize the section. But I'm increasingly learning this list isn't about "determining specific topics' impact as evaluated by academics," it's about making a 50,000 entry long listicle based on the unsourced arbitrary opinions of Wikipedia editors. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:35, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

  Be that as it may, what's under discussion the scope of the article on Physical geography. It does not cover specific geographical features and I'm not convinced it should. J947 ‡ ^edits 05:46, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

  Geography, literally translated, means "Earth writing" or "Earth description." Physical geography is literally describing natural features and processes of the Earth, and the category named physical geography in this project is where we put our articles for specific geographical features at level 5. I have not been as involved with writing the physical geography article, but the scope of the article geography doesn't really go into listing "specific geographical features" either, the lede states it "is the study of the lands, features, inhabitants, and phenomena of Earth." The "lands, features" portion is where you'll find most of your natural geographical features. Look at the article Geography of China; it has the physical features in a section titled "Physical geography." GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:09, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Removals

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

Move Nth root  4 to level 4

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

---

I believe this is a bit specific for level 3.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:38, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 20:22, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
3. Exponentiation  3 covers it. Johnnie Runner (talk) 03:35, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
4. Interstellarity (talk) 00:27, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
5. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 07:14, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Exponentiation  3 and Logarithm  3 are level 3, I don't see why this one in particular should be demoted. Shocksingularity (talk) 03:35, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Dicsuss

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

Move Dante Alighieri  3 to level 4

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

---

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

Support

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

Oppose

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

   It's also worth noting that Dante isn't just foundational to Italian poetry (although his work did lead to the Tuscan dialect becoming the standard form of Italian), but all Western poetry that came after him. T. S. Eliot  4 said "Dante and Shakespeare divide the modern world between them; there is no third.", which is only a little hyperbolic. Johnnie Runner (talk) 03:10, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

2. Rather see Goethe readded. J947 ‡ ^edits 03:14, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Per J947-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:47, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Dicsuss

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

Move Rembrandt  3 to level 4

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

---

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

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:38, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
2. Netherlands itself was recently removed. With the more recentish (bad) addition of Vincent van Gogh, this list now has two painters from a country which isn't listed by itself. Rembrandt is the weakest link here. GuzzyG (talk) 04:26, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
3. Because the Netherlands was removed. --Thi (talk) 18:08, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
4. The Account 2 (talk) 10:55, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
5. per GuzzyG. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 05:33, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

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

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

3. 飞车过大关 (talk) 06:25, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
4. Per previous discussions. J947 ‡ ^edits 22:17, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
5. NimbleNumbat (talk) 22:04, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Dicsuss

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

Move History of East Asia  4 to level 4

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

---

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

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:38, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
2. East Asia and South Asia should be VA3 if Middle East is. Johnnie Runner (talk) 03:35, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
3. Interstellarity (talk) 00:27, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
4. --Thi (talk) 19:51, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
5. Aye.飞车过大关 (talk) 16:45, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Dicsuss

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

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

---

Move History of India  4 to level 4

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

Support

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

Oppose

Neutral

Dicsuss

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

Move History of the Middle East  4 to level 4

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

---

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

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:38, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
2. Johnnie Runner (talk) 03:35, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
3. Interstellarity (talk) 00:27, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
4. --Thi (talk) 19:48, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
5. Aye.飞车过大关 (talk) 16:43, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Dicsuss

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

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

Discuss proposal

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

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

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

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

Defense of technical geography based on the Vital article criteria:

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

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

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

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

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

Swap Soybean  4 with Bean  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.

---

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

Support swap

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:44, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
2. Obvious swap. Diamondarmorstev (talk) 14:05, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
3. Interstellarity (talk) 10:50, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
4. Lazman321 (talk) 20:41, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
5. Aye.飞车过大关 (talk) 16:44, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Support straight add of bean

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

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

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

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.

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

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

Move specific mountain ranges from 3 to 4

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

Move Alps  3 from level 3 to level 4

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:28, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
2. The Account 2 (talk) 14:38, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
3. Shocksingularity (talk) 01:51, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. If we have 4 specific mountains at VA3, Mountain should be VA2.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:18, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Far from the longest mountain range, but they have immense significance in shaping human settlement at least as far back as Ötzi  5. There are nations nowhere near the Alps that use the word 'alpine'. Johnnie Runner (talk) 18:15, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

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

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

Move Andes  3

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:28, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
2. Shocksingularity (talk) 01:51, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Longest (above-water) and most important mountain range by a long way. J947 ‡ ^edits 22:50, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
2. If we have 4 specific mountains at VA3, Mountain should be VA2.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:18, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Move Rocky Mountains  3

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:28, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
2. Shocksingularity (talk) 01:51, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. J947 ‡ ^edits 22:50, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
2. If we have 4 specific mountains at VA3, Mountain should be VA2.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:18, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Move Himalayas  3

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

Support

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

Oppose

1. --Thi (talk) 19:48, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
2. J947 ‡ ^edits 22:50, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
3. If we have 4 specific mountains at VA3, Mountain should be VA2.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:18, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
4. 飞车过大关 (talk) 19:53, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss mountain proposal

Move specific lakes from 3 to 4

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

Caspian Sea  3

Support

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

Oppose

1. J947 ‡ ^edits 22:50, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
2. If we have multiple lakes at VA3, Lake should be VA2.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:20, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Great Lakes  3

Support

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

Oppose

1. J947 ‡ ^edits 22:50, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
2. If we have multiple lakes at VA3, Lake should be VA2.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:20, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Lake Victoria  4

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

---

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:28, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
2. Some African country instead. --Thi (talk) 19:47, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
3. aye.飞车过大关 (talk) 06:21, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
4. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:07, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
5. Interstellarity (talk) 13:51, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

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

Discuss

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

Discuss lake proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Cut specific Architecture articles

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

---

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

Support moving Great Pyramid of Giza  4 to level 4

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:11, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 19:46, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
3. While internationally famous, "architectural feats" aren't vital enough for VA 3. Diamondarmorstev (talk) 14:15, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
4. aye.飞车过大关 (talk) 06:20, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
5. I don't think it's a good idea to list specific structures at VA3, too specific IMO. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:13, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
6. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 23:35, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Support moving Great Wall of China  4 to level 4

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:11, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 19:46, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
3. While internationally famous, "architectural feats" aren't vital enough for VA 3. Diamondarmorstev (talk) 14:15, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
4. aye.飞车过大关 (talk) 06:20, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
5. I don't think it's a good idea to list specific structures at VA3, too specific IMO. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:13, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
6. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 23:35, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose moving Great Pyramid of Giza  4 to level 4

Oppose moving Great Wall of China  4 to level 4

Neutral

Discuss

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

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

Add Walking

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 very human thing to do. We already list Running.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 01:01, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
2. Shocksingularity (talk) 05:22, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
3. Basic mode of human communication, everyone does it everyday unless they are bedridden. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:20, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
4. Lazman321 (talk) 20:33, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
5. Aye.飞车过大关 (talk) 16:42, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

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

   @GeogSage: We are now under quota by quite a large margin. Would you support this now? Lazman321 (talk) 20:41, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Swap Continent  3 for Region  4

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

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

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

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

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:10, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
2. I'm going to be in the minority here and say that I consider this a fair swap, although I'd be open to a straight add. GeogSage is the geography expert, and his arguments make sense. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:03, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
3. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 19:56, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

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

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

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

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

Discuss

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

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

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

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

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

Colonialism removals

European colonization of the Americas

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

Support

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

Oppose

1. Just because this topic doesn't have a fancy name associated with it like European history topics contemporary with it like Reformation  3 doesn't detract from its importance to world history. Absolutely crucial for understanding two continents and all the people thereon. Frankly, I'd rather remove Age of Discovery  3, which is a fancy name associated with a Eurocentric and less coherent concept. J947 ‡ ^edits 02:30, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
2. Unlike Asia, this led to the devastation of nearly the entire native population across multiple continents. Johnnie Runner (talk) 18:37, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

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

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

Western imperialism in Asia

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

---

Similar reasons as previous nomination.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 23:52, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
2. Too specific for V3. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:36, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 09:21, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
4. Weak support. I'd ultimately like this to go along with some other topics, but it isn't a good look as the list currently stands. Cuts do need to be made, and this is slightly redundant. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:46, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
5. Shocksingularity (talk) 17:52, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
6. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 10:33, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

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

Decolonization

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

---

Similar reasons as previous nomination.

Support

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

Oppose

1. That one seems pretty vital to me. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:36, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
2. Oppose. This is the other half of the coin with colonialization. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:46, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
3. Shocksingularity (talk) 17:52, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
4. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 10:47, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Add Eating  4, Drinking  4 and Breathing  4

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

Support

1. Shocksingularity (talk) 17:51, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
2. As nom.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:19, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
3. Interstellarity (talk) 23:09, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
4. 飞车过大关 (talk) 19:59, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose drinking. J947 ‡ ^edits 01:15, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

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

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

Swap James Cook  3 and Neil Armstrong  4

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

Support

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

Support removal of James Cook  3

1. Aye.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:56, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
2. 飞车过大关 (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 09:20, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
4. The Account 2 (talk) 16:23, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Support addition of Neil Armstrong  4

Oppose

1. NimbleNumbat (talk) 22:02, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Oppose  Carlwev  20:52, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

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

Add Body of water  4

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

Support adding Body of water  4

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

Support swap

Oppose

Discuss

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

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

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

If I were to play devil's advocate. Level 2 has Sea and Water, Land, geology, and lists the continents/regions. Level 3 if we are to add the article about bodies of water in general, should this be the same level as the land equivalent? which is perhaps landform? Land things seam to be equal of higher than water things, in general. I wouldn't want to remove ocean, sea, lake, river. I'm not sure what this adds after we have them, even if it is an overview. I could be persuaded as a kind of swap for an individual body of water; maybe.  Carlwev  13:33, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

As soon as I finish replying to this, I'm going to close the proposal to remove Lake Victoria  4 as passing. Below, I nominated two specific oceans for removal, Southern and Arctic, specifically to make room for this proposal by @Shocksingularity (as they did not propose specific swaps). It looks like at least one is likely to pass. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:50, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Trim some oceans

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

Remove Southern Ocean  4

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

---

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:17, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 21:04, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
3. ChaoticVermillion (talk) 10:47, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
4. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 22:05, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
5. 飞车过大关 (talk) 17:52, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

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

Remove Arctic Ocean  3

Support

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

Oppose

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

   The idea of separate Oceans is a bit of a human construct, as they're all connected and all interact with each other. The Southern Ocean is mostly defined by the Southern Ocean overturning circulation. Tremendous impact on climate. Like the Arctic Ocean, it doesn't have a strong maritime tradition associated with it. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:42, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Discuss proposal

Some topics related to countries

Add Sovereign state  4 to level 3

We list Country  3 at level 2, but this term is a bit ambiguous. Sovereign state is the more correct/specific term for "a state that has the highest authority over a territory." Despite country, Sovereign state, and nation often being used as synonyms, they are unique. I think we should list these broad concepts before specific countries.

Support

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

Oppose

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

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

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

Add Nation  4 to level 3

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

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:35, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
2. Switched to support after supporting one of the removals. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 22:56, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Interstellarity (talk) 01:22, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
4. Lazman321 (talk) 17:49, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

# I am highly hesitant on adding another country related term, but nation is distinct from Country  3 and State (polity)  2. Might support if you have a good swap in mind. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 01:58, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

1. I proposed several removals below, I find specific swaps are tedious at this level so I propose several possible options all at once. I have several other removals that have gone through you can apply as well, I just got specific architectural features cut, cut lake Victoria, and think Southern Ocean will probably pass. Paul the Apostle was removed but the article I was trying to move up failed to pass. Country is an abstract/ambiguous/colloquial term. Because of the highly conservative nature in this project, rather then just fixing it, we need to go through the various levels. Ideally, State (polity) and Nation will both replace country at level 2. I'd like to move region up to that level as well, but that is caught up above in the swap for the antiquated term "continent." The concept of nation and sovereign state is more "vital" then the article for any specific sovereign state or nation. I struggle to pick individual states though, as having them on separate levels gives me the ick as it is, however people really like to have some countries listed above others. Like, even suggesting it is inappropriate feels like I insulted their mother. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:22, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Discuss additions

Move Democratic Republic of the Congo  3 to level 4

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

---

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

Support

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

Oppose

1. Not remotely an option. Population is a very strong proxy for a country's importance – when you write about a country you think about what's inside of it, not its international impact. The DRC has a population of around 114 million and is 13th in the world. The most populous country not listed is Sudan with a population of 52 million and ranked 28th in the world. J947 ‡ ^edits 21:03, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 21:04, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
3. Oppose  Carlwev  13:13, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
4. 飞车过大关 (talk) 17:52, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Move Myanmar  3 to level 4

This was mentioned as a possible removal from SE Asian.

Support

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

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

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

3. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 09:31, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
4. Much less populous, economically potent, and geopolitically involved than Thailand  3 and Vietnam  3 due to constant civil strife. Johnnie Runner (talk) 18:33, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

   We're not elevating one group over another. We're saying that an article on one country is more critical for understanding the world than an article on another. There is a trade-off to make. Is avoiding the off-chance that people who live in one country might get offended at their country's article being considered the 40th most vital rather than the 39th worth sacrificing the integrity of the list? No. Is making decisions on whether Malaysia's article is more important than Afghanistan's so problematic as to justify considering India and Tuvalu of equal importance to Wikipedia's editors? No. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:54, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

   Saying "one country is more critical for understanding the world than an article on another" is elevating one group over another. Understanding the world means different things depending on your world view, and the current list reflects how westerners understand the world. The list has no integrity if it is openly and nakedly bias. I just made a comment on level 4 pointing out we also rank ethnic groups at different levels as well, and I can not find a rhyme or reason for the method we employ, because fundamentally there was not an overarching design. The arguments all boil down to some groups of people are more important/critical/vital/significant then others, and our justification for this is vibes and gut feelings among the editors with no set criteria. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:36, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

   User:J947 & User:GeogSage We are only saying that certain subjects are higher editorial priorities than others.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:07, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

   And I'm saying that explicitly listing certain topics as higher editorial priority than others, especially without explicitly defining why, is literally nothing but the bias of the editors doing the prioritizing. When it comes to humans, it is not a good look. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:18, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

   That's a misleading quote. What I actually said was: "an article on one country is more critical for understanding the world than an article on another". Yes this list is biased towards the West (in fact, it was originally designed that way really) and as you know I've been trying to correct that. We're at a point now where this list is significantly less biased than the rest of Wikipedia is (e.g. the global balance that you see on the Main Page or in places like Tertiary education#By region). I assume that's why very few complaints are made about Western bias anymore, relative to all other aspects of the project. And if nobody complains, it's really difficult to argue a complete overhaul is required. The perfect is the enemy of the good. J947 ‡ ^edits 22:28, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

   I'm complaining. I have a Ph.D. in geography, and I'm saying the list is not only extremely biased, but borderline supremacist in some places. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:19, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

3. Oppose  Carlwev  13:13, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
4. The Account 2 (talk) 10:22, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Move Delhi  3 to level 4

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

Support

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

Oppose

1. It is one of the most populous countries in the world. It is certainly a candidate to be the only country with 2. This is an important city.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:01, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Discuss removals

Swap Nomad  4 with Tourism  3

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

Support swap

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)}

Support add Nomad

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

Support remove Tourism

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

Oppose

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

Discuss

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

Abraham Lincoln

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

Remove Holy Roman Empire  3

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

---

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

Support

1. I would also support adding Roman Empire instead, but my previous proposal failed. ChaoticVermillion (talk) 03:07, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Makes sense. I'd support a swap, but if we can't have both, it makes no sense to have HRE and not RE. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:40, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 10:05, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
4. Aye. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:39, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
5. 飞车过大关 (talk) 17:50, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
6. Interstellarity (talk) 22:05, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
7. The Account 2 (talk) 11:26, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
8. Too decentralized. OrientalTraveller (talk) 13:58, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose  Carlwev  13:02, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Per Carlwev. It lasted a thousand years, and is important for reasons unrelated to Rome. Johnnie Runner (talk) 18:23, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
3. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 21:58, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
4. None of the 6 supporters have explained why specifically the HRE should be removed, rather than any other of the historical states listed. If the criteria for removal is "less important than the Roman Empire", that necessitates removing a good 15 more articles. We are well under quota. J947 ‡ ^edits 23:33, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
5. I'm struggling to think of a reason why the Holy Roman Empire shouldn't be V3. λ NegativeMP1 23:41, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
6. One of the largest continuous Empires in Europe dating back to Charlemagne, and the developer of one of the world's most important religions.Aszx5000 (talk) 13:05, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
7. Roman Empire is covered by Ancient Rome  3, and supporters have given no other reason to remove. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:04, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
8. Oppose; a pan-continental entity of independent historical significance. —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:28, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

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

I feel some people are drawing a false equivalence. The Holy Roman Empire and Roman Empire are unrelated apart from the fact that they were both territories in Europe. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:33, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Swap Beijing  3 for Shanghai  4

I think this is a proposal where you can make the case for either city being a level 3 article, but I feel that on the national level, Beijing is the more important city as a political powerhouse, but on a global scale, Shanghai is more important as it is an economic powerhouse. Since Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia, we should prioritize global importance over national importance.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 21:23, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Support remove Beijing. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:49, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Shanghai is too young.飞车过大关 (talk) 17:49, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Oppose removing Beijing. The Account 2 (talk) 10:14, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Oppose Beijing removal. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 01:40, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
4. Oppose add Shanghai. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:49, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln article status

For some reason Cewbot is insistent that Abraham Lincoln is both a featured and former featured article. Can someone fix this? ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 09:19, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Add Theft  4

For as long as things have been able to be stolen, stealing has been the most common crime in the world by far. Looting  4, Identity theft  4, Piracy  4, Fraud  4, Financial crime  4, Robbery  4, Burglary  5, Possession of stolen goods  5, Embezzlement  5, Extortion  5, Blackmail  5, Larceny  5, Pickpocketing  5, and Shoplifting  5 all fall under the banner of theft.

Support

1. Johnnie Runner (talk) 02:27, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Shocksingularity (talk) 01:54, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

1. I could support with a good swap. Anything sticking out? GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:22, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

   From just within the society section, Supply and demand  3 could go. That seems overly specific and certainly not more important than its overhead topics like Market (economics)  4, Price  4, or Competition (economics)  4. Johnnie Runner (talk) 00:56, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Add Urbanization  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.

---

An important trend in human history.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 13:57, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Good step in the process of having actual geographic topics rather than lists of geographic examples. CMD (talk) 16:20, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
3. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 22:37, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
4. Per above, the higher levels should be geographic concepts, not specific geography. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:38, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
5. 飞车过大关 (talk) 17:50, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
6. Lazman321 (talk) 20:54, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
7. Shocksingularity (talk) 01:54, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

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

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)

Oppose

Neutral

Discus

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)

Add Bus  4

A widely used form of transportation used by billions of people worldwide.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 22:47, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Shocksingularity (talk) 01:55, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Too specific form of Vehicle  3 and Car  3.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 17:47, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

Public transport has come up before, is that better or too wide, seeing as trains, planes and ships are already in in some form. Taxis are covered by car I suppose too.  Carlwev  23:56, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Add some sub-disciplines; several removals to make room.

Additions

@J947 pointed out that we do not have many sub-disciplines at level 3, and gave some examples. The project criteria states that broad topics are more "vital" then specific, having broad sub-disciplines at lower levels doesn't fit this.

Move Cognitive psychology  4 to level 3

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:45, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Move Social psychology  5 to level 3

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:45, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

This will need to go to VA4 first. J947 ‡ ^edits 01:53, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Ah yes, the great stonewall that makes reorganization almost impossible. Didn't notice this wasn't 4, copied from the list of stuff you observed was missing. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:13, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

That was a great use for the {{VA link}} template. I used it in my comment, you used it in your heading, and you still didn't notice. Perhaps it isn't worth messing up edit summary section links and ignoring the MoS if people glaze over it. J947 ‡ ^edits 02:41, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Easy to skim stuff when reading groups of like topics. That said, all the great stonewall does is entrench the (bias, flawed) status quo. Editors who were bold and brash when they made the list really slammed the door on any ability to rearrange things. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:50, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Move Microeconomics  4 to level 3

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:45, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 09:27, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
4. 飞车过大关 (talk) 19:58, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Move Macroeconomics  4 to level 3

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:45, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 09:30, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
4. 飞车过大关 (talk) 19:58, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Move Historiography  4 to level 3

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:45, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
2. aye.飞车过大关 (talk) 16:39, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Too niche for VA3. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 09:31, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

Move Ancient philosophy  4 to level 3

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:45, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 09:31, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Removals

Biographies don't belong in the top 1,000 topics, much less taking over 10% of the space. The ones we have at level 3 would make good candidates for what we include for biographies at level 4.

Move Sigmund Freud  3 to level 4

His biography is not more vital the Cognitive or Social psychology.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:45, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Strong support His theories were wrong, his philosophy is outdated, his influence has ended. There is no sense in presenting a pseudo-scientific figure of old European culture to whole world, especially when the article on the philosophy of science has been removed from this level. --Thi (talk) 19:28, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
3. The Account 2 (talk) 10:17, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
4. aye.飞车过大关 (talk) 16:38, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Any examination of the VA lists will clearly show that broadness isn't everything. J947 ‡ ^edits 02:00, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

   Any examination of the VA list will clearly show that there has been almost zero consideration for anything. The nested lists should have broader topics at higher levels, there is almost no narrower topic then an individual biography. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:11, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

   Why has no one ever thought about this before in the hundreds of biography discussions at this level? J947 ‡ ^edits 02:27, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

   I'm 100% sure I'm not the first, but can't beat the popularity contest when it comes to names from the 3rd grade education curriculum. I suspect people can easily grasp and relate to individuals, and they equate higher levels with higher importance, therefore they think people they believe to be super important are also super vital. Probably something a psychologist or sociologist could study. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:39, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

2. Even if much of it is batshit, his work (and especially the degree of public attention it received) still spurred an era of unprecedented development in psychology and psychiatry. Johnnie Runner (talk) 17:57, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
3. per Johnnie Runner-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:30, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

We are well below quota now. When we list 16 psychology articles at this level and 21 psychologists at VA4, we can afford to list the most vital psychologist amongst the 18 social scientists at VA3. See past discussion: (quote from Britannica) "Freud may justly be called the most influential intellectual legislator of his age. His creation of psychoanalysis was at once a theory of the human psyche, a therapy for the relief of its ills, and an optic for the interpretation of culture and society. Despite repeated criticisms, attempted refutations, and qualifications of Freud’s work, its spell remained powerful well after his death and in fields far removed from psychology as it is narrowly defined." His influence remains, theories discredited or not. J947 ‡ ^edits 01:15, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Move Adam Smith  3 to level 4

His biography is not more vital then Microeconomics or Macroeconomics.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:45, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. J947 ‡ ^edits 02:00, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
2. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:31, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

Move Karl Marx  3 to level 4

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

---

His biography is not more vital then Microeconomics or Macroeconomics.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:45, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. J947 ‡ ^edits 02:00, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Marx's theories led to the creation of an entire ideology, which has led to revolutions across the world. Not to mention, his influence can be felt in academic fields such as sociology and economics to this very day. Lazman321 (talk) 21:07, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

   Marxism  4 is level 4. The ideology is what is important, Marx is not a proxy for his work. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:10, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

3. The Account 2 (talk) 10:19, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
4. per Lazman321 and my comment in the discuss section. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 11:22, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
5. 飞车过大关 (talk) 16:33, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
6. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

1. Marx is better known for his influence on political theory and socialism than his economic contributions. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 02:41, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

None of our biographies are really more vital then Microeconomics or Macroeconomics. Selected Marx as the counterpart to Smith. Would be fine with removing any (or all) of them. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:47, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Move Herodotus  4 to level 4

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

---

His biography is not more vital then Historiography.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:45, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Sure. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 11:20, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
3. aye.飞车过大关 (talk) 16:37, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
4. --Thi (talk) 14:29, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
5. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

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

Move Friedrich Nietzsche  4 to level 4

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

---

His biogrpahy is not more vital then the broad things we don't cover.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:45, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Support It makes no sense to present such subjective philosopher at this level, when the philosophy of science has been removed. As a poetic writer, he is no more significant than many other European figures (or The Netherlands, which was removed). "I think that Nietzsche had nothing to say and, in fact, didn't say it." [1] "His books are random collections of highly opinioned and poorly justified statements about historical, philosophical, scientific, anthropological and psychological studies that he only superficially understood. He is not confusing because he is a bad writer: he is confusing because he was confused." [2] --Thi (talk) 19:34, 12 November 2025 (UTC) --Thi (talk) 20:49, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
3. The Account 2 (talk) 10:18, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
4. 飞车过大关 (talk) 16:37, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
5. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. J947 ‡ ^edits 02:00, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
2. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:33, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:45, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Add Metropolitan area  4

An important concept since cities like NYC influence other cities in the area like in New Jersey and Connecticut.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 15:02, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Aye.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} — Preceding undated comment added 20:45, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Modern and reasonably restricted concept. Would much rather add urbanisation and remove the likes of village and town, redundant to human settlement and city. J947 ‡ ^edits 23:55, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

   If village and town are redundant to human settlement, then so is city. For most of human history, most people didn't live in cities. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 07:20, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

   That hints at exactly why the other two are redundant and city not so much. Urbanisation was added because cities are separate beasts. Although perhaps for that reason listing both urbanisation and city is overkill. J947 ‡ ^edits 10:09, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

2. --Thi (talk) 11:30, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
3. 飞车过大关 (talk) 16:36, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Add topics related to Music  2; remove specific musician biographies

Music is highly significant to human culture, and has been since before Humans were exclusively Homo sapiens. The section is very thin comparably, and does not reflect this significance.

Add Music genre  4

We list multiple Music genre's before the concept of music genre. This seems backwards.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:03, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Non-argument. We also list Science  1 and dozens more academic disciplines before Academic discipline  5, and that doesn't mean it should be listed at VA1. What does this add? J947 ‡ ^edits 23:40, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

   Academic discipline should probably be before we start listing off individual biographies. Honestly, what is even the point of an individual being above level 5? It's not like they have subheadings. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:46, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

   I'm not talking about biographies. I'm talking about your rationale for this addition. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:55, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

   I'm saying your example, Academic discipline, is not a very good one because it should probably be listed a bit higher then it is. The concept of an academic discipline isn't all encompassing of the discipline themselves; science and the scientific method exist outside of an academic discipline, they are academic disciplines because they are relevant outside academia. Level 5 is definitely disappointing. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:08, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

2. I don't think that people want to read about classifications instead of real genres. --Thi (talk) 11:28, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

Add Percussion instrument  4

we list Musical instrument  3, but no examples. This is a class of instrument that includes drums, bells, and Piano. They are "believed to include the oldest musical instruments." Definitely not western bias.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:03, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Strong support. Music topics are lacking. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I oppose the removals, so I oppose the swaps too. J947 ‡ ^edits 23:52, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
2. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 17:46, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 09:40, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

Add Wind instrument  4

we list Musical instrument  3, but no examples. This is a class of instrument that includes Woodwind instrument  4 and Brass instrument  4

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:03, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Strong support. Music topics are lacking. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I oppose the removals, so I oppose the swaps too. J947 ‡ ^edits 23:52, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
2. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 17:46, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 09:40, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

Add Woodwind instrument  4

we list Musical instrument  3, but no examples. This is a class of instrument that includes flute, clarinet, oboe, bassoon, and saxophone.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:03, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I oppose the removals, so I oppose the swaps too. J947 ‡ ^edits 23:52, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Strong oppose, Wind instrument  4 (even if added) would not need subtopics at this level.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 17:46, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 09:41, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

Add Brass instrument  4

we list Musical instrument  3, but no examples. This is a class of instrument that includes (horns, trumpets, trombones, euphoniums, tubas, Alphorn (wood), Conch (shell), Didgeridoo (wood, Australia).

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:03, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I oppose the removals, so I oppose the swaps too. J947 ‡ ^edits 23:52, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Strong oppose, Wind instrument  4 (even if added) would not need subtopics at this level.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 17:46, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 09:41, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

Add Symphony  4

We list multiple European composers before the concept that they are known for. This seems backwards. We do include Orchestra  3 under performing arts though. I think including both concepts is more appropriate then having the biographies of multiple musicians.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:03, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I oppose the removals, so I oppose the swaps too. J947 ‡ ^edits 23:52, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Would rather add Music theory  4 if anything.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 17:46, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

   Agree on music theory. I also recently proposed Musicology  4 for promotion as well. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

3. --Thi (talk) 09:42, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

Move 6 musicians to level 4

I believe we should remove the biographies of musicians from this level, and swap in broad articles related to music.

1. Coverage: Topics at higher levels tend to be broader then lower, per Vital articles criteria 1 Coverage. Biographies like these do not have broad coverage of topics, they focus on specific individuals.
2. Essential to Wikipedia's other articles: Individual biographies are not as important to other Wikipedia articles as broad topics related to the area which the subject is notable. We list multiple musicians before the genre they are known for, and have concepts like Musical ensemble  5 all the way at level 5.
3. Notability: Subjects listed are notable, but from a very specific Western lens. I do not think individuals are more notable then broader concepts related to what they are notable for.
4. No (Western) bias: We list 6 musicians, while the music section itself has only 9 articles.. All 6 musicians are western, two are German, one is Austrian, two are American, and one is a English Rock band. This is violation of the project criteria 4 (not that most proposals consider this). I don't see the possibility for this to be resolved by adding or swapping musicians from other parts of the world, if only because of quota limitations.

Move Johann Sebastian Bach  3 to level 4

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

---

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:03, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I'm not buying the reasoning provided for wanting to remove any of these biographies. All of these are integral to the development of music as we think of it now. Western bias is far less of a concern when these are globally recognized and important names. It's not even a popularity contest, they are important. The best solution, if one is needed, is to add a non-western name in music that's also equally famous and impactful (although that'd be very hard to do). I'd even go as far as to say a few of these are more important than some specific musical concepts. Some at this level may be more important than others but the baseline applies. I don't think concerns about bias or scope apply with individuals of this much importance to their field. I oppose all of these removals. λ NegativeMP1 23:25, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Key word: "tend". J947 ‡ ^edits 23:43, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 11:32, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
4. aye.飞车过大关 (talk) 16:35, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
5. Strong oppose.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 17:46, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
6. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:34, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
7. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
8. Kevinishere15 (talk) 00:11, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

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

Move Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart  3 to level 4

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

---

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:03, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I'm not buying the reasoning provided for wanting to remove any of these biographies. All of these are integral to the development of music as we think of it now. Western bias is far less of a concern when these are globally recognized and important names. It's not even a popularity contest, they are important. The best solution, if one is needed, is to add a non-western name in music that's also equally famous and impactful (although that'd be very hard to do). I'd even go as far as to say a few of these are more important than some specific musical concepts. Some at this level may be more important than others but the baseline applies. I don't think concerns about bias or scope apply with individuals of this much importance to their field. I oppose most of these removals. λ NegativeMP1 23:25, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Key word: "tend". J947 ‡ ^edits 23:43, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 11:32, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
4. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 17:46, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
5. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:35, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
6. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
7. Kevinishere15 (talk) 00:11, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

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

Move Ludwig van Beethoven  3 to level 4

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

---

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:03, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I'm not buying the reasoning provided for wanting to remove any of these biographies. All of these are integral to the development of music as we think of it now. Western bias is far less of a concern when these are globally recognized and important names. It's not even a popularity contest, they are important. The best solution, if one is needed, is to add a non-western name in music that's also equally famous and impactful (although that'd be very hard to do). I'd even go as far as to say a few of these are more important than some specific musical concepts. Some at this level may be more important than others but the baseline applies. I don't think concerns about bias or scope apply with individuals of this much importance to their field. I oppose most of these removals. λ NegativeMP1 23:25, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Key word: "tend". J947 ‡ ^edits 23:43, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Compare with Shakespeare. --Thi (talk) 11:30, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
4. 飞车过大关 (talk) 16:34, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
5. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 17:46, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
6. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:36, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
7. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
8. Kevinishere15 (talk) 00:11, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

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

Move Louis Armstrong  3 to level 4

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:03, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Definitely the weakest of the musician biographies in my opinion. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 01:07, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Maybe is M. Jackson is listed instead. --Thi (talk) 11:31, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
4. 飞车过大关 (talk) 16:33, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
5. Support  Carlwev  14:17, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Oppose

1. Key word: "tend". J947 ‡ ^edits 23:43, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Jazz is important enough to warrant the inclusion of its principal figure who gives the genre much of its character and popularity. I'm no proponent of Great Men, but I disagree that biographies are inherently too narrow for VA3. Even if the broader subject is the thing of 'actual' importance, how that subject contextually developed is just as important to include, which depends on the people behind it. Johnnie Runner (talk) 01:24, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
3. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:36, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
4. I always viewed him as the lesser of the musician biographies we list but he also represents jazz. I'm indifferent on this one I guess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unknown (talk • contribs)
5. Same opinion as the above poster (Not sure who that is since unsigned). Kevinishere15 (talk) 00:10, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

Move The Beatles  3 to level 4

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:03, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I'm not buying the reasoning provided for wanting to remove any of these biographies. All of these are integral to the development of music as we think of it now. Western bias is far less of a concern when these are globally recognized and important names. It's not even a popularity contest, they are important. The best solution, if one is needed, is to add a non-western name in music that's also equally famous and impactful (although that'd be very hard to do). I'd even go as far as to say a few of these are more important than some specific musical concepts. Some at this level may be more important than others but the baseline applies. I don't think concerns about bias or scope apply with individuals of this much importance to their field. I oppose most of these removals. λ NegativeMP1 23:25, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Key word: "tend". J947 ‡ ^edits 23:43, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
3. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:37, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
4. They basically reshaped Western music. If any band warrants inclusion on this list, it's the Beatles. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
5. Kevinishere15 (talk) 00:11, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

Move Michael Jackson  3 to level 4

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:03, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Honestly yeah. Not as important to music overall as the others at VA3. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I'm not buying the reasoning provided for wanting to remove any of these biographies. All of these are integral to the development of music as we think of it now. Western bias is far less of a concern when these are globally recognized and important names. It's not even a popularity contest, they are important. The best solution, if one is needed, is to add a non-western name in music that's also equally famous and impactful (although that'd be very hard to do). I'd even go as far as to say a few of these are more important than some specific musical concepts. Some at this level may be more important than others but the baseline applies. I don't think concerns about bias or scope apply with individuals of this much importance to their field. I oppose most of these removals. λ NegativeMP1 23:25, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Key word: "tend". J947 ‡ ^edits 23:43, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
3. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:37, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
4. Kevinishere15 (talk) 00:11, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:03, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Add Sadness  4

This one should IMO be obvious, but I'll elaborate. Sadness, Happiness  3, and Anger  3 are the three most fundamental human emotions, and should all be listed at the same level. Emotion  2 is Level 2 and we already list anger and happiness, so we should included sadness as well. I don't think a swap is needed, but if we decide that it is, I'd suggest removing Humour  3 as a subtopic of happiness.

Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:02, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Would also support a removal of humor, though I had suggested a removal before and it was opposed. PrimalMustelid (talk) 21:05, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
3. per nom. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 03:38, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
4. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
5. Interstellarity (talk) 23:18, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

1. I would consider Humour  3 to be more vital than Happiness  3, Sadness  4, or Anger  3. As an article, it can be a more substantial and coherent topic and I suspect more has been written about it. There is Positive psychology  5 which studies happiness, but is a broader field overall. ~2025-34020-32 (talk) 03:53, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Village pump

There is a discussion in the idea lab of the village pump that concerns the future of this project. I am notifying this article since not everybody has the main vital articles talk page watchlisted. -1ctinus📝🗨 15:57, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Add Musicology  4

The study of music. Includes Music theory  4 and all its subtopics, as well as Ethnomusicology  5. Music  2 is level 2.

Support

1. As nom. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:02, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Would be a better inclusion then the musician biographies at this level. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:11, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Remove Suffrage  3

Already covered by Democracy  3.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 15:43, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 13:17, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
3. 飞车过大关 (talk) 15:32, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
4. Very weak support. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:11, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
5. Johnnie Runner (talk) 18:36, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:39, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Demote Vasco da Gama  3 to level 4

Vasco da Gama is famous for commanding the expedition that lead to the Portuguese discovery of the sea route to India, which is not an article listed at level 5. The route itself, Cape Route, is also not listed at level 5. I think these routes themselves, or the discovery of them, are more vital then the commander of the expedition that discovered them. The inclusion of these biographies tend to emphasize only the most prominent member of a group effort, as a proxy for that topic, and this is one of the most glaring examples. I think this could make room for some relevant historical concept, or just one of the many additions that get proposed without a swap. As a whole, biographies are less broad then almost any other topic, and there is not a sub-category for Vasco da Gama in the way other concepts at level 3 are divided at level 4 and 5.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:10, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
2. 飞车过大关 (talk) 14:03, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
4. --Thi (talk) 09:43, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
5. Per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:56, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:10, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Remove Asthma  3

Certainly an important medical condition, but I don't feel that it is one of the 1,000 most important topics. Very few medical conditions are listed as level 3. VA4 is enough for this one.

Support

1. As nom. Shocksingularity (talk) 21:16, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removing medical conditions outright. Maybe swap with something else, but the medical coverage of the project is abysmal. Asthma impacts roughly 8% of the U.S. population. I'd suggest a swap with Respiratory diseases, but it looks like that isn't even at level 5. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:38, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

Remove Abortion  3

Pregnancy  3 is only level 3, so I don't think that a subtopic needs to be level 3 as well. We already have Birth control  3.

Support

1. As nom. Shocksingularity (talk) 21:17, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. oppose removing medical related articles outright without a swap. We already have very limited coverage of medical topics when weighted against how important they are to everyday life. Removing one at level 3 without a swap will likely only lead to this section shrinking over time. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:40, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 09:43, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

Shocksingularity (talk) 21:17, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Geography removals and additions

Remove Arctic  3

I don't think the Arctic is vital especially since it's basically the opposite of Antarctica.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 01:42, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I would rather us add regions and remove specific countries from level 3. Ideally, I think level 2 should be entirely broad geographic umbrella terms, level 3 should introduce broad regions, level 4 should be where Sovereign states are grouped, and at level 5 we can have sub-divisions of those states. A logical hierarchy for regions would eliminate concerns of Western Bias and help to keep the list consistent. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:50, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 09:44, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Remove Caribbean  3

We don't list many other subregions such as Central America  4 or East Asia  4.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 01:42, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

The map of Earth's principal tectonic plates

1. I would rather us add regions and remove specific countries from level 3. Ideally, I think level 2 should be entirely broad geographic umbrella terms, level 3 should introduce broad regions, level 4 should be where Sovereign states are grouped, and at level 5 we can have sub-divisions of those states. A logical hierarchy for regions would eliminate concerns of Western Bias and help to keep the list consistent. I've added a plate techtonics map, and on it you can see that hte Caribbean is actually on its own plate, compared to Europe which is geologically speaking part of Eurasia. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:50, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Remove Middle East  3

We don't list many other subregions such as Central America  4 or East Asia  4.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 01:42, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I would rather us add regions and remove specific countries from level 3. Ideally, I think level 2 should be entirely broad geographic umbrella terms, level 3 should introduce broad regions, level 4 should be where Sovereign states are grouped, and at level 5 we can have sub-divisions of those states. A logical hierarchy for regions would eliminate concerns of Western Bias and help to keep the list consistent. On this one in particular, Europe is only a "continent" becasue of Western Bias. It is really just a sub-region of Eurasia, and about equivalent to the Middle East, India, or other similar sub-regions. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:50, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Add Australia (continent)  4

This is the only continent we don't list, so it makes sense to list it alongside Oceania  2.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 01:42, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The concept of continents is a bit outdated, which is why I've tried updating the list a bit. We list the broader "Oceania  2" and include Australia  3 as a country. If you look at the page for continent, you'll see how ambiguous that the term actually is. We don't include Zealandia  5 either, although it has more claim to being a continent then Europe does. If you want to see a more 20th century approach we could use the United Nations geoscheme regions. They use the term "continental regions" for their highest level of classification, which is an important distinction.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:50, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 09:44, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Add African regions, propose swaps (Region proposal 1 of 5)

To help avoid western bias, I really think we should try and use a set of regions that aren't heavily critiqued in literature for being bias towards the west. That said, with the current organization, I think the United Nations geoscheme would be the best to emulate. We have the 6 continental regions at level 2 already, the next level is the "22 geographical subregions." This proposal is starting with Africa, but I will get to the other subregions.

Promote East Africa  4 to level 3

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:03, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Promote Central Africa  4 to level 3

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:03, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Promote North Africa  4 to level 3

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:03, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Promote West Africa  4 to level 3

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:03, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Promote Southern Africa  4 to level 3

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:03, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Demote Algeria  3 to level 4

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:03, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
2. How I am going to decide whether to demote a country is based on whether in its current form it could be considered a major power. None of these African countries strike me as ever having been a major power, so I will support all of the country demotions. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 08:59, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --Thi (talk) 14:38, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
2. While it does enforce neutrality better, I think the change you have in mind sacrifices too much geopolitical description to be worth it. If we end up getting rid of our regional powers but not our global powers, then this proposal backfires and we push the list even further into western bias. Johnnie Runner (talk) 19:28, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Oppose  Carlwev  20:54, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

Demote Egypt  3 to level 4

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:03, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Per my statements above. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 08:59, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --Thi (talk) 09:13, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Same reasoning as above. Johnnie Runner (talk) 19:28, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Oppose  Carlwev  20:54, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

Demote Ethiopia  3 to level 4

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:03, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Per my statements above. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 08:59, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --Thi (talk) 14:38, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Johnnie Runner (talk) 19:28, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Oppose  Carlwev  20:54, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

Demote Kenya  3 to level 4

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:03, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Per my statements above. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 08:59, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --Thi (talk) 14:38, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Johnnie Runner (talk) 19:28, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Oppose  Carlwev  20:54, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

Demote Nigeria  3 to level 4

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:03, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Per my statements above. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 08:59, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --Thi (talk) 14:38, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Johnnie Runner (talk) 19:28, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Oppose  Carlwev  20:54, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

Demote South Africa  3 to level 4

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:03, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Per my statements above. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 08:59, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --Thi (talk) 14:38, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Weak oppose, I'd like to keep at least one African country on the list. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Johnnie Runner (talk) 19:28, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
4. Oppose  Carlwev  20:54, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

Demote Tanzania  3 to level 4

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:03, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Per my statements above. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 08:59, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --Thi (talk) 14:38, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Probably the weakest country here. I could see swapping it with Morocco. Johnnie Runner (talk) 19:28, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Oppose  Carlwev  20:54, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:03, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Discuss proposal

I don't feel like we should add all of the UN geoscheme regions to level 3. I feel like adding 22 regions would bloat the geography section significantly. Some of these regions don't make much sense to me, like the UN's definition of Middle Africa. It makes more sense to add regions that are geographically instead of politically defined. I would not be opposed to adding Sub-Saharan Africa  4 or Sahel  4. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 04:30, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

It is actually a cut if we move all the countries down. We list 40 countries, and are missing most of the broader regions. We can make the list a lot more logically consistent, avoid accusations of Western bias caused by elevating some countries over others, and make a lot of room for other stuff, or continue to just cling to our completely unjustifiable list of some countries at level 3 and others at level 4. I will say, just because we are being racist and biased on the list out of ignorance, does not mean we aren't being racist and biased. There is absolutely no way I can see to justify to an outsider why we have 40 countries at a higher level then the others, and the broader regions at lower levels then those 40 countries, while the vital article criteria state "Vital articles at higher levels tend to "cover" more topics and be broader in their scope" AND "No (Western) bias." Outsourcing the thought towards an international organization is just citing our source and having a justification besides random Wikipedia editors voting on stuff 1 at a time after several threw together a list over a decade ago. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:13, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

All countries are vital at this level. Presenting states is a typical way to showcase diversity. Different countries have different cultures, histories, and circumstances. In encyclopedias, articles on states are often the main articles. The current listing reflects an American bias in which only large countries are seen as significant. We need to consider the needs of readers, and I have been told that the readers are typically more interested in articles about countries than in concepts they may not even find. --Thi (talk) 14:34, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

@Thi, If all countries are vital at this level, why are we not listing all countries at this level? Different countries have different cultures, histories, and circumstances. In encyclopedias, articles on states are often the main articles. We should not have 40 countries above the rest, this reflects an American bias in which only large countries are seen as significant. The interest of readers are not a vital article criteria, different readers are going to be interested in different things, they are not a homogenous group. Trying to get the quota to list all the countries at level 3 is impossible, even if we cut ALL biographies we couldn't fit them. Keeping them together at a lower level would avoid holding some above others, and having the broader regions at a higher level will keep things organized while providing guidance on articles to improve. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:31, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Some editors have created versions of lists of 500 cävital articles. For me, it has been easy to compile a list of about 800 core articles, but after that the most obvious articles have been chosen. In that case, the articles on the 200 states fit in. They have also been of interest to the editors of printed encyclopedias. --Thi (talk) 20:49, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

The vital article level 3 list has room for 1,000 articles. We list 40 states at level 3, and the rest at level 4. I can not find a way to promote the rest of the countries up, so for consistency moving the minority down and moving the broader regions up not only makes sense for the project criteria (broader articles at higher levels), it makes room for other topics at level 3. The regions should be at a higher level then the states anyway. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:41, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

The concepts prioritize the interests of geographers over those of other editors. The list works as a watchlist of important articles. Editors do not begin reading, writing, and maintaining articles from the top-level entries, but from those articles that are important and require immediate attention. Articles on regions can be developed within the geography project. Articles on states present the world from multiple perspectives. They are basic building blocks of general encyclopedia. The presentation of states is needed for biographies, history, and geography. They are important according to the criteria of coverage and being essential to other articles. --Thi (talk) 10:32, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

The watchlist function of vital is the weakest of the purposes the project is supposed to serve, it is mostly theoretical. We have watchlists, but very few people are adding the vital articles to theirs because they are vital. I have all of level 1 on mine intentionally, but I'd bet most editors active in vital don't even go that far. Regional articles ARE important, and elevating some states as more important then others IS embedding western bias directly into the list. The criteria most people use favors powerful states, at the expense of middle and lesser powers that were often times exploited by those states to accumulate power. It is naked systemic bias in favor of the dominant powers of the world. Organizing the list so all the countries are at level 4, and regions (which are very important, present multiple persepectives, while articles on states are the building blocks of the regions) at level 3 to serve as parent categories is justifiable in the literature, avoids debates about if Tanzania is more or less vital then Morocco, and better meets the project criteria as described. We don't actually have a consistent reasoning to justify why some countries are above others at all, it's all subjective based on the values and bias of the mostly western editors we have in the project. Removing the countries for their aggregate regions would serve to allow other categories more elbow room. Furthermore, the country lists are generally getting more attention, the regions articles are extremely important but tend to be of lower quality. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:05, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Add American regions, propose swaps (Region proposal 2 of 5)

To help avoid western bias, I really think we should try and use a set of regions that aren't heavily critiqued in literature for being bias towards the west. That said, with the current organization, I think the United Nations geoscheme would be the best to emulate. We have the 6 continental regions at level 2 already, the next level is the "22 geographical subregions." This proposal is specific to the American regions, of which we already include South America  2, and the Caribbean  3 at levels 2 or 3, which means we are just missing Central America.

Promote Central America  4 to level 3

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:15, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
2. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 04:36, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
4. The Account 2 (talk) 16:19, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
5. Interstellarity (talk) 23:19, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Promote Northern America to level 3

This isn't at level 5 yet. I recognize that the project has made a decision to avoid skipping, but "given that it’s a stupid-ass decision, I’ve elected to ignore it." I really don't care to waste time playing skip articles for nonsensical reasons to just to try and propose this in 6 to 8 months. The fact it's not already included at level 4 while we list the African regions seems like an oversight.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:15, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. We already have North America  2 in level 2, which is almost the exact same thing.
2. Per above. --Thi (talk) 09:17, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
3. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 10:19, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
4. 飞车过大关 (talk) 19:56, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

1. I would support this at VA4 but no further. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 04:36, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Is there a vital article criteria you're using to make that, or is it vibe based? GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:08, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

I dislike having geopolitical regions at this level, and even then Northern America can succinctly be described as Canada  3 and the United States  3. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 08:46, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

The upper levels should be more broad then lower, why would you prefer to have more general concepts above the broader region they are in? Based on the vital criteria, there isn't much reason besides liking the look of 40 countries at level 3 above those at level 4. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:26, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Demote United States  3 to level 4

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

---

Rip that bandaid off trying to group countries at a more logical level related to their regions.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:15, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. How I am going to decide whether to remove a country is whether in its current form it could ever be considered a major power. Currently, the US is the textbook example of a major power, so I will oppose this. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 09:02, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 14:40, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Obvious no from me. I am surprised that someone decided to nominate this. This would likely be one of the last countries that I would remove after most other countries. Interstellarity (talk) 15:32, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

   My goal is to remove all the countries from level 3 so we can have them together on the same level, not holding some above others as more vital. The list has extreme western bias, we should take measures to fix this. Unfortunately, people don't like nominations where we just make a big consistent change and want things itemized, so we can continue having our wildly inconsistent list. Taking U.S. off level 3 would make removing all the others obvious. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:25, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

   The only thing these nominations will do is make it more Western, as the US will clearly never get support to be removed, while "invisible" in American pop culture countries, like Bangladesh; important for its population size get support to be demoted or the default to the Western "great power" shtick already happening. The constant ire for being a westernised list and the resultant changes to try and "fix it" always seems to turn out in making it more Western. Something to consider, as this has been the resultant actions of alot of these attempts to "fix" the vitals lists recently. This was a relatively well covered by sub region 40 countries list, let's see where it ends up. GuzzyG (talk) 06:04, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

   The list is biased. As a geographer, I can't express how bad I think the organization of geography is. I do not think it is relatively well covered, it is insultingly bigoted, and made without any consideration for how geographers actually organize geography, regions, places, or anything. The ignorance that leads to it is not really an excuse. We could either leave it as is, or try to fix it. If people actually voted with vital article criteria, or voted consistently, we might be able to do so. I've tried making batch proposals, but then people demand they be itemized like this so they can apply their inconsistent logic a la carte. I thought people might be reasonable. If we can start chipping away at it though, then the U.S. will be more out of place at this level, and it will be more obvious that it is ridiculous to have some sovereign states above others on the list. If you think it's a problem, try to argue with the people defending the Western "great power" shtick, which is literally just "the countries that continue to benefit from imperialism are more important then their victims." GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:33, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

4. If we have biographies at Vital article level 3 while not having China or US, this project would lose any kind of credbility. The Account 2 (talk) 15:58, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
5. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
6. Of course not. Kevinishere15 (talk) 07:23, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
7. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 11:01, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

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

Demote Mexico  3 to level 4

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:15, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Per my statement above, I don't think Canada could ever be considered a major power. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 09:02, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --Thi (talk) 14:40, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Very high population with a very famous/popular culture. Kevinishere15 (talk) 07:23, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Oppose  Carlwev  04:01, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

Demote Canada  3 to level 4

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:15, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Per my statement above, I don't think Canada could ever be considered a major power. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 09:02, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
3. The Account 2 (talk) 16:08, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
4. Insignificant country in terms of military power and diplomatic clout. OrientalTraveller (talk) 13:53, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --Thi (talk) 14:40, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Weak oppose. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Kevinishere15 (talk) 07:23, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
4. Oppose  Carlwev  04:02, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:15, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Add Asia regions, propose swaps/removals (Region proposal 3 of 5)

Promote Central Asia  4 to level 3

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:23, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Promote East Asia  4 to level 3

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:23, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
2. I don't want to put purely political regions in VA3, but East Asia is just too significant not to include. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 04:44, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
3. The Account 2 (talk) 16:02, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
4. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
5. Interstellarity (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Promote Central Asia  4 to level 3

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:23, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Promote Southeast Asia  4 to level 3

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:23, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
3. The Account 2 (talk) 16:19, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
4. Interstellarity (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
5. 飞车过大关 (talk) 19:56, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Promote South Asia  4 to level 3

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:23, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Promote West Asia  5 to level 3

Again, another inconsistent region that should be at level 4 already. Not going to shuffle while trying to make a proposal that will hopefully address SOME systemic bias we've been accused of having.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:23, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Demote China  3 to level 4

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

---

Like the U.S. nomination, just going to start by ripping the band-aid off on moving the countries down a peg.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:23, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. How I am going to decide whether to remove a country is whether in its current form it could ever be considered a major power. China is currently the second most populous country in the world, and it is in the UN security council. Not to mention its importance in trade, successfully scaring almost every single country into not recognising Taiwan. China definitely qualifies as a major power. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 09:23, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 14:45, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Like the US, that would likely be one of the last countries I would remove before anything else. Interstellarity (talk) 15:33, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
4. If we have biographies at Vital article level 3 while not having China or US, this project would lose any kind of credbility. The Account 2 (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

   Those should go too, but right now trying to address the backwards organization of geography. Feel free to nominate removing biographies. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:23, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

5. Major global power, second most populous country Shocksingularity (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
6. Of course not. Kevinishere15 (talk) 07:31, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
7. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 11:04, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
8. This makes negative sense. OrientalTraveller (talk) 13:45, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
9. Oppose  Carlwev  18:59, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

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

Demote Bangladesh  3 to level 4

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:23, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Per my statements above, I don't think Bangladesh could ever be considered a major power. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 09:23, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --Thi (talk) 14:45, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Oppose  Carlwev  18:59, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

Demote India  3 to level 4

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

---

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:23, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Per my statements above, I will keep countries if they could ever be considered a major power in its current form. India is currently the most populous country in the entire world. It is currently in BRICS and is definitely an emerging power. Because of this, I will oppose this demotion. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 09:23, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 14:45, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
3. The Account 2 (talk) 16:02, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
4. Most populous country in the world. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
5. Of course not. Kevinishere15 (talk) 07:31, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
6. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 11:11, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
7. This country is essentially a subcontinent. OrientalTraveller (talk) 13:48, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
8. Oppose  Carlwev  18:59, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

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

Demote Pakistan  3 to level 4

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:23, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Per my statement above. While Pakistan is certainly a regional power, it is not a power on the global stage. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 09:23, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
4. Semi failed state with nuclear weapons. OrientalTraveller (talk) 13:49, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --Thi (talk) 14:45, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Kevinishere15 (talk) 07:31, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Oppose  Carlwev  18:59, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

Demote Japan  3 to level 4

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

---

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:23, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Per my statements above. This one is a hard decision for me. While it isn't a major power in brute or diplomatic force, it is very important in manufacturing and companies. I will be liberal in this case and oppose demotion. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 09:23, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 14:45, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
4. One of the most important Asian countries, high population, very influential in technology and media. Very famous/popular culture. Kevinishere15 (talk) 07:31, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
5. Too culturally and technologically influential.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 11:07, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
6. One of the largest economies with significant cultural exports. Has arguably more soft power than giants like China and France. OrientalTraveller (talk) 13:51, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
7. Oppose  Carlwev  18:59, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

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

Demote South Korea  3 to level 4

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:23, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Per my statements above. While South Korea could be considered significant in manufacturing and trade, it is overshadowed by China and Japan. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 09:23, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Weak support. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
4. Weak support The Account 2 (talk) 16:14, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --Thi (talk) 14:45, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Influential in technology and media. Kevinishere15 (talk) 07:31, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Oppose  Carlwev  18:59, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
4. Significant rising power in Asia and international cultural juggernaut Lazman321 (talk) 21:50, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

Demote Taiwan  3 to level 4

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:23, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
2. While it was a major power back in its days of mainland control, those are long gone and I think of Taiwan and the former mainland ROC as different entities. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 09:23, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
3. 飞车过大关 (talk) 14:02, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
4. Relatively small all things considered. The Account 2 (talk) 15:59, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
5. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --Thi (talk) 14:45, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

Demote Indonesia  3 to level 4

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:23, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Per my statement at the top. Regional power - yes, great power - no. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 09:23, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --Thi (talk) 14:45, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Very high population. Kevinishere15 (talk) 07:31, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Oppose  Carlwev  18:59, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

Demote Philippines  3 to level 4

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:23, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Per my statement at the top. Not ever a great power. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 09:23, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
4. 飞车过大关 (talk) 18:17, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --Thi (talk) 14:45, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
2. High population. Kevinishere15 (talk) 07:31, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Oppose  Carlwev  18:59, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

Demote Thailand  3 to level 4

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:23, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Not ever a great power. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 09:23, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --Thi (talk) 14:45, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Kevinishere15 (talk) 07:31, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Oppose  Carlwev  18:59, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

Demote Vietnam  3 to level 4

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:23, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Not ever a major power. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 09:23, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --Thi (talk) 14:45, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Kevinishere15 (talk) 07:31, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Oppose  Carlwev  18:59, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

Demote Iran  3 to level 4

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:23, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
2. I am tired of repeating myself. Don't think it was ever a major power. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 09:23, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --Thi (talk) 14:45, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Kevinishere15 (talk) 07:31, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Oppose  Carlwev  18:59, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

Demote Saudi Arabia  3 to level 4

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:23, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
2. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 09:23, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
4. 飞车过大关 (talk) 19:55, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --Thi (talk) 14:45, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Kevinishere15 (talk) 07:31, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Oppose  Carlwev  18:59, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
4. Biggest oil exporter in the world and second-biggest producer of it, largest economy in Middle East, home location of Islam  3.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 10:46, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

Demote Israel  3 to level 4

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:23, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
2. While having an impressive millitary and making the US bow to its will, I don't think Israel would be a great power by any means. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 09:23, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
4. 飞车过大关 (talk) 18:15, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
5. The Account 2 (talk) 20:52, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
6. Similar situation to Taiwan where its ultra-controversial status disguises its actual stature. Johnnie Runner (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --Thi (talk) 14:45, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Kevinishere15 (talk) 07:31, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
3. A bit too much geopolitical interest as a Homeland for the Jewish people / Jewish state and for housing a Holy Land to major world religions methinks.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 10:13, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

Demote Turkey  3 to level 4

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:23, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Not the Ottomans no more. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 09:23, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --Thi (talk) 14:45, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Kevinishere15 (talk) 07:31, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
3. The Account 2 (talk) 21:43, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
4. Turkey is a major power and has the 2nd largest military force in NATO. OrientalTraveller (talk) 13:44, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
5. Oppose  Carlwev  18:59, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:23, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Discuss proposal

As I stated above in the African proposals, I don't want to include every region in the UN geoscheme at level 3. However, I do agree that there should be a few more regions. For Asia, the regions that I would want added along with the already included Middle East  3, would be the Indian subcontinent  5 and East Asia  4. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 04:44, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Add Europe regions, propose swaps/removals (Region proposal 4 of 5)

To help avoid western bias, I really think we should try and use a set of regions that aren't heavily critiqued in literature for being bias towards the west. That said, with the current organization, I think the United Nations geoscheme would be the best to emulate. We have the 6 continental regions at level 2 already, the next level is the "22 geographical subregions." This proposal is specific to the American regions, of which we already include South America 2, and the Caribbean 3 at levels 2 or 3, which means we are just missing Central America.

Promote Eastern Europe  4 to level 3

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:29, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Promote Northern Europe  5 to level 3

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:29, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Promote Southern Europe  5 to level 3

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:29, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Not really an important geographical concept IMO, I haven't ever heard of anyone refer to this. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

   A synonym is "Mediterranean Europe." It was a bit more relevant around the time of the Roman Empire, you hear about it in discussion about WWII and the invasion of Italy as well. The regions I'm citing are all from the same United Nations geoscheme, trying to use sources for this so we can point to them and defend the list when people accuse us of having western bias, at least for the geography section. Currently, the geography list is indefensible, and I could see it attacked in three different ways (Ontological, critical, and regional). This batch of proposals is mostly trying to address the critical and regional arguments, the proposal above is aimed at the ontological. Ultimately, I'm trying to make the list reflect how geography organizes itself, and how it organizes regional hierarchy. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:56, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

Promote Western Europe  4 to level 3

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:29, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Demote United Kingdom  3 to level 4

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

---

Just going to rip the Band-Aid off again.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:29, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I will decide on whether to remove these countries based on if they in their current form could ever be considered a major power. You could definitely make a case that the UK is not a major power any more, but the British Empire (still the UK by the way) definitely was, and that got the UK a place at the UN security council. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 09:34, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 14:47, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
4. One of the most influential countries ever. Kevinishere15 (talk) 07:16, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
5. Oppose despite some overlap with the historical British Empire  3.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 11:35, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
6. Oppose  Carlwev  18:00, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

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

Demote France  3 to level 4

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:29, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Per my statement at the top. You could definitely make a case that France is not a major power any more, but the French Empire was influential, and that got France a place at the UN security council. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 09:34, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 14:47, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Kevinishere15 (talk) 07:16, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
4. Oppose  Carlwev  18:00, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

Demote Germany  3 to level 4

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

---

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:29, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
2. This is a similar case to Japan for me, where it isn't the diplomatic or military influence that is important but the manufacturing importance. However in this case I am leaning towards demoting Germany as it feel like I hear about Japan more often, and Japan has a larger population. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 09:34, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --Thi (talk) 14:47, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Kevinishere15 (talk) 07:16, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
4. Too much important history and culture, such as Johann Wolfgang von Goethe  4, Martin Luther  3, Johannes Gutenberg  3, Nazi Germany  4, Brothers Grimm  4, Johann Sebastian Bach  3 and Ludwig van Beethoven  3 (although some overlaps with Holy Roman Empire  3).--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 11:25, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
5. Oppose  Carlwev  18:00, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

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

Demote Italy  3 to level 4

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:29, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Per my statement at the top, I will only keep a country if it could be considered a major power. Italy is a textbook middle power, but not a major one. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 09:34, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Weak support. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
4. Weak support The Account 2 (talk) 16:17, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --Thi (talk) 14:47, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Kevinishere15 (talk) 07:16, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Oppose  Carlwev  18:00, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I've decided to change my vote to neutral. Shocksingularity (talk) 06:59, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

Demote Russia  3 to level 4

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

---

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:29, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Per my statement at the top, I will only keep a country if it could be considered a major power. Russia is a member of the UN security council, and still has a strong sphere of influence in former Soviet countries. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 09:34, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 14:47, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
3. The Account 2 (talk) 16:00, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
4. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
5. Kevinishere15 (talk) 07:16, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
6. 飞车过大关 (talk) 18:43, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
7. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 11:02, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
8. Oppose  Carlwev  18:00, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

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

Demote Spain  3 to level 4

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:29, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Per my statement at the top, I will only keep a country if it could be considered a major power. Spain is not a major power in its current form. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 09:34, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Weak support. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
4. Weak support The Account 2 (talk) 16:17, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --Thi (talk) 14:47, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Very historically important, and still a pretty large population today. Kevinishere15 (talk) 07:16, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Oppose  Carlwev  18:00, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:29, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Discuss proposal

As I stated above, I don't want every region in the UN geoscheme to be at VA3. I think having Europe  2 and the Mediterranean Sea  3 is fine for the European regions at this level. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 04:49, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Why would we have specific countries listed before the regions they are in? "Vital articles at higher levels tend to "cover" more topics and be broader in their scope." What exactly are we doing at vital articles? Do we have any consistent plan, criteria, or reasoning, or is it all vibes based? GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:06, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Add Oceania regions, propose swaps/removals (Region proposal 5 of 5)

To help avoid western bias (which the project has recently been accused of at the village pump), I really think we should try and use a set of regions that aren't heavily critiqued in literature for being bias towards the west. That said, with the current organization, I think the United Nations geoscheme would be the best to emulate. We have the 6 continental regions at level 2 already, the next level is the "22 geographical subregions." This proposal is specific to the American regions, of which we already include South America 2, and the Caribbean 3 at levels 2 or 3, which means we are just missing Central America.

Promote Australasia  5 to level 3

Again, a miss that is inconsistent with the rest of the list. Just going to propose it and pretend it is just an accidental oversight.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:34, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Obviously VA4, and will support for VA3 too. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 04:32, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Promote Melanesia  4 to level 3

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:34, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Promote Micronesia  4 to level 3

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:34, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Promote Polynesia  4 to level 3

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:34, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Demote Australia  3 to level 4

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:34, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
2. The way I will decide whether to remove a country is whether in its current form, it could ever be considered a major power. Australia, while certainly a regional power is not a great power and so are most of these countries here. Australia could be replaced with Australasia proposed above. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 09:38, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
3. The Account 2 (talk) 16:04, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --Thi (talk) 14:49, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Very important and massive country. Kevinishere15 (talk) 06:22, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Oppose  Carlwev  16:35, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
4. 飞车过大关 (talk) 19:53, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

Demote Argentina  3 to level 4

There were not enough countries in Oceania, so I saved some from the America's.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:34, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Per my statement at the top. Not a major power. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 09:38, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Weak support. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
4. Weak support The Account 2 (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --Thi (talk) 14:49, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Kevinishere15 (talk) 06:22, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Oppose  Carlwev  16:35, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

Demote Brazil  3 to level 4

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

---

There were not enough countries in Oceania, so I saved some from the America's.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:34, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. While not in the UN security council, Brazil is a founding memeber of BRICS and is the most populous and influential country in South America. Weak oppose. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 09:38, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
2. 飞车过大关 (talk) 14:01, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 14:49, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
4. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
5. Kevinishere15 (talk) 06:22, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
6. Oppose  Carlwev  16:35, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

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

Demote Colombia  3 to level 4

There were not enough countries in Oceania, so I saved some from the America's.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:34, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Per my statement at the top. Don't think Columbia is a major power. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 09:38, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
3. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
4. 飞车过大关 (talk) 18:42, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --Thi (talk) 14:49, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Oppose  Carlwev  16:35, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:34, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Proposing some additions of medical conditions - part 1

I proposed some removals from the medical conditions section, because I felt that they weren't as important as the other articles in the section. However, GeogSage noted that the medical conditions section is pretty small relative to its importants and honestly, after thinking on it for a while, I agree. I don't expect all of these to pass, but I hope that some will.

Add Arthritis  4

15-20% of people have this condition.

Support

1. As nom. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:07, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Dementia  4

Very common among elderly adults.

Support

1. As nom. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:07, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 09:14, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Wound  4

Basic concept in medicine.

Support

1. As nom. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:07, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
2. 飞车过大关 (talk) 18:41, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Already have Injury  3.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 10:59, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Burn  4

Again, a very common type of injury.

Support

1. As nom. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:07, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Myocardial infarction  4

Also known as heart attack.

Support

1. As nom. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:07, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Shocksingularity (talk) 02:07, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Proposing the addition of some medical conditions - part 2

I proposed some removals from the medical conditions section, because I felt that they weren't as important as the other articles in the section. However, GeogSage noted that the medical conditions section is pretty small relative to its importants and honestly, after thinking on it for a while, I agree. I don't expect all of these to pass, but I hope that some will.

Add Polio  4

This was a huge problem before the vaccine was developed, and led to one of the biggest mass vaccination efforts ever.

Support

1. As nom. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:18, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

1. What would the articles below it at level 4 be? The vital article levels are supposed to have more broad topics at higher levels, not just super important topics above others. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:37, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Add Visual impairment  4

About 13% of people have this. This includes anyone who needs Glasses  4 or Contact lens  5, as well as people who are blind.

Support

1. As nom. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:18, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Hearing loss  4

About 18% of the world, over 1 billion people, have this.

Support

1. As nom. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:18, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Physical disability  4

Mental disorder  3 is level 3.

Support

1. As nom. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:18, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:37, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Proposing the addition of some medical conditions - part 3

I proposed some removals from the medical conditions section, because I felt that they weren't as important as the other articles in the section. However, @GeogSage noted that the medical conditions section is pretty small relative to its importants and honestly, after thinking on it for a while, I agree. I don't expect all of these to pass, but I hope that some will.

Add Intellectual disability  4

One of the most well-known and common developmental disabilities, affects 1% of people.

Support

1. As nom. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:28, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
2. Aye. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:26, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
3. The most discriminated-against people in the world.飞车过大关 (talk) 18:38, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Autism  4

Affects 2% of the population, very well known developmental disability. See also Vaccines and autism  5, Asperger syndrome  5

Support

1. As nom. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:28, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
2. 飞车过大关 (talk) 18:40, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

• What level 2 article would this be "under"? What would be "under" it at level 4? GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:26, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Add Anxiety disorder  4

Affects 12% of people per year, and 30% of people at some point in their lives.

Support

1. As nom. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:28, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Major depressive disorder  4

Most common mental illness, sometimes called the "common cold" of mental health.

Support

1. As nom. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:28, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Psychosis  4

Common and important symptom of Schizophrenia  4, Brain injury  4, Bipolar disorder  4, Sleep deprivation  5, Alcohol (drug)  4 use, and Cannabis  4 use.

Support

1. As nom. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:28, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
2. 飞车过大关 (talk) 18:41, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Shocksingularity (talk) 02:28, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Add Colonization  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.

---

Scramble for Africa  3 goes under this and it matches Decolonization  3. Easy addition. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 02:38, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 02:42, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Should have to go to V4 first. Kevinishere15 (talk) 05:38, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
2. Redundant to Colonialism  3. λ NegativeMP1 05:40, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

• Clearly redundant to Colonialism  3 at VA3. ~2025-37394-76 (talk) 04:35, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

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

Remove Alcoholism  3

I'll try this nomination again: this is a fairly redundant article for level 3 since Alcoholic beverage  3 is already listed here. We should get rid of alcoholism since the alcoholic beverage article should be able to cover the concept of alcoholism already.

Support

1. As nom. PrimalMustelid (talk) 05:12, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
2. 飞车过大关 (talk) 19:49, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Demote Miguel de Cervantes  3 to level 4.

Biographies at level 3 are taking up a large portion of the project. These are not broad articles, and there is also a General western bias, which violate the vital article criteria. We list 11 authors, I'd like to round that down to 10. This Spanish author is known for his work Don Quixote  4. I don't believe biographies should be used as proxy for the accomplishments or events that unfolded during the persons life, and I believe the book is more vital then this individuals biography. I do not think this persons work is as significant as Homer  3 or William Shakespeare  3.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:11, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
2. 飞车过大关 (talk) 19:48, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:11, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Add Writer  4

We include multiple biographies of writers. I think career fields are more important then biographies of people known for that career. This topic is suitably broad enough to serve as an umbrella for our writer biographies. Pair this with the above removal for Miguel de Cervantes  3 if we need a swap.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:13, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
2. 飞车过大关 (talk) 19:48, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --Thi (talk) 21:52, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:13, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Demote Carl Linnaeus  3

Taxonomy  5 is listed at levle 3 (Although VA template is saying level 5 for some reason). I believe that the concept is more vital then the biography of the person who came up with the concept. We have 19 scientists at level 3, I believe this is one we can trim for other concepts.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:57, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
2. 飞车过大关 (talk) 19:47, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:57, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
I might be missing something, but Taxonomy is Level 5 everywhere I checked. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 23:23, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

@GeogSage and ChaoticVermillion: Taxonomy (biology)  3 is level 3. The article Taxonomy  5 covers classifications systems in a generic sense. ~2025-38574-85 (talk) 23:46, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

That makes sense, someone must have shortened it on level 3. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:06, 5 December 2025 (UTC)