Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/STEM

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
General Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
Level 5 Subpages

People History and geography Society STEM

Introduction

[edit]

The purpose of this discussion page is to select 50,000 topics for which Wikipedia should have high-quality articles.

Any article currently on this list may be challenged. The discussion is open to the following rules:

Voting count table (>60%)
P = passes
F = fails 		opposing votes
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
0
supporting votes
 – – – – F F F F F F
1 – – – F F F F F F F
2 – – F F F F F F F F
3 – F F F F F F F F F
4 P P P F F F F F F F
5 P P P P F F F F F F
6 P P P P F F F F F F
7 P P P P P F F F F F
8 P P P P P P F F F F
9 P P P P P P F F F F
  1. Before being closed, a Level 5 proposal must:
    1. Run for at least 15 days; AND
    2. Allow at least 7 days after the most recent vote; AND
    3. Have at least 4 participants.
  2. For a proposal to be implemented on the Level 5 list:
    1. It must have over 60% support (see table); AND
    2. It must have at least 4 support votes !votes.
  3. For proposed additions from August 2024 onwards, the nominator should list (and possibly link to) at least one potential section in the level 5 vital articles list for the article to be added to. Supporters can also help in this regard.

For reference, the following times apply for today:

  • 15 days ago is: 20:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • 7 days ago is: 20:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

If you're interested in regularly participating as a closer, the following browser tools may also be helpful:


The following link represent all current Level 5 Vital articles that are classified as STEM subjects:

Further information: Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Biological and health sciences/Biology
Further information: Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Biological and health sciences/Animals
Further information: Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Biological and health sciences/Plants
Further information: Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Biological and health sciences/Health
Further information: Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Physical sciences/Basics and measurement
Further information: Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Physical sciences/Astronomy
Further information: Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Physical sciences/Earth science
Further information: Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Physical sciences/Chemistry
Further information: Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Mathematics
Further information: Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Physical sciences/Physics
Further information: Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Technology

Add Atlantic hurricane

[edit]

Proposing for the same reasons as my nomination of Typhoon. Most logical place to put it is in Air under Earth science. Interstellarity (talk) 19:52, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Interstellarity (talk) 19:52, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. We have the room and we've now added Typhoon. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. More vital than Typhoon, actually. --ZergTwo (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Makkool (talk) 10:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Suport. To address opposition, regional hurricanes have important cultural significance to different cultural groups. They are extreme weather events and I think vital to include. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 05:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. I don't understand why regional hurricanes are vital.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the abstract physics are the same, but the similarities end there. The ocean currents, geography, and especially historical data are all different. I guess it would be a bit like listing different animal species from the same family. Like I mentioned too, we still have room in the section, plus we've already added Typhoon  5 as precedent. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add Inca road system  5

[edit]
PASSED
Added 4-0. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Since we have Roman roads  5. This was the most extensive infrastructure project built in the Americas before European colonization and arguably remained so for centuries.

Support

  1. As nominator Tabu Makiadi (talk) 18:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Good point, about the precedent of including Roman roads. I'm no archaeologist, but the Incan road system also had a well-developed plan for complementary buildings (granaries, caravanserais, govt. archives, etc.) Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kevinishere15 (talk) 19:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 19:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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 Phone connector (audio)

[edit]

We been using the idea of these things since 1878 (roughly, the modern jack did not exist til like the 60s). We list USB protocols like USB-C  5, so what stopping this?

Support
  1. Add into somewhere in the sub-categories of Computer port (hardware)  5? 49p (talk) 20:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, since it's technically analog and for audio / telephony, it helps rather than hinders the current imbalance towards Computers. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kevinishere15 (talk) 19:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Adding several classes of and specific Warships (set 2 of 2)

[edit]

Add Ticonderoga-class cruiser

[edit]

United States Navy cruiser currently currently in service.

Support
  1. As nomGeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 22:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Very weak oppose, if only to bring the proposal closer to a finish, while keeping an eye on the Tech quota. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. It's the primary example of the concept of a modern guided missile cruiser, but has been phased out by the U.S. Navy and the general concept did not catch on with other navies. Notable primarily for its history of historical engagements and being an Aegis platform. Not sure I'd call it vital. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 06:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

Add Ohio-class submarine

[edit]

United States Navy ballistic Missile Submarines currently in service.

Support
  1. As nomGeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 22:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Necessary for understanding the U.S. nuclear triad. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 06:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Very weak support, mainly just to close the proposal out for now; not sure how this biases our coverage either. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Virginia-class submarine

[edit]

United States Navy Fast Attack Submarine currently in service.

Support
  1. As nomGeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 22:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Very weak oppose, if only to bring the proposal closer to a finish, while keeping an eye on the Tech quota. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion

Not sure how we can make recency bias arguments about U.S. aircraft and not expect those to be applicable for the Virginia-class. It's not vital to understanding the development of modern nuclear attack submarines like the Los Angeles class was. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 06:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add Vanguard-class submarine

[edit]

British Royal Navy Ballistic Missile Submarine currently in service.

Support
  1. As nomGeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 22:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. For the same reasons as Ohio. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 06:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Very weak support, mainly just to close the proposal out for now; not sure how this biases our coverage either. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Borei-class submarine

[edit]

New class of Russian submarines replacing Soviet legacy fleet.

Support
  1. As nomGeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 22:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Yes, same reasoning as Ohio. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 06:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Very weak support, mainly just to close the proposal out for now; not sure how this biases our coverage either. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Akula-class submarine

[edit]

Soviet nuclear attack submarine currently in service with Russia.

Support
  1. As nomGeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 22:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Yes, significantly influenced the course of submarine development. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 06:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Very weak support, mainly just to close the proposal out for now; not sure how this biases our coverage either. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Nimitz-class aircraft carrier

[edit]

Nuclear Aircraft carriers in service with U.S. Navy since 1975.

Support
  1. As nomGeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 22:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The definitional example of the modern supercarrier. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 06:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Very weak support, mainly just to close the proposal out for now; not sure how this biases our coverage either. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier

[edit]

British Royal Navy Aircraft Carriers.

Support
  1. As nomGeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 22:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Very weak oppose, if only to bring the proposal closer to a finish, while keeping an eye on the Tech quota. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. I don't see the additional value in adding two smaller-sized carriers. They're relevant primarily for their immense cost to the UK and the political infighting over their commissioning, which is not unimportant but I'm struggling to see how it's vital. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 06:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

Add Kuznetsov-class aircraft carrier

[edit]

Soviet Class of Aircraft Carrier. This class is extremely noteworthy, as it is the class of three non-NATO aircraft carriers in two countries: the Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov and the Chinese aircraft carrier Liaoning and Chinese aircraft carrier Shandong.

Support
  1. As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 17:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Only built in small numbers, service record consists primarily of catching fire and being repaired, or being sold off to China (which is actively developing a nuclear-powered carrier to replace them as of November 2024).⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 03:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Very weak oppose, if only to close out the proposal while keeping an eye on the Tech quota. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion

@Makkool, did you mean to support this?

Yes, I meant. Thanks for noticing! For some reason pinging me didn't work. I didn't get an alert. Makkool (talk) 18:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add Iowa-class battleship

[edit]

U.S. Navy WWII Battleships, last battleships in service with the U.S. Navy. Notably, the Japanese Instrument of Surrender happened on the deck of the USS Missouri (BB-63).

Support
  1. As nomGeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 22:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Vitally important to WWII history. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 06:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Very weak support, mainly just to close the proposal out for now; not sure how this biases our coverage either. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Bismarck-class battleship

[edit]

WWII NAZI battleships. Most notable was German battleship Bismarck which was sank during the Last battle of Bismarck by British Royal Navy.

Support
  1. As nomGeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 22:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Only two ever built, Bismarck was destroyed on her first sortie, while Tirpitz accomplished nothing other than constantly being damaged and going in for repairs before being herself destroyed. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 03:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Changing vote to oppose. Would support the specific warship Bismarck instead of the ship class article. Makkool (talk) 17:47, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Very weak oppose, if only to close out the proposal while keeping an eye on the Tech quota. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion

@Makkool, I thought of this, but the German Battleship Tirpitz also had a significant role in WWII. while the Bismarck is the more famous of the ships, the Tirpitz had a bit more of a service history (Obviously) and impacted some parts of the war, if only by forcing the British to commit resources to trying to hunt it down and defend against it. From a historic persepctive, the Bismark is certainly more discussed, but from a technological perspecitve both ships seem impactful. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 02:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you, but I'd say the more famous status of Bismarck would have priority in my book. Makkool (talk) 12:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Add CSS Virginia

[edit]

Specific Confederate Confederate States Navy warship. The CSS Virginia was the first steam powered Ironclad warship.

Support
  1. As nomGeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 22:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Vital to understanding the age of ironclads. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 06:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Very weak support, mainly just to close the proposal out for now; not sure how this biases our coverage either. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add USS Monitor

[edit]

Specific United States Navy Warship. Early Ironclad that was employed during the U.S. Civil War and built in response to the CSS Virginia. The battle between the Monitor and Virginia is the first between ironclad warships.

Support
  1. As nomGeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 22:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Vital to understanding the age of ironclads. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 06:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Very weak support, mainly just to close the proposal out for now; not sure how this biases our coverage either. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Adding a few military Helicopters (set 2 of 2)

[edit]

Sikorsky R-4

[edit]

The Fist mass produced military helicopter.

Support
  1. As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 23:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Makkool (talk) 17:48, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Very weak oppose, if only to bring the proposal closer to a finish, while keeping an eye on the Tech quota. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion

Mil Mi-24

[edit]

Family of Soviet Attack helicopters currently in use by 58 countries.

Support
  1. As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 23:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The definitional Warsaw Pact attack helicopter family of the Cold War and extensively used in conflicts around the world. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 02:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Makkool (talk) 17:48, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Very weak support, mainly just to close the proposal out for now; not sure how this biases our coverage either. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Mil Mi-26

[edit]

The largest military helicopter to go into serial production. Used by the USSR/Russia and several other countries.

Support
  1. As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 23:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Makkool (talk) 17:48, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Very weak oppose, if only to bring the proposal closer to a finish, while keeping an eye on the Tech quota. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Neutral -- it's cool that it's the largest, but I'd rather see the Mi-8 or Mi-17, which were significantly more influential overall. Or arguably the Ka-27/Ka-29 for a specialized naval helicopter variant that's also an example of contrarotating blades. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 02:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

Add Incunable

[edit]

Since we added Manuscript  5 and Codex  5, I'm thinking this concept could be next. Incunables are early printed books. An important step in the history of printing (and books in general).

Support
  1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 18:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, per my "some overlap is good at Lv5" principle. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discuss

Add Several types of military tanks

[edit]

We have 11 specific types of firearms and 19 specific types of planes, but no tanks. There are many noteworthy ones, but here are a few I think are important.

Add M4 Sherman

[edit]

US WWII tank.

Support
  1. As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Extremely important to WWII.⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 04:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Makkool (talk) 17:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discuss

Add Tiger I

[edit]

Nazi WWII tank.

Support
  1. As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Makkool (talk) 17:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Very weak oppose, if only to bring the proposal closer to a finish, while keeping an eye on the Tech quota. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. There should probably be *some* German tank but I'm not sure it should be the Tiger. I think there's a stronger argument for either the Panzer IV or Panther tank, both of which had more than 5x the number produced of Tigers and were more impactful on the war -- the Panzer IV being the only German tank to serve the entirety of the war, and the Panther widely being considered one of the best tanks of the war.⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 04:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

Add T-72

[edit]

Soviet Cold War tank

Support
  1. As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Makkool (talk) 17:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Very weak oppose, if only to bring the proposal closer to a finish, while keeping an eye on the Tech quota. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. OK, but the T-55 is probably more important to include than this as far as Cold War Soviet tanks go, being the most widely produced tank in history and still widely in use today.⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 04:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

Add M1 Abrams

[edit]

Current U.S. Main battle tank.

Support
  1. As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Extremely important to late-Cold War and post-Cold War history of several nations, not just the U.S.⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 04:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Makkool (talk) 17:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Very weak support, mainly just to close the proposal out for now; not sure how this biases our coverage either. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discuss

GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Swap three Power storage articles

[edit]

I propose that section gets renamed into Energy storage. The section in general seems to reflect what was (expected to) be important 10-15 years ago, compared to what is actually important.

Remove Nickel-iron battery

[edit]

Gets only 11 pageviews per day. Reading the article, I do not see why this type of battery stands out compared to others. It's used in a couple of niches, but nothing screams vital to me.

Support
  1. As nom, —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. per nom. starship.paint (talk / cont) 02:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Makkool (talk) 11:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Weak support, let's go ahead and push this across the finish line. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
  • I actually added this one before voting was standard on unfinished lists. I'm fine if everyone wants to cut it and agree it's niche, but just for context, I think I added it for balance. My understanding is it's one of the most time-tested battery chemistries, and it's arguably the most economical & robust in some appropriate technology situations. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

Remove Nickel-metal hydride battery

[edit]

Only 14 pageviews per day. Similarly, used in a few niches, but not as big as the alternatives below. They are sometimes used in hybrid vehicles, but are being replaced with lithium-ion batteries.

Support
  1. As nom, —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. per nom. starship.paint (talk / cont) 02:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Makkool (talk) 11:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Weak support, let's go ahead and push this across the finish line. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
  • Another I may have added before voting was standard. I'm fine if everyone wants to cut it; I figured it mainly has notability as a common (the main?) rechargeable chemistry for decades until lithium-ion recently became dominant. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

Remove solar fuel

[edit]
PASSED
Removed 4-0. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Gets only 28 pageviews per day. The term is a bit of a neologism I believe, with power-to-X or power-to-gas the more commonly used phrases for similar ideas.

Support
  1. As nom, —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong support, especially with the more fundamental power-to-X suggestion. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 01:59, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. per above. starship.paint (talk / cont) 02:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 thermal energy storage

[edit]

266 daily views. Has large applications in industry and for domestic heating and is expected to grow in terms of power sector applications too (f.i. in Carnot batteries).

Support
  1. As nom, —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sure, also complements Cogeneration (which we do list). -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. per above. starship.paint (talk / cont) 02:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discuss

Add compressed-air energy storage

[edit]

154 daily views. Together with vanadium redox batteries, one of the (semi)mature technologies for mid-duration electricity storage.

Support
  1. As nom, —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sure, can also integrate with pressurized service lines. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. per above. starship.paint (talk / cont) 02:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discuss

Add power-to-X

[edit]

89 daily views. A core component of sector coupling (which might need its own article?), a trend in the energy transition that sees all energy-using sectors getting more intertwined to allow buffers for variable renewables (creating heat, gas or whatever during periods of overproduction).

Support
  1. As nom, —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, especially since it subsumes the solar fuel article. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. per above. starship.paint (talk / cont) 02:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discuss

Remove TransMilenio  5

[edit]

Not counting rail transport companies, we have 64 rapid transit systems. This one is a bus system, which means is not that significant in terms of infrastructure. In fact, Bogotá is kinda infamous for being one of the largest cities in the world without a metro system.

Support
  1. As nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 15:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per nom Makkool (talk) 10:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. per nom. starship.paint (talk / cont) 02:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. support  Carlwev  23:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discuss

I mentioned it above, but I think I'm going to propose moving all specific facility and infrastructure articles to Geography (on the central Lv5 talk page). I could totally support some transit authorities / bus systems there though. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remove one of these US airports (John F. Kennedy International Airport, Los Angeles International Airport, or O'Hare International Airport)

[edit]

Atlanta's airport is the busiest airport in the world so that's obviously vital. I think we should cut down some US airports since it's the country with the most airports listed. I have no opinion on what airports should be removed, so I am interested to hear what others think. Interstellarity (talk) 23:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. If we need to remove one, I think it should be O'Hare Makkool (talk) 10:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Second O'Hare per Makkool, I'm actually neutral on which, but I like the idea of cutting one so I won't complicate things. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Remove O'Hare per nom. starship.paint (talk / cont) 02:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. I have been a proponent of adding Memphis International Airport (home of the Fedex Superhub) for its Cargo airport importance and don't think we have too many Airports. As a hub to two of the major airlines and a high volume airport, I think this is vital. Could support as a swap for Memphis.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Further, this was the world's busiest airport for 35 years. I am a bit remiss about its possible removal.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:36, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1. @Makkool, Zar2gar1, and Interstellarity: any thoughts of swapping in the world's second busiest Cargo airport.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I won't take a stance on this yet, but I'd be open to swapping O'Hare with Memphis. I would see what others think before taking my position. Interstellarity (talk) 18:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd support that swap Makkool (talk) 19:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm more ambivalent about specific instances in general, at least on the Tech list, so consider me neutral on swapping in another airport. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion

Remove Telephone number (mathematics)  5

[edit]

Zero interwikis suggest this number theory concept is too niche.

Support
  1. As nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 01:49, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong support. Even given that the number of Vital number theory articles need not be reduced, this is simply not an important concept in number theory. A search of the math arxiv returns only a single paper about telephone numbers. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 19:17, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Strong oppose on a few counts. The more I think about it, the less I like interwikis as a proxy for vitality, but especially in hard science / mathematics. References will have an extreme bias towards a few languages, and readers / editors are probably disproportionally interested in detailed content over translation. On content, the telephone numbers nicely connect results across several fields, plus we should almost definitely be cutting from other sections before number theory. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

Just to add some detail on cutting from other sections, we almost definitely have too many niche articles in Foundations and Graph Theory. I personally added a lot of those articles back when Lv5 still allowed boldly adding to under-quota lists. I was trying to be comprehensive, but actually reached the quota before reaching the other sections. I'd like the talk page to shrink a little before adding batch proposals, but I can probably think of at least 25 articles to cut there if nobody else gets around to it. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add Zipper storage bag

[edit]

I refer to this whole general class as Ziploc around the house, but this is the generic term. It is more than a subset of Plastic bag  5. It is a variant of types of Bag  5. P.s. I am a bit surprised neither sandwich bag nor storage bag exists even as a redirect.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Support
  1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. sure. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 20:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. per nom. starship.paint (talk / cont) 02:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose here, but neutral if moved to Everyday Life. I had to think about it more, and while there is engineering behind this product, the primary justification is its every-day-ness. So it should really be ranked against Everyday Life articles, especially when Tech is so bloated. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion

Add Aluminium foil

[edit]

I can't believe it takes 3 i's to spell this elsewhere. It only takes 2 eyes to see how important this is in my refrigerator.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Definitely vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. per nom. starship.paint (talk / cont) 02:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose here, but neutral if moved to Everyday Life. I had to think about it more, and while there is engineering behind this product, the primary justification is its every-day-ness. So it should really be ranked against Everyday Life articles, especially when Tech is so bloated. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion

Add Plastic wrap

[edit]

This is very essential in the kitchen.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. per nom. starship.paint (talk / cont) 02:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support in Everyday life. We actually have kitchen utensils there, so why not this as well? Makkool (talk) 10:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose here, but neutral if moved to Everyday Life. I had to think about it more, and while there is engineering behind this product, the primary justification is its every-day-ness. So it should really be ranked against Everyday Life articles, especially when Tech is so bloated. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion

Add Tupperware or Tupperware Brands

[edit]

I probably need a bit a discussion to figure out which one belongs, but the product is pretty essential.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Simply on my "no name brands" principle; I'm neutral if Tub (container) is an option though, and also neutral on the other household items. Just keep an eye out on the Tech quota. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 14:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Zar2gar1 should I move these to everyday life on the society subpage?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly, I don't think you need to move the proposal; they're all man-made objects so not really out of place here. They would also make sense in Everyday Life though so if people want to put them there, they can mention it in their vote. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:47, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I oppose adding the brands. I am more positive on adding something like Tub (container). Mathwriter2718 (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion

Add 2 for Astronomy -> Observation

[edit]

I decided to stop waiting for the page size to shrink; let's try to fill in the remaining science sections.

Astronomy is already right around the quota (1 below), but I think we can add Fraunhofer lines and telluric contamination. They're respectively the absorption spectra of the sun's and the earth's atmosphere, and beyond revealing details about atmospheric chemistry, they're relevant to calibration and corrections in many observations. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 14:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Support as nom -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 14:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per nom Makkool (talk) 10:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Don't see what's wrong with it. -- ZergTwo (talk) 02:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral

Add Structural coloration to Biology

[edit]

A biological phenomenon widespread across multiple kingdoms of life, often used as a teaching example of how clever nature can be, and a continuing influence on physics and technology. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 14:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Support as nom. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 14:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral

Add Glycated hemoglobin

[edit]

A1C is definitely vital, and Hemoglobin  4 is VA4.

Support
  1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sure, why not? -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:50, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discuss

Add Maternity den

[edit]
Support
  1. As nom. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 09:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sure, why not? -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:50, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discuss

Optical phenomena

[edit]

I've had a short list of optics topics to add (in Physics) stashed away for a while. How do you all feel about these? -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add Optical aberration

[edit]

The general concept of how real-world optical systems deviate from ideal behavior. Crucial to almost all optics applications too.

Support
  1. As nom. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per nom.GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 20:17, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per nom Makkool (talk) 10:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral

Add Spherical aberration

[edit]

One of the primary types of aberration, due to the Thin lens  5 assumption breaking down in the real world. This article has a its own content on corrective methods and measuring aberration.

Support
  1. As nom. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per nom GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 06:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per nom Makkool (talk) 10:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral

Add Chromatic aberration

[edit]

Another major form of aberration, due to Refraction  4 in real world materials varying with wavelength. This article actually has a lot of decent content on corrective methods, measurement, and applications (like photographic effects).

Support
  1. As nom. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per nom.GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 20:17, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per nom Makkool (talk) 10:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral

Add Caustic (optics)

[edit]

A common optical phenomenon and very old demonstration of Ray optics (those details are in a separate math article: Caustic (mathematics).

Support
  1. As nom. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per nom.GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 20:17, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per nom Makkool (talk) 10:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral

Add Iridescence

[edit]

The basic rainbow-color visible in all sorts of situations (materials, biology, weather, etc.)

Support
  1. As nom. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per nom.GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 20:17, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per nom Makkool (talk) 10:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral

Add Dichroism

[edit]

This is probably a little less well-known and may be more borderline, but it does explain the coloration of certain materials and also has several technical applications. The article still could use expansion but I tend to see that as a reason for adding to VA5 (to encourage editing) rather than removing. Related but distinct from Birefringence  5.

Support
  1. As nom. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per nom.GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 20:17, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per nom Makkool (talk) 10:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral

Add Newton's rings

[edit]

Historically notable experiment / phenomenon and a go-to demonstration of light's wavier behavior.

Support
  1. As nom. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per nom Makkool (talk) 10:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Not convinced this one is vital. Opposistion is weak though GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 20:17, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral

Add Moiré pattern

[edit]

One more wave / interference-based phenomenon. It appears in many situations, with connections to art and technology.

Support
  1. As nom. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per nom.GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 20:17, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per nom Makkool (talk) 10:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral

Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add everyday containers

[edit]
N.B. This nomination was split at 03:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC). Previous discussant preferences of User:Mathwriter2718, User:Kevinishere15 and User:Zar2gar1 were interpreted and included at the time of the split by me.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I propose adding all or some subset of Cage, Clamshell (container), Disposable cup, Bucket, Plastic bottle  5, Vial, Test tube, Pipette, because they are all objects that many of us interact with often or every day. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 23:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add Cage

[edit]
Support
  1. I mildly support. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 23:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Kevinishere15 (talk) 02:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Weak support but let's go ahead and push this across the finish line. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
  1. neutral for now, but I'm not sure how I feel about adding items primarily just for their ordinariness. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

Add Clamshell (container)

[edit]
Support
  1. I mildly support. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 23:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Leaning oppose. Kevinishere15 (talk) 02:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose here, but neutral if moved to Everyday Life. I had to think about it more, and while there is engineering behind this product, the primary justification is its every-day-ness. So it should really be ranked against Everyday Life articles, especially when Tech is so bloated. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. neutral for now, but I'm not sure how I feel about adding items primarily just for their ordinariness. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

Add Disposable cup

[edit]
Support
  1. I mildly support. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 23:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Kevinishere15 (talk) 02:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Would rather see a space go to Disposable product so as to include disposable plates, disposable utensils and more.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:24, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This makes sense. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 13:45, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Mathwriter2718, Would you like to withdraw this proposal and nominate the suggested item?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:52, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @TonyTheTiger sure. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 14:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak oppose, largely to close the proposal out, but I would probably support Disposable product, which is notable from several angles. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. neutral for now, but I'm not sure how I feel about adding items primarily just for their ordinariness. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

Add Bucket

[edit]
Support
  1. I mildly support. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 23:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Kevinishere15 (talk) 02:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose here, but neutral if moved to Everyday Life. I had to think about it more, and while there is engineering behind this product, the primary justification is its every-day-ness. So it should really be ranked against Everyday Life articles, especially when Tech is so bloated. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. neutral for now, but I'm not sure how I feel about adding items primarily just for their ordinariness. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

Add Plastic bottle

[edit]
PASSED
Added 4-0. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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. I mildly support. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 23:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Kevinishere15 (talk) 02:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Mild support, still may belong more in Everyday Life, but this has both engineering & environmental relevance. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
  1. neutral for now, but I'm not sure how I feel about adding items primarily just for their ordinariness. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 Vial

[edit]
Support
  1. I mildly support. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 23:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Kevinishere15 (talk) 02:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Weak support but let's go ahead and push this across the finish line. This one could arguably go in Chemistry or Science Basics too. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
  1. neutral for now, but I'm not sure how I feel about adding items primarily just for their ordinariness. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

Add Test tube

[edit]
Support
  1. I mildly support. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 23:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Kevinishere15 (talk) 02:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Weak support but let's go ahead and push this across the finish line. This one could arguably go in Chemistry or Science Basics too. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
  1. neutral for now, but I'm not sure how I feel about adding items primarily just for their ordinariness. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

Add Pipette

[edit]
Support
  1. I mildly support. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 23:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Kevinishere15 (talk) 02:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Weak support but let's go ahead and push this across the finish line. This one could arguably go in Chemistry or Science Basics too. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
  1. neutral for now, but I'm not sure how I feel about adding items primarily just for their ordinariness. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

Original discussion when the nomination was unified

[edit]
Support
  1. I mildly support adding all. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 23:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Leaning oppose on Clamshell, support the rest. Kevinishere15 (talk) 02:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discuss

I think I'm still neutral on all for now, but I'm not sure how I feel about adding items primarily just for their ordinariness. OTOH, vial, test tube, and pipette could possibly go under Science instead of Tech. This is somewhere we're still disorganized and inconsistent, but some scientific equipment is listed with the relevant science, while others are in Tech. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mathwriter2718, I would like to see this nomination split into separate items. I am not sure that they all are of similar vitality for consideration.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyTheTiger you're right, this should be split. I'm not sure what the kosher way of doing this is. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 02:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add Humid subtropical climate

[edit]

The most populous climate zone hosting over 2 billion people.

Support
  1. Interstellarity (talk) 18:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Suppot. If not here, this could fit under the geography section as well. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 06:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sure, why not? -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Makkool (talk) 10:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Based on our organization, should this be under geography? There are a lot of places it could go. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 21:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I figured it would just go in Earth Science; we already list our other climate types there. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Add Continental climate

[edit]

Another populated climate zone not listed.

Support
  1. Interstellarity (talk) 01:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Suppot. If not here, this could fit under the geography section as well. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 06:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sure, why not? -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Makkool (talk) 10:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Intercity bus service

[edit]

Nominating for similar reasons as Intercity rail. We list the vehicles used for this service, but not the actual service.

Support
  1. Interstellarity (talk) 23:17, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Commercial aviation and Private aviation

[edit]

Two important types of aviation.

Support
  1. Interstellarity (talk) 00:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, I had to think about this one but they make sense on the list. As more of the processes / culture around flight though, maybe place under the applied sciences? -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Makkool (talk) 09:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Commercial aviation ONLY. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose private aviation. In another life I was involved in private aviation with ambitions towards commercial and Military aviation  5. I love planes, more then most people, but honestly think they are a bit over represented in vital articles. I loosly to support adding Commerical aviation, but private aviation is not really vital. I'd like to see several commercial airplanes removed in addition to this. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion

Add Hyaline cartilage

[edit]

We list Cartilage  4--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. as nom. -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sure, why not? -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Makkool (talk) 09:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Intelligent agent

[edit]

Agentics is the next wave with Artificial intelligence.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. as nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 16:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Weak oppose, mostly on annoying procedural grounds. If someone comes up with 2 or more Computing / Consumer electronics articles to cut, I'll switch to Support. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion

Architectural elements

[edit]

Of the 21 architectural elements at Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Technology#Architectural_elements, 16 are Level 4. With 16 level 4 items it seems surpising that only 21 are level 5. I feel several of these should be level 5, given the list of level 4 elements: Arch  4, Ceiling  4, Column  4, Door  4, Elevator  4, Façade  4, Floor  4, Foundation (engineering)  4, Ladder  4, Lighting  4, Roof  4, Room  4, Stairs  4, Wall  4, and Window  4, -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyTheTiger: I'm neutral on most of these architectural topics (but support a few); I pretty much don't know how I feel about prioritizing things for how common they are. I'll wait a bit to start a separate discussion, but these got me thinking about something more general. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add Gate

[edit]
Support
  1. as nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support  Carlwev  16:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 14:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose here, but neutral if moved to Everyday Life. I had to think about it more, and while there is engineering behind this product, the primary justification is its every-day-ness. So it should really be ranked against Everyday Life articles, especially when Tech is so bloated. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion

Add Fence

[edit]
Support
  1. as nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support  Carlwev  16:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 15:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose here, but weak support in Everyday Life. I missed some of these from earlier. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion

Add Moat

[edit]
Support
  1. as nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support  Carlwev  16:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support, but it should go under Fortification Makkool (talk) 11:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support under Fortification per Makkool. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Staircase

[edit]

N.B. Stairs  4 above

Support
  1. as nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose here, but weak support in Everyday Life or Architecture. I missed some of these from earlier. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion
  1. Maybe staircase should be moved to stairwell, since this is the article about the room of stairs.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add Shed

[edit]
Support
  1. as nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support  Carlwev  16:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Doesn't seem vital enough Makkool (talk) 11:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose here, but neutral if moved to Everyday Life. There is engineering behind it, but it's defined by use and the primary justification is its every-day-ness. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion

Add Molding (decorative)

[edit]
Support
  1. as nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Doesn't seem vital enough Makkool (talk) 11:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose here, but would support in Art or Architecture. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion

Add Countertop

[edit]
Support
  1. as nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Doesn't seem vital enough Makkool (talk) 11:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose here, but neutral if moved to Everyday Life. I had to think about it more, and while there is craft knowledge behind this product, the primary justification is its every-day-ness. So it should really be ranked against Everyday Life articles, especially when Tech is so bloated. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion

Add Window sill

[edit]
Support
  1. as nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Doesn't seem vital enough Makkool (talk) 11:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose here, but neutral if moved to Everyday Life. I had to think about it more, and while there is craft knowledge behind this product, the primary justification is its every-day-ness. So it should really be ranked against Everyday Life articles, especially when Tech is so bloated. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion

Add Garage door

[edit]
Support
  1. as nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Doesn't seem vital enough Makkool (talk) 11:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose here, but neutral if moved to Everyday Life. I had to think about it more, and while there is craft knowledge behind this product, the primary justification is its every-day-ness. So it should really be ranked against Everyday Life articles, especially when Tech is so bloated. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion

Add Hallway

[edit]
Support
  1. as nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose here, but neutral if moved to Everyday Life. I had to think about it more, and while there is craft knowledge behind this, the primary justification is its every-day-ness. So it should really be ranked against Everyday Life articles, especially when Tech is so bloated. Actually, Everyday Life may be a better place for all specific rooms (they're defined by use patterns, not necessarily technical design). -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion
  1. Maybe this should just be merged into Hall  5-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:56, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add Rain gutter

[edit]
Support
  1. as nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support  Carlwev  16:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 14:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support, had to think about it more, but drainage is actually a major engineering issue in construction. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Handrail

[edit]
Support
  1. as nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Doesn't seem vital enough Makkool (talk) 11:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose here, but neutral if moved to Everyday Life. I had to think about it more, and while there is craft knowledge behind this product, the primary justification is its every-day-ness. So it should really be ranked against Everyday Life articles, especially when Tech is so bloated. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion

Add Guard rail

[edit]
Support
  1. as nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support  Carlwev  16:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Doesn't seem vital enough Makkool (talk) 11:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose here, but neutral if moved to Everyday Life. There is engineering behind it, but it's defined by use and the primary justification is its every-day-ness. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion

Add Sewerage and Street gutter

[edit]

More infrastructure given Drainage  4 and Flood management  4 at Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Technology#Hydraulic_infrastructure and Plumbing  4 at Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Technology#Hydraulics_and_pneumatics are listed-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. as nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support sewerage  Carlwev  16:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Definitely, I think sanitation topics are probably under-represented. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Tower  4 topics

[edit]

We list Tower  4 and the following are related.

Add Bell tower

[edit]
Support
  1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose here, but would support under Architecture. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion

Add Belfry

[edit]
Support
  1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose here, but would support under Architecture. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion

Add Spire

[edit]
Support
  1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose here, but would support under Architecture. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion

Add Steeple

[edit]
Support
  1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose here, but would support under Architecture. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion

Add Watchtower

[edit]
Support
  1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:23, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak support, the article isn't very meaty right now, but I guess this makes sense under Fortification  3, which we list here. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Guard tower and/or Guardhouse

[edit]
Support
  1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:23, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose here, but weak support for Guardhouse in Architecture, even if people may not associate architecture with security buildings at first. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion
  1. Maybe the stubby Guard tower should be merged into Watchtower.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree completely, even if they typically have slightly different connotations. I'll add it to my big list of VA5 reorg ideas. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding rooms

[edit]

Given the list of inclusions at Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Technology#Rooms_and_spaces, I will try adding a few more.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add Family room

[edit]
Support
  1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Not different enough from living room Makkool (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose here, but neutral if moved to Everyday Life. I had to think about it more, and while there is craft knowledge behind this, the primary justification is its every-day-ness. So it should really be ranked against Everyday Life articles, especially when Tech is so bloated. Actually, Everyday Life may be a better place for all specific rooms (they're defined by use patterns, not necessarily technical design). -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. You make a good point. It would be an argument for moving all rooms away from Technology to Everyday life, but it's a separate discussion. Makkool (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion

Add Den (room)

[edit]
Support
  1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Stub and 1 interwiki Makkool (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose here, but neutral if moved to Everyday Life. I had to think about it more, and while there is craft knowledge behind this, the primary justification is its every-day-ness. So it should really be ranked against Everyday Life articles, especially when Tech is so bloated. Actually, Everyday Life may be a better place for all specific rooms (they're defined by use patterns, not necessarily technical design). -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion

Add Pantry

[edit]
Support
  1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I think this was listed once, but it must have been boldly removed at some point Makkool (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. QuicoleJR (talk) 04:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose here, but neutral if moved to Everyday Life. I had to think about it more, and while there is craft knowledge behind this, the primary justification is its every-day-ness. So it should really be ranked against Everyday Life articles, especially when Tech is so bloated. Actually, Everyday Life may be a better place for all specific rooms (they're defined by use patterns, not necessarily technical design). -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion

More room adds and removals

[edit]

I had At Home: A Short History of Private Life lying around, and there were more omissions in the Rooms and spaces section I noticed. Some clear removals as well to balance the adds. Makkool (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add Drawing room

[edit]

A room for entertaining guests, the historical precursor to the living room. A part of large houses for several centuries. Rated High-Importance in Wikiproject Home living.

Support
  1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose here, but neutral if moved to Everyday Life. I had to think about it more, and while there is craft knowledge behind this, the primary justification is its every-day-ness. So it should really be ranked against Everyday Life articles, especially when Tech is so bloated. Actually, Everyday Life may be a better place for all specific rooms (they're defined by use patterns, not necessarily technical design). -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion

Add Great hall

[edit]

The main room in a royal palace or large manor house. I don't feel as strongly for this, because we already have Hall  5, but on the other hand, the great hall would be a major space to list for historical homes.

Support
  1. Weak support as nom. Makkool (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose here, but neutral if moved to Everyday Life. I had to think about it more, and while there is craft knowledge behind this, the primary justification is its every-day-ness. So it should really be ranked against Everyday Life articles, especially when Tech is so bloated. Actually, Everyday Life may be a better place for all specific rooms (they're defined by use patterns, not necessarily technical design). -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion

Add Nursery (room)

[edit]

An important room also in modern apartments.

Support
  1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose here, but neutral if moved to Everyday Life. I had to think about it more, and while there is craft knowledge behind this, the primary justification is its every-day-ness. So it should really be ranked against Everyday Life articles, especially when Tech is so bloated. Actually, Everyday Life may be a better place for all specific rooms (they're defined by use patterns, not necessarily technical design). -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion

Remove Lobby (room)  5

[edit]

Not as important as the rest. I would list Vestibule (architecture) instead, but not suggesting a swap for now.

Support
  1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, and even if we kept it, it should probably be ranked against Everyday Life articles, especially when Tech is so bloated. Actually, Everyday Life may be a better place for all specific rooms (they're defined by use patterns, not necessarily technical design). -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Remove Sunroom  5

[edit]

Not as important as the rest. It's also called a solarium, but it's not the same as indoor tanning (which isn't listed yet by the way)

Support
  1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. We list Greenhouse  5 already, which sums up most of the unique technical features. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Mobile operating system

[edit]

An important type of operating system that powers many of the world's mobile devices.

Support
  1. Interstellarity (talk) 22:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I can support this. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 23:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 15:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Weak oppose, entirely on procedural grounds to tap the brakes. Will change to Support if someone proposes more Computing articles to cut. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion

Some Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Technology#Electronics adds

[edit]

Add Light switch

[edit]
Support
  1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:43, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose here, but neutral if moved to Everyday Life. I had to think about it more, but I'm not sure this adds much technical depth to the underlying switch article. The relationship to lighting is all about use so should probably be judged on every-day-ness. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion

Add Power cord

[edit]
Support
  1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:43, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose here, but neutral in Everday Life. they definitely involve engineering, but with our current space, not sure this adds enough that isn't already covered by other Electricity articles. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion

Add Power cable

[edit]
Support
  1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:43, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, not sure how I feel about the others yet, but since this also stands in for High-voltage cable, let's add it. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Camera phone

[edit]
Support
  1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:43, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Has had wide ramifications Mathwriter2718 (talk) 15:35, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Weak oppose, purely on annoying procedural grounds. If someone suggests 2 or more Computing / Consumer electronics articles to cut though, I'll switch to weak support. They're notable, but I'm not sure how much coverage camera + phone actually adds to Smartphone  4 and Camera  3. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion

Some Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Technology#Military_technology changes

[edit]

Remove Fletching

[edit]

With only 9 interwikis, this seems quite niche.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 10:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. This technology revolutionized a lot of human society involving hunting and warfare. It is at least as vital as Smokeless powder  5, and probably on the level of Gunpowder  3 in reality. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1. But with Arrow  5 only being VA5, do we need both Arrowhead  5 and Fletching  5. It should all be reasonably covered at Arrow. Just today, I decided not to make nomination of Fire alarm call box since we have Fire alarm system  5. Then I decided not to nominate Earlobe and Ear canal on top of nominating Outer ear.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:59, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I think Arrow should likely be higher then it is, however these should be looked at in the context of the overall weapon system, Bow and arrow  4 (and to a lesser extent Crossbow  4). Here we don't seem to have a standalone article for "bow," but do have some specialty bows such as the Recurve bow  5, and an article for Bowstring  5 is listed. For Arrow  5, we have Fletching  5, and Arrowhead  5. It's important to note that fletching is important to Crossbow bolt as well as arrow. The word has some relevance with the Flechette  5. We list out each component of a computer, the parts of a bow and arrow are only less important because of recent innovations. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 18:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      FYI, In December we reduced Bow and arrow  4 from 3 to 4.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    2. I could support removing Arrowhead  5 too.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak oppose, for now at least. This is definitely on the border for Lv5, and the article isn't long at the moment, but in a way, I feel this provides the sort of depth we need more of on Lv5 Tech. Along with Arrowhead  5, this gets behind the simple concept, and while it's niche for modern society, arrows have such a deep history that probably warrants listing 1 or 2 craft details. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion

Add Butterfly knife

[edit]

This is one of the flashiest and dynamic martial arts implements. 28 interwikis compares favorably with many weapons.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose. This is a gimmick knife that is sometimes shown in media and sold at stores that carry mall ninja stuff. They are not commonly carried or used. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 04:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion

Add Trailer (vehicle) and Recreational vehicle

[edit]

Not sure how Coach (bus)  5 is listed ahead of the more general term Recreational vehicle, which also includes Motorhome, Campervan, Truck camper, Popup camper and the most interwikied RV Caravan (trailer). I don't think any trailers are at VA, but Semi-trailer truck  5 is listed.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak support of both: I'm almost on the fence, but ground transport isn't clearly over-weight yet. So applying my "some overlap is good" principle; maybe this will encourage consolidation with the other items you listed. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

I guess Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Technology#Motorized_road_transport has an extensive listing of types of buses and Coach (bus) snuck in ahead of RV that way.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

N.B. Caravan fell short of being added by a 3-2 vote above.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I am belatedly understanding the difference between mechanical wings and fins and biological ones, this section is mostly about biological ones except for the first one.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that the Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Biology and health sciences/Biology section that includes anatomy is at 1068/1200 (11% under quota)-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add Fin

[edit]

Wing  4 is a type of fin.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

N.B.:Fish fin  5 is listed.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, and Animal anatomy is OK for now. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

This article is hard to place because it clearly lumps together both biological and technological fins. Maybe a candidate for a future split: fins as aerodynamical shapes vs. fins as biological features? -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is similar to Wing  4 and the two nominees below Bird wing and Insect wing. I don't consider myself equipped to do the split. Note that there is Fish fin  5 and current nominees Fin and Flipper (anatomy). If these all pass, we will have the technical and biological for both of these.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Add Bird wing

[edit]

Wing  4 can parent this at level 5. Biology is underquota.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, the Animals section still has a cushion and animal anatomy is largely missing to date. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Insect wing

[edit]

Wing  4 can parent this at level 5. Biology is underquota.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, the Animals section still has a cushion and animal anatomy is largely missing to date. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Flipper (anatomy)

[edit]

Fish fin  5 is listed.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak support, the Animals section still has a cushion and animal anatomy is largely missing to date. We can figure out the overlap with Fin later. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Webbed foot

[edit]

Fish fin  5 is listed.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak support, the Animals section still has a cushion and animal anatomy is largely missing to date. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Interdigital webbing

[edit]

Fish fin  5 is listed.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak support, the Animals section still has a cushion and animal anatomy is largely missing to date. We can figure out the overlap with Webbed foot later. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Limb (anatomy)

[edit]

Fish fin  5 is listed.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, the Animals section still has a cushion and animal anatomy is largely missing to date. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Arthropod leg

[edit]
Support
  1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, the Animals section still has a cushion and animal anatomy is largely missing to date. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Hoof

[edit]
Support
  1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:19, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support  Carlwev  16:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Weak support, the Animals section still has a cushion and animal anatomy is largely missing to date. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Hectocotylus

[edit]
Support
  1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:19, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, the Animals section still has a cushion and animal anatomy is largely missing to date. This is a bit of a "deep-cut" but has historical relevance with Aristotle too. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Rechargeable battery

[edit]

This has changed the world from power tools, to phones to cars.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. We didn't already include this? Oof. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We have Electric battery  3, and several specific types of batteries (Nickel–metal hydride battery  5 and Nickel–iron battery  5 are up for removal above) but not this. Other rechargeables remain.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 19:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion
[edit]

Biology is under quota, so I'll be bouncing around as a non-expert to round up some nominees.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that the Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Biology and health sciences/Biology section that includes anatomy is at 1068/1200 (11% under quota)-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add Snout, Proboscis and Rostrum (anatomy)

[edit]

N.B. We list Beak  5.

Support
  1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Seems vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sure. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Insect mouthparts

[edit]
Support
  1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Seems vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sure. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Fang

[edit]
Support
  1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Seems vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sure. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Outer ear

[edit]
Support
  1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Seems vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sure. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Cephalopod beak

[edit]
Support
  1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Seems vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sure. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Nostril

[edit]
Support
  1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Seems vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Weak support, maybe there's more to it, but listing orifices might be veering into WP:DICTIONARY. We can figure that out later though. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Whiskers

[edit]
PASSED
Added 4-0. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Seems vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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 Tusk

[edit]
PASSED
Added 4-0. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 15:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Seems vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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 Vocal sac

[edit]
Support
  1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Seems vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Main body cavity stuff

[edit]

More biololgy roundup.

Keep in mind that the Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Biology and health sciences/Biology section that includes anatomy is at 1068/1200 (11% under quota)-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add Torso

[edit]
Support
  1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Definitely. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Abdominal cavity

[edit]
Support
  1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Definitely. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Thorax (arthropod anatomy)

[edit]
Support
  1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Definitely. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Pouch (marsupial)

[edit]
PASSED
Added 4-0. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 15:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support  Carlwev  16:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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 Spine (zoology)

[edit]
Support
  1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Definitely. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Udder

[edit]
Support
  1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Definitely. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Mammary gland

[edit]
Support
  1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Definitely. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Genitourinary system

[edit]
Support
  1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Definitely. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Cloaca

[edit]
Support
  1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Definitely. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Random biology

[edit]

Keep in mind that the Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Biology and health sciences/Biology section that includes anatomy is at 1068/1200 (11% under quota)-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:42, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add Membrane

[edit]
Support
  1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 15:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Definitely, but might this be better in Chemistry? -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. This wasn't added before? Also, I believe this article would be better in biology. Chemistry doesn't mention membranes a lot, at least that's what I believe. --ZergTwo (talk) 23:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 05:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

I double-checked the article and this one definitely belongs under Chemistry (still vital for sure though). Except for a brief mention in the first paragraph of the lead, the entire article is apparently about artificial membranes, with sections on things like process operating modes and recycling used reverse-osmosis filters. There is, however, a separate Biological membrane article that I would support too. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If this passes, I may nominate a swap with biological membrane.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Add Stinger

[edit]
Support
  1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 15:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Definitely. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. This wasn't added before? --ZergTwo (talk) 23:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 05:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Ganglion

[edit]
Support
  1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Definitely. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Looks vital to me. --ZergTwo (talk) 23:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 05:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Compound eye

[edit]
Support
  1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Definitely. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Of course it should. --ZergTwo (talk) 23:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 05:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Simple eye in invertebrates

[edit]
Support
  1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Definitely. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Looks vital to me. --ZergTwo (talk) 23:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Primary vein

[edit]
Support
  1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Definitely. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. If the article isn't merged when the discussion closes, it should be vital. --ZergTwo (talk) 23:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Various security items

[edit]

Since Safe just passed, I have a few more nominees:

Add Padlock

[edit]
Support
  1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Definitely vital enough to include. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 05:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Weak support, I guess this is distinct enough from a generic Lock and key  4, at least for now.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zar2gar1 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:47, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Locker

[edit]
Support
  1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Very important. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 05:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose here, but neutral if moved to Everyday Life. I don't know if container + lock adds enough unique coverage. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion

@TonyTheTiger: I finally got around to this proposal, and while I oppose adding locker to Tech, I realized I could totally support Combination lock. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you propose it, I'll support.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Add Bank vault

[edit]
Support
  1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, this is technically distinct and interesting enough that I think we can make room for it. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 05:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion

Add Post office box

[edit]
Support
  1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Seems vital enough. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 05:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose here, but neutral under Everyday Life or as a subitem of Post office  5 (apparently under Social Studies for now?) -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion

Add Safe deposit box

[edit]
Support
  1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Seems vital enough. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 05:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose here, but neutral under Everyday Life or as a subitem of Retail banking  5 (under Politics & Economics). -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion

Add Real-estate lock box

[edit]
FAILED
Not added 1-3 per WP:SNOW. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Too niche Mathwriter2718 (talk) 15:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Does not seem vital, and the low interwiki count also shows that it isn't very important. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 05:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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 Trowel

[edit]

I am thinking about the general version for Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Technology#Agricultural_tools, although there is a specialized version for masons. This is more of a tool for the flowerbed, greenhouse or residential interior, but it is still important.

Support
  1. as nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:05, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak support for now, the article is pretty listy for now and I feel like the Tools section is getting cluttered. But this is a pretty basic tool-form so let's list it for the moment. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Lateral line

[edit]

Significant part of fish biology, and an important animal sensory system we don't list.

Support
  1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 10:40, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sure, not sure where we'll be if some of the quota proposals pass, but we can find other removals. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Lifeboat (rescue) and Inflatable boat

[edit]

At least one of these should be at Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Technology#Naval_transport

Support
  1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support both, pretty widespread aspects of naval transport. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Lifebuoy and Personal flotation device

[edit]

These are the marine equivalent of emergency Airbag  5 and precautionary Seat belt  5, IMO. Maybe they would go Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Technology#Basics_7 or maybe somewhere in Everyday life.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:03, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:03, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support both, weaker for Lifebuoy, but they're pretty widespread, and we can evaluate other sections for trimming first. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Lance

[edit]

Although Jousting  5 is only VA5, I think we should consider this.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sure, we're still not that biased towards military tech, and all polearm weapons are still under 10. Doesn't seem like too much considering how ancient they are. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Personal digital assistant

[edit]

These devices were the precursor to smartphones.

Support
  1. Interstellarity (talk) 01:41, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose, partly just on procedure (Tech is over quota & computing is way over-represented). -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion

If you add this now, it will be removed in 10 years. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 14:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Locomotion

[edit]

Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Physical sciences/Physics remain at 1172/1200 (2.3% below quota). Lets add various types of locomotion by environment. We have aerial locomotion (Flight  4).

Add Aquatic locomotion

[edit]

This goes well beyond Swimming  3.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Seems vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support, but it looks like this actually belongs more in Biology than Physics. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Terrestrial locomotion

[edit]

This goes well beyond Walking  4.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Seems vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support, but it looks like this actually belongs more in Biology than Physics. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Locomotion in space

[edit]
Support
  1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Seems vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support, but maybe this actually belongs more in Technology than Physics? -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Remove Roentgen (unit)

[edit]
FAILED
Not added 3-2. Proposed 15 days ago as part of a batch of 18 units. The other 17 all passed without post haste. No votes in the last 9 days. I'm happy to see that 17 of 18 passed and that people paid close enough attention to pick one out that was a different (possibly high enough) level of vitality.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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. Described as a legacy unit. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong support, even if this one is more technical; not sure we should even list most units per WP:DICTIONARY. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support per above. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Propably vital enough. We could have some legacy units for history's sake. Makkool (talk) 16:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The article is not very important, but enough to be vital. --ZergTwo (talk) 03:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Add Wireless network

[edit]

We list types of wireless networks, but lack the topic itself.

Support
  1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 10:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 10:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Weak oppose, purely on annoying procedural grounds. We already list Wireless  5 too, and while I normally like overlap in Lv5, we need to get back down to quota. Will change to Support if someone finds 2 or more weak Computing or smartphone-related articles to cut. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discuss

Add Mitochondrial Eve

[edit]

A significant concept for genetics and the history of modern humans.

Support
  1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 10:54, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Going to nominate Y-chromosomal Adam as well. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 04:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sure, could go under Biology -> Human Evolution. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discuss

Swap Vine (service) with Fandom (website)

[edit]

Whilst Vine was important it was only a thing for less than five years. Fandom was founded over 20 years ago and is only becoming more popular (see List of most-visited websites). Wikipedia is at Level 4, so it makes sense to have this at level 5.

Support
  1. As nom. Sahaib (talk) 12:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose adding, support removal but that's already moving along up above. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discuss

Add Terrace (building)

[edit]

As vital as Balcony  5, Porch  5 and Patio  5, IMO.

Support
  1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose here, but Support if moved to Architecture. I had to think about it more, and while there is engineering behind this, the article doesn't mention it and focuses on architectural aspects. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion

Add Analysis

[edit]

This is a very high level topic that I'm surprised isn't already included. I think this should be higher then level 5 but starting here. The article itself is pretty self explanatory, but from the lede "Analysis (pl.: analyses) is the process of breaking a complex topic or substance into smaller parts in order to gain a better understanding of it. The technique has been applied in the study of mathematics and logic since before Aristotle (384–322 B.C.), though analysis as a formal concept is a relatively recent development."

Support
  1. As nom GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. We didn't already include this? Oof. Strong support, can go under Science -> Basics. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discuss

GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Add Informatics

[edit]

This topic is a bit of a more novel discipline, but I think it should be included. In my experience it is a more commonly used term in Europe, and in the United States generally refers to things like Bioinformatics, which studies computer use in healthcare. Essentially, to quote the lede, it is the study of computational systems, and can be sometimes used as a synonym for Computer Science. There is a large organization dedicated to it called Informatics Europe, and several sub-disciplines like geoinformatics (how I am familiar with it). I think that it should be included at least at level 5, but would nominate it for level 4 if it passes. According to this link, there are several informatics programs at American universities, and the department of computer science at Oxford lists it among their research activities here. Google Scholar returns several highly cited results when you search for "Informatics," as you can see here. While not as widespread in the US, I believe a discipline with many subdisciplines, used at multiple academic departments, with a large body of literature should be included.

Support
  1. As nom.GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔)
  2. Definitely, though not sure exactly the best place for it. Would make sense in either Science -> Basics or Math -> Theoretical comp sci. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discuss

GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Add Y-chromosomal Adam

[edit]

Similar to Mitochondrial Eve which is nominated above, Y-chromosomal Adam is a significant concept in human genetic history and genomic research. Essentially, this is the most recent Male ancestor of every living human we can detect with current technology, as Mitochondrial Eve is the most recent Female ancestor of every living human.

Support
  1. As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 04:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 13:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sure, could go under Biology -> Human Evolution. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discuss

GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 04:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Uninhabited island  5

[edit]

I think this one speaks for itself. Island  3 is vital, obviously. I struggle to think why the concept of an island that is not inhabited by humans is vital though.

Support
  1. As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 22:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Weak oppose, I'm actually going to tap the brakes on this one. The article in its current form is definitely weak, but I could see this being vital for ecological reasons.
Neutral
Discuss

GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 22:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Add V-2 rocket

[edit]

This NAZI weapon was the first artificial object to travel into space by crossing the Kármán line (edge of space) with the vertical launch of MW 18014 on 20 June 1944. After WWII, the U.S.A. brought several NAZI scientists involved in the project to the U.S. through Operation Paperclip. The Soviet Union captured the manufacturing facilities for the rockets and brought them to the USSR. This weapon helped serve as the foundation for space programs in the United States, USSR, France, the United Kingdom, and China.

Support
  1. As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 23:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. per nom Aurangzebra (talk) 02:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Weak support, would be stronger if we weren't over quota. I get the feeling we'll need to revisit specific military plaforms at some point, but this one is pretty notable. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Definitely. As you know, I recently proposed cutting several military aircraft and other weapons, as well as proposing some others. I think the cuts were not as successful as the additions I proposed, which is a shame. Don't know how to approach cutting it back without repeating failed proposals. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 05:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discuss

GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 23:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Add Input/output

[edit]

Essential communication component in computing. Input device  5 and Output device  5 were listed not too long ago (albeit, I proposed them if that may be important noting) so I feel that it makes sense to add this as well. B3251(talk) 20:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. as nom. B3251(talk) 20:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Weak oppose, purely on annoying procedural grounds. I'll switch to strong support if someone proposes 2 or more weak Computing (or Consumer electronics) articles to cut. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discuss

Add some statistical/geographical problems

[edit]

Adding some commonly referenced problems in statistics/spatial statics.

Modifiable Areal Unit Problem

[edit]

The example of the MAUP most people are aware of (at least in the USA) is Jerrymandering. When creating aerial units, there isn't a "best" or "correct" way to subdivide a population. Therefore, the way we aggregate the data impacts the final results.

Support
  1. As nom GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 23:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sure, should probably go in Math -> Statistics. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discuss

Modifiable temporal unit problem

[edit]

Like the MAUP, the MTUP is a problem when working on temporal datasets. Depending on how you choose to aggregate your data (Days, Weeks, Minutes, etc.) you can skew your results. Sampling interval, study period start/end times, and unit of time used all impact this. Full disclosure this is one I originated.

Support
  1. As nom GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 23:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sure, should probably go in Math -> Statistics. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discuss

Ecological fallacy

[edit]

This is a formal fallacy caused when making inferences about individuals in a group based on the groups aggregate data. The class average is a C, that does not mean I can assume a particular student has a C in the class.

Support
  1. As nom GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 23:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sure, should probably go in Math -> Statistics. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discuss

Optimal facility location

[edit]

Concerned with the optimal placement of facilities to minimize transportation costs while considering factors like avoiding placing hazardous materials near housing, and competitors' facilities.

Support
  1. As nom GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 23:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Absolutely, can go near Applied Math -> Operations Research. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discuss

GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 23:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remove List of knots  5

[edit]

Is probably another list that shouldn't be vital.Makkool (talk) 10:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYK Knot  4-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 10:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak support, I could actually see knots being one of our exceptions to lists at VA. However, more than listing knots, I think what we really want is something that gives more depth to the topic (like a "principles of knot tying" article?) I'm not sure such an article exists though, and we can cut this in the meantime. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support per above. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 05:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support, roughly agree with above, perhaps knots could be covered in more detail, but not lists, they will tangle the project up.  Carlwev  23:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discuss

Add some professions and disciplines

[edit]

Add Geographer

[edit]

Geography  2 is a level 2 vital article, and we have several geographers listed at level 4. I think the profession for people who practice the discipline is vital based on the criteria. The term covers a broad scope, is essential to other pages, and is internationally practiced.

Support
  1. As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 00:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sure, the other scientific specialists are a clear precedent. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Netural
Discuss

Add Geologist

[edit]

Like above, Geology  2 is a level 2 vital article. We have geologists listed at level 4. I think the profession is vital. The term covers a broad scope, is essential to other pages, and is internationally practiced.

Support
  1. As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 00:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sure, the other scientific specialists are a clear precedent. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Netural
Discuss

Add Cartographer

[edit]

Cartography  4 is a level 4 vital article, and we list several cartographers. I think the profession of map maker is vital. The term covers a broad scope, is essential to other pages, and is internationally practiced.

Support
  1. As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 00:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sure, the other scientific specialists are a clear precedent. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Netural
Discuss

Add Photogrammetry

[edit]

This is a rather important field related to Remote sensing  4 and I think it is vital. The term covers a broad scope, is essential to other pages, and is internationally practiced.

Support
  1. As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 00:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sure, the other scientific techniques are a clear precedent. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Netural
Discuss

GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 00:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Add Pubic hair

[edit]

Was cut between this and body hair, although this is longer, in more languages (68) and rated slightly higher in the same wikiprojects. (I am suggesting to remove Bowl cut on a different page, kind of a swap I guess). We list several articles to do with hair, this seems more vital than many of them, almost universal across the world and across time, both/all genders. Would have to be in biology though, due to it being a natural thing rather than created. Seems much more vital than articles under hairstyle in everyday life like bowl cut, goatee, quiff, and flattop for an encyclopaedia, some of which we could remove.

Support
  1. As nom.  Carlwev  09:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Surprisingly high number of interwikis.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Would support body hair too.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:30, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Makkool (talk) 21:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Swap 120-cell  5 with Möbius strip

[edit]

The first is a theoretical 4-dimensional geometric shape, the latter is a more well-known topic in topology and geometry. They are rated Low-priority and High-priority respectively in Wikiproject Mathematics.

Support
  1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 20:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 21:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support  Carlwev  23:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ZergTwo (talk) 22:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Mixed
  1. Strong support addition, oppose removal. We should definitely list Möbius strip (and also Klein bottle), but see below for more details on the 120-cell  5. The wikiproject priorities can also be really wonky (last I checked in Math, a lot of High-priority ones were very esoteric while some very elementary concepts were Mid or lower). -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per above, support addition oppose removal. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 02:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

Just to add some context: the 120-cell  5 isn't listed arbitrarily, but it and the other shapes (like the Tesseract  5) are each analogous to a 3-dimensional Platonic solid  5. So if you cut it, you're then listing all but one of the most regular, 4-dimensional, "edged" shapes. It would be more consistent if we wanted to cut back the entire 4-dimensional subtopic, but we still have the cushion in Math for now, plus I feel there are better subtopics to target for trimming. I can suggest a bunch too, but with the STEM page creeping back towards 200 kB, I've been holding back on new proposals. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I realized this, but it wouldn't be "all but one." 600-cell has been already previously removed. They both assessed Low-importance, so the justification for 120 and 600-cells would be the same. I checked that Tesseract is High-importance, so that we should surely keep that. Not need to removed all of them from the list. Makkool (talk) 19:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, if everyone wants to sort of half fill-out that class of objects, I won't complain. There aren't many though and that subtopic is very tiny (and almost definitely under-represented), I'd personally still lean more towards putting them all in. We do technically still have room and can probably find more without requiring swaps. I'm probably letting my mathematician-side bias me though (complete classifications are always nice).
For the WikiProject ratings, while they're definitely good for thinking up proposals, I'm still really skeptical about citing them as evidence. In this case specifically, I'd consider it a possible inconsistency that the tesseract is High-priority while some of the other regular 4-polytopes are Low instead of Mid at least. More generally, the priorities can be very arbitrary: esoteric things like C*-algebra and de Rham cohomology are listed as High, while relatively elementary concepts are rated lower, such as Sylow theorems (Mid) or Extended Euclidean algorithm (Low). Zar2gar1 (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Makkool: So I've thought about this and looked over the geometry section some more, and I still want to leave my vote here as is. But if we want to revisit this in a clean proposal, once the talk page has settled down some, I would be fine cutting most of the specific 4-polytopes in exchange for adding at least Regular polytope. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remove some articles from Infrastructure

[edit]

Went through the list we have for Infrastructure  3 and of the 239 articles we have in that section, these jumped out as ones we might be able to remove.

Remediation of contaminated sites with cement  5

[edit]

We list 5 broad types of environmental remediation in addition to Environmental remediation  5. I think we can trim this.

Support
  1. As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 23:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support  Carlwev  23:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Weak oppose for now, I'll have to push back on this one at least. The title is convoluted and the current page isn't great, but IIUC this is pretty much a default method for treating many brownfield sites. I'm also struggling to believe waste management and remediation are where we're over-represented right now. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To address all the comments, Environmental remediation  5 is only level 5 but has 9 articles in the section, all at level 5. This made me think the section was either over represented, or some needed to be bumped to level 4. Looking at Environmental remediation, there are a few pages like Thermal desorption that could also be added based on the existing articles, but I don't really think it should be. I looked at page views for all 9 over roughly 10 years (plus Thermal desorption for comparison). I proposed cutting the lowest viewed of the 9, Remediation of contaminated sites with cement (17,661 views), and In situ chemical oxidation (66,978 views). Bioremediation  5 has 3 sub articles, all also at level 5, so I proposed cutting all three as I believe bioremediation covered the topic fairly well. I don't feel strongly about any, just trying to make room. If these fail, I'll likely nominate Environmental remediation to level 4 (we might want to do that anyway). GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 05:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discuss

In situ chemical oxidation  5

[edit]

We list 5 broad types of environmental remediation in addition to Environmental remediation  5. I think we can trim this.

Support
  1. As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 23:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak support, no section should be immune from quota discipline. IIUC this is a relatively newer and rarer technique so we can cut it for now; we can always re-evaluate later and add it back if we need it. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 20:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose

Weak oppose for now, the title is convoluted and the current page isn't great, but I'm struggling to believe waste management and remediation are where we're over-represented right now. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neural
Discuss

Bioaugmentation  5

[edit]

I believe Bioremediation  5 is adequate, and we don't need to list out three articles for sub-methods.

Support
  1. As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 23:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Weak oppose, I see your point that maybe these turn out to be niche in the long-run, but I'm struggling to believe waste management and remediation are where we're over-represented right now. As an argument for keeping them, the 3 sub-methods add depth in complementary ways, this one through bacterial cultures (and a pretty active research area IIUC). -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neural
Discuss

Phytoremediation  5

[edit]

I believe Bioremediation  5 is adequate, and we don't need to list out three articles for sub-methods.

Support
  1. As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 23:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose, I see your point that maybe these turn out to be niche in the long-run, but I'm struggling to believe waste management and remediation are where we're over-represented right now. As an argument for keeping them, the 3 sub-methods add depth in complementary ways, this one through plants (and a pretty active research area IIUC). -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discuss

Biostimulation  5

[edit]

I believe Bioremediation  5 is adequate, and we don't need to list out three articles for sub-methods.

Support
  1. As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 23:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support  Carlwev  23:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Weak support, no section should be immune from quota discipline. IIUC this is a relatively simple technique that only gets used in ideal conditions. It's also less actively researched than the other two forms of bioremediation. So let's cut it for now; we can always re-evaluate later and add it back if need be. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 20:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose

Weak oppose for now, I see your point that maybe these turn out to be niche in the long-run, but I'm struggling to believe waste management and remediation are where we're over-represented right now. As an argument for keeping them, the 3 sub-methods add depth in complementary ways (this one through fertilizer-like means). -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral
Discuss

Flying buttress  5

[edit]

We list Buttress  5, I don't think this specific type is necessary.

Support
  1. As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 23:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Strong oppose of removal, but support moving to Architecture. Some would say this is the characteristic innovation of Gothic architecture. Tech may not be the best place for it (though it is fundamentally an engineering solution), but I don't see how we can omit this at Lv5. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I could support moving it. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 05:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discuss

New Austrian tunneling method  5

[edit]

We list Tunnel  4 and Tunnel construction  5, I don't think this method is necessary.

Support
  1. As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 23:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Weak oppose, I see your point that maybe these turn out to be niche in the long-run, but I'm struggling to see how construction techniques are over-represented right now. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discuss

GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 23:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

General discussion

[edit]

@GeogSage: Hi there, I saw your comment above about the pageview statistics, but I thought I would reply here to minimize any clutter, and also as more of a notice for everyone to participate. I'm not surprised at all that pageviews are low for all of these topics, and they're definitely starting to get into details we may ultimately decide are too niche for Lv5. As these progress, I might even concede and switch to cutting 1 or 2, probably Biostimulation  5 first.

I'm mostly opposed to cutting any of these for now though because I think it's part of a trend we really need to move away from:

  • Unpopular topics are shaved to squeeze a few more slots, without any consideration for their economic impact or the part they play in wider systems or technical solutions.
  • At the same time, we only keep adding to categories that are consumer-facing and receive media attention

At 9 articles right now, environmental remediation topics only take up ~0.28% of our entire 3,200 article allotment. I'm not suggesting this as a mechanical rule, but compare that to the topic's % GDP share as an industry in any technologically complex economy. From that PoV, I imagine we're an entire order lower in representation. Meanwhile, Computing & IT takes up a whopping ~19.56% of our allotment.

And for all of that leeway, the Computing section is frankly a hot mess. Just on its own terms, we're still missing basic, applied software concepts like Unit testing, Continuous integration, Software design pattern, and Database transaction (or ACID). But we do list Pornhub  5, WinRAR  5, over 30 social media apps, and at least 20 or so specific file extensions.

I can't and don't want to stop people from proposing what they're interested in. But when we still don't even list things like Forest management, Joinery, or Waste collection, not to mention engineering concepts, I feel like I have to hold the line on cutting topics like this. And yes, I should be more proactive about making proposals myself, but I keep hoping the page will shrink to a more manageable size first. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair, I try to balance additions I propose with removal proposals, even if it isn't a one to one swap. Also, while going through the lists and skimming stuff from a more top down POV to see what we have, I'm drawn more to areas I have knowledge about and avoid others that take more research on my part. These in this one might be over zealous. I haven't taken a class that touches on remediation for a decade, so I'm probably really rusty. I'm trying to work out a smooth way to get a solid series of proposals for geography, and this stuff I notice along the way. I'm trying to get around 80% of what I think needs to be on the list to at least level 5 while moving a few things to around at the higher levels where possible. I'm struggling with the projects organization when it comes to tech/history/geography and things like spatial statistics and math. Not sure where the various topics should be in the project. For example, I proposed the V-2 Rocket here, but I think it could just as easily be in history.
The Computer software is a hot mess. I've tried to chip off sections, but it is hard to sort. I think we could start proposing swaps for it, rather then outright removals or additions. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, you're good. And like I said, you're definitely not wrong that these are less popular and probably more niche. Partly in the spirit of compromise, and partly in line with my "war of maneuver" view of VA5, I decided to switch my vote on ISCO and Biostimulation. If it turns out we need them and more, we can always add them back later.
But yeah, I don't know exactly why, but balance definitely seems to be ignored especially in the Tech section. My theory is simply that we don't get many engineers or technical specialists coming through (power engineering is a weird exception) so most proposals relate to consumer-facing and/or in-the-news topics. I've actually never studied remediation so if anyone has better topics in mind, I'd be all for adding them; I guess I've just hung around enough people in adjacent fields to be aware of it.
As for the Software section, it is definitely a big ball of mud. I think if we get a little more space here, I can figure out a way to prioritize some cuts. Even before that though, once things settle down on the Lv5 talk page, I may have a clean way to trim the most egregious stuff pretty quickly. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 20:12, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Add several statistics pages

[edit]

Kriging

[edit]

Kriging is a family of Interpolation  5 statistics. It is likely the most widely employed.

Support
  1. As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sure, we can worry about the related articles like Gaussian process later. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discuss

Getis–Ord statistics

[edit]

A family of spatial statistics used to measure local and global autocorrelation. The result of these statistics is a "Hot spot map." If you've ever heard of a hotspot map, this is how they're calculated. If you haven't, I've attached a hotspot map I made to this proposal.

HotSpot map of the estimated percent of people 25 or over without a high school diploma by county in the contiguous United States in 2020
Support
  1. As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sure, has clear applications and we can worry about balance later. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discuss

Moran's I

[edit]

In statistics, Moran's I is a measure of spatial autocorrelation. It is one of the most common statistics employed in spatial analysis.

Support
  1. As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sure, has clear applications and we can worry about balance later. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discuss

Scan statistic

[edit]

Scan statistics use regular shapes (usually circles) of varying sizes to evaluate a study area. They are used in epidemiology to identify clusters of disease outbreak, among other uses.

Support
  1. As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong support, really good find, can also apply to things like Time series  5 and scanning text, genomes, etc. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discuss

Bernoulli distribution

[edit]

Important in probability and statistics. From the page, "a model for the set of possible outcomes of any single experiment that asks a yes–no question."

Support
  1. As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong support, really good find, definitely belongs here as an elementary statistical distribution. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discuss

GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remove several civilian aircraft

[edit]

We list a lot of specific types of planes, both military and civilian. They are disproportionately represented compared to other vehicles, so I think they can be trimmed. If a company had more then 2 aircraft, I nominated the ones I thought were the least vital.

Remove Airbus A320 family  5

[edit]

Airbus A300  5 and Airbus A380  5 are adequate. This is also more or less a list article, which we seem to be trying to avoid.

Support
  1. As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 04:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss
Neutral

Remove Airbus A330  5

[edit]

Airbus A300  5 and Airbus A380  5 are adequate.

Support
  1. As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 04:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss
Neutral

Remove Airbus A350  5

[edit]

Airbus A300  5 and Airbus A380  5 are adequate.

Support
  1. As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 04:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss
Neutral

Remove Boeing 737  5

[edit]

Boeing 707  5, Boeings first jetliner, and Boeing 747  5 are adequate.

Support
  1. As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 04:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss
Neutral

Remove Boeing 767  5

[edit]

Boeing 707  5, Boeings first jetliner, and Boeing 747  5 are adequate.

Support
  1. As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 04:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss
Neutral

Remove Boeing 777  5

[edit]

Boeing 707  5, Boeings first jetliner, and Boeing 747  5 are adequate.

Support
  1. As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 04:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss
Neutral

Remove Boeing 787 Dreamliner  5

[edit]

Boeing 707  5, Boeings first jetliner, and Boeing 747  5 are adequate.

Support
  1. As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 04:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss
Neutral

Remove Douglas DC-6  5

[edit]

Douglas DC-3  5 is adequate.

Support
  1. As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 04:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss
Neutral

Remove Douglas DC-8  5

[edit]

Douglas DC-3  5 is adequate.

Support
  1. As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 04:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss
Neutral

Remove McDonnell Douglas DC-9  5

[edit]

Douglas DC-3  5 is adequate.

Support
  1. As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 04:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss
Neutral

Remove McDonnell Douglas DC-10  5

[edit]

Douglas DC-3  5 is adequate.

Support
  1. As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 04:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss
Neutral

GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 04:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remove List of environmental issues

[edit]

Covered by Environmental issues.

Support
  1. Interstellarity (talk) 01:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yes. We should likely make an extended list of vital article criteria that discourages most lists while leaving room for some exceptions. The unofficial rule seems to be that we don't want lists articles included, that should be more or less formalized with an example of exceptions. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 02:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support, with an article for the same concept, definitely not the kind of list we need to make an exception for. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Makkool (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trim some niche Math Foundations topics

[edit]

So I'd prefer to free up the talk page a bit more, but since math proposals have been more active, let me suggest some cuts. These ones are all from the Foundations of Math section, and I'm pretty sure I added all of these during the BOLD era at VA. After seeing more of where the other sections are at, I think we can definitely drop these as too niche or esoteric:

Remove Axiom schema

[edit]

While actually not a complex concept, this is getting into some trickier subtleties in mathematical logic. For now, more elementary logic & set theory takes up enough space.

Support
  1. As nom. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Makkool (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral

Remove Arithmetical hierarchy and Analytical hierarchy

[edit]

These both open up pretty notable correspondences to other concepts, including in theoretical computer science. But they're also extremely dense topics; I did study them some once but honestly can't even explain them well.

Support
  1. As nom. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Makkool (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral

Remove Pointed set

[edit]

Most of our set theory articles are genuinely pretty fundamental, but while this one has interesting aspects, I think it's largely an encoding trick. Probably not that vital in the grand scheme of things.

Support
  1. As nom. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Makkool (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral

Remove Comma category

[edit]

This is probably the least intuitive and most advanced of the items listed directly under Category (mathematics). Let's trim it, at least for now.

Support
  1. As nom. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Makkool (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral

Remove Kan extension, Pullback (category theory), and Pushout (category theory)

[edit]

All three of this under the Limit (category theory) heading are getting more advanced. We probably don't have the room or want this much depth at VA5.

Support
  1. As nom. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Makkool (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral

Remove Monad (category theory)

[edit]

In one sense, they're maybe not that complicated and have practical applications, but these are getting into the even more esoteric reaches of category theory. We probably don't have the room or want this much depth at VA5.

Support
  1. As nom. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Makkool (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral

Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Add 5-Hydroxytryptophan

[edit]

This is a common supplement available at American grocery stores, often sold as Oxitriptan. The 5-Hydroxytryptophan page has an average of 792 pageviews per day over the past 10 years. In the views, you can see there has been some fluctuations in view counts, but there has been a recent spike over the past year or so. There are some pretty serious side effects if the supplement is misused, so I believe it would be important to include on the list to increase attention on it.

Support
  1. As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 20:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discuss

GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 20:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/STEM&oldid=1271153458"