Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/2#What to do about Modern history merge

{{Pin message|}}{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1973995631}}

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

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

{{Wikipedia:Vital articles/Discussions}}

For reference, the following times apply for today:

:* 15 days ago was: {{CURRENTTIME}}, {{Days before now|15}} (UTC) ({{purge}})

:* 30 days ago was: {{CURRENTTIME}}, {{Days before now|30}} (UTC)

:* 60 days ago was: {{CURRENTTIME}}, {{Days before now|60}} (UTC)

{{clear|right}}

{{atop

| result = Addressed Idiosincrático (talk) 11:25, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

}}

From the lede "An ethnicity or ethnic group is a group of people who identify with each other on the basis of perceived shared attributes that distinguish them from other groups. Those attributes can include a people of a common language, culture, common sets of ancestry, traditions, society, religion, history, or social treatment. The term ethnicity is sometimes used interchangeably with the term nation, particularly in cases of ethnic nationalism." Ethnicity is a product of society, and I think it makes more sense under "society and social sciences" then under "everyday life."

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Agreed. Interestingly, ethnicity is listed under Society and Social Sciences in Levels 4 and 5 but Everyday Life for Levels 2 and 3. So something needs to be made consistent here and I agree with your interpretation. Aurangzebra (talk) 00:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Agreed. This doesn't need a formal proposal, as the content of the list isn't changing. Cobblet (talk) 03:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
4. :I didn't want to do something bold at level 2 without discussion. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
5. Agreed. The change has already been done but someone should formally close the discussion. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 15:17, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

At the moment level 5 includes Modern Era and Early Modern Period. But Late Modern Period only appears at level 5.

I was able to find these discussions

1. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/2/Archive_1#Add_Prehistory,_Ancient_history,_Post-classical_history,_and_Modern_history]
2. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/2/Archive_2#Swap:_Remove_Modern_History,_add_Early_modern_period_and_Late_modern_period]
3. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/2/Archive_4#Modern_era]

It looks like we decided to add Pre - Ancient - Pre-classic - modern history in 2014. Then in 2019 it appears that modern history was deleted as an article, and kind of split and turned into early and late modern period articles, so we decided to remove the one non-existent article and replace it with the 2 articles that did exist. Then in 2023 it was noticed and mentioned that modern era has popped up as an article, but nothing was voted on. In short if the list follows the original idea and lists only one article, it would be Modern era (modern history now redirects here). If we list follow the later idea and list 2 articles, we would list Early Modern Period and Late Modern Period but not Modern Era itself. - So How and why have we got Modern Era and Early Modern Era but not Late Modern Period? it should be the other way around? what's going on?? In a list as short as this my first though is to include only one article, the Modern Era as it exists, and we only altered the list as it ceased to exist.  Carlwev  22:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

:So just looking at this, it looks like we have {{VA link|Modern era}} and {{VA link|Early modern period}} at level 2, but {{VA link|Late modern period}} is level 5. I would say we should move both Early modern period and late modern period to level 3. This is an example for why we should change some rules about skipping, which I proposed on Wikipedia talk:Vital articles yesterday. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

::There was a heated discussion last year whether the article Late modern period should be deleted or turned into a disambiguation page (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Late_modern_period). One relevant point was that the term late modern period is less commonly used in the academic discourse than the terms modern era and early modern period. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

{{atopg

| status = done

| result = Fire now listed as a chemical reaction at all levels. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:49, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

}}

This actually came up on Lv4 recently, but would anyone complain if we move {{VA link|Fire}} from Tech to Science (under Chemistry)? I understand controlling fire and its importance to human history is a big part of why we list it at Lv2. The further we go down levels though, the more out of place it seems. I don't know if one move needs a full vote either, but if anyone wants to, feel free to add the voting tags. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. Per nom. Fire exists outside the realm of human technology. If we see it in nature, it is not immediatly assumed to be a technology. It can exist on other planets technically without a biosphere. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:33, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Zinderboff (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = done

| result = Electricity now listed under Physics at all levels (was already listed there at Lv 4 & 5). -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:58, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

}}

On a related note, I noticed we list {{VA link|Electricity}} as a Technology at this level too. I know the Tech list would look less balanced and electricity as a natural phenomenon is less... accessible? However, it is still a natural phenomenon and probably makes more sense under Physics. I don't think this needs a vote at first either; just feel free to reply with your reasoning if you would be opposed to the move. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:23, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Removed 6-3 which meets the 2/3 requirment (@User:EchoVanguardZ changed vote to neutral). Been open since 27 Feb. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Book is already covered by other articles like Mass media, Communication, and Writing. It is the only individual form of media that we list at the level. Interstellarity (talk) 15:35, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 15:35, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Fair, I also want to throw out that book is recency bias in my opinion. {{VA link|Scroll}} has been a method for storing information centuries before books, yet it is level 4. I think Books can be on level 3 with Mass media, Communication, and Writing. at level 2. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 15:43, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
3. Support, could do a swap as suggested below. Idiosincrático (talk) 20:08, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
4. I'd support a swap for writing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:17, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
5. :{{ping|Piotrus}} {{VA link|Writing}} is already listed. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 12:01, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
6. ::@Lophotrochozoa Ok. Then I support downgrading book to V3. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:45, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
7. Weak support, and add Algebra or Calculus in its place. I was originally going to oppose, but I realized that we don't need this and {{VA link|Writing}} at the same level. I think Algebra or Calculus could probably take its place, although I would be open to other suggestions. I also think {{VA link|Community}} could take the slot if we don't want to add to Math. I oppose adding Atheism to VA2 though, since it really isn't that much more historically or societally important than your average religion. I wouldn't put {{VA link|Atheism}} at a higher level than {{VA link|Christianity}} or {{VA link|Islam}}. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:13, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
8. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. _pbp 15:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
2. :@Purplebackpack89: Any rationale behind your oppose? Interstellarity (talk) 12:07, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Oppose Support only as a swap with Atheism (we have Religion, Deity and Folklore). --Thi (talk) 11:06, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
4. :I could go along with that swap. That way the article count stays at 100. Interstellarity (talk) 13:02, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
5. :I can also agree with that swap, or for {{VA link|Calculus}}. (Assuming Algebra somehow gets added I'd like to try and get calculus included) GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:56, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
6. :I would also support that swap, I think if Religion is included, Atheism should also be. Mrfoogles (talk) 19:57, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
7. Weak oppose, I think book being the only individual form of media at this level makes sense due to the long history. Kevinishere15 (talk) 03:39, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
8. Oppose removal of Book as it has been the main form of information transfer (besides speech) for hundreds of years, and education has been based on books for a similar amount of time. We do have Writing and Communication and specific concepts are more important than vague generalities. The book is not only a physical form that contains writing, it also contains a certain general amount of text, more than would be found in a scroll. I'm not sure why Atheism is being discussed here, but I also oppose adding Atheism to level 2. It's a specific attitude to a specific question (the existence of deity/ies) which is less important than Religion, Deity, and Philosophy because it is a subtopic of these subjects. It should stay at Level 3. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
9. :I am now neutral about removing book. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 23:10, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopr|status=failed|result=Statistics not removed 2-6
Algebra relisted
Lophotrochozoa (talk) 00:49, 28 May 2025 (UTC)}}

IDK what to put here tbh. Algebra is more known than statistics. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 19:17, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. Weak support They are both major areas of mathematics with countless applications, so this is not an easy choice. Algebra gets significantly more attention in secondary education, probably because the skills it teaches are more foundational for mathematics as a whole. I guess its applications in general are also wider but they are often not as straightforward as the applications of statistics, which are crucial in information societies and empirical research. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:43, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
2. The timing of this nomination is as if you have been following the pageviews. Statistic [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2015-07&end=2025-01&pages=Algebra|Statistics led in pageviews from mid 2015 to mid 2023 and since then algebra has led]. Algebra also leads in interwikis 169 vs. 154.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:45, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
3. :I don't do a lot of voting at VA2. I was under the impression that it is very important to propose a swap rather than an add. I do concur that although Algebra has risen to more vital prominence than statistics, Statistics is still among the 100 most vital subjects. I am not sure what removal to propose. I see a second nomination below. I switch to Support add.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:06, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
4. Support as nom. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 18:06, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
5. Support add algebra. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:55, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
6. Support addition. --Thi (talk) 20:09, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Oppose removal of statistics, which is a major disclipline in its own right, but I would prefer to see {{VA link|Algebra}} listed than {{VA link|Geometry}} as it's much more fundamental to mathematics. J947 ‡ ^edits 06:28, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
2. :...I disagree with the assertion that algebra is more fundamental to mathematics. We (humans) developed geometry for various applications before algebra. We list {{VA link|Calculus}} at level 3 as well, which is a tragedy. I personally think that all three (Statistics, algebra, and calculus) should be at level 2, which would bring math from 5 categories to 7. {{VA link| Sport}}, {{VA link|Book}}, {{VA link|Ecology}}, and {{VA link| Mass media}} would be some I would consider for a swap. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:58, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
3. ::I would be in favor of removing mass media for algebra and keeping startistics. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 15:31, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
4. :::Agreed. Would still like to add calculus as well. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:55, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
5. Oppose remove statistics. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:55, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
6. Oppose removal. --Thi (talk) 20:09, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
7. Oppose any net addition of mathematics articles. I don't see any rationale, much less consensus, to make the mathematics section larger. Neutral on the swap. Algebra is more foundational to pure mathematics, but statistics is the most important branch of applied mathematics. Cobblet (talk) 03:34, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
8. :{{Ping|Cobblet}} If you feel that way, please vote "oppose" on the mass media/algebra swap below _pbp 03:44, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
9. I think statistics is too important, but I still think algebra is just as significant, so I think it should be here. I'm supporting the alt. proposal mostly because I don't think mass media should be in the same category as writing and language, as those are infinitely more fundamental and "vital". Idiosincrático (talk) 20:06, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
10. Statistics transcends math AND the social sciences _pbp 15:48, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
11. I think statistics is more important than algebra. Statistics is often described as a separate field alongside mathematics, so I think it's more important than any field of pure math. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 23:12, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

;Discussion

:User:Wildfireupdateman did you mean to support as nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:45, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

::Yep, oops. I thought that was implied by the post but IG not. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 18:06, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

:Does anyone have an explanation for the change in relative readership?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:43, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

::The cross happening in mid 2023 is really weird. Wild speculation, but could it do with AI training/Bot activity at that time? GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:42, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

:Is there a way to research what the relative interwiki counts were 5 years ago?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:28, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

:[https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2015-07&end=2025-02&pages=Algebra|Statistics|Geometry|Calculus expanding the page views] we can see that {{VA link|Calculus}} swap for {{VA link|Geometry}} might also be appropriate. The problem is geometry has the most interwikis of the four.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:13, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

:It seems we are in an odd situation: from the comments so far, there seems to be consensus that Algebra should be level 2 but there is no consensus on the swap target. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:51, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopr|status=failed|result=Not swapped 3-5 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 13:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC)}}

;Support

1. Support as nom. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 18:06, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:13, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
3. per above. Idiosincrático (talk) 20:06, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Mass media vital at this level _pbp 05:02, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Oppose No rationale given. Mass media has a more fundamental and immediate impact on the daily lives of most people than algebra does. Cobblet (talk) 03:46, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 17:41, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
4. Some broad article on media is needed at this level. Kevinishere15 (talk) 03:37, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
5. Oppose - Agree that mass media is more vital at this level. Jusdafax (talk) 22:21, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

;Discussion

{{abot}}

{{atopr|status=failed|result=Not added 2-4 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 16:11, 27 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Both proposals above have been opposed, because mass media and book were deemed more important. However, I do think astronomy is overemphasized, taking up 5% of VA2 (not including Earth), which is currently equal to mathematics. While every culture in history has seen the Moon, and it has important effects on the Earth's orbit, I don't believe it's a central enough subject for this level. Moon also has no vital articles as subtopics. Moon was added in 2021: Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/2/Archive 3#Swap: Remove Solar System, Add Moon

;Support

1. As nominator. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:28, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
2. I strongly believe that the only astronomy articles should be Astronomy, Sun, Earth, and Universe. Also I think it currently takes up 6% not 5%. WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 21:20, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. The moon is kind of a huge deal, and has cross cultural relevance. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:23, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 07:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Idiosincrático (talk) 08:57, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
4. per GeogSage. Jusdafax (talk) 09:01, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

;Discussion

{{abot}}

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Removed 5 to 1 (83%). Been open for more then 30 days.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:21, 21 May 2025 (UTC)}}

While cities are important, representing populated places is more important since not everyone lives in cities.

;Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 00:17, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Strong support. Not sure what I'm going to do with the reogranization plan I had as the support fell through before we could get enough free space to swap, but I still think this should be done. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:44, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Support because this is a broader term that covers towns, villages, etc. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Idiosincrático (talk) 08:57, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
5. ALittleClass (talk) 23:17, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. At level 3 I was unconvinced. I felt {{VA link|Civilization}} had us covered. I would also prefer {{VA link|Community}}. We have nearly [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2015-07&end=2025-03&pages=City|Human_settlement|Civilization|Community ten years of pageviews] of Civilization (153 interwikis), {{VA link|City}} (216), Community (86) and {{VA link|Human settlement}} (85).-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:18, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
2. :Civilization and community are both more sociology terms then geographic. A community isn't necessarily tied to a place, but I would support replacing the ambiguous "{{VA link| Country}}" with civilization. "City" is a term that excludes multiple types of human settlement, and is a bias towards urban populations. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:45, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

I missed this discussion, but just want to note for the record that I would've opposed it. This project has often gone in circles because of an inability to decide whether we're listing the most important articles or just the broadest ones, and the result has generally been a compromise. This swap represents the extreme end of the "broadest possible" camp, since while "human settlement" is certainly a broader term than "City", cities are the quintessential form of human settlement and a far more common topic for someone to look up in an encyclopedia. I hope that this is reversed. Sdkb ^talk 15:31, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure either - thought about opposing but if I did 5-2 still would have passed anyway.  Carlwev  15:43, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I missed this discussion too and I would have opposed it. --Thi (talk) 16:36, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

;Remove "{{VA link|History of science}}" argument:

We include {{VA link|Science}} at level 1, as well as 9 other articles like {{VA link|Philosophy}}, {{VA link|The arts}}, {{VA link|Technology}} and {{VA link|Mathematics}}. At level 2, we only have 1 article that is "History of" and that is the history of science. Other level 1 articles corresponding history article, like {{VA link|History of philosophy}}, {{VA link|History of art}}, {{VA link|History of technology}}, and {{VA link|History of mathematics}} are at level 3, science is the outlier when it comes to history by discipline (note that {{VA link|Human history}} is at level 1 in addition to {{VA link|Human}}). I think that we can move history of science to level 3 to be consistent with the other level 1 vital articles history pages, I don't really want to try and debate if science, mathematics, philosophy, or the Arts is "more vital," and think one page being higher invites the others to be moved up as well. {{VA link|History}} is only level 2, and Level 3 has 21 articles that start with "History of," so I think we can safely keep things consistent by keeping all the "history of" articles on that level 3.

;Adding {{VA link|Force}} argument:

At level 3, we have the four fundamental forces: {{VA link|Gravity}}, {{VA link|Strong interaction}}, {{VA link|Weak interaction}}, {{VA link|Electromagnetism}}. I think all of these four forces could be candidates for level 2, but barring that I think that {{VA link|Force}} should be swapped to level 2 as it is an umbrella for these four, and because it is extremely fundamental and important to topics like {{VA link|Electricity}}, {{VA link|Physics}}, and the {{VA link|Universe}}.

;Support

1. As nom.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:09, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
2. I was about to propose removing {{VA link|History of science}}, so I definitely support that. I also agree that Force is a sensible replacement. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Support removal - History of science is a subcategory of both History and Science, which are both listed. We also have the timeline articles (Prehistory-Modern era) that cover this pretty well. Interstellarity (talk) 20:23, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Support removal. ALittleClass (talk) 20:56, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
5. I would argue that {{VA link|Force}}, {{VA link|Chemical reaction}}, and {{VA link|Evolution}} all belong at Level 2 as representatives of "change". Johnnie Runner (talk) 18:33, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
6. Idiosincrático (talk) 03:48, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. We don't need a relatively specialized topic of physics on level 2. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 13:42, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
2. :"Force" is about as general as it gets. We include {{VA link|Electricity}}, force is more general then that. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
3. ::The article is mostly about force as a quantity in classical mechanics; there is a separate article about {{VA link|fundamental interaction}}. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lophotrochozoa (talk)|Lophotrochozoa (talk)]] (Lophotrochozoa (talk)#top|talk]] • Lophotrochozoa (talk)|contribs]]) 20:48, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Oppose addition - only because we already have two good additions below that are likely going to pass. Interstellarity (talk) 20:23, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
5. Oppose — I would prefer adding a "History of" article (specifically "{{VA link|History of technology}}") to pair with "{{VA link|History of science}}" over removing it. – Treetoes023 (talk) 02:50, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
6. :We would need to add "History of" articles for art, mathematics, and philosophy to be consistent with level 1. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:52, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
7. ::Not necessarily, the histories of some topics are just more important than the histories of other topics sometimes and I feel that the histories of science and technology are in a league of their own compared to the histories of other topics. – Treetoes023 (talk) 03:05, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
8. :::Other people have different priorities, this is fundamentally qualitative. Level 1 has 10 articles, the only one with a level 2 "History of" is science (human history is itself one of the top 10, something I disagree with, but I digress). We can standardize the list by moving the history of articles to level 3, or argue till the end of time about if {{VA link|technology}}, {{VA link|philosophy}}, {{VA link|mathematics}}, {{VA link|science}}, {{VA link|the arts}}, {{VA link|life}}, {{VA link|society}}, and {{VA link|Earth}} are "more vital" then the others on the list. In my opinion, most of the "History of" articles are redundant to the articles they're about. We list {{VA link|Isaac Newton}}, not {{VA link|Early life of Isaac Newton}}, {{VA link|Later life of Isaac Newton}}, {{VA link|Isaac Newton in popular culture}}, {{VA link|Isaac Newton's apple tree}}, {{VA link|Isaac Newton's occult studies}}, or {{VA link|Religious views of Isaac Newton}} because those topics are all more or less captured in the main article. We have a finite number of slots, 100 at level 2, we don't need to include the history of every vital topic in addition to that topics main article. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:38, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

1. Neutral to removing history of science. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

Considering that we removed Book which leaves us with one article to fill, I think it would make sense to do a straight addition of Algebra without a swap. I know it has been proposed as a swap for something else, but I feel this is the perfect opportunity to bring the quota back to 100. My rationale for this nomination is that we list plenty of branches of Math already in this list, and this one is likely the most important one we don't list.

;Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 21:52, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 07:56, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Support Algebra is a fundamental branch of mathematics that underpins most other areas of mathematics, has wide applications outside mathematics, like the empirical sciences, and is a central component of math education worldwide. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
4. -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:24, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
5. Aye. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:47, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
6. Idiosincrático (talk) 03:49, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. {{VA link|Atmosphere of Earth}} is a better addition. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 15:04, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
2. I would prefer {{VA link|Atmosphere of Earth}}, and we cannot add both without another swap. ALittleClass (talk) 23:27, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Added 8-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 15:40, 9 June 2025 (UTC)}}

{{VA link|Atmosphere of Earth}} is an important high-level topic that we're missing. It is necessary for most life on land.

;Support

1. As nominator. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 12:32, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Support  Carlwev  14:33, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Aye. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:48, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Interstellarity (talk) 19:51, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
5. --Thi (talk) 20:07, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
6. Wasn't sure until I realized this is the "air" article. ALittleClass (talk) 00:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
7. Support. – Treetoes023 (talk) 02:54, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
8. Idiosincrático (talk) 03:51, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discussion

This is the article about Air. Air redirects to Atmosphere of Earth. Given this some thought - for the solid land, we have Land, geology (and kind of the continents), for liquid water we have water and sea. Air is not really covered, well kind of by climate. Is that too much overlap? especially compared to sea/water and land/geology. Looking at the text in those articles and the categories they are in, climate is within the scope of atmosphere, atmosphere is the broader topic. Thinking about atmosphere vs atmosphere of Earth, would atmosphere be better? Well at the moment, atmosphere is only level 4 where as atmosphere of Earth is level 3. So we already treat it as higher. We treat Earth as level 1 but planet as level 3, so does make sense that atmosphere specific to Earth is more important than general atmosphere of any given planet/body. languages wise, there is not much different, looking at it, atmosphere is just over 130 languages and atmosphere of Earth is just under, but not by much. Page view wise atmosphere of Earth is almost 10 million, over double of atmosphere and also climate being at 4.8 and 4.2 million. Also thought of Gas but that is listed as a subtopic of states of matter which is level 3. Gas is only level 4 with solid and liquid, and they are all 3 or none in my opinion. Atmosphere of Earth is by far the most important gas, like water is the most important liquid, and more important than that liquid and gas. Off topic but perhaps solid liquid and gas should be in at level 3 in addition to and under state of matter. I mean we list petroleum, coal and natural gas under and in addition to fossil fuel. Now that algebra is probably replacing book, not sure what air should push out though?  Carlwev  14:33, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

This concept is already covered by Technology, Engineering, Transport, and Computer. Considering that if History of science does not get removed, I think this one would be a good candidate for removal.

;Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Humans are tool users, it's kind of our whole thing. Tool use in other species exists, and is considered a big deal. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:49, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Computer does not cover Tool, computers are a specific tool of the modern era. ALittleClass (talk) 20:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Idiosincrático (talk) 03:51, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

It's cliche, but most people across the [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2013&version=NKJV whole of] [https://www.thebeatles.com/all-you-need-love-0 human history] would likely agree that love is the principal drive, desire, and goal of humanity, whether that's love of {{VA link|God}}, love of {{VA link|Family}}, love of {{VA link|Life}}, even love of {{VA link|Power (social and political)}}. If we look at Level 2 as the 100 most important subjects to understanding humanity/the universal human perspective, no list is complete without mentioning love: humans wear {{VA link|Clothing}}, humans live on {{VA link|Land}}, humans develop {{VA link|Ethics}} and {{VA link|Law}}, humans perceive {{VA link|Time}}, humans love. Unlike say {{VA link|Fear}} or {{VA link|Anger}}, love is also universally considered to be something that goes beyond just an emotional state. It could just as easily be categorized under {{VA link|Philosophy}} as under {{VA link|Emotion}}.

Why I think {{VA link|Business}} should be the replaced subject is because unlike the other three subjects we have at Level 2 under the umbrella of {{VA link|Economics}} ({{VA link|Agriculture}}, {{VA link|Manufacturing}}, and {{VA link|Trade}}), business can't really be defined independently of those three concepts. Sure, saying business is just complicated trade is kind of like saying computers are just complicated electricity, but defining electricity doesn't cover computers to nearly the same extent that defining trade covers business. There have been previous attempts to kick business off of Level 2, but the most recent one was four years ago and failed because {{VA link|Film}} (which is now Level 3) and {{VA link|History of science}} (which is likely to fall to Level 3 soon) were argued to be more important to remove first.

;Support

1. Johnnie Runner (talk) 23:47, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral/Discussion