Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/2/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Replace History of science with Scientific method

Science is a level 1 topic, and the scientific method is probably the most critical sub-topic in science, making it an obvious inclusion for level 2. History of science is the only "history of" page that is in level 2, and it has been identified as an outlier in previous discussions. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:38, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Support

1. Support, and may I say that the user who proposed this is very intelligent and wise. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:42, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
2. Support Both articles are good options. --Thi (talk) 08:19, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
3. Support I don't like the argument that an article should be removed for being an "outliner", especially on the level 2 where we have only 100 articles, but scientific method is indeed more essential, and space at this level is limited. C933103 (talk) 11:01, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Scientific method is a sub-category of History of science. See discussion below. LightProof1995 (talk) 01:18, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
2. Oppose For me "science" = modern science, i.e., science after the Scientific Revolution. Everything in the science article other than the history section is about modern science as opposed to protoscience. The scientific method is a product of modernity and coverage of it in the science article is sufficient. But for most of history, the "history of science" is really the history of protoscience. There is less overlap between science and history of science than the article titles would seem to imply. I still believe the entire history of natural inquiry stretching back to the beginning of civilization deserves separate treatment at this level. Cobblet (talk) 02:17, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

I Support removing History of Science, but I Oppose adding Scientific method. I disagree it is the most critical sub-topic in science because it only came about in the 17th century. Philosophy of science; Information, which is Vital-4; and Reproducibility, which is Vital-5; all seem just as critical as sub-topics of science. LightProof1995 (talk) 08:50, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

reproducibility is part of the scientific method according to my understanding. C933103 (talk) 11:02, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

That is true. However, History of science has consistently been proposed as being removed, and the proposals never passed. A vote for actually removing it this time so the article count goes to 100 is one thing (proposals before often failed because History of technology or History of art were on the list, but now neither of them are), but isn't Scientific method just a sub-category of History of science? If Science is so lacking as to not mention String theory, Dark matter, Algorithms, or the fact Environmental science is an interdisciplinary science, and the Sciences already have 27 articles on here compared to say Art's 7 articles, do we really believe Scientific method deserves to be swapped in as Vital-2, taking focus away from articles on the Arts or the Science article itself? LightProof1995 (talk) 01:17, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

The arts and Science are already level 1 articles, and nothing we do to level 2 is going to change that. If you think that the Science article is lacking, then the solution is to improve the Science article. The issues I'm raising right now are "should History of science be moved down to level 3" and "should Scientific method be moved up to level 2", and I say yes to both. For what it's worth, I would support moving Information and Reproducibility both up a level in the future. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

So I guess I was trying to say, if we just remove History of science, and replace it with nothing else, it would actually put more focus on all the other Science articles listed, including the Science article itself, even though it is technically Level-1, because it is also listed here, but I see your point -- I'm just disagreeing with the idea of replacing it with anything when its consistently been discussed as an outlier, we are one over quota, and science is the largest category. LightProof1995 (talk) 03:10, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

If you want to cut a science article, my current preference would be to replace Sun and Moon with Star (the astronomy section is rather large compared to, say, physics or chemistry, and it really should not be so anthropocentric), or cut Anatomy (at this level, the structure of specific organisms should be sufficiently covered by the articles on those organisms). Cobblet (talk) 17:15, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Swap Ocean to Vital-2 and Sea to Vital-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.

---

Both the words "Ocean" and "Sea" can refer to the world ocean, however the word "ocean" is used more often for larger bodies of water compared to ones described by the word "sea", e.g. the Indian Ocean and Pacific Ocean aren't called "Indian Sea" or "Pacific Sea", and are larger than the Caribbean Sea, the Black Sea, Seto Inland Sea, Dead Sea, etc. which aren't called "Caribbean Ocean", "Black Ocean", etc.

Ocean also receives more views than Sea -- Ocean has been viewed 83,280 times in the past 30 days compared to Sea's 29,725 views.

Additionally, Sea is a Featured Article while Ocean is only B-class, so the Ocean article needs work.

Support:

1. As nom LightProof1995 (talk) 03:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
2. I support that Ocean becomes a Level-2 article, and I don't really care whether Sea stays Level-2 also or is dropped down. I find the ocean topic of extreme importance, in particular nowadays when the role of oceans in climate change issues is becoming clearer. See effects of climate change on oceans, ocean temperature, ocean heat content, ocean acidification, ocean deoxygenation, ocean stratification. The list goes on and on. We need more helpers with all those articles, too, please. EMsmile (talk) 08:58, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Per the hatnote at Sea, Ocean is a more specific article on the natural science side of things while Sea includes both the scientific side and the human culture side. That makes Sea the more general article so imo it should be given higher priority than Ocean. OliveYouBean (talk) 04:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose Both articles are important. --Thi (talk) 12:39, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
3. Oppose The scope of these articles used to be better defined: "sea" meant the World Ocean, while "ocean" was an overview of both Terran oceanography and planetary oceanography. After edits made in the last two years, that distinction has been lost, but exactly what the difference is now between the two articles has not been made clear. That distinction would have to be made before we decide on any change to the status quo here. Cobblet (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
4. Oppose. Should not distinguish between them; both important. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:20, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Comment:

1. And I agree with the comment by the nominator "while Ocean is only B-class, so the Ocean article needs work". I've done a heap of work on the ocean article myself over the years (helped by content expert Tim Jickells) and am well aware that more needs doing. For that, it would be great if more people took an interest. For example, it should summarise the topics on ocean stratification and on alkalinity better, but there is lots more to do. Getting it to GA level one day would be awesome. Also at the moment it's using quite a few excerpts (which I mostly added). At GA level, would excerpts still be acceptable? I am not totally sure. They do reduce maintenance topics e.g. on aspects that are continuously changing like ocean acidification and ocean heat content. - I guess we should discuss this further at the talk page of ocean. EMsmile (talk) 09:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Discuss:

The only reason I'd feel "Sea" would stay is because "Land and sea" is a phrase I think? Which is probably why it is here in the first place, but since it is FA I feel it is time to swap it down. I feel having Sea as Vital-2 instead of Ocean is also potentially messing up determine which oceanography articles are vital at lower levels (or at least, under which Earth science headers they should be listed). LightProof1995 (talk) 03:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

@OliveYouBean thanks for your vote and mentioning the hatnote at Sea (I didn't notice it) :) This is what it says: This article focuses on human experience, history and culture of the collective seas of Earth. For natural science aspects, see more at Ocean. For individual seas, see List of seas. For other uses, see Sea (disambiguation) and The Sea (disambiguation). so the Sea article doesn't cover the science, just the history and culture. All the science is at Ocean, including pollution and climate change -- aren't these aspects of the ocean just as important to humanity, especially in modern times? I feel viewing the articles in this regard puts them at equal status, so I'm leaving my original argument of view counts, class, and geographical coverage aspects as is. LightProof1995 (talk) 06:10, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@Cobblet thanks for your vote :) I agree with your reasoning and I believe we've already set the distinction: Sea = Exactly as the hatnote says: history and culture. Ocean = Science. I can understand if that still warrants opposition but my original argument still stands. LightProof1995 (talk) 02:02, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Olive is right in saying that Sea is the more general article. Sea does cover scientific aspects of the sea. The hatnote to Sea only says, For natural science aspects, see more at Ocean. The second and third sections of Sea, "Physical science" and "Life in the sea", are about ocean science and marine ecology. Cobblet (talk) 15:02, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply :) Okay, that makes sense. So Sea covers history and culture, along with some science. Ocean covers science, along with some history and culture. So they are equal, which means my original argument of view counts, class, and geographical aspects (Oceans are larger than Seas) still stands. LightProof1995 (talk) 17:44, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Ocean did not cover anything other than oceanography until 2021. I see no consensus for the recent changes broadening its scope, which has led to it becoming a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of Sea. If both Ocean and Sea are going to summarize historical, cultural, and scientific aspects, they should be merged, and this discussion is moot. As for your "arguments", view counts are irrelevant if the consensus remains that Sea should be the more general topic and Ocean should focus only on science; topics aren't less vital just because they're FAs (far better to maintain Sea at FA than work on an article that would be merged with Sea anyway); and since the subject of both articles is Earth's body of saltwater as a whole, not its divisions into "oceans" or "seas", your argument based on the sizes of those divisions is irrelevant. Cobblet (talk) 18:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree my argument of the sizes of "oceans" vs "seas" is irrelevant.

The first paragraph of Ocean states: "An ocean can also refer to any of the large bodies of water into which the world ocean is conventionally divided. Separate names are used to identify five different areas of the ocean: Pacific (the largest), Atlantic, Indian, Antarctic/Southern, and Arctic (the smallest)."

The first paragraph of Sea states: "Particular seas are either marginal seas, second-order sections of the oceanic sea (e.g. the Mediterranean Sea), or certain large, entirely landlocked, saltwater lakes (e.g. the Caspian Sea)."

So yes, while "Sea" can refer to the entire world ocean just like ocean can, clearly one term is used for the largest sections of it, while the other is used for smaller ones.

"Sea" can refer to the entire world ocean just like ocean can. This is relevant. clearly one term is used for the largest sections of it, while the other is used for smaller ones. This is irrelevant. Cobblet (talk) 21:10, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

It's relevant if you feel articles that encompass a larger proportion of the world we live in are more vital than articles that cover less of it. LightProof1995 (talk) 21:33, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Both articles as currently written encompass the exact same proportion of the world we live in, because they're about the exact same body of water. I don't see why this is so difficult for you to understand. Cobblet (talk) 03:09, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

You're literally just arguing with me because I got mad at you about Reincarnation, right? I apologize, please stop opposing literally every proposal I make and arguing with me nonstop. Thanks :) LightProof1995 (talk) 04:39, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

This isn't personal, and frankly I don't remember the discussion you're talking about. I am not the only person opposing most of your proposals, but I have more patience than most when it comes to carefully analyzing the points you're trying to make. I think the exercise of compiling these lists is a genuinely interesting and difficult one. The level 1-3 lists are not perfect, but they are the result of a lot of thought put in by many intelligent people. If you want to make a meaningful contribution to this exercise, you're going to have to do some serious critical thinking, and try to understand opposing points of view. So far, it hasn't been clear that you're capable of doing these things. Cobblet (talk) 05:32, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Comments like “If you want to make a meaningful contribution to this exercise, you’re going to have to do some critical thinking and try to understand opposing points of view. So far, it hasn’t been clear you are capable of doing these things.” Are why I felt you were being personal, but I appreciate you saying it is not, truly :) I was concerned.

If you’ll look at my comment to Yreuq below, you’ll see I am actually trying to understand opposing points of view. I also was the last to contribute to this list so I feel that shows I’m capable of making acceptable proposals. I hope we can continue to work together to find solutions where we disagree :) LightProof1995 (talk) 06:08, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, we can't merge Ocean with Sea, even if we wanted to. The two articles are both too vast. I think the way they are now is actually okay, i.e. Sea = emphasis on History and culture, with some science. And Ocean = emphasis on science, with some history and culture. LightProof1995 (talk) 19:56, 8 March 2023 (UTC) LightProof1995 (talk) 19:56, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I added a hatnote at Ocean describing its scope as such :) Thanks for discussing with me about it so we came up with the best solution!! LightProof1995 (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Your hatnote solves nothing. It merely makes the problem more obvious: there is no reason for these articles to exist separately. None of the reasons at WP:OKFORK is applicable to this situation. Cobblet (talk) 21:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I think the hatnote is great and you helped me make it. If you want to disregard our work then you're disregarding yourself, which you don't deserve. The Talk page discussion you linked clearly resulted in "Don't merge", so the articles must stay separate, which means each should have a hatnote defining their scope. LightProof1995 (talk) 21:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion resulted in no such consensus – I agree with JohnBod's comment there that "a carefully considered and argued proposal" was needed, but not provided. I've reverted your addition of the hatnote, which I don't think is appropriate to add until consensus is established that the status quo is an WP:OKFORK. Cobblet (talk) 03:09, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

And I added it back. There wasn't consensus not to have something like that. If you're going to revert again just start a WP:DRN. LightProof1995 (talk) 04:31, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't find the hatnote offensive enough to revert you again, but I will note that standard practice (WP:BRD) puts the onus on you to start a discussion and seek a consensus for your bold edit before you reinstate it. It's difficult for the rest of us to assume good faith on your part when you deliberately make edits you know to be controversial without seeking a consensus. Cobblet (talk) 05:32, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you :) I’m aware of WP:BRD and the fact it is optional; personally I hate it and think discussion should take place in the midst of edits/potential reverts from both editors, as long as they don’t war. I did start a discussion but also said there if you still disagree we can do DRN, but since you don’t mind I’ll edit it so we can talk there if you’d like :) LightProof1995 (talk) 06:12, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

A discussion about a possible hatnote has been started at Ocean. I have just contributed there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ocean#Hatnote . Thanks for starting this. EMsmile (talk) 08:54, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

And just for the record, I disagree with Cobblet who argues that Sea is the more important article and that if anything Ocean should be merged into Sea and also the repeated assertion that the ocean article was somehow better in 2021 ("more focused") when it was actually very limited in scope back then, outdated, had nothing about climate change and so forth. But this is a discussion for the talk page at Ocean, not for here. If those "vital levels" indicate an importance of a topic then I think Ocean should be at least as important as Sea, if not more important. Compromise proposal: Can we simply give them both the same level of importance and move on? EMsmile (talk) 09:11, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I have said no such thing. Moreover your work at improving the Ocean article is much appreciated. But Oknazevad has pointed out at Talk:Sea#The section on environmental issues that the new status quo (which your compromise proposal is based on) is untenable, and that is exactly the point I've been trying to make all along. If you fully implement your "option 3" suggested at Talk:Sea#How to reduce overlap with ocean? (take 2), and rename the articles appropriately along the lines suggested by Oknazevad, that would go a long way towards solving the problem. I also think the discussion of planetary oceanography should be removed completely, as it has nothing to do with the World Ocean: a hatnote indicating the existence of that article should suffice. Then, and only then, would LightProof1995's proposal here make sense. Cobblet (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

References

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 History of science

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

---

Imo this should have been removed when History of art was removed as they are equally important.

Support:

1. As nom LightProof1995 (talk) 06:21, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
2. Support right now we're two overquota (although i'm not sure that Geodesy is supposed to be on here) and i feel like without the history of art that this sticks out more on the list. The helper5667 (talk) 18:28, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
3. Support not because I don't think that the history of science is supremely vital, but because we are over quota, and something has to give. Civilisation is a fundamental concept in the history of humanity and informs almost every aspect of human sociology since arguably the Neolithic Revolution. It's arguably the main way that we classify peoples in history from the rise of agriculture to today. I think it's reasonable to argue in some respects that the idea of the "civilisation" has been replaced by the idea of the "nation-state", but this is a relatively new development in the human timeline! Zelkia1101 (talk) 00:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Oppose I prefer removing Civilization. --Thi (talk) 12:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose I disagree that history of art and history of science are equally important articles. The history of science is really the history of rational thought, a fundamental aspect of what it means to be human. The emphasis on visual art in history of art neglects other areas of creative expression: topics like culture and folklore are more suitable for this level. I'm also OK with removing Civilization - Britannica appears not to have a standalone article on the concept, and it can be covered by city and government at this level. Cobblet (talk) 16:52, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
3. Oppose. The history of science is far more important than the history of art to the development of humanity. Not comparable. Aszx5000 (talk) 23:15, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Discussion: Other reasons I feel this article should be removed from Vital-2 include:

This has been brought up before, but received no consensus because Film was still on the list. Now that film has been swapped out, this topic can be revisited.

We already have 27 science articles at this level. I think both Sun and Moon should stay as they are equals in culture. LightProof1995 (talk) 06:21, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

If you want to get rid of science articles, move both Sun and Moon to level 3 (so that they're still equals), since history of science is listed as a subtopic of history anyways. At this level I think Earth suffices to cover the significance of Earth's celestial neighbours. Star is a more central topic to the discipline of astronomy as a whole. Cobblet (talk) 16:52, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh, but Cobblet, you're not taking into account their view counts... who is the Greek god of the Sun? who is the Greek goddess of the Moon? Who is the Greek goddess of the stars? I only knew the first two... As to your reply about culture and folklore, yes!! You're totally right!! The history of art article has too much emphasis on the visual arts and needs to mention folklore and culture as those are artistic expression as well. For the record I'd oppose removing Civilization, Sun, and/or Moon down to Vital-3. Britannica is completely wrong about civilization!! Civilizations came about when we became able to divvy up grains (maize, wheat, rice). I'd consider swapping Civilization to Vital-1 as a swap for Society if Society didn't have more views (Edit: Actually I now realize, Civilization=Complex society, so Society at Vital-1 along with Civilization at Vital-2 makes sense!!):

View counts in the past 30 days of all suggested articles:

Moon: 208,655

Sun: 189,061

Star: 75,909

Society: 49,490

Civilization: 38,725

History of science: 22,024

History of art: 16,853

LightProof1995 (talk) 02:32, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not convinced by arguments to keep science articles based on their relevance to Greek mythology. Besides, I know far more about the Greek myths concerning various constellations than about Helios (not a goddess, FWIW) or Selene.

And if view counts are all that matter, this is where our level 1 list would come from. I only look at view counts as a tiebreaker when other factors seem equal to me, and I don't think that's the case here. It should be more important to a student of astronomy to learn the properties of stars in general (stellar evolution, stellar classification, etc.) before learning about the Sun in particular. So Star seems clearly more important to me than Moon or Sun, just as listing Chemical element (49,321 page views in the last 30 days) here is better than listing Carbon (71,487 page views) and Oxygen (81,320 page views) or Atmosphere of Earth (57,465 page views; Air redirects here). The relevance of certain elements to life on Earth is already covered by topics like Life and Biology. From the perspective of teaching a reader about chemistry, it's more important to first teach the general concept of a chemical element than to teach the properties of specific elements, even if those specific elements happen to be very important to humans.

You're entitled to disagree. But I find the tone of your last comment condescending and a little rude. Cobblet (talk) 14:54, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Right, I did mean god of the Sun, I'll fix that. I thought I was being funny. Sorry I came across as rude and condescending to you.

Please see me response to Yreuq below about view counts, and the FAQ. There are far more things to consider than just view counts, and the FAQ says: View counts should only be compared across similar articles. So no, I do not think the top-10-most-viewed articles of the "Top 25" report should be the 10 Vital-1 articles, that's absurd and I can't believe you'd even think I'd suggest that. The FAQ lists "Coverage" as the top indicator of vitality. So, for your example of adding elements instead of Chemical element, obviously Chemical element covers Carbon, Oxygen, etc.

Let's just look at the views of the Greek gods/goddesses/titans/titanesses for objectivity. I mentioned them because they represent the importance of the Sun and Moon in human culture, rather than the science aspects of them.

Apollo: 150,758 views

Artemis: 95,229 views

Helios: 48,074 views

Selene: 35,544 views

Asteria: 10,512 views

I don't think "Star" covers "Sun" and "Moon" at all. The word that covers them is Astronomical object. Yes, the Sun is a star, but it is far more relevant than all other stars. LightProof1995 (talk) 17:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I've already said that I'm OK with Earth covering Sun and Moon for this level. The term astronomy derives from ἄστρον (“star”). I think that's a better indication of what the central topic of astronomy is than your argument based on page views for various Greek mythological characters, and your regrettable assertion that Greek mythology is an "objective" proxy for human culture in toto. Your insistence on cultural importance as a measure for vitality for scientific articles, and page views as a measure of that importance, makes about as much sense to me as if somebody suggested removing deity or even religion on the grounds that those concepts have no relevance to science; or if somebody suggested replacing both science (113,437 page views) and religion (94,470 page views) with astrology (189,853 page views). Cobblet (talk) 18:19, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Who said "Sun" and "Moon" are strictly science or astronomy articles? Sun has a heading titled "Religious aspects", and Moon has the headings "Human presence", "Legal status", and "In culture and life", none of which are science-related nor astronomy-related. LightProof1995 (talk) 19:51, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Nobody said that. But individual stars and constellations also have cultural significance, so Star should not be strictly an astronomy article either. Your position seems to be that whatever the significance of these articles to astronomy, the greater (in your opinion) cultural significance of Sun and Moon should make them more vital than Star. My position is that Star is a considerably more important astronomy article and should be more vital, even if one also believes (I personally don't) that Sun and Moon are of somewhat greater cultural significance. Cobblet (talk) 03:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I just don't think the articles are limited to astronomy and science alone. Rather they are related to astronomy, science, culture, religion, history, art, society, politics, space exploration, and even sea navigation. I feel comparing views across them is the best objective measure. LightProof1995 (talk) 04:35, 9 March 2023 (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.

Good article reassessment for Astronomy

Astronomy has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:42, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Addition of Geodesy

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.

---

@OliveYouBean @Thi Proposing per WP:COMMON, since geodesy is much older than and gave birth to astronomy (which already is level 2). See History of Geodesy for details. Yreuq (talk) 15:04, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Astronomy as it exists today is far more than just geodesy, so that comparison doesn't exactly work here. Geodesy as a discipline is not at the same level of importance as the other sciences listed at this level (biology, chemistry, geology, and medicine) so it shouldn't be promoted. If you want to promote it above level 4 I'd recommend trying to get it listed at level 3 where it's more likely to be accepted (though I think I'd still vote against it there). OliveYouBean (talk) 02:15, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

   Far more how? And according to that (Cambridge) division you're promoting, neither astronomy nor medicine are separate sciences (for example there is no "Nobel Prize for Medicine" but for "Physiology or Medicine"). And even on Wikipedia, History of geodesy outdid History of astronomy. Clearly they both belong to the same level.Yreuq (talk) 15:21, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

2. Oppose Not for this level. --Thi (talk) 12:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

   Talk comments are not votes - and you don't have arguments so your "vote" does not count. Yreuq (talk) 15:21, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

3. Oppose Evidently the nominator's position is WP:NOCOMMON, or else one would expect a reference work like Britannica to devote more than three sentences to geodesy. If there is evidence that the discipline of geodesy predates Babylonian astronomy, that would be interesting information to add to Wikipedia, but still not a great argument for vitality. For example, alchemy gave birth to chemistry, but chemistry is what we study in school nowadays. Cobblet (talk) 16:41, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

   Apples and oranges. Running Wikipedia by Britannica rules would violate WP:COMMON. Yreuq (talk) 22:39, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

4. Oppose a subtopic of measurement and earth science, both of which are Level 3. Astronomy also gets 4.5 times the page views as geodesy. They are not comparable at all. Gizza (talk) 22:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

   Well noted! But your vote then should have been Support because geodesy created measurement! Hitler gets 20 times the page views as astronomy, but Hitler is Level 3, or are you saying he should be Level 1? Not following, sorry. Yreuq (talk) 16:15, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

   According the Vital articles faq:

   View counts should only be compared across similar articles. So we can compare Astronomy (42,137 views) to Geodesy (10,005 views), and History of astronomy (8,499 views) to History of geodesy (2,534 views), but not Astronomy to Hitler. Hope that helps :)

   Also I can understand how difficult it can be to not reply to every oppose with a counter-argument, but this usually leads nowhere (unfortunately, hahaha). If you genuinely want to make a difference here I'd suggest letting people vote and say whatever they like and trying to understand their viewpoint even if you disagree, and writing whatever counter-arguments you have respectfully in a "Discussion" section, like I did above. LightProof1995 (talk) 02:23, 8 March 2023 (UTC) LightProof1995 (talk) 02:23, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

5. Oppose Per other opposes above, not at this level. Aszx5000 (talk) 23:12, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

References

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 Civilization

Covered by Country and City. Interstellarity (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
2. Support Something has to give when we are over quota. It is telling that Britannica does not have a standalone article on this topic, instead referring the reader to other articles. Here on Wikipedia, there is ample coverage of the concept in other level 2 articles such as City#History, Politics#Early states, Agriculture#Civilizations, and Society#Pre-industrial, and throughout the level 2 articles on history and culture. Someone who has already read those articles does not gain very much by reading a standalone article on Civilization. Cobblet (talk) 16:07, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
3. Support Not a main article in my printed encyclopedias. --Thi (talk) 11:51, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
4. Support per Cobblet and Thi. VIT3 is sufficient as an elementary topic. czar 22:18, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Civilization is a broader, and more important topic, than City or Country. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:25, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

   But it is narrower than Culture, and we do not need both at this level. Cobblet (talk) 21:09, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

2. Oppose It feels more broad and difficult to define and write about than some other topics, but I feel this is one of the more important aspects of humanity not really covered by country and city, not really. I dislike Sun and Moon in addition to Solar System, and several other topics seem less important, Ethnic group more important than species or organism? Deity and mass media also seem less vital than civilization to me, all the tech and arts could be called products of civilization(s), seems odd to think of performing art being more vital than the whole idea of civilization itself. Just my thoughts. Also not having a Britannica article is food for thought, and a valid point, but the article "Land" appears to not have a Britannica article either, so.  Carlwev  16:17, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

   I think you're conflating civilization with culture as a whole. Britannica has an extensive article on continental landforms. Cobblet (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

3. Oppose per Aszx5000 Ilya O. Sarvar (talk) 19:41, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

Replace History of science with Scientific method

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.

---

Now I saw in the archive that this proposal was made once but was not approved. I would also like to do my best. Because in my opinion, this article should definitely be on the list. So the best thing that can be removed is the history of science. From the date when our knowledge was not based on the scientific method until nearly 300 years ago, many years have passed and we have seen very few great developments in science and technology in those years. For example, compare the advances of 800 to 1100 or 1100 to 1400 with the advances of 1700 to 2000, the recent advances of humans are insane, all thanks to the scientific method devised by people like Galileo and Kepler. Finally, some people had to rebel and shout loudly that the truths of the world cannot be extracted by referring to old books such as Aristotle or anyone else. Do you want to know the truth of the world and use it to make progress in technology and welfare of people? Certainly, the scientific method is the only way ahead of you. Ask questions first and then get the answer to your question through experience and testing.

Support

1. Support as nom. Ilya O. Sarvar (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 12:43, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
3. Support removal. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:05, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose per my comments in the previous discussion. As the SEP entry on the scientific method puts it, "scientific activity varies so much across disciplines, times, places, and scientists that any account which manages to unify it all will either consist of overwhelming descriptive detail, or trivial generalizations." We already have one article at this level, Science, which attempts to do this. It has a useful summary description of the scientific method, which is similar in length to the Britannica article on the scientific method. We don't need to list a second article that goes into the kind of detail that is found in the SEP article – I do not consider the material there to be absolutely essential reading for any person. Besides, I would definitely not attribute all the technological progress of the last three centuries solely to the scientific method – history is more complex than that. Cobblet (talk) 21:07, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Cobblet. Aszx5000 (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Cobblet. Scientific method is fine staying at Level 3. the wub "?!" 22:47, 3 June 2023 (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 Folklore

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 need to find the 101th article. Folklore is covered by Culture.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 09:54, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose per Cobblet. Not the area we need to be cutting. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

Firstly, this is a non-rationale – everything on the list can be argued to be covered by something else, e.g., anatomy is covered by biology. I don't think it's unreasonable to list one article covering traditional aspects of human culture when we list several articles like clothing, home, agriculture and fire to cover the most basic or primitive aspects of human technology. To be specific, I think I would prefer removing fire before removing folklore. Cobblet (talk) 14:49, 31 July 2023 (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 Contemporary history

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

---

This could be an ambiguous addition because contemporary history can either be a subset of the late modern period or it could be the period that succeeds the period. The problem with this list is that it forces us to pick a definition and stick with it. I think it is worth a discussion on whether this article qualifies as a level 2.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 00:10, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose We're already over 100 articles. We're now at 100 articles, but we still have no room for additions unless something is removed. Cobblet (talk) 14:35, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

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 Fire

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.

---

Fire has played a significant role in human history, contributing to cooking, warmth, protection, and early technological advancements. However, compared to other topics in the list, it might be considered more as a foundational technology rather than a central concept that directly impacts a wide range of fields. Fire seems closely linked with other topics that can be covered by Technology, Engineering, and Energy. These topics already cover various aspects of fire's relevance, including its role in early human development and its applications in modern technology. It will also bring down the list to exactly 100 articles. Interstellarity (talk) 01:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 01:38, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
2. Support Finally, a well thought-out and articulated proposal from Interstellarity. Apart from the ones already mentioned, other level 2 articles that cover the significance of fire include prehistory, agriculture and ecology. Cobblet (talk) 02:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Fire seems way too important to me. It was humans' only external power source for most of human history. And along with water, food, shelter (home), and clothing (all of which are listed at this level) is a basic need for primitive human survival. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose We are fire creatures on a fire planet, according to the fire historian. "The Pyrocene proposes a fire-centric perspective on how humans continue to shape the Earth. It renames and redefines the Anthropocene according to humanity’s primary ecological signature, which is our ability to manipulate fire." [1] --Thi (talk) 09:45, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Besides its huge importance to human technology and development, fire has a vital role in ecosystems. the wub "?!" 17:19, 9 September 2023 (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.

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.

---

Remove Anatomy

There was hardly any discussion on adding anatomy. I do not believe it's absolutely essential to list an article on the structure of animals (the article does not cover plant anatomy) when animals account for less than 0.5% of Earth's biomass, and we have nothing on microorganisms (bacteria alone account for 27 times more biomass than all animals [2]). Our coverage of biology is already generous in comparison to math and the other sciences: we list no subfields of chemistry or physics at all, and we don't list algebra or calculus/analysis under math. I understand the original motivation of wanting to add something related to the human body, but this is just one aspect of human biology. We don't list anything related to genetics or life stages/developmental biology at this level, even though these other areas are just as fundamental.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
2. Support - seems reasonable. Interstellarity (talk) 00:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
3. Support, largely per nom. Sufficiently covered by biology at this level, and I agree we have too many biology articles. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
4. Support. It is the weakest science article listed at this level and is adequately covered by biology. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:04, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
5. Support per nominator. the wub "?!" 17:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose One of the more useful topics. --Thi (talk) 08:16, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

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

Remove Country, Add State

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

---

This almost passed last time it was discussed and I think it is worth discussing here. Country and state are ambiguous terms, but I think state has a clearer definition. Interstellarity (talk) 01:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 01:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - In my view, state is a term that can be misunderstood at a casual glance. Best to keep the current setup. Jusdafax (talk) 19:43, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Near synonyms for most people, country has 1,9k page view sto state's 1,6k so I don't see the reason to change. State is V3, and nationl another related term with just 800 views, is V4. Things seem fine as they are, pending a better argument. And subjectively, I think country is a more common term that people are familiar with than state. And country is also IMHO a broader concept. That said, this is close to 'toss a coin' case, with both terms (country and state) being pretty vital and similar in popularity. My vote to keep coutnry rests, I repeat, on the view that state (government/polity) is a smaller concept than the country. And government is V2 as well, making state IMHO redundant at this level. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
3. I think non-native English speakers would probably learn the word Country first and it would have more straightforward meaning than State. --Kammerer55 (talk) 07:56, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Oppose per above; I think most readers would recognize country above state. Aszx5000 (talk) 20:35, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

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.