Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/STEM

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Vital articles/Level/5/STEM redirect.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Shortcut

WT:V5ST

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5: 12 months

General Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

Level 5 Subpages

People History and geography Society STEM

Introduction

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
P = passes F = fails		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

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.
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.
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: 13:08, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
7 days ago is: 13:08, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Streamlined closing with User:DaxServer/DiscussionCloser.js
One click archiving with User:Elli/OneClickArchiver
- Consider User:andrybak/Archiver if you prefer archiving several discussions in one go

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

Add Tilikum (orca)

Tilikum, a captive orca linked to three human deaths, symbolizes debates on animal captivity ethics and fostered awareness about animal welfare. The Blue Rider 01:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support

As nominator. The Blue Rider 01:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SailorGardevoir (talk) 10:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interstellarity (talk) 12:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would also support adding animal ethics and animal rights, alongside having an example of an animal affected by these concepts. λ NegativeMP1 17:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Feels too recent events to consider vital. Makkool (talk) 20:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Carlwev 05:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss

I'm not sure of this one. We do list animal welfare at level 4 in fact. The suggestion here is that this animal would "symbolize" or "represent" animal ethics. But we do not yet list animal ethics, and we also do not list animal rights either, which could be a much more obvious addition. This whale is definitely notable but I'm not sure if it's notable enough for the vital articles or not. Carlwev 13:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm neutral: we have room and Tilikum is noteworthy, but also recent. But even if it's currently passing, let's keep the discussion open since it's within a 1-vote margin. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 14:25, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add OpenOffice.org

The ancestor of LibreOffice 5 and Apache OpenOffice. Interstellarity (talk) 10:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Interstellarity (talk) 10:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

It was one of the most popular pieces of open-source software in its heyday, but it still had a significantly lower market share than MS Office even at its peak. It did not last a particularly long time, with less than ten years between its first and final releases. feminist🩸 (talk) 07:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, purely on my no-name-brands-in-tech principle. I personally think word processor program would be sufficient, even for MS Word. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Discussion

Apache OpenOffice is not vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@QuicoleJR: I know it's not. That's why I proposed its predecessor which is the ancestor to LibreOffice and OpenOffice. Interstellarity (talk) 11:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add New York City Transit Authority and/or Metropolitan Transportation Authority

We list NYC subway at L4, but we don't have coverage for the bus system that goes there. I suggest adding these so that the buses and other forms of transit are covered here. Interstellarity (talk) 21:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Interstellarity (talk) 21:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose here, but would support on a different list. See discussion below for more detail. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Discussion

@Interstellarity: You raise a good point about transit authorities; in big cities like NYC (and NYC is relatively small by global standards), they have to juggle lots of logistical and political demands. After looking at the list though, we don't list transit authorities at Tech, just specific built networks. As an urban organization more than a technology, maybe they could go under Pol & Econ or even Geography -> Cities? -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add Microform

Found a lot in libraries. Interstellarity (talk) 23:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Interstellarity (talk) 23:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

I continue to assert WP has many redlinks and redirects that could be vital articles. Microfilm and microfiche should not be redirecting to this subject and either or both could be VA5. This term is uncommon and made important by virtue of its vital subjects that redirect to it.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD)
I think I'm neutral overall, but I'd imagine we could substitute either of those for this list if you'd prefer. It would just be on somebody to propose changing the main page and doing the move. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Discussion

Add Gustave (crocodile), the Tsavo Man-Eaters, and the Beast of Gévaudan

We can probably have some man-eaters on the individual animals section. These animals are held to at least killed 100 people. (There's also the Leopard of Rudraprayag, but we already have the hunter who killed him.)

Support

SailorGardevoir (talk) 04:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tsavo man-eaters and the beast of Gevaudan. Oppose Gustave, as it seems to be too recent and we can't see if it's a long-standing topic that has vitality in the future. Makkool (talk) 11:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

I just can't convince myself that these are vital in the same way that so many Vital Articles are. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 11:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss

We literally have fourteen individual animals. Not sure if these are the next ones to add. Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 02:54, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The animal page is still under quota. SailorGardevoir (talk) 04:43, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add Boulevard and Avenue (landscape)

Important streets we have missed. Interstellarity (talk) 00:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Interstellarity (talk) 00:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure why not. Supporting both. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 02:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're a little heavy on transportation infrastructure, but let's go ahead & put these here for now, per my "some overlap is good at Lv5" principle. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Add Ridesharing company

We list taxis, but not ridesharing. Interstellarity (talk) 00:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Oppose

Oppose here, but neutral if you'd move it to Economics and Business. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Discussion

Add Intercity bus service

We list Public transport bus service and this should be listed as well. Interstellarity (talk) 19:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Interstellarity (talk) 19:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For now, per my "some overlap is good at Lv5" principle. Haven't skimmed the article, but definitely seems like a candidate for an eventual merge. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Add Intercity rail

An important type of rail not listed. Interstellarity (talk) 19:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Interstellarity (talk) 19:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
—Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:16, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For now, per my "some overlap is good at Lv5" principle. Haven't skimmed the article, but possibly a future merge candidate? -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Add Pan-American Highway

The highway network from North to South America, with a small gap in Central America. According to the Guinness World Records, "the world's most longest motorable road".

Support

As nom. Makkool (talk) 23:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interstellarity (talk) 12:22, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually convinced by Tabu's point below that we list Roman roads as precedent. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Add Riemannian manifold

This is one of the fundamental objects of modern geometry. Another reason to add it is for consistency with other math vital ratings. There are many pairs of articles about a branch of math and its object of study, such as Riemannian geometry and Riemannian manifold, Group theory and Group (mathematics), Graph theory and Graph (discrete mathematics), and Ring theory and Ring (mathematics). Of these, Riemannian manifold is uniquely discordant with the rating of its companion, which is Level 4 vital. In fact, it is the only article I have listed that is not Level 4 vital. For full disclosure, I have a lot of edits on Riemannian manifold. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 18:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This page has 1,002 wikilinks by the way. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 18:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Mathwriter2718 (talk) 03:16, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interstellarity (talk) 12:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, glad to start seeing the math proposals. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose
Discuss

Add topics related to human evolution: Hominidae, Homininae, and Interbreeding between archaic and modern humans

Hominidae and Homininae are terms in the phylogenetic tree containing great apes and humans. Most other terms in the tree surrounding these are Level 4 or Level 5. Interbreeding between archaic and modern humans is a much-studied topic. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 11:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support

As nom Mathwriter2718 (talk) 11:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interstellarity (talk) 12:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, let's definitely add this. Interesting topic, attracts lots of research, and centers several other articles. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose
Discuss

Add Ford Mustang

I'm not super confident about this one succeeding, since it's not one of the best-selling cars of all time, and we already have a Ford car listed (Ford Model T 5), but it's arguably the most iconic and best selling sports car of all time, and is also a iconic brand, especially in the United States. Not to mention, it gets more views on average than both the Volkswagen Beetle 5 and the Toyota Corolla 5 [1] (sidenote: the Corolla is not yet a VA at the time of writing, but it will be soon).

Support

As nominator. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 02:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interstellarity (talk) 12:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Maybe I'm just biased by not being a muscle-car person (Zar2gar1 says, "A happy machine is a quiet machine"), but I think this is too specific. I'm ambivalent on listing specific car models in general though, even record-setting ones. I'm less opposed to the classes and design families of cars and trucks (like muscle car, which we do list) -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral
Discuss

Add Dwelling, Mobile home, and Caravan (trailer)

All different kinds of homes. Location: Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Technology#Residential_buildings_and_housing_units

Support

Interstellarity (talk) 21:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support the latter 2, per my "some overlap is good at Lv5" principle, and (except for transportation infrastructure) I think we're still relatively light on "built environment" articles. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Hasn't someone suggested Shelter (building)? Big Blue Cray(fish) Twins (talk) 15:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose adding Dwelling here. Skimming the article, it's actually about housing from a legal / real estate perspective. So I'd support adding it under the Law section of the Society lists. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Discussion

Add Atlantic hurricane

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

Interstellarity (talk) 19:52, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have the room and we've now added Typhoon. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Add Shelter (building)

Maybe Residential buildings and housing units in Technology. It's clearly a need for all organisms. Interstellarity (talk) 00:42, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Interstellarity (talk) 00:42, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
per nom. starship .paint (RUN) 12:05, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Basic concept. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 18:31, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, especially since it's a stub (so incubate it here on Lv5). Could also eventually be split to distinguish human shelters from general sheltering used by animals. A recent proposal noted that we don't even list things like Nest or Beehive for biology yet. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Remove Burn center 5

Stub with 3 interwikis. starship .paint (RUN) 14:02, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support

as nom. starship .paint (RUN) 14:02, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does not seem like a very common or important type of medical facility. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interstellarity (talk) 12:29, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~We have the room.~~ -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oops, missed that this was a removal. Stub-class & low interwikis can suggest an article isn't vital, but they could also mean Wikipedia has just overlooked it until now. We have the room and I imagine burn hospitals have a lot of unique factors the article could expand on: protocols, equipment, training, history, etc. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss

Add Nuptial tubercles

It attempts to explain the horn/spike/sandpaper-y growths, mostly on the heads of male fish in the breeding season. I consider it a vital part of fish anatomy, and I was surprised this article didn't exist! So, I created it by machine-translation from its Spanish counterpart and expected it to be picked up by experts who would run with it. This didn't happen. I have no formal scientific or academic education beyond mandatory schooling, and I am out of my depth. So, I hope that others consider it to be as vital as I do, and propel the article content to where it needs to be! Big Blue Cray(fish) Twins (talk) 13:51, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support

As nominator. Big Blue Cray(fish) Twins (talk) 13:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interstellarity (talk) 12:30, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Cool topic! I'd never heard of it before. From List of fish families, I gather there are some 525. This is only a feature in 15 families, which makes this feel rather niche. I don't think listing it here will attract experts; a note on a Wikiproject may do so. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

I'm honestly neutral on this one; it's interesting and we still have room, but it's also very specific. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add Rust (programming language)

FAILED

Not added 3-2. Makkool (talk) 19:02, 29 November 2024 (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.

Under Scripting languages. Among the more popular programming languages in recent "scripting history", with 48 interwikis. One could argue that this is a similarly/more widely recognized language than a couple currently listed as VA by programmers. B3251_(talk) 06:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support

As nom. B3251_(talk) 22:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interstellarity (talk) 12:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Iostn (talk) 21:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Arguably those other languages shouldn’t be there either. Not a fan of adding this language since it doesn’t have history of being used for large amounts of time in serious software. Maybe in the future but not now. -1ctinus📝🗨 03:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with 1ctinus; I personally think a lot needs to be cut from Computers and Software in Tech, not just the programming languages. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2024 (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 Mobile home and Group home

Maybe in Residential buildings and housing units, these types of homes are common in society. Interstellarity (talk) 20:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Interstellarity (talk) 20:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
per nom. starship .paint (RUN) 13:21, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support both; also note that Mobile home is proposed above too, but whether it's added here or there is fine. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Add Microcomputer

PASSED

Added 4–0. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 14:25, 26 November 2024 (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.

A class of computers that includes Home computers.

Support

Interstellarity (talk) 12:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makkool (talk) 06:12, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Covers the Commodore 64 5, Raspberry Pi 5, ZX Spectrum 5 and Apple II 5, among others Iostn (talk) 21:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:10, 8 November 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 Portable computer

A class of computers that includes Laptop 5s.

Support

Oppose

I'm not that much of a fan of having very abstract articles in our vital list, when there is a highly similar concrete article with higher pageviews. Laptop is VIT5, which is enough for me. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:56, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, my "some overlap is good at Lv5" principle is no match for the fact that Computers are massively over-represented. At another time, say if the Computers section could be cut down to ~400 articles, I would support. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Discussion

Add Cell polarity

Vital concept for determining cellular identity, organelle arrangement, migration direction, etc etc

Support

GraziePrego (talk) 01:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
per nom -1ctinus📝🗨 02:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Add Cell migration

Vital concept that determines how a cell works as part of a multicellular organism. All immune cells are constantly doing this, cells do it during early organism development, it's vital for everything a cell does.

Support

GraziePrego (talk) 02:01, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Add Inca road system

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

As nominator Tabu Makiadi (talk) 18:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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]

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Add Phone connector (audio)

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

Add into somewhere in the sub-categories of Computer port (hardware) 5? 49p (talk) 20:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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]

Oppose

Discuss

Remove Engineering optimization 5 and Engineering studies 5

Minor concepts in Engineering. The latter is actually a humanities field that's part of Science and technology studies, and we don't list it

Support

As nominator. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 17:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per nom. Makkool (talk) 17:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe STS is a vital topic however. Our article describes it as interdisciplinary, so it could fit under Technology still. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:53, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These two articles do not seem vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:08, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discuss

Mainly bumping to keep this open for a bit... but honestly, both of these can probably just be merged boldly: the 1st to Design optimization and the 2nd to Science and technology studies. I could maybe even do it myself over Thanksgiving holiday. Following that though, I agree with Femke that STS is vital, and we should definitely list some kind of optimization article related to Engineering. I don't think most people realize how much of a working engineer's time is spent on iteratively tweaking really mundane things. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add Data center

Important infrastructure in today's world.

Support

As nominator. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 01:39, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
for sure Aurangzebra (talk) 23:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
—Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Weak oppose without some removals. This is definitely a vital topic, and I hate to play the annoying proceduralist, but we have to start disciplining the Computers section. That said, if someone proposes 2 or more Computer removals with a decent chance of passing, I'll cross this out and change to Support. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss

Add Infant mortality and Birth defect

PASSED

Infant mortality added 4–0, birth defect was already listed. To society page instead of health. Makkool (talk) 18:53, 29 November 2024 (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.

Noted in a discussion above the pages for Infant mortality and Birth defect are not listed. I am posting to correct this as I believe they are a pretty serious omission.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:23, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support

as nom.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support infant mortality per nom, there is already an active proposal for birth defect which obtained consensus to add two months ago but has not been added yet. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I closed that proposal. Birth defect is now listed. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Add 'em both. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, absolutely key topic. Might be a level 4 one. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose
Discuss

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

Adding Common drugs and reorganizing some

The World Health Organization lists several "Essential Medicines" in their document here. Many are not included in the list. Furthermore, several common drugs are also not included. I have gone through and found several that are on their list but not on ours, as well as one that is not on their list (hydrocodone, Gabapentin, alcohols (medicine), and medicinal cannabis) but that I think is important to include.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some Drugs from the UN Essential Medicines list not included that absolutely should be:

Bupropion

PASSED

Added 4–0. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 14:25, 26 November 2024 (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

as nomGeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Important type of antidepressant. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:02, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makkool (talk) 18:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:20, 14 November 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.

Clomipramine

PASSED

Added 4–0. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 14:25, 26 November 2024 (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

as nomGeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is room. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makkool (talk) 18:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:20, 14 November 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.

Carbamazepine

Already being discussed in a different section on the talk page. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:03, 22 October 2024 (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

as nomGeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose
Comment

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.

Amitriptyline

PASSED

Added 4–0. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 14:25, 26 November 2024 (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

as nomGeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More than seven million prescriptions in the United States. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:10, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makkool (talk) 18:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:20, 14 November 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.

Fluphenazine

PASSED

Added 4–0. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 14:25, 26 November 2024 (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

as nomGeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per discussion below. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makkool (talk) 18:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose
Comment: @GeogSage: Can you please explain why this one should be listed? I can't really tell from reading the article why it is more important than other medicines we could list. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, so I went through the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines and spot checked a few medicines. I believe everything on this list should be included on Vital, and wanted to get the ball rolling. I started with medicines that were psychiatric because that seemed to be thinner. Ultimately, I would like to go through the list systematically and add all the UN essential medicines, but this is a start as it could get overwhelming otherwise. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:38, 22 October 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.

Drugs not included that I think should be:

Hydrocodone

PASSED

Added 4–0. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 14:25, 26 November 2024 (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

as nomGeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have room for this, and it can always be removed if we stop having room. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makkool (talk) 18:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:20, 14 November 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.

Gabapentin

PASSED

Added 4–0. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 14:25, 26 November 2024 (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

as nomGeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The tenth most commonly prescribed medication in the United States, with over forty million prescriptions. Definitely vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:16, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makkool (talk) 18:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:20, 14 November 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.

Clonazepam

PASSED

Added 4–0. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 14:25, 26 November 2024 (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

as nomGeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:16, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More than eleven million prescriptions in the United States. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makkool (talk) 18:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:20, 14 November 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.

Alcohols (medicine)

PASSED

Added 4–0. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 14:25, 26 November 2024 (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

as nomGeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously. Ethanol 4 is VA4. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:21, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makkool (talk) 18:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:20, 14 November 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.

Medical cannabis

PASSED

Added 4–0. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 14:25, 26 November 2024 (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

as nomGeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely vital. Cannabis 4 is VA4. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makkool (talk) 18:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:20, 14 November 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.

Furthermore, I think that some of the "recreational drugs" should be recategorized. If the drug has a recognized medicinal use, then it should not be there. Failing to do so adds unnecessary stigma to people who are taking the medicine for a medical reason. These include:

Move Methamphetamine out of "Recreational"

Methamphetamine has legitimate medical uses, even in the United States under the name brand "Desoxyn." This should not be controversial, as while this prescription medicine is widely abused, many people can it at a pharmacy.

Support

as nomGeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makkool (talk) 18:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose
Comment

Move Alcohol (drug) out of "Recreational"

Alcohol is used for medicinal purposes and as a component of many over the counter meds. We can leave Alcohol intoxication in its place.

Support

as nomGeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

That article does not mention any of the medical uses, instead being an article focused solely on the recreational and societal uses. Also, we are adding the article about its medical uses to the list. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per above Makkool (talk) 18:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

@QuicoleJR:, I may be misunderstanding the article, but on Alcohol (drug)#Uses it lists "Medical" and "Self-medication." This seemed like a good reason to move it from "recreational" as there are legitimate medical uses. Cough syrup has alcohol in it for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeogSage (talk • contribs) 15:44, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move Cannabis (drug) out of "Recreational"

This is much more controversial obviously, but in many states in the United States, people ARE getting prescriptions for medical cannabis.

Support

as nomGeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Weak oppose. I understand the reasoning, but we are adding Medical cannabis 5 to the list, so I don't think this is needed. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:25, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per above Makkool (talk) 18:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

We may want to make a section for drugs that were used historically, but are now replaced with something better. If such a category is created, Opium and Heroin can go into it. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add Lymphatic filariasis

Very common tropical disease, infecting millions. There is a separate article on efforts to eradicate it. 41 interwikis.

Support

As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:43, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per above GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Add Los Alamos National Laboratory

Los Alamos National Laboratory has made some very significant contributions to the 20th and 21st centuries, specifically regarding the development of nuclear weapons, but also in other areas of research.

Support

As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
per non -1ctinus📝🗨 03:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and Sandia National Laboratories should be added as well. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 04:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose
Neutral
Discuss

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances

PFAS is a well-known pollutant and carcinogen. Given its importance in Chemsitry and environmental science, I believe it should be a vital article. -1ctinus📝🗨 19:53, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support

as nom -1ctinus📝🗨 00:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good find, especially since this topic is topical. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
—Femke 🐦 (talk) 11:12, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:20, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discuss

1ctinus it is standard to support has nominator on the WP:VA project. The Blue Rider 00:51, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- oops -1ctinus📝🗨 00:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier

U.S. Aircraft carriers are a major technological and geopolitical topic. The Gerald R. Ford-class is the newest entering service, and is the centerpiece of the U.S. Navy.

Support

As nomGeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak support per nom. Possibly a joke to be made here. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her)
Relevant as the first example with electromagnetic catapult.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 03:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Adding the newest one because it is the newest one seems a bit recentist. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. We could add more of them, I think the Ford-class represents the cutting edge of technology and engineering that the worlds powers will seek to emulate though. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I guarantee that in 50 years it won't be the cutting edge of technology. Would we then swap it out for the latest new design? QuicoleJR (talk) 18:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Honestly, I think we need to put more warship classes in general when it comes to military hardware, and the section likely needs to be looked at very carefully. I'm not sure why, but I think there is a bias against ship classes, possibly due to a lack of interest among editors. There is a huge number of aircraft though, and these are disproportionately American aircraft.
  
  For example, from the United States we have the Northrop B-2 Spirit 5, McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle 5, Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II 5, Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor 5, General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon 5, and McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet 5, Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II 5, Boeing B-52 Stratofortress 5, Boeing B-29 Superfortress 5, (and theEnola Gay 5), Lockheed C-130 Hercules 5, Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird 5, North American P-51 Mustang 5, Rockwell B-1 Lancer 5. That is most of the U.S. militaries current fixed wing aircraft, and several that are no longer in use. From Europe, we have the Eurofighter Typhoon 5, Panavia Tornado 5, and Dassault Rafale 5. Europe has MANY more highly influential aircraft then that. From the Soviet Union/Russia, we have Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 5, which is abysmal as the USSR was the direct reason most of the American aircraft were even designed. With all that said, we don't have ANY specific classes of warship. The U.S. navy Arleigh Burke-class destroyer not being included is quite odd, as are the carriers, submarines, battleship classes and specific notable ships. The German battleship Bismarck, Japanese Yamato-class battleship, and Iowa-class battleship not being included is shocking. Warship classes are just as vital as specific types of aircraft, the carriers that launch the F-18 and F-35 should be at least as vital as the planes, especially given the carriers central roll in the U.S. Navy, tremendous investment, and diplomatic implications. I may make a larger post after some consideration to remove/add some planes and more broadly add some classes of ship later. Please let me know what you think, I'm just looking into this more deeply and am a bit shocked at the state of the Military technology section. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I agree that it makes sense to list some ship types, but this is an odd one to start with instead of something more historically impactful. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Fair. I had honestly assumed more ship types were already included and am just now really noticing the scope of the discrepancy. I did not think this would be the first one, I thought it was an omission from a list I expected to be as inclusive as the fighter/bomber/cargo aircraft. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per QuicoleJR Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral
Discuss

@OlifanofmrTennant What's the joke? I've been sitting and thinking for an embarassing amount of time so I thought I'd just ask. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for OlifanofmrTennant, but it could be the carrier itself, or it could be about the proposal matching some Wikipedia stereotypes. Personally, I just find it funny (more in a random than a critical way, he did serve in WWII) that the US Navy was like, "Hell yeah, let's name something after Gerald Ford!" For the record, I'm pretty much neutral on all these specific military platform proposals, but we should keep an eye on the quota (we're almost past the 102% mark). -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll never tell Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 18:01, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just nominated a bunch of military removals that might be able to address us being over. I think the military category is the one in most need for an overhaul and broad re-evaluation. It isn't really internally consistent with what we consider vital. That said, a huge part of technology is military or of military origin, so it isn't a surprise it's a big category. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:03, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GeogSage: I agree with you that the military section can use an overhaul, but it's actually not bad on a % basis (I think it's still around just 10% of the Tech section). Computers and then Transportation are the biggest sections. It's more that we recently had way more additions than removals in general on the page, and the recent big batch were all specific military platforms (which I think devolve into fandom-style arguments easier than general concepts).

Beyond what winds up on the list itself, I feel like there's a limited amount of oxygen on each discussion page. So even if the net change in article count winds up small, lots of activity in one topic can crowd out other ones. And I do genuinely believe that's part of why our other Science lists are relatively stagnant, but that's not a reason to stop making proposals. The solution to that is probably to split the STEM talk page and give Tech its own.

Anyways, thanks a bunch for being proactive & proposing the removals below though. They all look like easy wins and will definitely free up slots to add other military items; I even have a few in mind myself. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I love military hardware from an academic perspective. I was specifically trained to study the military to help beat Swords to ploughshares. One problem with the various talk pages is that by splitting them out, we lose several page watchers and force would be voters keep up with several pages, instead of one or two.

The Fandom argument is 100% accurate though. Look at specific airplanes under Aviation, and specific airplanes under military technology, vs other vehicles. There isn't or single type of large Container ship

5, but we have 29 pages for aircraft under aviation, and 19 under military aircraft. Like, I get that the Cessna 172

5 is an important trainer aircraft, it is what I got ALL my hours on, but I doubt it is more vital then the Panamax or Liberty ship. Planes have fandoms, but most people don't care much about boats. Look at the F-22 Raptor and A-10 removal discussions, and then notice how hard it is to get the large aircraft carriers for countries other then the U.S. listed. This makes some sense based on my experience, when I was a kid, everyone had a favorite plane, but most kids couldn't tell a destroyer from a cruiser. Planes are the stars of military recruitment ads, while ships are a backdrop. While computers and transportation are the biggest sections, the 48 specific aircraft we list seems to be disproportional. Because I couldn't get energy behind trimming them back dramatically, to balance stuff I felt we needed to list some other specific examples of vehicles (helicopters, tanks, and boats were where I started). For example, despite cars being a huge part of our everyday lives, we only have three "Specific automobiles" listed, and somehow the Toyota Corolla

5 is one of them. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:54, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add Aeronautics

The science of aircraft design.

Support

Interstellarity (talk) 00:53, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For sure, we could use more applied science topics. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Add Water taxi and Air taxi

Two forms of taxis.

Support

Interstellarity (talk) 02:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

I don’t see the essentiality of these services. -1ctinus📝🗨 03:30, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Discussion

Adding several classes of and specific Warships

Per discussion above, I think we have a serious lack of military warship classes included, especially compared to warplanes. I believe this is likely due to simple lack of user interest in ship classes compared to fighter jets. I have started this by using the List of active Russian Navy ships, List of active Royal Navy ships, and List of current ships of the United States Navy, as well as my own knowledge of history for specific warships that are significant historically. There are several lists we can pull from to round this out, including List of aircraft carrier classes in service, and List of naval ship classes in service that look at global ship classes. I have put some brief notes about each class of ship indicating why I think they are vital.

Add Arleigh Burke-class destroyer

United States Navy destroyer currently in service. Several other countries have adopted similar destroyer designs.

Support

As nomGeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's the archetypical example of the modern guided missile destroyer in every facet. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 06:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Ticonderoga-class cruiser

United States Navy cruiser currently currently in service.

Support

As nomGeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose
Neutral

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 Slava-class cruiser

Soviet Navy Cruiser currently in service by Russia. Notable ship includes the Russian cruiser Moskva sank by Ukraine in the Sinking of the Moskva.

Support

As nomGeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Unremarkable service record. Only built in extremely small numbers. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 06:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral
Discussion

Add Ohio-class submarine

United States Navy ballistic Missile Submarines currently in service.

Support

As nomGeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Necessary for understanding the U.S. nuclear triad. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 06:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Virginia-class submarine

United States Navy Fast Attack Submarine currently in service.

Support

As nomGeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose
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

British Royal Navy Ballistic Missile Submarine currently in service.

Support

As nomGeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the same reasons as Ohio. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 06:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add U-boat

Broad group of classes of German/NAZI submarines used during WWI and WWII.

Support

As nomGeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hard to fully explain WWII without it. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 06:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per nom. -1ctinus📝🗨 18:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Borei-class submarine

New class of Russian submarines replacing Soviet legacy fleet.

Support

As nomGeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, same reasoning as Ohio. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 06:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Akula-class submarine

Soviet nuclear attack submarine currently in service with Russia.

Support

As nomGeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, significantly influenced the course of submarine development. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 06:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Nimitz-class aircraft carrier

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

Support

As nomGeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The definitional example of the modern supercarrier. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 06:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier

British Royal Navy Aircraft Carriers.

Support

As nomGeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose
Neutral

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

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

As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

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]

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

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

As nomGeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vitally important to WWII history. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 06:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Yamato-class battleship

WWII battleships that served in the Imperial Japanese Navy. Largest battleships ever constructed.

Support

As nomGeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Important for their influence on US naval policy that shaped the course of the war. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 06:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Bismarck-class battleship

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

Support

As nomGeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

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]
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]

Neutral
Discussion

Add USS Arizona

Specific U.S. Navy Battleship, sunk during the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

Support

As nomGeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vitally important to WWII history. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 06:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add CSS Virginia

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

Support

As nomGeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vital to understanding the age of ironclads. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 06:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add USS Monitor

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

As nomGeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vital to understanding the age of ironclads. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 06:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add USS Constitution

Specific U.S. Navy ship. The oldest commissioned ship in the world today.

Support

As nomGeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Important classically preserved example of shipbuilding of the day. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 06:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Remove and Add several types of Military Aircraft.

Our military technology section has 19 pages for "specific aircraft." Of these, 14 are U.S. built planes (Including the Enola Gay), 3 are European built planes, 1 is South American (Brazilian), and 1 is Russian/USSR. This seems a bit unbalanced in my opinion, and most of the US aircraft are contemporary planes still in use. To resolve this, I'm going to nominate several U.S. planes for removal (which hurts because I love U.S. planes) and nominate several other aircraft to be added. I'm going to post on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history to see if they have any interest in contributing.

Remove Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II 5

FAILED

Not removed 2-2. Makkool (talk) 19:16, 29 November 2024 (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.

I'll rip this Band-Aid off and say while the A-10 is cool, it isn't really vital to the understanding of military aircraft.

Support

As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

It's quite literally the best example for understanding the modern employment of close air support. It's absolutely vital to understanding U.S. military doctrine from the Gulf War onward. Show me another aircraft that is as synonymous with its mission as the A-10 is with Brrrrt.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 03:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The A-10 is by far the most prolific example of a close air support throughout history. The only aircraft to even come close was perhaps the Junkers Ju 87, but the CAS role has evolved since WWII to the point that they're not even similar. - ZLEA _T\^C 04:43, 14 November 2024 (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.

Remove Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor 5

The F-22 Raptor is a cool plane, I love it, but I believe this is a case of recency bias. The F-22 demonstrates a lot of technology and is still in use in the United States, but it is coming up on the end of its service life and hasn't been used in a major conflict. The plane had a limited production, and was not shared with any allied countries outside the United States. Other then being a cutting edge warplane from the 1990s that is still in use today, I don't think it is necessary to include the F-22.

Support

As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. It seems somewhat important, but also a bit recentist, and we list too many planes in general IMO. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:06, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

It was the first operational stealth fighter (as the F-117 was not a fighter), the first operational fifth-generation fighter, and still remains the predominant aircraft of its type. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 03:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the first operational stealth and fifth-generation fighter is not a vital topic, I don't know what is. - ZLEA _T\^C 04:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral
Discussion

@User:ZLEA and @User:Swatjester, we don't list the North American F-100 Super Sabre, which is the first U.S. fighter jet capable of super sonic flight, or the Vickers F.B.5, which is the first real "fighter" plane. The Chengdu J-20 is the first non-American stealth aircraft to see widespread production, and like the U.S. made F-22, it hasn't done much yet. The fighter generations are mostly marketing. There are a lot of aircraft in history that are important, firsts, or interesting. The F-22 production was ended early, and it is being phased out before it has seen any wide spread use. The F-35 has exceeded it in production, and has been adopted by several countries. Including the F-22 feels like recency bias, and bias towards U.S. aircraft, and I believe would require the addition of several dozen types of planes to justify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeogSage (talk • contribs)

We should list those then. That's not an argument in favor of removing the F-22 on its merits, and neither is the fact that the U.S. was significantly more successful than most other nations at developing aircraft that structurally shaped combat aviation worldwide. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 06:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair. Do you want to nominate them? I'm mostly concerned with balancing things a bit, and there are many great examples of Soviet aircraft that saw widespread use in multiple wars. For example, the Iran-Iraq wars, and the wars between Israel and their neighbors. If you know of any particular aircraft that are non-American you think should be added, that would be great, as well as any non-contemporary aircraft. My background has resulted in a bit more then average understanding of aircraft in a roundabout way, but my opinions on the matter are a bit biased towards contemporary and U.S. aircraft, which is the bias I'm trying to account for here. I think we likely need to include some of the Century series of planes, as well as WWI aircraft from all sides. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is balancing national ties a such a large concern at WP:VA that removing American topics is seen as the best way forward? I know very little about the process here, but arbitrarily removing American aircraft simply because there aren't many non-American vital aviation topics seems like the wrong approach. You should probably be asking why the American aircraft were listed as vital in the first place, then assessing whether other aircraft, if any, would better suit the original reasoning. - ZLEA _T\^C 18:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the concern for balancing is missing the point. This list is not intended to be unbiased at a national level; the list itself is specifically tailored to the English Wikipedia and as a result is going to naturally have greater representation of content from english-speaking nations. The determining factor for whether something should be on this list is whether that thing is vital to the understanding of the topic, not the degree of national representation the rest of the list has. And in the case of military aviation, it's simply the case that the U.S. is going to be overrepresented by that metric, having been the driving force behind the development of the most influential aircraft of the past 70 years, followed by the USSR to a somewhat lesser extent, with other nations significantly further behind or not at all included because most nations don't possess the degree of combat aviation design capability and the history of investment into that field that the U.S. has. That's OK.

Specific examples: So to your examples, I'd support (weakly) the Super Sabre's inclusion both as a stereotypical example of early supersonic jets, but would rather see the F-86 Sabre included there, as it was significantly more important for understanding the air war component of the Korean War to a greater degree than the F-100 was for understanding the air war in Vietnam. I'd definitely support the Vickers F.B.5 as the first fighter, that's pretty straightforward. I don't see the argument for the J-20 -- it wasn't the first stealth aircraft, went into service less than a decade ago and has no significant combat or non-combat service record to speak of (unlike the F-22, which has an extensive non-combat service record conducting air intercepts and homeland defense) and isn't being marketed for export (unlike the F-35, whose export availability is a tangible force in international relations). It's not really vital to understanding anything. I can make similar arguments for most of the European fighters as well. I'm not as familiar with the century series and WWI/WWII aircraft as I am with modern jet aviation though, which is why I focus my attentions on that batch. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The argument for the J-20 is stronger then the F-22, it is the first non-American, non-western stealth aircraft. This has tremendous impact to the overall power balance of the world, as the U.S. dominance in stealth aviation is no longer a monopoly. There have been more built already then the F-22, and while shooting down balloons was an interesting event, I don't think that counts as an extensive record. The F-22 is a plane that was introduced, demonstrated a lot of technology, and is on the way to retirement without ever being employed in the role it was designed for. U.S. and Soviet aircraft both existed in response to each other. The USSR distributed their planes widely, and generally produced them in massive volumes when compared to western production. Planes like the MiG-25, MiG-19, and Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-23 have thousands built, with service records in multiple countries that involved significant air to air combat. The F-22 is really an interesting aircraft, but in 100 years, unless something dramatic happens, the plane will have had a mostly uneventful service life and mostly served as a technology demonstration for the stuff used on the F-35 and future subsequent projects. I anticipated this response for the F-22 and A-10 as they have very large online fan bases, so I'm not surprised at the resistance. That said, leaving the F-22 and A-10 really invites a large number of aircraft, as there are quite a few unique aircraft that have seen much wider use, by many more countries, and with many more units produced then them. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that the J-20 has had "tremendous impact to the overall power balance of the world" -- I certainly have not seen any reliable sources making such a bold and dramatic claim, particularly for an aircraft that's objectively worse than the F-22 at stealth. If a lack of a pure combat record (ignoring the immense deterrence value left out of that equation) is disqualifying then the J-20 is equally disqualified. What the F-22 has that the J-20 lacks is an extensive non-combat record; hundreds of aerial intercepts, including shootdowns of unmanned intelligence gathering aircraft. The fact that it had a mostly uneventful service life does not detract from its level of importance in understanding the depth of influence it had on stealth aviation development and U.S. air superiority doctrine; the J-20 can say no such thing. Characterizing this as being motivated by "online fan bases" is not helpful and misses the point of what this list is supposed to be doing -- capturing those entries whose understanding is vital towards an element of a STEM topic or a historical era. The F-22 does this. The A-10 does this. The J-20 does not. The MiG-25 does not. The MiG-23 does not (and in every way, the inclusion of the F-14 would be more helpful to one's understanding of the topic area). Again, if there are other aircraft that are in use by other countries, make an argument for including them. None of that should be a reason for excluding the F-22, which is vitally important for understanding as the first fifth-generation fighter, the first active stealth fighter, and decades after its introduction still outperforms other competitors both kinematically and in low-observable capabilities. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:44, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The scientific understanding and application of stealth technology leaving the U.S. monopoly is certainly significant. As far as technology goes, the F-22 is really only slightly more important then the Northrop YF-23 in that the F-22 was and is employed to some extent globally, while the other never entered widescale production. We don't include the LGM-30 Minuteman, even though it had a massive impact in terms of influence and deterrence. The Chinese military is the 2nd largest globally, and Soviet aviation and design philosophy has motivated U.S. aviation and served as the foundations of multiple countries air forces. In terms of understanding technology, these represent separate branches of human aviation. With limited slots, emphasis on U.S. planes leaves a lot out of that picture. U.S. air superiority doctrine is certainly important to understand, but we have a huge emphasis on U.S. doctrine/technology which paints an incomplete picture of human warfare. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fundamentally disagree with the relevance of any of that, for the reasons that I've already mentioned. We should be judging the inclusion of the F-22 on it's own merits.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 01:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remove McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet 5

The F-18 is a cool plane but of all the planes we could include, I don't think it checks the boxes for vital.

Support

As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no expert, but this doesn't seem vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:15, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose
Neutral

There's less of an argument for including the F/A-18 than the F-16. It's still a significantly influential fighter platform, but the Super Hornet was more influential.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 03:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Remove General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon 5

FAILED

Not removed 2-2. Makkool (talk) 19:16, 29 November 2024 (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.

Similar to the F-18, the F-16 is a cool plane but I don't think it is vital compared to countless other similar fighter aircraft in other countries.

Support

As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

"Countless other similar fighter aircraft in other countries" do not have the service record nor widespread usage of the F-16. It was/is the predominant 4th generation land-based fighter of NATO and the West in general. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 03:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The F-16 is by far the most common fixed-wing aircraft in military service around the world. Perhaps second only to the Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21, the F-16 has one of the most colorful service histories of any fighter aircraft in history. - ZLEA _T\^C 04:43, 14 November 2024 (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 Messerschmitt Me 262

PASSED

Added 4-0.. Makkool (talk) 19:16, 29 November 2024 (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.

The Messerschmitt Me 262 was a WWII Nazi aircraft. It is notable as the first fighter aircraft that used jet engines.

Support

As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only by virtue of being the first jet fighter. It had almost no actual impact on the war itself, and Allied powers had already developed their own plans for jet aircraft in parallel. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 03:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the world's first operational jet fighter, this one is an obvious choice. - ZLEA _T\^C 04:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose
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 Mitsubishi A6M Zero

PASSED

Added 4-0.. Makkool (talk) 19:16, 29 November 2024 (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.

The Zero was a WWII Japanese aircraft. In understanding the war in the Pacific, I believe the Zero is extremely important. During the early war, the U.S. struggled with the Zero.

Support

As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most important fighter in the Pacific. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 03:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the most well known fighter of all the Axis powers of WWII. - ZLEA _T\^C 04:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose
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 Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-19

FAILED

Not added 2-1, 1 neutral. Makkool (talk) 19:16, 29 November 2024 (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.

The MiG-19 was the first USSR fighter aircraft capable of supersonic flight. It was widely distributed to countries across the world, and has seen widespread usage in multiple wars.

Support

As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Of all the MiG fighters to see production, this would probably be my last pick. It does not have nearly the reputation of its predecessor, the Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-15. - ZLEA _T\^C 04:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

While widely distributed, it had a poor service record. It's mainly notable for the Gary Powers incident and for being destroyed in large numbers in Vietnam and the Six Day War.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 03:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

@ User:ZLEA, do you want to nominate the MiG-15? The main issue I have is the list is WILDLY American centric. I know the U.S. is a leader in Aviation, but I think USSR tech needs to be represented.

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 Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-25

FAILED

Not added 2-1, 1 neutral. Makkool (talk) 19:16, 29 November 2024 (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.

The MiG-25 is a USSR fighter and one of the fastest military aircraft to enter service. The plane has significance to understanding cold war dynamics, specifically, the U.S. F-15 was developed in response to this plane due to the concerns it caused.

Support

As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

The MiG-25 itself had very little influence over the field of combat aviation generally; misconceptions about the MiG-25 played a minor role in U.S. defense policy for a few years until we figured it out. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 03:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Not sure about this one. Most of this aircraft's reputation came from misconceptions which were quickly dispelled after one fell into western hands. I would probably choose the Mikoyan MiG-29 over this one, but I won't oppose this. - ZLEA _T\^C 04:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:34, 12 November 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 Javelin

Javelins and Harpoons have been used for tens of thousands or years. Javelin throw the sport event is already in at level 4. Significant weapons for hunting, warfare, sport, fishing and whaling. Spear is in at level 4, so expanding on it at level 5 would be reasonable. Although it wasn't successful, there was some support to add spear to level 3 as well. We have other sub weapon types which seem less significant, that could feasibly be swapped out if necessary, like Ji (polearm) and Partisan (weapon) for example seem less important.

Support

As nom. Carlwev 20:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
per nom GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
QuicoleJR (talk) 18:19, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

Add Harpoon

As above.

Support

As nom. Carlwev 20:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 18:33, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
QuicoleJR (talk) 18:19, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

Adding a few military Helicopters

I noticed we are missing many of the major helicopters used in military aviation. I don't think we have any specific models, which I believe is due to a bias towards fixed wing aviation. As it looks like we will be needing to expand this category, I have a few I think we should start with. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sikorsky R-4

The Fist mass produced military helicopter.

Support

As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makkool (talk) 17:48, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Mil Mi-24

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

Support

As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Makkool (talk) 17:48, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Mil Mi-26

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

Support

As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makkool (talk) 17:48, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose
Neutral

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

Boeing AH-64 Apache

U.S. built attack helicopter currently in use by several countries, including Japan, UK, Israel, and the UAE. The helicopter has seen widespread use in American conflicts.

Support

As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The definitional NATO cold war attack helicopter throughout the Cold War, the Iraq War, and the GWOT.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 02:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makkool (talk) 17:48, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk

U.S. built medium lift utility helicopter in use by multiple countries. Has seen widespread use in conflicts the U.S. has been involved with.

Support

As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Either this or the UH-1 Huey family. Both extremely influential utility helicopters. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 02:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makkool (talk) 17:48, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Are you planning on listing any other heavy lift helicopters? I'd also consider the CH-47 both as the premier example of the tandem-rotor concept and the stereotypical Western heavy-lift helicopter for the past 60 years. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 02:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed we were short on helicopters and did some quick research to come up with a list of ones that seemed notable. If you want to nominate that one, I'd support it. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add Incunable

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

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

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Add Digital object identifier

Important concept in data location and retrieval.

Support

As nominator. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 21:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
—Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose without some removals. That said, if someone proposes another 2 or more Computer removals below (with a decent chance of passing), I'll cross this out and change to Neutral. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss

Add Several types of military tanks

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

US WWII tank.

Support

As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely important to WWII.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 04:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makkool (talk) 17:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose
Neutral
Discuss

Add Tiger I

Nazi WWII tank.

Support

As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makkool (talk) 17:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose
Neutral

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

Soviet Cold War tank

Support

As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makkool (talk) 17:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose
Neutral

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

Current U.S. Main battle tank.

Support

As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Makkool (talk) 17:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose
Neutral
Discuss

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

Swap three Power storage articles

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

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

As nom, —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2024 (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

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

As nom, —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2024 (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

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

As nom, —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support, especially with the more fundamental power-to-X suggestion. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:59, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose
Neutral
Discuss

Add thermal energy storage

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

As nom, —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, also complements Cogeneration (which we do list). -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose
Neutral
Discuss

Add compressed-air energy storage

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

Support

As nom, —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, can also integrate with pressurized service lines. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose
Neutral
Discuss

Add power-to-X

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

As nom, —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, especially since it subsumes the solar fuel article. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose
Neutral
Discuss

Add Material

A bassic concept in chemestry, it can even be in level 4. It has more than 60 interwikis and more than 300 daily views. Also we listed Materials science 4 so this one should also be. It can be listed here or here.

Support

As nom. Brunoblocks274 (talk) 18:27, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 18:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great catch, another basic concept we've missed until now; also agree with adding to Chemistry somewhere. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Pause further Tech additions?

Hi everyone, just to give a heads-up, we're technically already over quota for Tech and only have about 20-25 more articles before we're past the 2% cushion. We still have a decent number of open technology proposals too, most of them for addition.

This is meant more as a reminder than a discussion of anything. Obviously, if you can think of any likely swaps (or especially batch removals), then it's not an issue.

Quota proposals are also always an option, but I will say, for myself in advance, that I oppose increasing Tech's quota for now. It's not just that some subjects are way over-represented, but Tech could use some reorganization (including some headings being split-off or diverted to other lists). After refocusing, we could have a clearer idea of whether the section should have a bigger share of Lv 5. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up, I didn't know Tech was starting to have quota issues. I will work on finding some removals. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:05, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removals are really really hard. I've tried to reduce several areas that were over represented, but there is usually more resistance to removals then additions. Look at my attempt at trimming U.S. fighter jets for example and adding in some foreign made ones, some of the adds got support, but the removals are all heavily opposed... We have a a hoarder problem. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:36, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely, though if there's a silver lining (and this is just my impression), anyone that sticks around and doesn't get too discouraged can eventually push some through. I think editors that just participate here a few times are usually motivated by what they find interesting, which is good. They're often the ones that notice glaring coverage gaps. But it is biased towards addition, plus the discussions can also get lost in minutiae.

I think almost everyone that participates here over time though develops mostly general reasons for voting. In a way, it's almost like we've developed our own primitive case law here. And as a result, if you find an article that checks several "not vital" boxes, you can at least expect a lot of support from the regulars. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remove obscure engineering stubs

Technology is over the quota, and there are still plenty of things that could be added. With that in mind, these three stubs do not seem vital. They all have low interwiki counts and low WikiProject ratings, and nothing in the articles suggests vitality for any of the three.

Support

As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makkool (talk) 17:50, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Mixed

Weakly oppose outright removal. They're all good finds, but there may be better ways to dispose of them:
Move Eng. Stats. to Math, it strikes me as a pretty legit topic, despite the embryonic state of the article.

Merge Eng. Research, into the Applied research section of the Applied science article, which would allow boldly removing from the list as a duplicate.

Keep Microwave Eng. for now, I think we're still under-represented in analog electronics, and while we list RF engineering, we don't list Radar engineering (one of the major subsets of microwave engineering). Keeping the article listed for now can stimulate reorganization. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss

Add Decomposition

Also known as rotting. Probably add under Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Biology_and_health_sciences/Biology#Basics.

Support

As nom.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 17:53, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per nom.--Brunoblocks274 (talk) 23:03, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Carlwev 08:06, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discuss

Add Biodegradation

Probably add under Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Biology_and_health_sciences/Biology#Basics.

Support

As nom.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 17:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Carlwev 08:07, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discuss

Remove Smother crop 5

Technology is over the quota, and this does not seem like a vital topic. Only one interwiki.

Support

As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Terrible stats; ~3 daily pageviews, rated Low-importance in Agriculture. This is the kind of junk listing for which we should have a vitality estimator to quickly catch them with.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 18:35, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support, since we do already list Cover crop and no section should be entirely free from quota discipline. Just noting for further proposals though, Agriculture is only around 6-7% of our list, and many of those articles arguably belong elsewhere. So even unpopular pages that seem niche may be filling in coverage gaps. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Remove Trotline 5

Technology is over the quota, and this article does not seem that important. Only 2 interwikis.

Support

As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:17, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per nom.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:58, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support, since we already list fishing line and others; no section should be entirely free from quota discipline either. See proposal above for note about Agriculture coverage though. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makkool (talk) 17:50, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Carlwev 08:07, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Remove Activated sludge 5

Technology is over the quota, and there are still plenty of things we should add. This is not one of those things. I'm not seeing from the article how this is vital, and it only has three interwikis. There are plenty of things I would rather list.

Support

As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per nom.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:58, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makkool (talk) 17:50, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose, it's maybe the most unromantic thing ever, but IIUC this is the essence of how many modern sewage treatment plants in the world today work. It should probably be listed under Industry -> Sanitation instead, where we only have around 5 articles. Considering how critical sanitation is to everyday life, I think it's a very under-represented topic, and I would interpret the lack of interwikis as a coverage gap, not low vitality. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Discuss

Remove several pages from "Military Weapons"

As was brought up recently by user @Zar2gar1, we are starting to get a bit over the limit in technology. The category for weapons is a very bloated, which is expected as so much of our technology is dedicated to killing each other, and weapons are very interesting to many people. That said, I think we can trim some of this section down a bit. To be clear, I'm not proposing adding anything to replace these, but instead to make room for all the other additions people are suggesting we add, and will continue to propose in the future. I'm not committed to removal of any one of these, although I feel more strongly about some then others. I do believe we need to trim a lot of stuff though, and that these are a start.

Remove Railgun 5

Starting with what I think should be the most obvious and easy page to agree on removal. I love the idea of the railgun from an engineering perspective. That said, we don't have them, at least not in widespread use, and this is mostly a science fiction concept. To quote the page, "Railguns are still very much at the research stage after decades of R&D, and it remains to be seen whether they will be deployed as practical military weapons in the foreseeable future." Until the weapon is adopted and put into widespread use by at least one military, I think it is best left with concepts like Kinetic bombardment and Antimatter weapon.

Support

As nom.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not vital enough to include. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:59, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makkool (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose
Neutral

I'm actually neutral because IIUC it's also a general mechanism, not just a weaponized form? If there's a better article for the cascading acceleration it uses though, I'll cross this out and change to Support. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss: @Zar2gar1, the page for Linear motor would likely be what you are looking for. Railguns are a specific theoretical application. While we ARE currently researching them, the closest thing to their implementation is the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System. In the Civilian world, Maglev trains are an example. I should point out here that Maglev would be a great addition to vital articles, as it is a type of train in widespread use globally. ALL of these pages would be better then Railgun in my opinion though, as they are actually employed in the real world. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:05, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Maglev should be listed, and would support it if you nominated it. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:08, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Shuriken 5

A weapon that is used more in Hollywood then history.

Support

As nom.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, we don't need to get this specific into thrown weapons. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makkool (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Weak oppose. Not very historically important, but extremely common in fiction. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:04, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral
Discuss

Remove Bowie knife 5, or swap with Fighting knife

While they are a popular knife, especially in American hunting stores, there are MANY types of knives and including just one opens the door to many others that are equally worthy. On that note, if we don't remove it, we should swap it with Fighting knife, as it has many of the other knife types we could include as well.

Support removal

As nom.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly not that important, not sure about fighting knife. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Swap with Fighting knife

Prefer swap but support plain removal, pretty much, consider this a swap vote unless we're on the fence between keeping outright or removing outright. In that case, I'd rather see it removed. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makkool (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose both

Oppose Knife 3 at VA 3 it deserves a few subtopics Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral
Discuss

Remove Wakizashi 5

As far as Japanese swords go, the Katana 4 should obviously be included. The Wakizashi just doesn't seem as vital in my opinion.

Support

As nom.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, the 2 swords paired are interesting culturally, but that can be covered by other topics on Japanese history & society. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makkool (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose
Neutral
Discuss

Remove 9×19mm Parabellum 5

There are many cartridges in use, and I don't really think we need to include any of them. If we did include any, 9mm makes a lot of sense, but I don't think any particular cartridge is that vital overall, and that inclusion of the page Cartridge (firearms) 5 is adequate.

Support

As nom.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I may have added these during the pre-vote days (I think the NATO standard cartridge was already there). Agree though that at quota, we really don't need to list specific ammo standards. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makkool (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose
Neutral
Discuss

Remove 5.56×45mm NATO 5

The same argument as for 9×19mm Parabellum 5, but stronger. There are many cartridges in use, and I don't really think we need to include any of them. If we did include any, 9mm makes a lot of sense, but 5.56×45mm NATO 5 makes a bit less. I don't think any particular cartridge is that vital overall, and that inclusion of the page Cartridge (firearms) 5 is adequate. If we can remove both this and 9mm, we can remove the entire subcategory for Specific cartridges.

Support

As nom.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, at quota, we really don't need to list specific ammo standards. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makkool (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose
Neutral
Discuss

Remove IWI Tavor 5

This is a relatively new family of firearms, and I don't believe it has been adopted as widely as others.

Support

As nom.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does not seem particularly important. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:30, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, at quota, we really don't need to list specific ammo standards. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makkool (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose
Neutral
Discuss

Remove or move Glock 5

Glock is a firearms manufacturer, not a specific firearm. I don't believe they should be included at all, but if they are we need to move them somewhere else besides "specific firearms" as they do not fit.

Support remove

As nom.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support, both on my "no brand names in Tech" principle and the point that it's a company, not a design. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support move

It definitely should be in Companies. Oppose removal per QuicoleJR. Makkool (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

The Glock is very culturally important in the United States. Tons of people talk about "a Glock" as you would talk about "a Frisbee". Neutral on whether it should be under Weapons or Companies. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral
Discuss

Remove or move AR-15–style rifle 5

This is an odd one. We include M4 carbine 5 and M16 rifle 5. The AR-15 style rifle, to quote the page, ""AR-15" is most-commonly used to refer only to the civilian semi-automatic variants of the rifle which lack the fully automatic function." The AR-15-style rifle is distinctly not a military weapon, and is created specifically for the U.S. domestic firearm market. Based on the terminology and use, the most appropriate place for it would likely be under the category "Sports equipment" under [2], as the weapon is marketed as "modern sporting rifles", and is used mostly for hunting and target shooting in the U.S.. I vastly prefer removal though, and think that having the M4 and M16 listed is adequate.

Support remove

As nom.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer removal, but support move, consider this a removal vote unless we wind up on the fence between keeping as is and just moving. Then consider it a move vote. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makkool (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support move
Oppose
Neutral
Discuss

Remove Bean bag round 5

I believe the inclusion of the page for Baton round 5 is adequate, and we don't need to include the TYPES of less then lethal bullet alternatives.

Support

As nom.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I think this is another one I added during the pre-vote days to swamp coverage. Agree it's not vital now at quota. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makkool (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose
Neutral
Discuss

Remove Plastic bullet 5

Same argument as Bean bag round. I believe the inclusion of the page for Baton round 5 is adequate, and we don't need to include the TYPES of less then lethal bullet alternatives.

Support

As nom.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, agree it's not vital now at quota. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makkool (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose
Neutral
Discuss

Remove Rubber bullet 5

Same argument as above. I believe the inclusion of the page for Baton round 5 is adequate, and we don't need to include the TYPES of less then lethal bullet alternatives.

Support

As nom.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, agree it's not vital now at quota. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makkool (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose
Neutral
Discuss

Remove Sponge grenade 5

Same argument as above. I believe the inclusion of the page for Baton round 5 is adequate, and we don't need to include the TYPES of less then lethal bullet alternatives.

Support

As nom.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, agree it's not vital now at quota. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makkool (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose
Neutral
Discuss

Remove CS gas 5

I believe the inclusion of the page for Tear gas 5 is adequate, and we don't need to include the TYPES of tear gas.

Support

As nom.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, agree it's not vital now at quota. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makkool (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose
Neutral
Discuss

Remove Pepper spray 5

Same argument as CS gas. I believe the inclusion of the page for Tear gas 5 is adequate, and we don't need to include the TYPES of tear gas.

Support

As nom.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support, agree it's maybe not that vital now at quota, though (at least in the US), it's also marketed to individuals for personal protection. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tear gas is definitely vital, and it's enough we list that. Makkool (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Definitely not, pepper spray is certainly a vital topic. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Important topic around self-defense for women and vulnerable groups. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:46, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral
Discuss

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Shotcrete 5

Not seeing how "concrete sprayed through a hose" is vital.

Support

As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
per nom. Makkool (talk) 17:26, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Weak oppose, I'm close to neutral on this one, but while it may seem niche, I think it's about the technique involved as much as the material itself. Plus we're probably under-represented on Construction topics. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Discuss

Remove Boeing 727 5 and Boeing 757 5

We do not need to list every single Boeing plane that ends with the number 7. Of the ones we list, these two seem the least important, although if you think a different one is the least important, let me know. Technology is currently over the quota, and more things need to be added, so I think these two articles can go.

Support

As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:45, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per nom. I was targeting the Aviation specific examples for a wave of removal proposals coming up so am glad ot see this listed. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:56, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
per nom. Makkool (talk) 17:26, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per nom. Was just thinking this while browsing the list. KatVanHuis (talk) 20:00, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Mixed

Discuss

Add Kidney dialysis

It's missing, probably because Dialysis (chemistry) 5 was listed instead in medical technology. I propose adding the proper article, because it's an imporant technique in medical treatment. Add to Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Technology#Techniques

Support

As nom. Makkool (talk) 17:26, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems pretty important. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:42, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Key concept in medicine. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:23, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Mixed

Discuss

Remove Rat bike 5

To me this looks like a fun hobby, yet it's too much of a niche to be listed.

Support

As nom. KatVanHuis (talk) 20:21, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does not seem that important. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:43, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:40, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 07:43, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Mixed

Discuss

Add Eye color

Seems important enough at this level.

Support

As nom. Kevinishere15 (talk) 07:39, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:52, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose, Human eye 4 seems adequate. The page for Eye color seems fairly exclusive to human eye color, so it doesn't offer expanded range. The page Human skin color isn't listed, and I don't think it should be, but do think it is likely more culturally significant then eye color, sadly. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:07, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Discuss

Replace Polonium hydride 5 with Chlorine dioxide

Polonium hydride is a radioactive and unstable compound and is only used for scientific research. It should be replaced by chemical compounds with large-scale applications, such as chlorine dioxide.

Support

As nom. Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 10:51, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Mixed

Discuss