Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/STEM
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Vital articles/Level/5/STEM redirect. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 12 months ![]() |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
Introduction
[edit]The purpose of this discussion page is to select 50,000 topics for which Wikipedia should have high-quality articles.
Any article currently on this list may be challenged. The discussion is open to the following rules:
P = passes F = fails |
opposing votes | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ||
0 | supporting votes
|
– | – | – | – | F | F | F | F | F | F |
1 | – | – | – | F | F | F | F | F | F | F | |
2 | – | – | F | F | F | F | F | F | F | F | |
3 | – | F | F | F | F | F | F | F | F | F | |
4 | P | P | P | F | F | F | F | F | F | F | |
5 | P | P | P | P | F | F | F | F | F | F | |
6 | P | P | P | P | F | F | F | F | F | F | |
7 | P | P | P | P | P | F | F | F | F | F | |
8 | P | P | P | P | P | P | F | F | F | F | |
9 | P | P | P | P | P | P | F | F | F | F |
- Before being closed, a Level 5 proposal must:
- Run for at least 15 days; AND
- Allow at least 7 days after the most recent vote; AND
- Have at least 4 participants.
- For a proposal to be implemented on the Level 5 list:
- It must have over 60% support (see table); AND
- 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: 03:26, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
- 7 days ago is: 03:26, 15 February 2025 (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:
Adding a few military Helicopters (set 2 of 2)
[edit]The Fist mass produced military helicopter.
- Support
- As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 23:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- Makkool (talk) 17:48, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Very weak oppose, if only to bring the proposal closer to a finish, while keeping an eye on the Tech quota. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)
- Oppose
- Very weak oppose, if only to bring the proposal closer to a finish, while keeping an eye on the Tech quota. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Changing to oppose Makkool (talk) 15:46, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- Discussion
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)
- Support, per my "some overlap is good at Lv5" principle. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Interstellarity (talk) 01:39, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
Add Plastic wrap
[edit]This is very essential in the kitchen.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support
- as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- per nom. starship.paint (talk / cont) 02:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support in Everyday life. We actually have kitchen utensils there, so why not this as well? Makkool (talk) 10:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose here, but neutral if moved to Everyday Life. I had to think about it more, and while there is engineering behind this product, the primary justification is its every-day-ness. So it should really be ranked against Everyday Life articles, especially when Tech is so bloated. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discussion
Add Structural coloration to Biology
[edit]A biological phenomenon widespread across multiple kingdoms of life, often used as a teaching example of how clever nature can be, and a continuing influence on physics and technology. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 14:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support
- Support as nom. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 14:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 07:04, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Makkool (talk) 19:32, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
Add Glycated hemoglobin
[edit]A1C is definitely vital, and Hemoglobin 4 is VA4.
- Support
- As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, why not? -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:50, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 20:52, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- Makkool (talk) 19:32, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
Add Maternity den
[edit]- Support
- As nom. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 09:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, why not? -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:50, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Interstellarity (talk) 01:39, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
Optical phenomena
[edit]I've had a short list of optics topics to add (in Physics) stashed away for a while. How do you all feel about these? -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Add Optical aberration
[edit]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 general concept of how real-world optical systems deviate from ideal behavior. Crucial to almost all optics applications too.
- Support
- As nom. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Per nom.GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 20:17, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Per nom Makkool (talk) 10:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Per nom Lophotrochozoa (talk) 00:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Per nom Mathwriter2718 (talk) 02:54, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
Add Spherical aberration
[edit]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.
One of the primary types of aberration, due to the Thin lens 5 assumption breaking down in the real world. This article has a its own content on corrective methods and measuring aberration.
- Support
- As nom. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Per nom GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 06:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Per nom Makkool (talk) 10:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Per nom Lophotrochozoa (talk) 00:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Add Chromatic aberration
[edit]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.
Another major form of aberration, due to Refraction 4 in real world materials varying with wavelength. This article actually has a lot of decent content on corrective methods, measurement, and applications (like photographic effects).
- Support
- As nom. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Per nom.GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 20:17, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Per nom Makkool (talk) 10:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Per nom Lophotrochozoa (talk) 00:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Add Caustic (optics)
[edit]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 common optical phenomenon and very old demonstration of Ray optics (those details are in a separate math article: Caustic (mathematics).
- Support
- As nom. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Per nom.GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 20:17, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Per nom Makkool (talk) 10:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Interstellarity (talk) 01:39, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
Add Iridescence
[edit]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 basic rainbow-color visible in all sorts of situations (materials, biology, weather, etc.)
- Support
- As nom. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Per nom.GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 20:17, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Per nom Makkool (talk) 10:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Per nom Lophotrochozoa (talk) 00:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is probably a little less well-known and may be more borderline, but it does explain the coloration of certain materials and also has several technical applications. The article still could use expansion but I tend to see that as a reason for adding to VA5 (to encourage editing) rather than removing. Related but distinct from Birefringence 5.
- Support
- As nom. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Per nom.GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 20:17, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Per nom Makkool (talk) 10:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Interstellarity (talk) 01:39, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
Add Newton's rings
[edit]Historically notable experiment / phenomenon and a go-to demonstration of light's wavier behavior.
- Support
- As nom. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Per nom Makkool (talk) 10:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Interstellarity (talk) 01:39, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Not convinced this one is vital. Opposistion is weak though GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 20:17, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Neutral
Add Moiré pattern
[edit]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.
One more wave / interference-based phenomenon. It appears in many situations, with connections to art and technology.
- Support
- As nom. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Per nom.GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 20:17, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Per nom Makkool (talk) 10:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Interstellarity (talk) 01:39, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- Proposal signature
Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Nominating for similar reasons as Intercity rail. We list the vehicles used for this service, but not the actual service.
- Support
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discussion
I know we just added Intercity rail so if this picks up momentum, I may support on precedent... but we just closed the same proposal as stalled out earlier this month. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Add Commercial aviation and Private aviation
[edit]Two important types of aviation.
- Support
- Interstellarity (talk) 00:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support, I had to think about this one but they make sense on the list. As more of the processes / culture around flight though, maybe place under the applied sciences? -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Makkool (talk) 09:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support Commercial aviation ONLY. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose private aviation. In another life I was involved in private aviation with ambitions towards commercial and Military aviation
5. I love planes, more then most people, but honestly think they are a bit over represented in vital articles. I loosly to support adding Commerical aviation, but private aviation is not really vital. I'd like to see several commercial airplanes removed in addition to this. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I concur with GeogSage that private aviation is a notch less vigal than commercial. I oppose private and support commercial.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:50, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
- Discuss
Just to clarify the current margin, we're at 4-0 for Commercial aviation but only 3-1 for Private aviation. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
Add Intelligent agent
[edit]Agentics is the next wave with Artificial intelligence.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support
- as nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 16:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Weak oppose, mostly on annoying procedural grounds. If someone comes up with 2 or more Computing / Consumer electronics articles to cut, I'll switch to Support. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discussion
Architectural elements (set 2 of 2)
[edit]- Support
- as nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support Carlwev 16:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Mathwriter2718 (talk) 14:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose here, but neutral if moved to Everyday Life. I had to think about it more, and while there is engineering behind this product, the primary justification is its every-day-ness. So it should really be ranked against Everyday Life articles, especially when Tech is so bloated. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discussion
- Support
- as nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose here, but weak support in Everyday Life or Architecture. I missed some of these from earlier. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discussion
- Maybe staircase should be moved to stairwell, since this is the article about the room of stairs.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support
- as nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose here, but neutral if moved to Everyday Life. I had to think about it more, and while there is craft knowledge behind this, the primary justification is its every-day-ness. So it should really be ranked against Everyday Life articles, especially when Tech is so bloated. Actually, Everyday Life may be a better place for all specific rooms (they're defined by use patterns, not necessarily technical design). -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discussion
- Maybe this should just be merged into Hall
5-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:56, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
We list Tower 4 and the following are related.
Add Bell tower
[edit]- Support
- as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose here, but would support under Architecture. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discussion
- Support
- as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose here, but would support under Architecture. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discussion
- Support
- as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose here, but would support under Architecture. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discussion
- Support
- as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose here, but would support under Architecture. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discussion
Add Watchtower
[edit]- Support
- as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:23, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Weak support, the article isn't very meaty right now, but I guess this makes sense under Fortification
3, which we list here. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discussion
Add Guard tower and/or Guardhouse
[edit]- Support
- as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:23, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose here, but weak support for Guardhouse in Architecture, even if people may not associate architecture with security buildings at first. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discussion
- Maybe the stubby Guard tower should be merged into Watchtower.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- I agree completely, even if they typically have slightly different connotations. I'll add it to my big list of VA5 reorg ideas. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Adding rooms
[edit]Given the list of inclusions at Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Technology#Rooms_and_spaces, I will try adding a few more.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support
- as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think this was listed once, but it must have been boldly removed at some point Makkool (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- QuicoleJR (talk) 04:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose here, but neutral if moved to Everyday Life. I had to think about it more, and while there is craft knowledge behind this, the primary justification is its every-day-ness. So it should really be ranked against Everyday Life articles, especially when Tech is so bloated. Actually, Everyday Life may be a better place for all specific rooms (they're defined by use patterns, not necessarily technical design). -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discussion
More room adds and removals
[edit]I had At Home: A Short History of Private Life lying around, and there were more omissions in the Rooms and spaces section I noticed. Some clear removals as well to balance the adds. Makkool (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Add Drawing room
[edit]A room for entertaining guests, the historical precursor to the living room. A part of large houses for several centuries. Rated High-Importance in Wikiproject Home living.
- Support
- As nom. Makkool (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose here, but neutral if moved to Everyday Life. I had to think about it more, and while there is craft knowledge behind this, the primary justification is its every-day-ness. So it should really be ranked against Everyday Life articles, especially when Tech is so bloated. Actually, Everyday Life may be a better place for all specific rooms (they're defined by use patterns, not necessarily technical design). -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discussion
Add Great hall
[edit]The main room in a royal palace or large manor house. I don't feel as strongly for this, because we already have Hall 5, but on the other hand, the great hall would be a major space to list for historical homes.
- Support
- Weak support as nom. Makkool (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose here, but neutral if moved to Everyday Life. I had to think about it more, and while there is craft knowledge behind this, the primary justification is its every-day-ness. So it should really be ranked against Everyday Life articles, especially when Tech is so bloated. Actually, Everyday Life may be a better place for all specific rooms (they're defined by use patterns, not necessarily technical design). -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discussion
Add Nursery (room)
[edit]An important room also in modern apartments.
- Support
- As nom. Makkool (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose here, but neutral if moved to Everyday Life. I had to think about it more, and while there is craft knowledge behind this, the primary justification is its every-day-ness. So it should really be ranked against Everyday Life articles, especially when Tech is so bloated. Actually, Everyday Life may be a better place for all specific rooms (they're defined by use patterns, not necessarily technical design). -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discussion
Remove Lobby (room)
5
[edit]Not as important as the rest. I would list Vestibule (architecture) instead, but not suggesting a swap for now.
- Support
- As nom. Makkool (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support, and even if we kept it, it should probably be ranked against Everyday Life articles, especially when Tech is so bloated. Actually, Everyday Life may be a better place for all specific rooms (they're defined by use patterns, not necessarily technical design). -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support.GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 06:52, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discussion
Not as important as the rest. It's also called a solarium, but it's not the same as indoor tanning (which isn't listed yet by the way)
- Support
- As nom. Makkool (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- We list Greenhouse
5 already, which sums up most of the unique technical features. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 06:52, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discussion
An important type of operating system that powers many of the world's mobile devices.
- Support
- Interstellarity (talk) 22:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- I can support this. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 23:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Mathwriter2718 (talk) 15:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Weak oppose, entirely on procedural grounds to tap the brakes. Will change to Support if someone proposes more Computing articles to cut. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discussion
Add Light switch
[edit]- Support
- as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:43, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose here, but neutral if moved to Everyday Life. I had to think about it more, but I'm not sure this adds much technical depth to the underlying switch article. The relationship to lighting is all about use so should probably be judged on every-day-ness. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discussion
Add Power cord
[edit]- Support
- as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:43, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose here, but neutral in Everday Life. they definitely involve engineering, but with our current space, not sure this adds enough that isn't already covered by other Electricity articles. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discussion
Add Power cable
[edit]- Support
- as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:43, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support, not sure how I feel about the others yet, but since this also stands in for High-voltage cable, let's add it. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discussion
Add Camera phone
[edit]- Support
- as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:43, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Has had wide ramifications Mathwriter2718 (talk) 15:35, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Weak oppose, purely on annoying procedural grounds. If someone suggests 2 or more Computing / Consumer electronics articles to cut though, I'll switch to weak support. They're notable, but I'm not sure how much coverage camera + phone actually adds to Smartphone
4 and Camera
3. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discussion
Add Butterfly knife
[edit]This is one of the flashiest and dynamic martial arts implements. 28 interwikis compares favorably with many weapons.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support
- as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose. This is a gimmick knife that is sometimes shown in media and sold at stores that carry mall ninja stuff. They are not commonly carried or used. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 04:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discussion
Add Trailer (vehicle) and Recreational vehicle
[edit]Not sure how Coach (bus) 5 is listed ahead of the more general term Recreational vehicle, which also includes Motorhome, Campervan, Truck camper, Popup camper and the most interwikied RV Caravan (trailer). I don't think any trailers are at VA, but Semi-trailer truck
5 is listed.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support
- as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Weak support of both: I'm almost on the fence, but ground transport isn't clearly over-weight yet. So applying my "some overlap is good" principle; maybe this will encourage consolidation with the other items you listed. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discussion
I guess Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Technology#Motorized_road_transport has an extensive listing of types of buses and Coach (bus) snuck in ahead of RV that way.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- N.B. Caravan fell short of being added by a 3-2 vote above.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
I am belatedly understanding the difference between mechanical wings and fins and biological ones, this section is mostly about biological ones except for the first one.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep in mind that the Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Biology and health sciences/Biology section that includes anatomy is at 1068/1200 (11% under quota)-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Wing 4 is a type of fin.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- N.B.:Fish fin
5 is listed.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support
- as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support, and Animal anatomy is OK for now. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Carlwev 05:26, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discussion
This article is hard to place because it clearly lumps together both biological and technological fins. Maybe a candidate for a future split: fins as aerodynamical shapes vs. fins as biological features? -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is similar to Wing
4 and the two nominees below Bird wing and Insect wing. I don't consider myself equipped to do the split. Note that there is Fish fin
5 and current nominees Fin and Flipper (anatomy). If these all pass, we will have the technical and biological for both of these.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't blame you one bit for not wanting to do a split; I worked on one over at Industry (economics)
5 and it was painful. I'll go ahead and add it to my big, user-page to-do list though so maybe someday someone will come across it. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't blame you one bit for not wanting to do a split; I worked on one over at Industry (economics)
Wing 4 can parent this at level 5. Biology is underquota.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support
- as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support, the Animals section still has a cushion and animal anatomy is largely missing to date. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Carlwev 05:26, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discussion
Add Insect wing
[edit]Wing 4 can parent this at level 5. Biology is underquota.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support
- as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support, the Animals section still has a cushion and animal anatomy is largely missing to date. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Carlwev 05:26, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discussion
Add Flipper (anatomy)
[edit]Fish fin 5 is listed.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support
- as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Weak support, the Animals section still has a cushion and animal anatomy is largely missing to date. We can figure out the overlap with Fin later. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Carlwev 05:26, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discussion
Add Webbed foot
[edit]Fish fin 5 is listed.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support
- as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Weak support, the Animals section still has a cushion and animal anatomy is largely missing to date. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discussion
Add Interdigital webbing
[edit]Fish fin 5 is listed.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support
- as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Weak support, the Animals section still has a cushion and animal anatomy is largely missing to date. We can figure out the overlap with Webbed foot later. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discussion
Add Limb (anatomy)
[edit]Fish fin 5 is listed.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support
- as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support, the Animals section still has a cushion and animal anatomy is largely missing to date. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Carlwev 05:26, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discussion
Add Arthropod leg
[edit]- Support
- as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support, the Animals section still has a cushion and animal anatomy is largely missing to date. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discussion
- Support
- as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:19, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support Carlwev 16:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Weak support, the Animals section still has a cushion and animal anatomy is largely missing to date. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discussion
Add Hectocotylus
[edit]- Support
- as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:19, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support, the Animals section still has a cushion and animal anatomy is largely missing to date. This is a bit of a "deep-cut" but has historical relevance with Aristotle too. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discussion
Add Rechargeable battery
[edit]This has changed the world from power tools, to phones to cars.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support
- as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- We didn't already include this? Oof. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- We have Electric battery
3, and several specific types of batteries (Nickel–metal hydride battery and Nickel–iron battery are up for removal above) but not this. Other rechargeables remain.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- We have Electric battery
- Support. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 19:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discussion
Biological topics related to the head
[edit]Biology is under quota, so I'll be bouncing around as a non-expert to round up some nominees.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep in mind that the Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Biology and health sciences/Biology section that includes anatomy is at 1068/1200 (11% under quota)-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Add Snout, Proboscis and Rostrum (anatomy)
[edit]- Support
- as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Seems vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sure. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discussion
Add Insect mouthparts
[edit]- Support
- as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Seems vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sure. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discussion
- Support
- as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Seems vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sure. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discussion
- Support
- as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Seems vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sure. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discussion
Add Cephalopod beak
[edit]- Support
- as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Seems vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sure. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discussion
- Support
- as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Seems vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Weak support, maybe there's more to it, but listing orifices might be veering into WP:DICTIONARY. We can figure that out later though. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Support
- as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Mathwriter2718 (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Seems vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
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 nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Mathwriter2718 (talk) 15:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Seems vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support
- as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Seems vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discussion
Main body cavity stuff
[edit]More biololgy roundup.
- Keep in mind that the Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Biology and health sciences/Biology section that includes anatomy is at 1068/1200 (11% under quota)-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support
- as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Definitely. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discussion
Add Abdominal cavity
[edit]- Support
- as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Definitely. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discussion
- Support
- as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Definitely. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discussion
Add Pouch (marsupial)
[edit]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 nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Mathwriter2718 (talk) 15:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support Carlwev 16:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Add Spine (zoology)
[edit]- Support
- as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Definitely. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discussion
- Support
- as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Definitely. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discussion
Add Mammary gland
[edit]- Support
- as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Definitely. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discussion
Add Genitourinary system
[edit]- Support
- as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Definitely. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discussion
- Support
- as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Definitely. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- support Carlwev 10:11, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discussion
Random biology (set 2 of 2)
[edit]- Support
- as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Definitely. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Looks vital to me. --ZergTwo (talk) 23:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discussion
Add Primary vein
[edit]- Support
- as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Definitely. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- If the article isn't merged when the discussion closes, it should be vital. --ZergTwo (talk) 23:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discussion
Various security items (set 2 of 2)
[edit]- Support
- as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Very important. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 05:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose here, but neutral if moved to Everyday Life. I don't know if container + lock adds enough unique coverage. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discussion
@TonyTheTiger: I finally got around to this proposal, and while I oppose adding locker to Tech, I realized I could totally support Combination lock. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you propose it, I'll support.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Add Bank vault
[edit]- Support
- as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support, this is technically distinct and interesting enough that I think we can make room for it. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 05:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discussion
I am thinking about the general version for Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Technology#Agricultural_tools, although there is a specialized version for masons. This is more of a tool for the flowerbed, greenhouse or residential interior, but it is still important.
- Support
- as nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:05, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Weak support for now, the article is pretty listy for now and I feel like the Tools section is getting cluttered. But this is a pretty basic tool-form so let's list it for the moment. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discussion
Add Lateral line
[edit]Significant part of fish biology, and an important animal sensory system we don't list.
- Support
- As nom. Makkool (talk) 10:40, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, not sure where we'll be if some of the quota proposals pass, but we can find other removals. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discussion
Add Lifeboat (rescue) and Inflatable boat
[edit]At least one of these should be at Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Technology#Naval_transport
- Support
- as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support both, pretty widespread aspects of naval transport. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support both. Strong support for Lifeboat, a bit weaker for inflatable boat. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 01:56, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discussion
Add Lifebuoy and Personal flotation device
[edit]These are the marine equivalent of emergency Airbag 5 and precautionary Seat belt
5, IMO. Maybe they would go Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Technology#Basics_7 or maybe somewhere in Everyday life.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:03, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support
- as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:03, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support both, weaker for Lifebuoy, but they're pretty widespread, and we can evaluate other sections for trimming first. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Per above. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 01:56, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discussion
Although Jousting 5 is only VA5, I think we should consider this.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support
- as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, we're still not that biased towards military tech, and all polearm weapons are still under 10. Doesn't seem like too much considering how ancient they are. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discussion
These devices were the precursor to smartphones.
- Support
- Oppose
- Oppose, partly just on procedure (Tech is over quota & computing is way over-represented). -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discussion
If you add this now, it will be removed in 10 years. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 14:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Locomotion
[edit]Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Physical sciences/Physics remain at 1172/1200 (2.3% below quota). Lets add various types of locomotion by environment. We have aerial locomotion (Flight 4).
Add Aquatic locomotion
[edit]This goes well beyond Swimming 3.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support
- as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Seems vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support, but it looks like this actually belongs more in Biology than Physics. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discussion
This goes well beyond Walking 4.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support
- as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Seems vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support, but it looks like this actually belongs more in Biology than Physics. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discussion
Add Locomotion in space
[edit]- Support
- as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Seems vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support, but maybe this actually belongs more in Technology than Physics? -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discussion
Add Wireless network
[edit]We list types of wireless networks, but lack the topic itself.
- Support
- As nom. Makkool (talk) 10:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 10:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Weak oppose, purely on annoying procedural grounds. We already list Wireless
5 too, and while I normally like overlap in Lv5, we need to get back down to quota. Will change to Support if someone finds 2 or more weak Computing or smartphone-related articles to cut. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discuss
Add Mitochondrial Eve
[edit]A significant concept for genetics and the history of modern humans.
- Support
- As nom. Makkool (talk) 10:54, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support. Going to nominate Y-chromosomal Adam as well. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 04:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, could go under Biology -> Human Evolution. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
Add Terrace (building)
[edit]As vital as Balcony 5, Porch
5 and Patio
5, IMO.
- Support
- as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose here, but Support if moved to Architecture. I had to think about it more, and while there is engineering behind this, the article doesn't mention it and focuses on architectural aspects. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discussion
This is a very high level topic that I'm surprised isn't already included. I think this should be higher then level 5 but starting here. The article itself is pretty self explanatory, but from the lede "Analysis (pl.: analyses) is the process of breaking a complex topic or substance into smaller parts in order to gain a better understanding of it. The technique has been applied in the study of mathematics and logic since before Aristotle (384–322 B.C.), though analysis as a formal concept is a relatively recent development."
- Support
- As nom GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- We didn't already include this? Oof. Strong support, can go under Science -> Basics. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
- Proposal signature
GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Add Informatics
[edit]This topic is a bit of a more novel discipline, but I think it should be included. In my experience it is a more commonly used term in Europe, and in the United States generally refers to things like Bioinformatics, which studies computer use in healthcare. Essentially, to quote the lede, it is the study of computational systems, and can be sometimes used as a synonym for Computer Science. There is a large organization dedicated to it called Informatics Europe, and several sub-disciplines like geoinformatics (how I am familiar with it). I think that it should be included at least at level 5, but would nominate it for level 4 if it passes. According to this link, there are several informatics programs at American universities, and the department of computer science at Oxford lists it among their research activities here. Google Scholar returns several highly cited results when you search for "Informatics," as you can see here. While not as widespread in the US, I believe a discipline with many subdisciplines, used at multiple academic departments, with a large body of literature should be included.
- Support
- As nom.GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔)
- Definitely, though not sure exactly the best place for it. Would make sense in either Science -> Basics or Math -> Theoretical comp sci. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
- Proposal signature
GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Add Y-chromosomal Adam
[edit]Similar to Mitochondrial Eve which is nominated above, Y-chromosomal Adam is a significant concept in human genetic history and genomic research. Essentially, this is the most recent Male ancestor of every living human we can detect with current technology, as Mitochondrial Eve is the most recent Female ancestor of every living human.
- Support
- As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 04:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Per nom. Makkool (talk) 13:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, could go under Biology -> Human Evolution. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
- Proposal signature
GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 04:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Remove Uninhabited island
5
[edit]I think this one speaks for itself. Island 3 is vital, obviously. I struggle to think why the concept of an island that is not inhabited by humans is vital though.
- Support
- As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 22:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Weak oppose, I'm actually going to tap the brakes on this one. The article in its current form is definitely weak, but I could see this being vital for ecological reasons.
- Neutral
- Discuss
GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 22:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Add V-2 rocket
[edit]This NAZI weapon was the first artificial object to travel into space by crossing the Kármán line (edge of space) with the vertical launch of MW 18014 on 20 June 1944. After WWII, the U.S.A. brought several NAZI scientists involved in the project to the U.S. through Operation Paperclip. The Soviet Union captured the manufacturing facilities for the rockets and brought them to the USSR. This weapon helped serve as the foundation for space programs in the United States, USSR, France, the United Kingdom, and China.
- Support
- As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 23:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- per nom Aurangzebra (talk) 02:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Weak support, would be stronger if we weren't over quota. I get the feeling we'll need to revisit specific military plaforms at some point, but this one is pretty notable. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Definitely. As you know, I recently proposed cutting several military aircraft and other weapons, as well as proposing some others. I think the cuts were not as successful as the additions I proposed, which is a shame. Don't know how to approach cutting it back without repeating failed proposals. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 05:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
- Proposal signature
GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 23:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Add Input/output
[edit]Essential communication component in computing. Input device 5 and Output device
5 were listed not too long ago (albeit, I proposed them if that may be important noting) so I feel that it makes sense to add this as well. B3251(talk) 20:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support
- Oppose
- Weak oppose, purely on annoying procedural grounds. I'll switch to strong support if someone proposes 2 or more weak Computing (or Consumer electronics) articles to cut. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discuss
Add some statistical/geographical problems
[edit]Adding some commonly referenced problems in statistics/spatial statics.
The example of the MAUP most people are aware of (at least in the USA) is Jerrymandering. When creating aerial units, there isn't a "best" or "correct" way to subdivide a population. Therefore, the way we aggregate the data impacts the final results.
- Support
- As nom GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 23:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, should probably go in Math -> Statistics. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
Like the MAUP, the MTUP is a problem when working on temporal datasets. Depending on how you choose to aggregate your data (Days, Weeks, Minutes, etc.) you can skew your results. Sampling interval, study period start/end times, and unit of time used all impact this. Full disclosure this is one I originated.
- Support
- As nom GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 23:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, should probably go in Math -> Statistics. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
This is a formal fallacy caused when making inferences about individuals in a group based on the groups aggregate data. The class average is a C, that does not mean I can assume a particular student has a C in the class.
- Support
- As nom GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 23:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, should probably go in Math -> Statistics. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
Concerned with the optimal placement of facilities to minimize transportation costs while considering factors like avoiding placing hazardous materials near housing, and competitors' facilities.
- Support
- As nom GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 23:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Absolutely, can go near Applied Math -> Operations Research. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
- Proposal signature
GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 23:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Add some professions and disciplines
[edit]Add Geographer
[edit]Geography 2 is a level 2 vital article, and we have several geographers listed at level 4. I think the profession for people who practice the discipline is vital based on the criteria. The term covers a broad scope, is essential to other pages, and is internationally practiced.
- Support
- As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 00:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, the other scientific specialists are a clear precedent. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Netural
- Discuss
Like above, Geology 2 is a level 2 vital article. We have geologists listed at level 4. I think the profession is vital. The term covers a broad scope, is essential to other pages, and is internationally practiced.
- Support
- As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 00:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, the other scientific specialists are a clear precedent. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Netural
- Discuss
Add Cartographer
[edit]Cartography 4 is a level 4 vital article, and we list several cartographers. I think the profession of map maker is vital. The term covers a broad scope, is essential to other pages, and is internationally practiced.
- Support
- As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 00:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, the other scientific specialists are a clear precedent. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Netural
- Discuss
Add Photogrammetry
[edit]This is a rather important field related to Remote sensing 4 and I think it is vital. The term covers a broad scope, is essential to other pages, and is internationally practiced.
- Support
- As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 00:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, the other scientific techniques are a clear precedent. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Netural
- Discuss
- Proposal signature
GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 00:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
(Some support already suggested within pubic hair above, so will open this) We list a lot of hairstyles and more are being proposed. Even if we end up listing both pubic and body hair surely body hair is more vital than many numerous articles dedicated to a single hairstyle for an encyclopedia.
- Support
- As nom. Carlwev 17:52, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discussion
Remove some articles from Infrastructure
[edit]Went through the list we have for Infrastructure 3 and of the 239 articles we have in that section, these jumped out as ones we might be able to remove.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We list 5 broad types of environmental remediation in addition to Environmental remediation 5. I think we can trim this.
- Support
- As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 23:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support Carlwev 23:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Low view count Makkool (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- per nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:09, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Weak oppose for now, I'll have to push back on this one at least. The title is convoluted and the current page isn't great, but IIUC this is pretty much a default method for treating many brownfield sites. I'm also struggling to believe waste management and remediation are where we're over-represented right now. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- To address all the comments, Environmental remediation
5 is only level 5 but has 9 articles in the section, all at level 5. This made me think the section was either over represented, or some needed to be bumped to level 4. Looking at Environmental remediation, there are a few pages like Thermal desorption that could also be added based on the existing articles, but I don't really think it should be. I looked at page views for all 9 over roughly 10 years (plus Thermal desorption for comparison). I proposed cutting the lowest viewed of the 9, Remediation of contaminated sites with cement (17,661 views), and In situ chemical oxidation (66,978 views). Bioremediation
5 has 3 sub articles, all also at level 5, so I proposed cutting all three as I believe bioremediation covered the topic fairly well. I don't feel strongly about any, just trying to make room. If these fail, I'll likely nominate Environmental remediation to level 4 (we might want to do that anyway). GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 05:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- To address all the comments, Environmental remediation
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We list 5 broad types of environmental remediation in addition to Environmental remediation 5. I think we can trim this.
- Support
- As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 23:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Weak support, no section should be immune from quota discipline. IIUC this is a relatively newer and rarer technique so we can cut it for now; we can always re-evaluate later and add it back if we need it. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 20:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Low view count Makkool (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- per nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:09, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
Weak oppose for now, the title is convoluted and the current page isn't great, but I'm struggling to believe waste management and remediation are where we're over-represented right now. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
I believe Bioremediation 5 is adequate, and we don't need to list out three articles for sub-methods.
- Support
- As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 23:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Low view count Makkool (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- per nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:09, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Weak oppose, I see your point that maybe these turn out to be niche in the long-run, but I'm struggling to believe waste management and remediation are where we're over-represented right now. As an argument for keeping them, the 3 sub-methods add depth in complementary ways, this one through bacterial cultures (and a pretty active research area IIUC). -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Neural
- Discuss
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I believe Bioremediation 5 is adequate, and we don't need to list out three articles for sub-methods.
- Support
- As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 23:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose, I see your point that maybe these turn out to be niche in the long-run, but I'm struggling to believe waste management and remediation are where we're over-represented right now. As an argument for keeping them, the 3 sub-methods add depth in complementary ways, this one through plants (and a pretty active research area IIUC). -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Per above Makkool (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I believe Bioremediation 5 is adequate, and we don't need to list out three articles for sub-methods.
- Support
- As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 23:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support Carlwev 23:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Weak support, no section should be immune from quota discipline. IIUC this is a relatively simple technique that only gets used in ideal conditions. It's also less actively researched than the other two forms of bioremediation. So let's cut it for now; we can always re-evaluate later and add it back if need be. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 20:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Low view count Makkool (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- per nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:10, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
Weak oppose for now, I see your point that maybe these turn out to be niche in the long-run, but I'm struggling to believe waste management and remediation are where we're over-represented right now. As an argument for keeping them, the 3 sub-methods add depth in complementary ways (this one through fertilizer-like means). -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We list Buttress 5, I don't think this specific type is necessary.
- Support
- As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 23:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Strong oppose of removal, but support moving to Architecture. Some would say this is the characteristic innovation of Gothic architecture. Tech may not be the best place for it (though it is fundamentally an engineering solution), but I don't see how we can omit this at Lv5. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I could support moving it. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 05:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support move per above Makkool (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- per above.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:09, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
We list Tunnel 4 and Tunnel construction
5, I don't think this method is necessary.
- Support
- As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 23:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Low view count Makkool (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- per nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:09, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Weak oppose, I see your point that maybe these turn out to be niche in the long-run, but I'm struggling to see how construction techniques are over-represented right now. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discuss
- Proposal signature
GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 23:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
General discussion
[edit]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.
@GeogSage: Hi there, I saw your comment above about the pageview statistics, but I thought I would reply here to minimize any clutter, and also as more of a notice for everyone to participate. I'm not surprised at all that pageviews are low for all of these topics, and they're definitely starting to get into details we may ultimately decide are too niche for Lv5. As these progress, I might even concede and switch to cutting 1 or 2, probably Biostimulation first.
I'm mostly opposed to cutting any of these for now though because I think it's part of a trend we really need to move away from:
- Unpopular topics are shaved to squeeze a few more slots, without any consideration for their economic impact or the part they play in wider systems or technical solutions.
- At the same time, we only keep adding to categories that are consumer-facing and receive media attention
At 9 articles right now, environmental remediation topics only take up ~0.28% of our entire 3,200 article allotment. I'm not suggesting this as a mechanical rule, but compare that to the topic's % GDP share as an industry in any technologically complex economy. From that PoV, I imagine we're an entire order lower in representation. Meanwhile, Computing & IT takes up a whopping ~19.56% of our allotment.
And for all of that leeway, the Computing section is frankly a hot mess. Just on its own terms, we're still missing basic, applied software concepts like Unit testing, Continuous integration, Software design pattern, and Database transaction (or ACID). But we do list Pornhub 5, WinRAR
5, over 30 social media apps, and at least 20 or so specific file extensions.
I can't and don't want to stop people from proposing what they're interested in. But when we still don't even list things like Forest management, Joinery, or Waste collection, not to mention engineering concepts, I feel like I have to hold the line on cutting topics like this. And yes, I should be more proactive about making proposals myself, but I keep hoping the page will shrink to a more manageable size first. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Fair, I try to balance additions I propose with removal proposals, even if it isn't a one to one swap. Also, while going through the lists and skimming stuff from a more top down POV to see what we have, I'm drawn more to areas I have knowledge about and avoid others that take more research on my part. These in this one might be over zealous. I haven't taken a class that touches on remediation for a decade, so I'm probably really rusty. I'm trying to work out a smooth way to get a solid series of proposals for geography, and this stuff I notice along the way. I'm trying to get around 80% of what I think needs to be on the list to at least level 5 while moving a few things to around at the higher levels where possible. I'm struggling with the projects organization when it comes to tech/history/geography and things like spatial statistics and math. Not sure where the various topics should be in the project. For example, I proposed the V-2 Rocket here, but I think it could just as easily be in history.
- The Computer software is a hot mess. I've tried to chip off sections, but it is hard to sort. I think we could start proposing swaps for it, rather then outright removals or additions. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- No worries, you're good. And like I said, you're definitely not wrong that these are less popular and probably more niche. Partly in the spirit of compromise, and partly in line with my "war of maneuver" view of VA5, I decided to switch my vote on ISCO and Biostimulation. If it turns out we need them and more, we can always add them back later.
- But yeah, I don't know exactly why, but balance definitely seems to be ignored especially in the Tech section. My theory is simply that we don't get many engineers or technical specialists coming through (power engineering is a weird exception) so most proposals relate to consumer-facing and/or in-the-news topics. I've actually never studied remediation so if anyone has better topics in mind, I'd be all for adding them; I guess I've just hung around enough people in adjacent fields to be aware of it.
- As for the Software section, it is definitely a big ball of mud. I think if we get a little more space here, I can figure out a way to prioritize some cuts. Even before that though, once things settle down on the Lv5 talk page, I may have a clean way to trim the most egregious stuff pretty quickly. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 20:12, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Add several statistics pages
[edit]Kriging is a family of Interpolation 5 statistics. It is likely the most widely employed.
- Support
- As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, we can worry about the related articles like Gaussian process later. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
A family of spatial statistics used to measure local and global autocorrelation. The result of these statistics is a "Hot spot map." If you've ever heard of a hotspot map, this is how they're calculated. If you haven't, I've attached a hotspot map I made to this proposal.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/10645/106450867030596dff3ae126a6067a6e30a64411" alt=""
- Support
- As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, has clear applications and we can worry about balance later. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Autocorrelation is more vital yet not V5.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:39, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing that out, I just nominated autocorrelation. I'm always surprised at what is missing from this project and what is prioritized. I think both should definitely be included. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 07:01, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- You seem to have gotten very active recently. Probably as you got active you noticed that your specialty seemed in need of more subjects. I have only been active here about a year and a half, but before you were active there was a big movement to strip out a lot of state capitals, state population leaders, and I think even some small country capitals. I got fed up with it all and was not active for a few months. I think they stripped out regions. Now you show up with a lot of interesting topics. I would personally rather readd the 35th or 40th most important U.S. State capital than a lot of these geography topics that you come up with. In fact, the more that you come up with, the more pissed I am that so many modestly important cities were stripped because I think they would serve us better than a lot of them. However, if we are not going to readd those, I think geography should give spaces to other subjects. I'd rather see the 3rd or 4th most important painting by Monet or Lichtenstein get the slot than have a geography expert fill them up to the best of his ability. I am not feeling this nom and it is representative of many that you post. I'd rather have modest cities back than half of these. I'd even rather let musicians or actors bloat than some of these. We really chopped U.S. politicians.
I'd rather the 15th through 30th most important U.S. president be added back.I really think we are getting in the weeds on geography and think there are better subjects to include.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:24, 28 January 2025 (UTC)- I think GeogSage's proposals have been a really welcome addition to the project. Geography hasn't received similar attention during the time when the list was assembled. Comparing to Mathematics or the other STEM subjects it doesn't have the same depth and lacks as advanced topics as for example Mathematics has in Vital articles. The situation is the same with Psychology or with Literature which is my specialty. (But with Lit I've faced up the fact that we're never be able to include as many basic topics as I would like to because the works take so many slots) So I think it's good were working on a neglected subject now. My wish would be that some psychologist would join us as well to further broaden the list's coverage. If it were upto me, we'd cut Mathematics and Physical sciences down until all subjects have about the same level of higher and advanced topics. Makkool (talk) 09:24, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you, I'm glad I'm not making everyone "pissed" by my participation. I wish there were more experts involved across the board. Random question, when it comes to literature, do you believe the works or authors are generally more "vital" based on the project criteria? Psychology and health is painfully under represented, psychology has 220 articles, Mental disorders has 70, and Psychiatric drugs has 18. That is a huge blind spot in coverage that should be addressed. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 00:48, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not the one you asked, but I say authors vs. works go on a case-by-case basis, but often an author known for multiple influential works would go higher; William Shakespeare
3 & Hamlet
4 and J. K. Rowling
5 & Harry Potter
4 are examples of good arrangements IMO.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 01:06, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback none the less. This is one I've struggled with in terms of thinking about books and works. While it would always be case by case, this is less obvious then other areas as to which way it leans in my opinion. Most academic's are going to be vital based on their whole career, it's unlikely that a single work would be important enough to include. A band or musicians will be included before their music it seems as music has 824 articles while musicians and composers have 1408. These sections I don't have much opinion on. For film, We have 212 specific films, 481 actors, 466 actresses, and 387 film directors. These sections feel wrong to me, as I think the movies themselves are more important then the people in them, so the slant towards people feels wildly unbalanced. I think we could/should the people involved with movies and replace them with movies, if nothing else. I'm not a film buff, but I watch a movie every week and rarely repeat, so I've seen more then 212 films in the last 4ish years. I couldn't tell you the directors, actors, or actresses of half of them. Literature has 1040 and we have 902 prose writers, which is a better ratio in my opinion, but I'm not sure how literature people feel about that compared to other media. I tend to discuss book titles more then authors, which is what I've noticed others doing. There are some major authors though, so the ratio of slightly more books to prose writers makes some sense. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:29, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not the one you asked, but I say authors vs. works go on a case-by-case basis, but often an author known for multiple influential works would go higher; William Shakespeare
- Thank you, I'm glad I'm not making everyone "pissed" by my participation. I wish there were more experts involved across the board. Random question, when it comes to literature, do you believe the works or authors are generally more "vital" based on the project criteria? Psychology and health is painfully under represented, psychology has 220 articles, Mental disorders has 70, and Psychiatric drugs has 18. That is a huge blind spot in coverage that should be addressed. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 00:48, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- My free time has changed recently, so I can't be as active on other areas of Wikipedia. Looking at the vital articles is less thought/time intensive then writing stuff, and my writing time is all dedicated to professional pursuits lately. I vote on breaks when my code is running or I need a break from grading papers. I'm a geographer/cartographer, so my opinion on what is vital is likely to be different from others. I think it's kind of like a mechanic thinking a Camshaft (big oof, I just checked to see if that was vital when making the example) is vital while a non-mechanic might think Ford Mustang
5 is much more important. If your measure for vitality is how much you would like to read the article, then I can't help you, but if that's how people are voting I understand why the list has so many sports figures and celebrities. Different experiences lead to different perceptions, for example regions/cities are much less important to me then concepts like Moran's I or Getis-Ord statistics. I have had to do spatial-temporal analysis using historic records, meaning I've had to make the corrections for changing boundaries, place names, etc., or determine when it is impossible and note it, and feel cities/regions are constantly in a state of change. Defining regions is subjective, and having sat through long winded debates on drawing lines for them, I feel they're more social construct then objective reality. Trying to nail down a list of place names feels like an exercise in futility to me. For a geographer/cartographer, in my opinion, Getis-Ord Statistics are extremely important, and unless we invent something better will likely see use. You're idea of geography and mine are fundamentally different. I'd rather have a collection of experts nominate what they think is vital to their discipline then rely on what people who aren't involved in the discipline find interesting. I'd say that it looks like the geography section was put together by 5th graders, but Children's books include Tobler and Tobler's first law of geography, something widely debated, cited, and discussed in geography but impossible to add here because it isn't something most people stumble upon. I'm sorry if the stuff I "come up with" to make the section reflect my values makes you feel "pissed," but I don't really feel the need to change my votes or what I nominate based on that. Is this comment just you thinking out loud, or is there something constructive you want me to do? GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 00:37, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- We used to list Cam (mechanism) until it was moved from the primary topic and dropped from the list instead of corrected: Special:Diff/1197682591. I think I added it during the WP:BRD era and decided not to list Camshaft as a strongly overlapping, slightly more auto-centric topic. I know that's not your point, but it does suggest that emotional attachment to an ideal of the VA list is a recipe for disappointment. Time devours everything. But we do still list Cam follower
5 and Tappet
5 (which arguably should be merged) so it's not a total loss!
- I think both you and TonyTheTiger come up with a lot of good ideas, both as proposers and voters, and I'm glad you're both here. And honestly, I don't think anyone stays at this WikiProject (or much of Wikipedia) more than a month without wanting to pull out their hair, or somebody else's. I hope you both can work things out and get past this recent friction.
- That said, I do think we all need to double-check how we're participating here from time to time. I'm almost positive my weird conditional votes and nagging about "the process" are annoying at least some of you. At the same time, I'll cop to being bothered by how uneven participation is becoming. Just here, we're back over 3x what Wikipedia generally considers an unwieldy talk-page, but until Interstellarity dropped by this weekend, the top proposal had been languishing since October. And Makkool's still waiting since mid-Nov on a 4th yea to see if we're going to add Incunable or not.
- Maybe I'm wrong and some people just want to vote, but assuming we all want to participate fully in roughly the same amount, almost nothing will pass unless we average 3 votes minimum for every proposal of our own. And that's before considering any concrete issues with bandwidth (i.e. cognitive load on voters and closers), which will only become more precious now that Lv5 is effectively full and almost everything will take more deliberation than before. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:57, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- I hope you did't get the impression that I am pissed. I just get annoyed when the changing sentiments wipe out subjects that I feel are vital. You are a great contributor. I just look at some specialized geog topics and wonder if it is really more important than things we have decided to cast off. Since you keep coming up with them, I keep wondering this. We have enough good minds to weed through your suggestions. I often make batches looking to see what sticks to the wall. Keep up the good work although we won't always agree.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:23, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- TBF, I think a large part of why the geography proposals have such momentum is they're overwhelmingly going to sections we still haven't finished topping up initially. I know others don't approach it that way, but in my mind, we're still brainstorming and the votes are mainly rubber-stamping. Many may turn out too niche, but it will be easier to determine that once we have full & reorganized sections to compare against.
- That's true to a point even for these Math proposals. While we're at quota, we're also making balanced cuts and Stats is definitely under-represented within the section. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- We used to list Cam (mechanism) until it was moved from the primary topic and dropped from the list instead of corrected: Special:Diff/1197682591. I think I added it during the WP:BRD era and decided not to list Camshaft as a strongly overlapping, slightly more auto-centric topic. I know that's not your point, but it does suggest that emotional attachment to an ideal of the VA list is a recipe for disappointment. Time devours everything. But we do still list Cam follower
- I think GeogSage's proposals have been a really welcome addition to the project. Geography hasn't received similar attention during the time when the list was assembled. Comparing to Mathematics or the other STEM subjects it doesn't have the same depth and lacks as advanced topics as for example Mathematics has in Vital articles. The situation is the same with Psychology or with Literature which is my specialty. (But with Lit I've faced up the fact that we're never be able to include as many basic topics as I would like to because the works take so many slots) So I think it's good were working on a neglected subject now. My wish would be that some psychologist would join us as well to further broaden the list's coverage. If it were upto me, we'd cut Mathematics and Physical sciences down until all subjects have about the same level of higher and advanced topics. Makkool (talk) 09:24, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- You seem to have gotten very active recently. Probably as you got active you noticed that your specialty seemed in need of more subjects. I have only been active here about a year and a half, but before you were active there was a big movement to strip out a lot of state capitals, state population leaders, and I think even some small country capitals. I got fed up with it all and was not active for a few months. I think they stripped out regions. Now you show up with a lot of interesting topics. I would personally rather readd the 35th or 40th most important U.S. State capital than a lot of these geography topics that you come up with. In fact, the more that you come up with, the more pissed I am that so many modestly important cities were stripped because I think they would serve us better than a lot of them. However, if we are not going to readd those, I think geography should give spaces to other subjects. I'd rather see the 3rd or 4th most important painting by Monet or Lichtenstein get the slot than have a geography expert fill them up to the best of his ability. I am not feeling this nom and it is representative of many that you post. I'd rather have modest cities back than half of these. I'd even rather let musicians or actors bloat than some of these. We really chopped U.S. politicians.
- Thanks for pointing that out, I just nominated autocorrelation. I'm always surprised at what is missing from this project and what is prioritized. I think both should definitely be included. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 07:01, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discuss
In statistics, Moran's I is a measure of spatial autocorrelation. It is one of the most common statistics employed in spatial analysis.
- Support
- As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, has clear applications and we can worry about balance later. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
Scan statistics use regular shapes (usually circles) of varying sizes to evaluate a study area. They are used in epidemiology to identify clusters of disease outbreak, among other uses.
- Support
- As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Strong support, really good find, can also apply to things like Time series
5 and scanning text, genomes, etc. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- seems very niche.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:23, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discuss
Important in probability and statistics. From the page, "a model for the set of possible outcomes of any single experiment that asks a yes–no question."
- Support
- As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Strong support, really good find, definitely belongs here as an elementary statistical distribution. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:35, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
- Proposal signature
GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Add 5-Hydroxytryptophan
[edit]This is a common supplement available at American grocery stores, often sold as Oxitriptan. The 5-Hydroxytryptophan page has an average of 792 pageviews per day over the past 10 years. In the views, you can see there has been some fluctuations in view counts, but there has been a recent spike over the past year or so. There are some pretty serious side effects if the supplement is misused, so I believe it would be important to include on the list to increase attention on it.
- Support
- As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 20:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- After some thought, sure. Naturally occurring so let's list it under Biochemistry. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:58, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
- Proposal signature
GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 20:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Remove Paper towel
5
[edit]It looks like we are going to add Disposable product 5. This is a great umbrella term that encompasses a wide variety of disposable products. In relation to this topic, we list Towel
5, Toilet paper
5 and Paper towel
5, but don't list Disposable towel, or other items. I think we can keep toilet paper as it is a huge hygiene topic, but other disposable products are probably unnecessary to include. With both disposable product and towel included, I believe we can drop this one.
- Support
- As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 20:22, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, we also already cover more of the production details with Tissue paper
5 (which is not just a consumer product). -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- If we added Aluminium foil
5 and are going to add Plastic wrap soon, then we should keep this to match. Makkool (talk) 19:22, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discuss
GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 20:22, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
Mono seems vital to me.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support
- as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support. "Health, medicine, and disease" still has a bit of room (a bit more then 50 according to the chart), but we have a lot missing still from it in my opinion. We will either need to give it more space or start making cuts from it sooner rather then later. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 16:42, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- Strong support, this is an easy add, good find. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discussion
Add several stone tools.
[edit]I was looking into ancient tools, and was a bit disappointed with our coverage. Here are a few pages I believe should definitely be included. Several of the more broad ones I believe should be at much higher levels then 5 and will likely nominate them if they pass here. There are a lot more then these we are missing, I stopped adding to keep the list a bit more managable.
Add Stone tool
[edit]This is pretty self explanatory, but these are tools that have been employed by Homo sapiens and other members of the genus Homo. They survive in the archeological record well so they are fairly well known.
- Support
- As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- Per nom. Makkool (talk) 09:44, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:45, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support here, obvious historical importance but we're drifting further over quota. Will also support elsewhere, like with Archaeology. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
Add Ground stone
[edit]From the lede, "A category of stone tool formed by the grinding of a coarse-grained tool stone, either purposely or incidentally." These are one of the main types of stone tools.
- Support
- As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- Per nom. Makkool (talk) 09:44, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Changing to support; I still think we need to focus on reorganizing Tech & trimming further. But we should be getting back closer to quota soon and I do like the idea of including some depth to stone tools. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:48, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
Neutral here for now, we're drifting further over quota but this is a pretty basic stone tool type. Strong support if someone can find more room with another relevant topic like Archaeology. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Discuss
- Is this the proper topic in this vein or do we want Grindstone or Millstone?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:15, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- We don't have Grindstone or Millstone?!?!?!?! This is a tragedy. I'll propose them as well... GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 16:58, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
From the lede, "Knapping is the shaping of flint, chert, obsidian, or other conchoidal fracturing stone through the process of lithic reduction to manufacture stone tools, strikers for flintlock firearms, or to produce flat-faced stones for building or facing walls, and flushwork decoration." This is how many of the more famous types of stone tools are manufactured.
- Support
- As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- Per nom. Makkool (talk) 09:44, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Changing to support; I still think we need to focus on reorganizing Tech & trimming further. But we should be getting back closer to quota soon and I do like the idea of including some depth to stone tools. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:48, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
Neutral here for now, we're drifting further over quota but this is an interesting process one. Strong support if someone can find room with another relevant topic like Archaeology; see also Lithic reduction. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Discuss
Extremely surprised this wasn't included, and think it likely needs to be higher then level 5. Quote from the lede, "A hand axe (or handaxe or Acheulean hand axe) is a prehistoric stone tool with two faces that is the longest-used tool in human history." These tools were used from 1.6 million years ago to about 100,000 years ago, mostly by Homo erectus rather then contemporary humans.
- Support
- As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- Per nom. Makkool (talk) 09:44, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- With Axe
4, Battle axe
4, Dagger-axe
5, Halberd
5 and Adze
5, I am not sure this needs to be higher than VA5, but it deserves a spot. Maybe there should be broader parentage to things like Broadaxe, Hatchet, Ice axe, Pickaxe and Mortise and tenon though.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:17, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- The word "Hand axe" might be misleading. These were mostly used by Homo erectus we think, although they probably were used to some extent by homo sapiens. We think they served as a bit of a multi tool. Essentially, pointy rock for digging, smashing, throwing, prying, etc. This is one of the first tools used consistently by the genus homo. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 16:56, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am happy to support at VA5 in large part for this reason.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:35, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- The word "Hand axe" might be misleading. These were mostly used by Homo erectus we think, although they probably were used to some extent by homo sapiens. We think they served as a bit of a multi tool. Essentially, pointy rock for digging, smashing, throwing, prying, etc. This is one of the first tools used consistently by the genus homo. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 16:56, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- As a type artifact for an archaeological industry, I'm still not sure Tech is the best place for it, but I do like the depth to stone tools and we're freeing up a bit of room for now. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:48, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
Weak oppose here for now, we're drifting further over quota. Support if someone can find room with other relevant topics like Archaeology (or even Human evolution in this case). -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discuss
From the lede, "A microlith is a small stone tool usually made of flint or chert and typically a centimetre or so in length and half a centimetre wide. They were made by humans from around 35,000 years ago, across Europe, Africa, Asia and Australia. The microliths were used in spear points and arrowheads." These are a very commonly used tool across multiple groups of humans.
- Support
- As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- Per nom. Makkool (talk) 09:44, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Changing to support; I still think we need to focus on reorganizing Tech & trimming further. But we should be getting back closer to quota soon and I do like the idea of including some depth to stone tools
- Oppose
- I am not sure we even need Arrowhead
5 separate from Arrow
5 and Bow and arrow
4. Since the article Spear
4 does not mention it, I don't think it is that important for the spear use.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:37, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- They were a bit more important 35,000 years ago. Recency bias in technology might be obscuring the several thousand years these were "cutting edge." Pun fully intended. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 17:05, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is not mentioned in the arrowhead article either.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:21, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- They were a bit more important 35,000 years ago. Recency bias in technology might be obscuring the several thousand years these were "cutting edge." Pun fully intended. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 17:05, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
Oppose here for now, we're drifting further over quota. Support if someone can find room with other relevant topics like Archaeology though. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Discuss
Add Prismatic blade
[edit]From the lede, "a long, narrow, specialized stone flake tool with a sharp edge, like a small razor blade." These were very common in Mesoamerica and the term is generally specific to that region.
- Support
- As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- Per nom. Makkool (talk) 09:44, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Changing to support; I still think we need to focus on reorganizing Tech & trimming further. But we should be getting back closer to quota soon and I do like the idea of including some depth to stone tools. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:48, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
Oppose here for now, we're drifting further over quota. Support if someone can find room with other relevant topics like Archaeology though. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discuss
Add Quern-stone
[edit]From the lede "Quern-stones are stone tools for hand-grinding a wide variety of materials, especially for various types of grains." These were used in multiple cultures, including Europe, China, and Mesoamerica.
- Support
- As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- Per nom. Makkool (talk) 09:44, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Changing to support; I still think we need to focus on reorganizing Tech & trimming further. But we should be getting back closer to quota soon and I do like the idea of including some depth to stone tools. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:48, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- This is a bit specific. As stated above, maybe Grindstone or Millstone are more vital.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:40, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
Oppose here for now, we're drifting further over quota. Support if someone can find room with other relevant topics though (Archaeology, Everyday Life, etc.) -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Discuss
Add Macuahuitl
[edit]From the lede, "a weapon, a wooden sword with several embedded obsidian blades." These swords were used by the Aztec (Mexicas), Olmec, Maya, Mixtec, Toltec, and Tarascans. Could help round out our list of swords a bit.
- Support
- As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- Per nom. Makkool (talk) 09:44, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Weak support, although we're drifting further over quota, the point on balance in melee weapons is a good one. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
Add Clovis point
[edit]Clovis points are a famous type of stone age tool found in the America's (mostly North America) and used between 13,400–12,700 years ago. They are a fairly famous type of projectile point, but likely a bit more specific then many of the other tools I'm nominating. I believe these would be great at level 5 though.
- Support
- As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- Per nom. Makkool (talk) 09:44, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- As a type artifact for an archaeological industry, I'm still not sure Tech is the best place for it, but I do like the depth to stone tools and we're freeing up a bit of room for now. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:48, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Arrowhead
5 is barely VA5 in my mind. This niche topic is a bit in the weeds.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:44, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
Oppose here for now, we're drifting further over quota. Strong support if someone can find room with another relevant topic like Archaeology (unsure which page that's on). -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- The Clovis culture
4 represents the earliest widely recognised archaeological culture in North America, and the points are the thing that most distinguishes them. I'll try to find something in Archaeology, but we're getting really lean on science, history, and geography articles. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 01:52, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oh, you're right, and while I'm not an archaeologist, I've read they sort of represent the pinnacle of Paleolithic craftsmanship. I definitely think they should be somewhere on VA5 eventually, and I would be fine putting them in Tech if there was room. Unfortunately, we're in this weird muddle right now where Lv5 overall is finally hitting the 50k wall and we can't easily sweep things from place to place to make room. Whoever closes should definitely note to revisit this if it fails now (the bold is to grab the closer's attention). -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- Fair. I'm seeing how hard we're hitting the wall and trying to think of proposals removals that could help give breathing room. I feel like I'm looking at a University budget, trying to make small cuts to various departments while any discussion about the athletics department is a non-starter. Athletes get new locker room while the computer labs use machines from 2015. It's a bit depressing to see the same attitudes here, can't add the founder of modern epidemiology if it means an athlete might get removed. I'm never going to understand it, but seeing it here definitely helps explain the massive destruction of habitat, loss of cultural sites, and extermination of species to make room for golf courses and sports stadiums. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 23:39, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oh, you're right, and while I'm not an archaeologist, I've read they sort of represent the pinnacle of Paleolithic craftsmanship. I definitely think they should be somewhere on VA5 eventually, and I would be fine putting them in Tech if there was room. Unfortunately, we're in this weird muddle right now where Lv5 overall is finally hitting the 50k wall and we can't easily sweep things from place to place to make room. Whoever closes should definitely note to revisit this if it fails now (the bold is to grab the closer's attention). -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- Proposal signature
GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Move Miscibility
[edit]Miscibility 5 is listed on the physics list but I think a better place is the chemistry list, indented under Solution (chemistry)
4.
- Support
- As nom Lophotrochozoa (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- Seconding the move, not sure this needs a full proposal. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Discuss
@Lophotrochozoa: Since this is just a single article and you have a clear rationale in mind, you can probably just move it boldly. It's a gray area, but moves don't necessarily need a proposal unless they're controversial or more than a couple now-and-then. As long as you pace it out, worst-case scenario is that someone just reverts it to discuss. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Add some "Navigation and timekeeping" articles
[edit]We are missing a lot of key articles related to navigation and timekeeping. I have a few here I've noticed, but there are many more. Most of these are extremely basic and elementary to navigation.
Add Wayfinding
[edit]From the lede, "wayfinding (or way-finding) encompasses all of the ways in which people (and animals) orient themselves in physical space and navigate from place to place. "
- Support
- As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Weak oppose for now, we're drifting further over quota, and while I normally try to give stubs a handicap, this appears to be either an organizational placeholder or definition that can probably be merged elsewhere. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discuss
Add Land navigation
[edit]Pretty self explanatory, navigating on land on foot or in a vehicle.
- Support
- As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:08, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose for now, we're drifting further over quota, plus it seems to be largely a placeholder article (c.f. Orienteering
5 and land subsection of Navigation
3. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discuss
Add Trail blazing
[edit]The process of making new trails.
- Support
- As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose for now, we're drifting further over quota; weak support with other Outdoorsmanship topics though (under Recreation?) -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discuss
Navigating in air or water using fixed points of reference.
- Support
- As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support, applied sciences like this are still really lacking but we're drifting further over quota. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
Add Radio navigation
[edit]Using radio waves to determine where you are and aid in navigation.
- Support
- As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Weak oppose for now, might support in the future but we're drifting further over quota. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discuss
Add Course (navigation)
[edit]the cardinal direction in which the craft is to be steered.
- Support
- As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose for now, we're drifting further over quota and this is getting closer to WP:DICTIONARY territory. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discuss
Add Bearing (navigation)
[edit]the horizontal angle between the direction of an object and north or another object.
- Support
- As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose for now, we're drifting further over quota and this is getting closer to WP:DICTIONARY territory. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discuss
Add Heading (navigation)
[edit]The heading of a vessel or aircraft is the compass direction in which the craft's bow or nose is pointed.
- Support
- As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose for now, we're drifting further over quota and this is getting closer to WP:DICTIONARY territory. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discuss
Add Pace count beads
[edit]From the lede, "Pace count beads or ranger beads are a manual counting tool used to keep track of distance traveled through a pace count. It is used in military land navigation or orienteering. A typical example for military use is keeping track of distance traveled during a foot patrol." These are essentially an Abacus 4 but for counting your paces. They are great for orienteering, and widely used in the U.S. military.
- Support
- As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Weak oppose for now, we're drifting further over quota. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discuss
GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Add Autocorrelation
[edit]Always surprised at what we are missing. An important concept in statistics that was noted to be missing in another nomination above.
- Support
- As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 06:57, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support, we can fit in one more basic stats topic like this. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 19:59, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 06:57, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Add Candlestick chart
[edit]Since I manage my own money, this seems like an important type of chart. Let me know if you agree.
- Support
- as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:06, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support. What other charts are we missing, if any? We should probably add all the major ones taught in intro stats/finance courses. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 17:02, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Weak support, oppose adding further charts for now. Math is over quota and we still really haven't discussed what our balance between topics should be. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 19:59, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discussion
Add Grindstone and Millstone
[edit]Grindstones are for sharpening tools. Millstones are for grinding grain. We should add both.
- Support
- As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 17:00, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support only 1 of 2 for now, indifferent on which (that millstone article is really good). Unfortunately, we're drifting further over quota, and we do at least include Mill (grinding)
5, though it's a stubbier, engineering-oriented page. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 17:00, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Trim military technology
[edit]Weapons are a huge part of our culture, for better or worse, however this section could probably be trimmed when compared to some of our other sections. As starting to struggle with quotas at this level, I think we need to trim some of the more specific articles from this section. I list the articles from least to most viewed, you can see the chart here
Remove Ammunition box
5
[edit]I understand ammo boxes are useful for other purposes and are common on the battlefield, but I'm not sure it is a vital concept in itself. This is the least viewed article I'm nominating.
- Support
- As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 02:32, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support, I may have added this during the WP:BRD era. With a full section to compare against, I agree we should cut it. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- Low view count Makkool (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
Remove Multiple-barrel firearm
5
[edit]We include Rotary cannon 5 which gets consistently more views. I think we can cut one, and think the least viewed can go.
- Support
- As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 02:32, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- Weak support, I may have added this during the WP:BRD era. Would prefer we remove by figuring out a merger with rotary cannon, but I agree we should cut it now. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- Per above Makkool (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
Remove Burst mode (weapons)
5
[edit]We include Select fire 5, I think we can remove burst mode.
- Support
- As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 02:32, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- Weak support, I may have added this during the WP:BRD era. Would prefer we remove by figuring out a merger with select fire, but I agree we should cut it now. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- Per above Makkool (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
Remove Active Denial System
5
[edit]From the lede "The Active Denial System (ADS) is a non-lethal directed-energy weapon developed by the U.S. military, designed for area denial, perimeter security and crowd control. Informally, the weapon is also called the heat ray since it works by heating the surface of targets, such as the skin of targeted human beings. Raytheon had marketed a reduced-range version of this technology. The ADS was deployed in 2010 with the United States military in the Afghanistan War, but was withdrawn without seeing combat." I don't think this particular weapon system is vital.
- Support
- As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 02:32, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support, I may have added this during the WP:BRD era. With a full section to compare against, I agree we should cut it for now. If directed-energy weapons or crowd control start becoming more prevalent, we can revisit adding something similar. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- Per above Makkool (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
Remove Man-portable air-defense system
5
[edit]We include Surface-to-air missile 5, I think we can remove MANPADs. This is the most viewed article I'm nominating here.
- Support
- As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 02:32, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Weak oppose for now, partly for incrementalism, partly for the asymmetric warfare angle. Arguably forms a trinity with Anti-tank guided missile
5 and Rocket-propelled grenade
5. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- Per above Makkool (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discuss
GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 02:32, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
Celadon 5 is listed as a color, but the article is about a kind of pottery. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 01:32, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- Someone else might revert, but honestly, I think you could boldly remove that one. I'm pretty sure it was originally referring to Celadon (color), which has since been merged into Shades of green. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:29, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agree with Zar2gar1, it's one of those rare cases where a bold removal is in place. They've obviously meant Celadon (color), which doesn't exist any more. Makkool (talk) 10:11, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
Swap Index (statistics) with 1000 (number)
5
[edit]Indexes in statistics are important. The page isn't in the best of shape but that is all the more reason to add it. We list numbers -1, 0 3, One half
5, 1
4, 2
5, 3
5, 4
5, 5
5, 6
5, 7
5, 8
5, 9
5, 10
5, 100
5, 1000 (number)
5 and a couple others. I understand some of the reasoning here, but 1000 is a bit excessive. We capture base 10 adequately, and I'd imagine numbers like 12, and 360 would make more sense to help capture base 12 systems. I think 1000 is excessive. As we are over quota, we should discuss swaps instead of straight adds.
- Swap Index (statistics) with 1000 (number)
5
- As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:05, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support, the Probability & Stats section is still relatively light. I've never particularly liked over-listing simple constants and functions either; they may be well-known but mathematically, most aren't actually more important or interesting than any other random number. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- Remove 1000 (number)
5 with no swap
- Failing swap, I still think 1000 is excessive and should be replaced with something else.
- Neutral
- Oppose all
- oppose remove via swap. It should be considered along with other number nominations.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:45, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
- I included this in that nomination below. If that passes first, I think this would become a proposal for a straight add of Index (statistics). GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 23:48, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
- Discuss other articles to add/remove
GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:05, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
Swap Duodecimal with 100
5
[edit]We capture the base 10 system Decimal 4 adequately by including numbers 1 through 10 (among others). I believe 100 is not necessary to include, and the base 12 Duodecimal system is extremely important historically and has implications today. Quoting the article, "Historically, units of time in many civilizations are duodecimal. There are twelve signs of the zodiac, twelve months in a year, and the Babylonians had twelve hours in a day (although at some point, this was changed to 24). Traditional Chinese calendars, clocks, and compasses are based on the twelve Earthly Branches or 24 (12×2) Solar terms. There are 12 inches in an imperial foot, 12 troy ounces in a troy pound, 12 old British pence in a shilling, 24 (12×2) hours in a day; many other items are counted by the dozen, gross (144, square of 12), or great gross (1728, cube of 12). The Romans used a fraction system based on 12, including the uncia, which became both the English words ounce and inch. Pre-decimalisation, Ireland and the United Kingdom used a mixed duodecimal-vigesimal currency system (12 pence = 1 shilling, 20 shillings or 240 pence to the pound sterling or Irish pound), and Charlemagne established a monetary system that also had a mixed base of twelve and twenty, the remnants of which persist in many places." Above I am suggesting a swap to remove 1000, if both pass this would reduce the number of numbers we include. I include this proposal of Duodecimal, but under it we could justify adding numbers 11 and 12 as well. I don't think that's necessary, so think we should cut the numbers above 10 unless there is specific reason.
- Support swap
- As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 04:44, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support straight add
- I don't think we should go over quota really, but think this should be included. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 04:44, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support removal only
- I've never particularly liked over-listing simple constants and functions; they may be well-known but mathematically, most aren't actually more important or interesting than any other random number. As for Duodecimal, not only was the previous consensus to remove pretty strong, but I think as a mathematical topic, we implicitly subsumed it along with Vigesimal under Sexagesimal
5 for now. Maybe we add both back someday, but for now, I think we have bigger gaps to fill in. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
We actually listed this and several more number systems before voting to cut it last January: Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/STEM/Archive 2#Remove Duodecimal. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:29, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- We still use various things based on it today, and I think it is more vital then the number 100. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 21:09, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- Discuss other possible swaps.
GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 04:44, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
Move Soil mechanics
[edit]There is a section about soil mechanics on the physics subpage, but I think a better place for those articles would be the earth science subpage, specifically the soil science section. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 16:15, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's a tricky one. Personally, I'd leave it with Physics for now. Even if it studies the specifics of soil, I think it's still from a physics perspective and technically a subtopic of granular mechanics (which redirects to Granular material, a topic we don't currently list). -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:29, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
Remove file formats
[edit]We are over quota and need to start making tough decisions. I've proposed donating some slots from other sections elsewhere, but those are not permanent solutions even if they pass. Therefore, we need to start looking for things to trim, and file extensions are a good place to start. File extensions come and go, and we are likely to see many more as long as we keep using computers. Adding each type of file extension will not be sustainable long term, so trimming now makes sense. Starting with this batch of 10.
Remove all specific file formats
[edit]This might make things quicker. Would free up some space and avoid going through one at a time.
- Support
- As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 21:12, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support removing all specific file extensions / formats, not just the 10 listed here. These are largely minutiae that even most people who work with computers don't need to read about in depth. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know if I need to clarify, but that is what I mean by remove all. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 19:06, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- I think there are vital file formats like .mp3 and .zip, so I wouldn't support a blanket removal. It's better to propose removals on a one-by-one basis. Makkool (talk) 19:24, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'd rather first look into this list of low-view Technology articles to get ideas for removing things people generally don't care about, instead of deciding specific examples of an entire subcategory are worthless. That list is a bit out of date however in that a bunch of entries from it have been removed already, it might be good to generate a new one (instructions here).--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 21:03, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm open to using pageviews to think up proposals, but honestly, I find it a little troubling to suggest we should base especially the Tech list on popularity. Done enough times, it almost guarantees we'll shed every in-depth engineering or technical article. The imbalance towards "very online" topics and consumer products will probably also worsen.
- And on the matter of file extensions, it's just my opinion, and I really don't like to be blunt or pull rank. But as someone that worked in software for several years, enumerating them while we omit some other foundational or widely-used topics, even in software, feels kind of embarrassing. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 00:52, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- Comment Not to pile on but just something from my limited professional experience with Category:GIS file formats . Two file types most people aren't familiar with are a .gbd (Geodatabase (Esri)), and .shp or (shapefile), but they are absolutely critical for any computer cartography/navigation. In 3D printing and CAD, we have Category:CAD file formats and stuff like .stl (STL (file format)) files. The file types we list are well known for consumer computers and normal business users, but if you look at Category:Computer file formats, you can see many that are a bit less famous but might be crucial to modern civilization. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 02:09, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- case-by-case please.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:06, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discuss
If you support removing all, please vote to support removing all listed in the event the first doesn't pass.
Remove RAR (file format)
5
[edit]- Support
- As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 21:08, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- Makkool (talk) 19:24, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- per nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:06, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
Remove OpenDocument
5
[edit]- Support
- As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 21:08, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- Makkool (talk) 19:24, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- per nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:06, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
Remove Office Open XML
5
[edit]- Support
- As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 21:08, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- Makkool (talk) 19:24, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- per nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:06, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
- Support
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
- Support
- As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 21:08, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- Makkool (talk) 19:24, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- per nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:06, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- This should be fine to keep to cover Advanced Video Coding
5 and its successors (despite having lower pageviews).--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:29, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- Actually, since I support the whole batch removal, I just now skimmed the individual items. And should DivX even be listed as a file format? They've created a couple proprietary, container formats, but otherwise, they implement media apps and codecs to standards developed elsewhere. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discuss
- Support
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
- Support
- As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 21:08, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- Makkool (talk) 19:24, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- per nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:06, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
Remove Advanced Audio Coding
5
[edit]- Support
- As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 21:08, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- Makkool (talk) 19:24, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- per nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:06, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
Remove Advanced Video Coding
5
[edit]- Support
- As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 21:08, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- Makkool (talk) 19:24, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- per nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:06, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- Superseded by High Efficiency Video Coding.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:29, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
- Support
- Oppose
- From this list this is the only one that I think is still important.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:06, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:29, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discuss
GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 21:08, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
Add Phenomenon
[edit]An observable event that we all see. Interstellarity (talk) 01:56, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support
- Interstellarity (talk) 01:56, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support, but with Philosophy. These are definitely important to Science, but not only, plus the topic is very abstract with mostly philosophical details. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support in Philosophy Makkool (talk) 19:54, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Remove typographic units
[edit]Currently the Basics and measurement section is over-quota, we could still cut many measurement units. I noticed that we give 5 slots to typographic units: Typographic unit 5, Em (typography)
5, En (typography)
5, Point (typography)
5 and Pica (typography)
5. These seem to be terminology of a certain specialty, that seems out of place on the listcompared to other units that have more wider usage. I would suggest that we cut these 5.
- Support
- Support all as nom. Makkool (talk) 10:10, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support all except Typographic unit
5, I think we should ruthlessly trim most of the individual units. The overarching "system of units" articles are less bloating though, and typography is probably vital enough to warrant one article among the rest. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support all except Typographic unit
5, most of these have super low pageviews and so are probably excessive detail on a fairly niche topic. Point (typography)
5 has the highest pageviews but I think it's better in this case to have the general overview article (which I'm neutral on, to be clear).--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 12:15, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
Remove Timeline of the universe
[edit]Not sure why this is listed. I don't think it makes any sense to list this when we already have articles on the list that cover similar things.
- Support
- Interstellarity (talk) 01:33, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, though this is actually kind of an interesting timeline, the current precedent is to deprecate lists, plus we already include Chronology of the universe
4. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:03, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- Makkool (talk) 19:54, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Similar reasons for nom above.
- Support
- Interstellarity (talk) 02:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, though this is actually kind of an interesting timeline, the current precedent is to deprecate lists, plus we already include History of life
4. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:03, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- Makkool (talk) 19:54, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Remove most numbers
[edit]We are starting to bump into the upper levels of quota, and math is over quota while still missing many important concepts. We need to make tough decisions, and I think cutting most of the numbers would be a good start. I believe we can start with the ones that are at level 5, and I'm going to propose bringing the ones at higher levels down. In this proposal, we'll start with One half 5, 2
5, 3
5, 4
5, 5
5, 6
5, 7
5, 8
5, 9
5, 10
5, 100
5, and 1000 (number)
5.
- Support
- As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 18:25, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
- Support all, for the same basis as we don't have individual letters of the alphabet Makkool (talk) 17:12, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- Support removing only One half, 100, and 1000 for now, unsure about the rest. This is something where we really need to have a discussion about what vital means for the math section. I'm mostly on the side of adding more depth, but there are also cultural considerations (e.g. Numerology for the small counting numbers). -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- Support 2-9.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:54, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Weak oppose all except 100 and 1000, as I think they are all very important. Support cutting 100 and 1000 for now. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:02, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- oppose half, 100 and 1000. I think the arguments here are all backwards. 100 and 1000 are the important numbers up for discussion here. The metric system changes names every 1000. We add a comma for every 1000. PerCENTages are based on 100.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:54, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- We include Metric system
4, do we need to include these? If so, why not 1,000,000 or 1,000,000,000 or 1,000,000,000,000? We don't even include the Duodecimal (base 12) system, much less 12, which while not as prominent to day as the metric still has remnants used around the world, in many of our units of time, as well as in Imperial measurements. With all that we don't include, I don't think we need a particular focus on specific numbers. While we include Hexadecimal
5 (base 16), we don't include 16, Base32 (duotrigesimal), or Base64 (tetrasexagesimal), despite the importance of these to computers today. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 16:12, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- User:GeogSage, other numbers that start with 1 and end with zero have nothing to do with the arguments in favor of 100 and 1000. In almost every country that has a dollar, they are made up of 100 cents. Percentages are parts of 100. Meters, grams go from meters to Kilo-. Every 1000x they are renamed.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:06, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- We include Metric system
- Neutral
- Discuss
GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 18:25, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
A high importance subject.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:43, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
- Support
- as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:43, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
- Support, but we are seriously running into issues with quota. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 23:50, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
- Very good find, adds needed engineering / construction coverage. We can spare one or 2 stand-out additions as long as larger cuts elsewhere keep progressing. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 06:00, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- Makkool (talk) 19:54, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- Another thing that should have been listed a long time ago. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:00, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discussion
Remove seven vehicles related articles; propose three additions
[edit]We're over quota so cuts need to happen to keep adding articles for vital topics that keep being found. I went through the transportation section to pick a couple I think we could remove while still maintaining broad coverage. I have found a few articles I think we should include related to ground transportation (loosly) that I think we should include. I'm proposing seven removals and three additions. I'm hoping to help contribute to cutting the page while adding a few articles I think are vital.
Removals
[edit]From the article "a generic term to encompass race bikes." We list 10 specific types of bike, I think this loose definition can be trimmed
- Support
- As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 06:48, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- Strong support, especially since we already list BMX
5 as a sport. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
- Makkool (talk) 17:14, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- per above. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
Remove Monster truck
5
[edit]Extremely niche vehicle. I don't think it is necessary to include for coverage of ground vehicles when we are missing so many other topics.
- Support
- As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 06:48, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- "FRIDAY, FRIDAY, FRIDAY!" I have to admit even I had to think for a second because it's clearly a loud part of American culture, but yeah, we don't need this as a technology. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
- Makkool (talk) 17:14, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
Remove Ford Mustang
5
[edit]We list four cars, and the Ford Model T 5 is more vital in my opinion then the Mustang. As we have an exhaustive list of types of car, I'm not sure we need any of these at all.
- Support
- As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 06:48, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- Out of the other three specific car models, we list, Toyota Corolla
5 is the highest selling car in history, Ford Model T
5 was the first commercially available car for the masses, and Volkswagen Beetle
5 is extremely iconic and noteworthy. I don't know what the Mustang does to warrant being in the same level of historically important car models. λ NegativeMP1 06:11, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- This is the most iconic sports car of all time. IMO, more vital than the Corolla. Elsewhere we are debating whether best selling newspapers are more vital than historic and successful newspapers. There I stated that sales needed to be balanced against history. No one puts a picture of a Corolla on their bedroom wall. No one dreams about a Corolla. It is the sports car for the common man. We did not err two months ago. This nomination should not even be happening this soon after a promotion.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:11, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- The Mustang is more accessible/affordable, but not as long run as cars like the Chevrolet Corvette. We list the manufacturer Ferrari
5 and Ford Motor Company
4, and don't list the manufacturer Lamborghini. The Corolla is the most sold car in history, the model T is the first commercially available car, and as stated above the Volkswagen beetle has a unique place in history. We don't list Jeep, which is in my opinion a bit more iconic then the Mustang. If we list a sports car, it should likely not be American, much less a Ford as we already have the model T. I think we did err two months ago, and there isn't a time limit for nominations. Fundamentally, including the Ford Mustang means we might not be able to include other topics, like any I mentioned below (including Disc breaks). GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 17:02, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think this is the place to debate Ford Mustang vs. Chevrolet Corvette. With Ferrari and Lamborghini, off the top of my head, I don't think there is one model that represents the brand as the supreme sports car for the brand, making it impossible for any to be vital here. E.g. type Ferrari into the search bar and the one that I would think of (Ferrari Testarossa) is not even first. Same for Lamborghini (Lamborghini Countach) although the brand/manufacturer should be considered. Porsche 911 would I guess be the non-American contender. I think what makes the Mustang more vital than the 911 and Corvette is that its was modestly priced so as to be accessible to 100s of thousand per year. The first model sold 400k. The first Corvette only had 300 produced. I would guess the 911 has the same issue. Neither has been accessible enough to be vital now. The Mustang is the sports car for the masses.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:46, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- The Mustang is more accessible/affordable, but not as long run as cars like the Chevrolet Corvette. We list the manufacturer Ferrari
- Weak oppose, purely based on the previous proposal result. I was actually the one opposing vote last time, but I dislike the idea of reopening things too soon even less than I like keeping it on the list. Can't give a timeline, but I would definitely support revisiting once there seems to be a collective shift in how we see the Tech list. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
- Makkool (talk) 17:14, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- Discuss
We actually just voted to add this 4-1 less than 2 months ago: Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/STEM/Archive 5#Add Ford Mustang 5. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:58, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
Remove Powered paragliding
5
[edit]We list Ultralight aviation 5, I think we can cut this specific example.
- Support
- Oppose
- Neutral
Another I'm honestly on the fence about. As someone that likes to see a bit more low / appropriate tech, maybe ultralight aviation should keep its few representative articles? My other votes should at least allow for swapping in the 3 car components though. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
- Discuss
We list 14 types of car, I think this niche type can be trimmed while still maintaining coverage.
- Support
- Oppose
- Neutral
I'm honestly not sure how I feel about this one. OTOH it's maybe the most niche weight class, but OTOH it is actually one of the general car classes, which is probably more relevant to engineering and regulation than several other auto-related topics we list. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
- Discuss
Remove Parking lot
5
[edit]We include Parking 4 at level 4. I'm not sure including parking lot adds much, and we could use the space for other stuff.
- Support
- As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 06:48, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose removal, but strong support moving to Cities -> Urban Planning. Definitely vital to a lot of urban issues, but agree it's only a technology in the weakest sense (i.e. functional, manmade object). -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
- Move per above Makkool (talk) 17:14, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discuss
Remove Oil tanker
5
[edit]We include Tanker at level 4. I'm not sure including oil tanker lot adds much, and we could use the space for other stuff.
- Support
- Oppose
- Neutral
Another I'm on the fence about (full disclosure: I may have added this during the WP:BRD era). There's obvious overlap with the main Tanker article, but this is a much meatier article that also touches on unique geopolitical aspects. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
- Discuss
Additions
[edit]Add Disc brake
[edit]I think this is the most important one we're missing I found in this batch. We include Bicycle brake 5, which I agree with, but if this doesn't pass it should probably be removed as well.
- Support
- As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 06:48, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- Strong support, it looks like we never actually got around to automobile internals much, even during the WP:BRD phase. Clearing out space will take some patience and finesse, but once we do, we should definitely brainstorm further. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
- Makkool (talk) 17:14, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
We include Bicycle gearing 5 and Derailleur
5, which I agree with, however I think they are less vital then transmission, and if this doesn't pass those should probably be removed as well.
- Support
- As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 06:48, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- Strong support, it looks like we never actually got around to automobile internals much, even during the WP:BRD phase. Clearing out space will take some patience and finesse, but once we do, we should definitely brainstorm further. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
- Makkool (talk) 17:14, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
From the lede "A camshaft is a shaft that contains a row of pointed cams in order to convert rotational motion to reciprocating motion. Camshafts are used in piston engines (to operate the intake and exhaust valves), mechanically controlled ignition systems and early electric motor speed controllers." They are an essential component in cars using internal combustion engines.
- Support
- As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 06:48, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- Strong support, it looks like we never actually got around to automobile internals much, even during the WP:BRD phase. Clearing out space will take some patience and finesse, but once we do, we should definitely brainstorm further. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
- Makkool (talk) 17:14, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
As I mentioned elsewhere, we actually used to list the very general Cam (mechanism), but that got dropped on accident. We should probably go through a vote to add it back at this point though. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
- Proposal signature
GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 06:48, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
Add Mineral (nutrient) and/or Nutrient
[edit]We have Mineral 3 and Vitamin
4, but these seems different and vital.
- Support
- As nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, easy to add both, under Biology basics / Biochemistry? -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
- Support both Makkool (talk) 19:54, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
Remove some specific websites and other computing services/related articles
[edit]Trying to make room and do spring cleaning, nominating another batch for removals.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I don't think this is a particular vital article, despite the popularity of the site.
- Support
- As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 01:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- For better or for worse, this site has definitely cemented itself as vital for changing how Pornography
4 is distributed. It's also the most visited adult website, which are definitely widespread enough to warrant representation. λ NegativeMP1 06:07, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- If porn wasn't seen as a taboo, this wouldn't even be a proposal. All the other sites that frequently feature in the Alexa/SimilarWeb Top 20 rankings are all VA5, either as the parent company or the website itself. Unsavoriness aside, while Pornography
4 is VA4, the service that revolutionized its distribution should be listed as well. I'm curious why you chose not to include a proposal to remove Steam (service)
5. It has less monthly visitors, less page views, and has users in fewer countries. Surveys seem divided on if people tend to consume porn or play video games more often but considering the fact that those who watch porn are less likely to report that fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Pornhub had the advantage here too. Aurangzebra (talk) 09:01, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- I thought stream was broader than a specific streaming service. While Hulu, Peacock, Prime Video, or whatever may come or go, the concept of streaming will likely be around for a while. Didn't realize it was refering to a specific service. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 17:01, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- BTW, easily done, You're misreading Steam as stream, one has an R like a river stream, the other has no R like water vapour steam Carlwev 17:45, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing that out. I'm getting old and straight up didn't notice stream vs steam. I use steam like every day. . . GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 00:14, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- BTW, easily done, You're misreading Steam as stream, one has an R like a river stream, the other has no R like water vapour steam Carlwev 17:45, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- I thought stream was broader than a specific streaming service. While Hulu, Peacock, Prime Video, or whatever may come or go, the concept of streaming will likely be around for a while. Didn't realize it was refering to a specific service. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 17:01, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:52, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- Very important topic, for better or worse. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:55, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discuss
Probably more vital than Deep Throat (film) which we list, and Debbie Does Dallas which is up for voting at 2-1. .. I notice we do not list Internet pornography which is probably more significant topic than all of these. We list pornography at level 4 and Pornographic magazine at level 5 also. Carlwev 13:38, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- I think these websites likely belong somewhere else besides STEM. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 00:15, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
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.
Significant because of streaming, but I don't know if it is vital. We don't include other services, and I don't want to risk the urge to add them.
- Support
- As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 01:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Currently, Netflix is as important as all other streamers combined. When they announced their most recent earnings, CNBC mentioned that they account for half of some worldwide metric. If I recall correctly, it was paid streaming movie/television viewing hours.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:39, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- This nomination confuses me. Is the rationale here to remove a topic from the list so that other subjects like it don't get added later on...? I doubt that would happen anyways, because no streaming service like Netflix can or ever will compare to it from a historical standpoint, so this seems like unnecessary future proofing. Also, we list Spotify
5 and YouTube
4, the latter of which is close enough to a streaming service for the sake of this argument, so saying that we don't list any other streaming services is wrong. Anyways, to actually explain why I'm opposing: Netflix changed the way movies, TV shows, and more are delivered to the masses. It pioneered streaming content digitally, meaning that the rise of Netflix can be attributed to the decline of physical media and cable television. It has definitely cemented itself in the history of the internet and it's impact on society, and probably the history of the film and television industries as well. And this isn't even touching on the fact that it is by far the largest streaming service, a title it has held for almost two decades, and is unlikely to be overtaken (even if it was, its historical important is more than enough for vitality). Honestly, it surprises me that Netflix isn't V4 when YouTube is. λ NegativeMP1 06:02, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- per everyone above. Aurangzebra (talk) 09:12, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:52, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- This is the streaming platform. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:55, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
- Support
- As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 01:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, this one hasn't seen much opposition yet so let's see where it goes. My other general thoughts on platforms under Tech apply here too. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
- Makkool (talk) 19:54, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Although there are a lot of repositories for stock photography now, this has been important in the past.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:11, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discuss
We include 3 E-commerce articles, two are Chinese. Of two, Alipay has the fewer views
- Support
- As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 01:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- Makkool (talk) 19:54, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Alipay is more of a payment service rather than an e-commerce platform (may be worth moving?), and holds extreme significance in China despite only having ~8,000 pageviews in the last 30 days here. It's practically a staple for Chinese technology users, along with WeChat
5; if you want to make an electronic transaction in China, 99% of the time you'll be using AliPay. It overtook PayPal
5 as the world's largest mobile payment platform over a decade ago and I'm pretty sure still holds this title, even above mobile payment giants like Apple Pay and Google Pay. B3251(talk) 01:39, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- Moving it might be smart then. I'm just trying to trim articles where I see possible bloat. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 01:48, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- Moving it to Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences/Politics and economics#Financial, which is where PayPal is located, would probably be a good idea. B3251(talk) 01:52, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- Honestly, based on that, most of "Specific websites and other computing services" could go under society or every day life. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 02:20, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- Moving it to Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences/Politics and economics#Financial, which is where PayPal is located, would probably be a good idea. B3251(talk) 01:52, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- Moving it might be smart then. I'm just trying to trim articles where I see possible bloat. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 01:48, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discuss
Remove Adobe Photoshop
5
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We include Adobe Creative Suite 5, we can cut this.
- Support
- As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 01:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Photoshop is enough of it's own tool with its own cultural consciousness and importance to be listed separated as a definitely essential piece of software. I would actually rather remove the Creative Suite, because I don't think a single tool from Adobe besides maybe Acrobat and Flash are nearly as important as Photoshop, even when combining them all. λ NegativeMP1 05:46, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:52, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- Strong oppose.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:12, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- Most websites don't become a verb like Google and Photoshop have. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:55, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
We include Mac (computer) 4 at level 4, I think we can cut iMac
- Support
- As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 01:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Weak oppose, purely based on the previous proposal result. In isolation, I would probably support removing it, but I dislike the idea of reopening things too soon even less than I like keeping it on the list, especially if most of the active participants are different. Can't give a timeline, but I would definitely support revisiting once there seems to be a collective shift in how we see the Tech list. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discuss
Note that removing this failed last time in July: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/STEM/Archive_3#Remove_iMac Makkool (talk) 19:54, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- Proposal signature
GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 01:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
General discussion on platforms
[edit]Sort of like B3251 mentions above for Alipay 5, I've been waiting to propose a bulk move of most platforms to the relevant sections. Personally, I'd support cutting most of them from VA5 entirely, but that's just my opinion and a separate issue from where to place them & how to weigh them.
I definitely don't think they belong in Tech; we don't list specific newspapers here with Printing press 4 or broadcast stations with Television
3. The catch is, with the destination sections even more over-quota, such a move will almost definitely require a 100 slot cut to Tech for now, either upfront or after the move as part of an understanding. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- Agree that we should move them or delete them. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 05:01, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- I would support moving them out of Tech, but what page would they be moved to? I'd say probably Everyday Life. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:50, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- Honestly, I think there isn't just one category, but I think deciding which is pretty straight-forward once you remember they're all economic services. Many are just media platforms, even with the same revenue model as a TV station or a newspaper, only they use a website or app (and the audience often generates the content). I don't see why those shouldn't go in the same category as The New York Times
4 or NBC
4.
- Messaging apps are P2P instead of broadcast, but again, besides using an app and allowing video, they're really not that different from a phone service provider. A few like GitHub
5 or Amazon Web Services
5 probably do belong here though. Worst-case scenario, if something doesn't really fit anywhere else, it could probably be listed as a business (especially if its parent company is already).
- Honestly, I think the hardest part about this wouldn't be the move, but getting almost everyone to agree we need to cut Tech's quota for the short-term. Even if we bump it back up again someday, I don't see how it's fair to dump so many articles onto other categories (especially factoring in other moves), then expect them to figure out what to cut. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 20:32, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- Honestly, I think there isn't just one category, but I think deciding which is pretty straight-forward once you remember they're all economic services. Many are just media platforms, even with the same revenue model as a TV station or a newspaper, only they use a website or app (and the audience often generates the content). I don't see why those shouldn't go in the same category as The New York Times
Add Alarm device
[edit]I was thinking of this as it relates to Alarm clock 5 in Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Technology#Timekeeping, but it may be redundant for that purpose, but as it relates to other situations like Fire alarm (which may need to be considered) and any other type of Alarm signal. I am not sure it is deserving of its own space on the list, but am throwing it out there.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:23, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- Support
- weak support As nom. -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:23, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- Support Carlwev 06:34, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:26, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- Support but would swaps more then straight adds. Pushing quota now. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 17:04, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
- Proposal signature
TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:23, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
Add Ford F-Series
[edit]This is the best selling vehicle in the US since 1981.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:50, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
- Support
- support As nom. -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:50, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose straight add without a proposed swap. If we are going to list another personal vehical, I don't think it should be a Ford. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 16:27, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discuss
- Proposal signature
TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:50, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
Add Handedness
[edit]- Support
- support As nom. -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:55, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, good find, probably works in Human Physiology or Anatomy (though Hand
4 itself may be more general for all primates). -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 23:07, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- Makkool (talk) 19:06, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- We are over quota. This might be okay, with a swap.GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 01:54, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think that is a valid argument. As of January 29, overall Biology and health sciences is 5486/5600 and Biology, biochemistry, anatomy, and physiology is 1076/1100. Swaps are not necessary. In fact, we need adds.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:39, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discuss
- Proposal signature
TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:55, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
Add Visual acuity
[edit]20/20 vision, which is quite important, redirects to this article.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:18, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
- Support
- support As nom. -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:17, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
- Not over the quota for this section AFAICT, and this makes sense to list. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:53, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- per nom Aurangzebra (talk) 18:20, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- Per nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 18:22, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, appears to be human-specific so Human Phyisiology or Anatomy (though Eye
3 is technically much more general). -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 23:07, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
#We are over quota. This might be okay, with a swap.GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 01:54, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think that is a valid argument. As of January 29, overall Biology and health sciences is 5486/5600 and Biology, biochemistry, anatomy, and physiology is 1076/1100. Also, Health, medicine, and disease is 1047/1100. Swaps are not necessary. In fact, we need adds.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:40, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry, confused with the T and M sections. Health, medicine, and disease are on my Radar because I think they to be expanded in quota by a thousand, at least. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 18:21, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- @GeogSage: Please explain how we are over the quota here, I'm not seeing it. The general project and this specific topic page are both under their quotas. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think that is a valid argument. As of January 29, overall Biology and health sciences is 5486/5600 and Biology, biochemistry, anatomy, and physiology is 1076/1100. Also, Health, medicine, and disease is 1047/1100. Swaps are not necessary. In fact, we need adds.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:40, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discuss
- Proposal signature
TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:17, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
It's not as popular as it once was, but it helped people get online using dialup.
- Support
- Interstellarity (talk) 01:22, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- Extremely well-known, the "you've got mail" sound effect is still widely recognizable to this day. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:56, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- support but probably needs to get swapped with weaker as GeogSage said 49p (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- We are over quota. This might be okay, with a swap. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 01:53, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- Strong oppose here in Tech, neutral if you list it as a business or media platform somewhere under Society. I agree it's a very notable tech company & service, but AOL was never a unique technology in its own right. We don't list other media platforms with their respective technologies, and I think we need to start treating the internet the same. Moving those already listed & adjusting quotas will be its own discussion, but we can at least start with this one. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 23:07, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
Remove Delphi (software)
5
[edit]I'm a software engineer and I've never heard of this. Granted, Delphi seems to have been popular before my time but the article doesn't seem to indicate any particular notability. It seems to be some sort of variant to an extension of Pascal (programming language) 5. Pascal is a no-brainer VA5; its variants and extensions aren't. Besides, there are so many other languages and frameworks I would rather see here e.g. Go (programming language) which is High-Importance on Wikiproject Computer Science compared to Delphi's Mid-Importance so it's hard to justify its inclusion on this list.
- Support
- Aurangzebra (talk) 02:57, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- We have a bunch of programming languages, and Delphi is one of the weaker ones that need to be removed 49p (talk) 22:25, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- Support, I could be wrong, but I think its "killer app" was being one of the first language ecosystems to really push an IDE (though Smalltalk may have done it before?) Agree we can cut it though, and I'd personally be for trimming the languages even more aggressively (1 or 2 reps tops for each generation or paradigm). -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 23:07, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- Per nom. Makkool (talk) 19:06, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- Support. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 16:51, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
Add Red-Winged Blackbird
[edit]among the most abundant and well studied birds in North America.
- Support
- -1ctinus📝🗨 23:05, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- Per nom. Makkool (talk) 19:06, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, the Animals section may be seeing changes soon, but I think we have room for 1 more well-known songbird. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Since we have Cartesian coordinate system 4 and Plane (mathematics)
4, we have Quadrant (plane geometry) at VA5.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:52, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
- Support
- as nom. -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:52, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
- For sure is vital. We need to start finding slots for swaps though, cause this stuff is really pushing quota on math. The list has it 9 over quota, and that 9 is going to be hard to find. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 01:26, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose, while this is well-known from the standard public-school curriculum (at least in the US when I was in school), it's largely just a definition. AFAIK it doesn't have any remarkable properties, and even in a situation you might refer to a quadrant as shorthand, everything essential will be covered by other topics. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discuss
TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:52, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
Add military tanks (alternative proposals)
[edit]@Swatjester mentioned these as alternatives to some previous proposals that failed. These would go to Military technology.
A Cold War era Soviet tank. The most widely produced tank in history and still widely in use today.
- Support
- As nom. Makkool (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- Per nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 01:23, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
WW2 German tank, one of the most impactful tanks on the war. The only German tank to serve the entirety of the war.
- Support
- As nom. Makkool (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- Per nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 01:23, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
Add Panther tank
[edit]WW2 German tank, one of the most impactful tanks on the war. Widely considered to be one of the best German tanks.
- Support
- As nom. Makkool (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- I think one Nazi tank is enough personally, and think the Panze IV is more vital. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 01:23, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discuss
- Are there any swaps we can make, rather then straight adds? GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 21:32, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- I proposed some below in another section. Makkool (talk) 22:30, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks, voted on them as well. Appreciate the effort to balance this, I think planes are WAY over represented compared to other types of vehicles, and American vehicles are also way over represented. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 01:24, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- I proposed some below in another section. Makkool (talk) 22:30, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
I have proposed elsewhere that Plant 2, Flowering plant
4, Dicotyledon
5, Eudicots
4, Magnoliids
4, and Monocotyledon
4 should be moved from Botany to Plants and I would like to notify here, especially since I wasn't clear about which entries I wanted to move until after the first votes. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 21:26, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- So you would probably want to take a vote on it, but like I mentioned on Lv4, I personally think the entire Botany section should be moved from Biology to Plants (and Zoology to Animals). On a related note, the current Health section could also arguably become the Human-specific one (Health, Medicine, Human anatomy, even Human evolution). More to your point, if you boldly move a few other plant topics out of General Biology, I personally won't complain. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Container removals
[edit]To match the military tank adds above.
Remove Wooden box
5
[edit]Essentially the same as Crate 5.
- Support
- As nom. Makkool (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- Per nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 01:21, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, though this is another redundancy that should arguably be resolved on the articles first. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
Remove Water bottle
5
[edit]I don’t think we need this as a separate thing from Plastic bottle 5.
- Support
- As nom. Makkool (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, though this is another redundancy (with Bottle
5) that should arguably be resolved on the articles first. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Hard to believe, but not all water bottles are plastic. I use one every day. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 01:21, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- True, now that I think of it, I used to have a metal water bottle once, before I lost it. Still, I don't see this as a vital item enough to take a slot in Technology. There's enough overlap with plastic bottle. Makkool (talk) 19:30, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discuss
Do we really need it? I think Cardboard box 5 is enough.
- Support
- As nom. Makkool (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- I would support removing cardboard box before box. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 01:21, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discuss
Extremely important tool, used by miners and farmers for thousands of years, and well-known in popular culture. 59 interwikis, rated High-Importance by WikiProject Mining.
- Support
- As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:57, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- I support this add, but would prefer a swap. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 05:29, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
Reorganizing animals?
[edit]In the table at the main level 5 page, User:Zar2gar1 wrote "Reorganize" next to Animals. What kind of reorganizatoin do they have in mind? Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:41, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- Mainly the one we've discussed elsewhere: Zoology concepts and Animal Anatomy should probably be moved in from General Bio. Plus TonyTheTiger has many more basic anatomy proposals in play here, some of which are already added to Animals. There's also the various sorting that I think you and Tony have been working on.
- We can do the same with the other Bio sections, but since those aren't close to quota yet, adding isn't an issue. I marked the Animals section as "Reorganize" so that people know not to get hung-up on things like balance or the quota just yet. The list and article count will still be in flux until the new organization is mostly complete. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:41, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
Add Trieste (bathyscaphe) to Naval transport
[edit]The bathyscaphe Trieste and its dive to the Challenger Deep is still interesting to a lot of users every month despite that this had happend some decades ago. There are Trieste articles in 29 languages. Right now its actually rated as non vital and C-Class. What´s your opinion about rating it as Level 5 vital? Yeti-Hunter (talk) 15:31, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
- Support
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
Many passengers have layovers when they have Flight 4s.
- Support
- Interstellarity (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- I was a bit dubious until I looked at some related topics listed.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:53, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- If we can purge most of our airports below, I would feel okay with this add. As is I have weak support. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 02:37, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose here, but support under Cities -> Urban planning where we list Transportation planning
5. It's not really a technology but an artifact of scheduling connections (nor is it specific to air travel). I know we do still list a lot of similar "applied" topics here, but we should eventually sort those too. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:48, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discuss
- Also note Travel
4, Vacation
5.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:53, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
Remove all airports from this level
[edit]This nomination concerns the following section: Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Technology#Airports. We only list only a select few airports at this level and determining which ones that are the most vital is very hard considering we don't even list the 12 busiest airports in the world. When considering US airports, we list Atlanta, JFK, and LA, but I could see an argument for swapping either JFK or LA with DFW. Considering that we don't list the busiest railway station in the world or the busiest railway station in the US, I think it makes sense to remove the airports from this list. One counterargument that could save this nomination is that we already list ports Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Technology#Specific_piers_and_ports, but I'd be open to considering a removal of those from this level.
- Support
- Interstellarity (talk) 23:45, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- Support all but open to compromise on a few extra special ones. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 02:36, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- I think we could spare a few more places for airports, which are as important as many buildings and specific structures that we include. I would rather see the number of Airports increase 20-30 % to include the cargo airport Memphis International Airport (Fedex's superhub) and don't really think O'Hare International Airport should have been removed. Both of these are more important to the world than Grand Central Terminal
5 or something like Space Needle
5.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:59, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discuss
Transit agencies
[edit]Swap: Chicago "L" for Chicago Transit Authority
[edit]We list MBTA which covers the buses and subways. However, for Chicago and Washington, the article only covers the metro system and not the buses which I think makes sense for a swap.
- Support
See reason above.
- Support
Grain 5 is listed on Plants but I would prefer listing it on Food, along with Cereal
3. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2025 (UTC) I would also like to move Berry
5 as there is a searate article about the botanical definition. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 00:15, 22 February 2025 (UTC)