Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/STEM

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

People History and geography Society STEM

Introduction

[edit]

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

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

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

For reference, the following times apply for today:

  • 15 days ago is: 02:23, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
  • 7 days ago is: 02:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

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


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

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

Add Tilikum (orca)

[edit]

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

Support
  1. As nominator. The Blue Rider 01:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SailorGardevoir (talk) 10:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Interstellarity (talk) 12:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I would also support adding animal ethics and animal rights, alongside having an example of an animal affected by these concepts. λ NegativeMP1 17:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. On 2nd thought, despite being recent and my feelings about individuals on VA, the representative point is a good one. Let's go ahead and push this across the finish line. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 14:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Feels too recent events to consider vital. Makkool (talk) 20:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose  Carlwev  05:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

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

Add Boulevard and Avenue (landscape)

[edit]
PASSED
Added 5-0 per WP:AVALANCHE. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Support
  1. Interstellarity (talk) 00:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sure why not. Supporting both. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 02:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. We're a little heavy on transportation infrastructure, but let's go ahead & put these here for now, per my "some overlap is good at Lv5" principle. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 16:45, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support both. Kevinishere15 (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Intercity rail

[edit]

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

Support
  1. Interstellarity (talk) 19:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:16, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. For now, per my "some overlap is good at Lv5" principle. Haven't skimmed the article, but possibly a future merge candidate? -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kevinishere15 (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Pan-American Highway

[edit]

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

Support
  1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 23:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Interstellarity (talk) 12:22, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Actually convinced by Tabu's point below that we list Roman roads as precedent. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per nom. Kevinishere15 (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per nom. Brunoblocks274 (talk) 19:44, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Riemannian manifold

[edit]

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

This page has 1,002 wikilinks by the way. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 18:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 03:16, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Interstellarity (talk) 12:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Absolutely, glad to start seeing the math proposals. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss
[edit]

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

Support
  1. As nom Mathwriter2718 (talk) 11:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Interstellarity (talk) 12:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Yeah, let's definitely add this. Interesting topic, attracts lots of research, and centers several other articles. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kevinishere15 (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Add Ford Mustang

[edit]

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

Support
  1. As nominator. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 02:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Interstellarity (talk) 12:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per nom. Kevinishere15 (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Maybe I'm just biased by not being a muscle-car person (Zar2gar1 says, "A happy machine is a quiet machine"), but I think this is too specific. I'm ambivalent on listing specific car models in general though, even record-setting ones. I'm less opposed to the classes and design families of cars and trucks (like muscle car, which we do list) -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discuss

Add Dwelling, Mobile home, and Caravan (trailer)

[edit]

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

Support
  1. Interstellarity (talk) 21:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support the latter 2, per my "some overlap is good at Lv5" principle, and (except for transportation infrastructure) I think we're still relatively light on "built environment" articles. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support adding all, dwelling should probably go in law though. Kevinishere15 (talk) 19:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Hasn't someone suggested Shelter (building)? Big Blue Cray(fish) Twins (talk) 15:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose adding Dwelling here. Skimming the article, it's actually about housing from a legal / real estate perspective. So I'd support adding it under the Law section of the Society lists. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion

Add Atlantic hurricane

[edit]

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

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

Remove Burn center  5

[edit]
Support
  1. as nom. starship.paint (RUN) 14:02, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Does not seem like a very common or important type of medical facility. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Interstellarity (talk) 12:29, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We have the room. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kevinishere15 (talk) 19:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oops, missed that this was a removal. Stub-class & low interwikis can suggest an article isn't vital, but they could also mean Wikipedia has just overlooked it until now. We have the room and I imagine burn hospitals have a lot of unique factors the article could expand on: protocols, equipment, training, history, etc. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

Add Mobile home and Group home

[edit]

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

Support
  1. Interstellarity (talk) 20:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 13:21, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support both; also note that Mobile home is proposed above too, but whether it's added here or there is fine. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support both. Kevinishere15 (talk) 19:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Group home not essential.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:55, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Neutral
Discussion

Add Cell polarity

[edit]

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

Support

  1. GraziePrego (talk) 01:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. per nom -1ctinus📝🗨 02:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Definitely. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kevinishere15 (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Add Cell migration

[edit]

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

Support

  1. GraziePrego (talk) 02:01, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 16:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Definitely. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kevinishere15 (talk) 19:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Add Inca road system

[edit]

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

Support

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

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Add Phone connector (audio)

[edit]

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

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

Add Data center

[edit]

Important infrastructure in today's world.

Support
  1. As nominator. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 01:39, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. for sure Aurangzebra (talk) 23:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kevinishere15 (talk) 19:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Weak oppose without some removals. This is definitely a vital topic, and I hate to play the annoying proceduralist, but we have to start disciplining the Computers section. That said, if someone proposes 2 or more Computer removals with a decent chance of passing, I'll cross this out and change to Support. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

Add Lymphatic filariasis

[edit]

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

Support
  1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:43, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per above GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 16:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Definitely. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discuss

Add Los Alamos National Laboratory

[edit]

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

Support
  1. As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 17:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. per non -1ctinus📝🗨 03:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and Sandia National Laboratories should be added as well. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 04:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Important. Kevinishere15 (talk) 19:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discuss

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

I'll propose it on the Level 5 page, but I'm starting to think that all of these specific facilities and infrastructure pages belong more in Geography. Even if they have a technological focus, it arguably makes more sense to center them around the cities they're in / near. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier

[edit]

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

Support
  1. As nomGeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 06:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. weak support per nom. Possibly a joke to be made here. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her)
  3. Relevant as the first example with electromagnetic catapult.⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 03:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Adding the newest one because it is the newest one seems a bit recentist. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1. We could add more of them, I think the Ford-class represents the cutting edge of technology and engineering that the worlds powers will seek to emulate though. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 02:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I guarantee that in 50 years it won't be the cutting edge of technology. Would we then swap it out for the latest new design? QuicoleJR (talk) 18:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Honestly, I think we need to put more warship classes in general when it comes to military hardware, and the section likely needs to be looked at very carefully. I'm not sure why, but I think there is a bias against ship classes, possibly due to a lack of interest among editors. There is a huge number of aircraft though, and these are disproportionately American aircraft.
      For example, from the United States we have the Northrop B-2 Spirit  5, McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle  5, Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II  5, Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor  5, General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon  5, and McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet  5, Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II  5, Boeing B-52 Stratofortress  5, Boeing B-29 Superfortress  5, (and theEnola Gay  5), Lockheed C-130 Hercules  5, Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird  5, North American P-51 Mustang  5, Rockwell B-1 Lancer  5. That is most of the U.S. militaries current fixed wing aircraft, and several that are no longer in use. From Europe, we have the Eurofighter Typhoon  5, Panavia Tornado  5, and Dassault Rafale  5. Europe has MANY more highly influential aircraft then that. From the Soviet Union/Russia, we have Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21  5, which is abysmal as the USSR was the direct reason most of the American aircraft were even designed. With all that said, we don't have ANY specific classes of warship. The U.S. navy Arleigh Burke-class destroyer not being included is quite odd, as are the carriers, submarines, battleship classes and specific notable ships. The German battleship Bismarck, Japanese Yamato-class battleship, and Iowa-class battleship not being included is shocking. Warship classes are just as vital as specific types of aircraft, the carriers that launch the F-18 and F-35 should be at least as vital as the planes, especially given the carriers central roll in the U.S. Navy, tremendous investment, and diplomatic implications. I may make a larger post after some consideration to remove/add some planes and more broadly add some classes of ship later. Please let me know what you think, I'm just looking into this more deeply and am a bit shocked at the state of the Military technology section. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 19:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree that it makes sense to list some ship types, but this is an odd one to start with instead of something more historically impactful. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Fair. I had honestly assumed more ship types were already included and am just now really noticing the scope of the discrepancy. I did not think this would be the first one, I thought it was an omission from a list I expected to be as inclusive as the fighter/bomber/cargo aircraft. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 21:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per QuicoleJR Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discuss

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

I can't speak for OlifanofmrTennant, but it could be the carrier itself, or it could be about the proposal matching some Wikipedia stereotypes. Personally, I just find it funny (more in a random than a critical way, he did serve in WWII) that the US Navy was like, "Hell yeah, let's name something after Gerald Ford!" For the record, I'm pretty much neutral on all these specific military platform proposals, but we should keep an eye on the quota (we're almost past the 102% mark). -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll never tell Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 18:01, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just nominated a bunch of military removals that might be able to address us being over. I think the military category is the one in most need for an overhaul and broad re-evaluation. It isn't really internally consistent with what we consider vital. That said, a huge part of technology is military or of military origin, so it isn't a surprise it's a big category. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 02:03, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GeogSage: I agree with you that the military section can use an overhaul, but it's actually not bad on a % basis (I think it's still around just 10% of the Tech section). Computers and then Transportation are the biggest sections. It's more that we recently had way more additions than removals in general on the page, and the recent big batch were all specific military platforms (which I think devolve into fandom-style arguments easier than general concepts).
Beyond what winds up on the list itself, I feel like there's a limited amount of oxygen on each discussion page. So even if the net change in article count winds up small, lots of activity in one topic can crowd out other ones. And I do genuinely believe that's part of why our other Science lists are relatively stagnant, but that's not a reason to stop making proposals. The solution to that is probably to split the STEM talk page and give Tech its own.
Anyways, thanks a bunch for being proactive & proposing the removals below though. They all look like easy wins and will definitely free up slots to add other military items; I even have a few in mind myself. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I love military hardware from an academic perspective. I was specifically trained to study the military to help beat Swords to ploughshares. One problem with the various talk pages is that by splitting them out, we lose several page watchers and force would be voters keep up with several pages, instead of one or two.
The Fandom argument is 100% accurate though. Look at specific airplanes under Aviation, and specific airplanes under military technology, vs other vehicles. There isn't or single type of large Container ship  5, but we have 29 pages for aircraft under aviation, and 19 under military aircraft. Like, I get that the Cessna 172  5 is an important trainer aircraft, it is what I got ALL my hours on, but I doubt it is more vital then the Panamax or Liberty ship. Planes have fandoms, but most people don't care much about boats. Look at the F-22 Raptor and A-10 removal discussions, and then notice how hard it is to get the large aircraft carriers for countries other then the U.S. listed. This makes some sense based on my experience, when I was a kid, everyone had a favorite plane, but most kids couldn't tell a destroyer from a cruiser. Planes are the stars of military recruitment ads, while ships are a backdrop. While computers and transportation are the biggest sections, the 48 specific aircraft we list seems to be disproportional. Because I couldn't get energy behind trimming them back dramatically, to balance stuff I felt we needed to list some other specific examples of vehicles (helicopters, tanks, and boats were where I started). For example, despite cars being a huge part of our everyday lives, we only have three "Specific automobiles" listed, and somehow the Toyota Corolla  5 is one of them. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 17:54, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add Aeronautics

[edit]

The science of aircraft design.

Support
  1. Interstellarity (talk) 00:53, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. For sure, we could use more applied science topics. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per nom. Kevinishere15 (talk) 19:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Water taxi and Air taxi

[edit]

Two forms of Taxi  4.

Support
  1. Interstellarity (talk) 02:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. I don’t see the essentiality of these services. -1ctinus📝🗨 03:30, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Not really essential. Water taxis aren't even available in most of the world. I have never taken one here in Chicago. I wouldn't even know where to catch them or how to pay.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Not important enough, especially air taxi. Kevinishere15 (talk) 19:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. As a form of service, I feel like these belong more under Business somehow. If you move the proposal there though, you can change this to a weak support under my "some overlap at Lv5 is good" principle (we already list Ferry  4). -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

Adding several classes of and specific Warships

[edit]

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

Add Arleigh Burke-class destroyer

[edit]

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

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

Add Ticonderoga-class cruiser

[edit]

United States Navy cruiser currently currently in service.

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

Add Slava-class cruiser

[edit]

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

Support
  1. As nomGeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 22:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Unremarkable service record. Only built in extremely small numbers. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 06:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion

Add Ohio-class submarine

[edit]

United States Navy ballistic Missile Submarines currently in service.

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

Add Virginia-class submarine

[edit]

United States Navy Fast Attack Submarine currently in service.

Support
  1. As nomGeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 22:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

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

Add Vanguard-class submarine

[edit]

British Royal Navy Ballistic Missile Submarine currently in service.

Support
  1. As nomGeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 22:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. For the same reasons as Ohio. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 06:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Borei-class submarine

[edit]

New class of Russian submarines replacing Soviet legacy fleet.

Support
  1. As nomGeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 22:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Yes, same reasoning as Ohio. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 06:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Akula-class submarine

[edit]

Soviet nuclear attack submarine currently in service with Russia.

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

Add Nimitz-class aircraft carrier

[edit]

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

Support
  1. As nomGeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 22:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The definitional example of the modern supercarrier. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 06:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier

[edit]

British Royal Navy Aircraft Carriers.

Support
  1. As nomGeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 22:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
  1. I don't see the additional value in adding two smaller-sized carriers. They're relevant primarily for their immense cost to the UK and the political infighting over their commissioning, which is not unimportant but I'm struggling to see how it's vital. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 06:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

Add Kuznetsov-class aircraft carrier

[edit]

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

Support
  1. As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 17:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Only built in small numbers, service record consists primarily of catching fire and being repaired, or being sold off to China (which is actively developing a nuclear-powered carrier to replace them as of November 2024).⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 03:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion

@Makkool, did you mean to support this?

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

Add Iowa-class battleship

[edit]

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

Support
  1. As nomGeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 22:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Vitally important to WWII history. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 06:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Yamato-class battleship

[edit]

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

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

Add Bismarck-class battleship

[edit]

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

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

Add USS Arizona

[edit]

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

Support
  1. As nomGeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 22:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Vitally important to WWII history. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 06:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add CSS Virginia

[edit]

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

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

Add USS Monitor

[edit]

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

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

Add USS Constitution

[edit]

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

Support
  1. As nomGeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 22:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Important classically preserved example of shipbuilding of the day. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 06:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kevinishere15 (talk) 19:09, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Remove and Add several types of Military Aircraft (set 2 of 2)

[edit]

Remove Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor  5

[edit]

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

Support
  1. As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 01:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Weak support. It seems somewhat important, but also a bit recentist, and we list too many planes in general IMO. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:06, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. It was the first operational stealth fighter (as the F-117 was not a fighter), the first operational fifth-generation fighter, and still remains the predominant aircraft of its type. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 03:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. If the first operational stealth and fifth-generation fighter is not a vital topic, I don't know what is. - ZLEA T\C 04:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion

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

We should list those then. That's not an argument in favor of removing the F-22 on its merits, and neither is the fact that the U.S. was significantly more successful than most other nations at developing aircraft that structurally shaped combat aviation worldwide. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 06:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair. Do you want to nominate them? I'm mostly concerned with balancing things a bit, and there are many great examples of Soviet aircraft that saw widespread use in multiple wars. For example, the Iran-Iraq wars, and the wars between Israel and their neighbors. If you know of any particular aircraft that are non-American you think should be added, that would be great, as well as any non-contemporary aircraft. My background has resulted in a bit more then average understanding of aircraft in a roundabout way, but my opinions on the matter are a bit biased towards contemporary and U.S. aircraft, which is the bias I'm trying to account for here. I think we likely need to include some of the Century series of planes, as well as WWI aircraft from all sides. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 17:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is balancing national ties a such a large concern at WP:VA that removing American topics is seen as the best way forward? I know very little about the process here, but arbitrarily removing American aircraft simply because there aren't many non-American vital aviation topics seems like the wrong approach. You should probably be asking why the American aircraft were listed as vital in the first place, then assessing whether other aircraft, if any, would better suit the original reasoning. - ZLEA T\C 18:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the concern for balancing is missing the point. This list is not intended to be unbiased at a national level; the list itself is specifically tailored to the English Wikipedia and as a result is going to naturally have greater representation of content from english-speaking nations. The determining factor for whether something should be on this list is whether that thing is vital to the understanding of the topic, not the degree of national representation the rest of the list has. And in the case of military aviation, it's simply the case that the U.S. is going to be overrepresented by that metric, having been the driving force behind the development of the most influential aircraft of the past 70 years, followed by the USSR to a somewhat lesser extent, with other nations significantly further behind or not at all included because most nations don't possess the degree of combat aviation design capability and the history of investment into that field that the U.S. has. That's OK.
Specific examples: So to your examples, I'd support (weakly) the Super Sabre's inclusion both as a stereotypical example of early supersonic jets, but would rather see the F-86 Sabre included there, as it was significantly more important for understanding the air war component of the Korean War to a greater degree than the F-100 was for understanding the air war in Vietnam. I'd definitely support the Vickers F.B.5 as the first fighter, that's pretty straightforward. I don't see the argument for the J-20 -- it wasn't the first stealth aircraft, went into service less than a decade ago and has no significant combat or non-combat service record to speak of (unlike the F-22, which has an extensive non-combat service record conducting air intercepts and homeland defense) and isn't being marketed for export (unlike the F-35, whose export availability is a tangible force in international relations). It's not really vital to understanding anything. I can make similar arguments for most of the European fighters as well. I'm not as familiar with the century series and WWI/WWII aircraft as I am with modern jet aviation though, which is why I focus my attentions on that batch. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 18:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The argument for the J-20 is stronger then the F-22, it is the first non-American, non-western stealth aircraft. This has tremendous impact to the overall power balance of the world, as the U.S. dominance in stealth aviation is no longer a monopoly. There have been more built already then the F-22, and while shooting down balloons was an interesting event, I don't think that counts as an extensive record. The F-22 is a plane that was introduced, demonstrated a lot of technology, and is on the way to retirement without ever being employed in the role it was designed for. U.S. and Soviet aircraft both existed in response to each other. The USSR distributed their planes widely, and generally produced them in massive volumes when compared to western production. Planes like the MiG-25, MiG-19, and Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-23 have thousands built, with service records in multiple countries that involved significant air to air combat. The F-22 is really an interesting aircraft, but in 100 years, unless something dramatic happens, the plane will have had a mostly uneventful service life and mostly served as a technology demonstration for the stuff used on the F-35 and future subsequent projects. I anticipated this response for the F-22 and A-10 as they have very large online fan bases, so I'm not surprised at the resistance. That said, leaving the F-22 and A-10 really invites a large number of aircraft, as there are quite a few unique aircraft that have seen much wider use, by many more countries, and with many more units produced then them. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 23:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that the J-20 has had "tremendous impact to the overall power balance of the world" -- I certainly have not seen any reliable sources making such a bold and dramatic claim, particularly for an aircraft that's objectively worse than the F-22 at stealth. If a lack of a pure combat record (ignoring the immense deterrence value left out of that equation) is disqualifying then the J-20 is equally disqualified. What the F-22 has that the J-20 lacks is an extensive non-combat record; hundreds of aerial intercepts, including shootdowns of unmanned intelligence gathering aircraft. The fact that it had a mostly uneventful service life does not detract from its level of importance in understanding the depth of influence it had on stealth aviation development and U.S. air superiority doctrine; the J-20 can say no such thing. Characterizing this as being motivated by "online fan bases" is not helpful and misses the point of what this list is supposed to be doing -- capturing those entries whose understanding is vital towards an element of a STEM topic or a historical era. The F-22 does this. The A-10 does this. The J-20 does not. The MiG-25 does not. The MiG-23 does not (and in every way, the inclusion of the F-14 would be more helpful to one's understanding of the topic area). Again, if there are other aircraft that are in use by other countries, make an argument for including them. None of that should be a reason for excluding the F-22, which is vitally important for understanding as the first fifth-generation fighter, the first active stealth fighter, and decades after its introduction still outperforms other competitors both kinematically and in low-observable capabilities. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 23:44, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The scientific understanding and application of stealth technology leaving the U.S. monopoly is certainly significant. As far as technology goes, the F-22 is really only slightly more important then the Northrop YF-23 in that the F-22 was and is employed to some extent globally, while the other never entered widescale production. We don't include the LGM-30 Minuteman, even though it had a massive impact in terms of influence and deterrence. The Chinese military is the 2nd largest globally, and Soviet aviation and design philosophy has motivated U.S. aviation and served as the foundations of multiple countries air forces. In terms of understanding technology, these represent separate branches of human aviation. With limited slots, emphasis on U.S. planes leaves a lot out of that picture. U.S. air superiority doctrine is certainly important to understand, but we have a huge emphasis on U.S. doctrine/technology which paints an incomplete picture of human warfare. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 00:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I fundamentally disagree with the relevance of any of that, for the reasons that I've already mentioned. We should be judging the inclusion of the F-22 on it's own merits.⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 01:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remove McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet  5

[edit]

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

Support
  1. As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 01:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I'm no expert, but this doesn't seem vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:15, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
  1. There's less of an argument for including the F/A-18 than the F-16. It's still a significantly influential fighter platform, but the Super Hornet was more influential.⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 03:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

Add Javelin

[edit]
MOOT
Already listed under Ranged Weapons, vote reaffirmed 5-0 per WP:AVALANCHE. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Support
  1. As nom.  Carlwev  20:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. per nom GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 02:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:19, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kevinishere15 (talk) 19:09, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Adding a few military Helicopters

[edit]

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

Sikorsky R-4

[edit]

The Fist mass produced military helicopter.

Support
  1. As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 23:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Makkool (talk) 17:48, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Mil Mi-24

[edit]

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

Support
  1. As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 23:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The definitional Warsaw Pact attack helicopter family of the Cold War and extensively used in conflicts around the world. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 02:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Makkool (talk) 17:48, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Mil Mi-26

[edit]

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

Support
  1. As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 23:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Makkool (talk) 17:48, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
  1. Neutral -- it's cool that it's the largest, but I'd rather see the Mi-8 or Mi-17, which were significantly more influential overall. Or arguably the Ka-27/Ka-29 for a specialized naval helicopter variant that's also an example of contrarotating blades. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 02:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

Boeing AH-64 Apache

[edit]

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

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

Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Add Incunable

[edit]

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

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

Add Digital object identifier

[edit]

Important concept in data location and retrieval.

Support
  1. As nominator. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 21:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose without some removals. That said, if someone proposes another 2 or more Computer removals below (with a decent chance of passing), I'll cross this out and change to Neutral. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:04, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

Add Several types of military tanks

[edit]

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

Add M4 Sherman

[edit]

US WWII tank.

Support
  1. As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Extremely important to WWII.⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 04:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Makkool (talk) 17:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discuss

Add Tiger I

[edit]

Nazi WWII tank.

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

Add T-72

[edit]

Soviet Cold War tank

Support
  1. As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Makkool (talk) 17:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
  1. OK, but the T-55 is probably more important to include than this as far as Cold War Soviet tanks go, being the most widely produced tank in history and still widely in use today.⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 04:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

Add M1 Abrams

[edit]

Current U.S. Main battle tank.

Support
  1. As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Extremely important to late-Cold War and post-Cold War history of several nations, not just the U.S.⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 04:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Makkool (talk) 17:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discuss

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

Swap three Power storage articles

[edit]

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

Remove Nickel-iron battery

[edit]

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

Support
  1. As nom, —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
  • I actually added this one before voting was standard on unfinished lists. I'm fine if everyone wants to cut it and agree it's niche, but just for context, I think I added it for balance. My understanding is it's one of the most time-tested battery chemistries, and it's arguably the most economical & robust in some appropriate technology situations. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

Remove Nickel-metal hydride battery

[edit]

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

Support
  1. As nom, —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
  • Another I may have added before voting was standard. I'm fine if everyone wants to cut it; I figured it mainly has notability as a common (the main?) rechargeable chemistry for decades until lithium-ion recently became dominant. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

Remove solar fuel

[edit]

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

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

Add thermal energy storage

[edit]

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

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

Add compressed-air energy storage

[edit]

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

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

Add power-to-X

[edit]

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

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

Add Material

[edit]
PASSED
Added 5-0 per WP:AVALANCHE. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Support
  1. As nom. Brunoblocks274 (talk) 18:27, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 18:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Great catch, another basic concept we've missed until now; also agree with adding to Chemistry somewhere. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 16:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pause further Tech additions?

[edit]

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

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

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

Thanks for the heads up, I didn't know Tech was starting to have quota issues. I will work on finding some removals. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:05, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Removals are really really hard. I've tried to reduce several areas that were over represented, but there is usually more resistance to removals then additions. Look at my attempt at trimming U.S. fighter jets for example and adding in some foreign made ones, some of the adds got support, but the removals are all heavily opposed... We have a a hoarder problem. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 00:36, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely, though if there's a silver lining (and this is just my impression), anyone that sticks around and doesn't get too discouraged can eventually push some through. I think editors that just participate here a few times are usually motivated by what they find interesting, which is good. They're often the ones that notice glaring coverage gaps. But it is biased towards addition, plus the discussions can also get lost in minutiae.
I think almost everyone that participates here over time though develops mostly general reasons for voting. In a way, it's almost like we've developed our own primitive case law here. And as a result, if you find an article that checks several "not vital" boxes, you can at least expect a lot of support from the regulars. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remove obscure engineering stubs

[edit]
PASSED
Removed 5 - 1-ish per WP:AVALANCHE. Possible article reorganization noted elsewhere. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Support
  1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 01:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Makkool (talk) 17:50, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 16:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Mixed
  1. Weakly oppose outright removal. They're all good finds, but there may be better ways to dispose of them:
    Move Eng. Stats. to Math, it strikes me as a pretty legit topic, despite the embryonic state of the article.
    Merge Eng. Research, into the Applied research section of the Applied science article, which would allow boldly removing from the list as a duplicate.
    Keep Microwave Eng. for now, I think we're still under-represented in analog electronics, and while we list RF engineering, we don't list Radar engineering (one of the major subsets of microwave engineering). Keeping the article listed for now can stimulate reorganization. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Decomposition  5

[edit]
PASSED
Added 5-0 per WP:AVALANCHE. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Support
  1. As nom.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 17:53, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per nom.--Brunoblocks274 (talk) 23:03, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sure. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support  Carlwev  08:06, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Biodegradation

[edit]

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

Support
  1. As nom.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 17:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sure. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support  Carlwev  08:07, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Brunoblocks274 (talk) 19:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Remove Activated sludge

[edit]
PASSED
Removed 4-1. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Support
  1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per nom.GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 01:58, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Makkool (talk) 17:50, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 01:58, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose, it's maybe the most unromantic thing ever, but IIUC this is the essence of how many modern sewage treatment plants in the world today work. It should probably be listed under Industry -> Sanitation instead, where we only have around 5 articles. Considering how critical sanitation is to everyday life, I think it's a very under-represented topic, and I would interpret the lack of interwikis as a coverage gap, not low vitality. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove several pages from "Military Weapons"

[edit]

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

Remove Railgun

[edit]
PASSED
Removed 5-0. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Support
  1. As nom.GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 01:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Not vital enough to include. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:59, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Makkool (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 01:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Updating vote now that the mechanism proposals are open. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
  1. I'm actually neutral because IIUC it's also a general mechanism, not just a weaponized form? If there's a better article for the cascading acceleration it uses though, I'll cross this out and change to Support. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss
@Zar2gar1, the page for Linear motor would likely be what you are looking for. Railguns are a specific theoretical application. While we ARE currently researching them, the closest thing to their implementation is the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System. In the Civilian world, Maglev trains are an example. I should point out here that Maglev would be a great addition to vital articles, as it is a type of train in widespread use globally. ALL of these pages would be better then Railgun in my opinion though, as they are actually employed in the real world. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 18:05, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Maglev should be listed, and would support it if you nominated it. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:08, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Shuriken

[edit]
PASSED
Removed 4–1. Makkool (talk) 17:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

A weapon that is used more in Hollywood then history.

Support
  1. As nom.GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 01:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agree, we don't need to get this specific into thrown weapons. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Makkool (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 01:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Weak oppose. Not very historically important, but extremely common in fiction. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:04, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Bowie knife, or swap with Fighting knife

[edit]
PASSED
Removed 4-1, not swapped 2-1. Makkool (talk) 13:43, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Support removal
  1. As nom.GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 01:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Clearly not that important, not sure about fighting knife. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 01:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Swap with Fighting knife
  1. Prefer swap but support plain removal, pretty much, consider this a swap vote unless we're on the fence between keeping outright or removing outright. In that case, I'd rather see it removed. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Makkool (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both
  1. Oppose Knife  3 at VA 3 it deserves a few subtopics Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Wakizashi

[edit]
PASSED
Removed 4–0. Makkool (talk) 17:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Support
  1. As nom.GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 01:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agree, the 2 swords paired are interesting culturally, but that can be covered by other topics on Japanese history & society. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Makkool (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 01:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove 9×19mm Parabellum

[edit]
PASSED
Removed 4–0. Makkool (talk) 17:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Support
  1. As nom.GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 01:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, I may have added these during the pre-vote days (I think the NATO standard cartridge was already there). Agree though that at quota, we really don't need to list specific ammo standards. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Makkool (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 01:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove 5.56×45mm NATO

[edit]
PASSED
Removed 4–0. Makkool (talk) 17:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Support
  1. As nom.GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 01:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, at quota, we really don't need to list specific ammo standards. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Makkool (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 01:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove IWI Tavor

[edit]
PASSED
Removed 5-0 per WP:AVALANCHE. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 20:03, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Support
  1. As nom.GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 01:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Does not seem particularly important. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:30, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support, at quota, we really don't need to list specific ammo standards. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Makkool (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 01:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove or move Glock  5

[edit]
FAILED
Not removed 3-1 or moved 2-0. Makkool (talk) 17:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Support remove
  1. As nom.GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 01:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong support, both on my "no brand names in Tech" principle and the point that it's a company, not a design. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify, I prefer removal, but if it comes down to keeping here or moving to Companies, consider this vote a move. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 01:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support move
  1. It definitely should be in Companies. Oppose removal per QuicoleJR. Makkool (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. The Glock is very culturally important in the United States. Tons of people talk about "a Glock" as you would talk about "a Frisbee". Neutral on whether it should be under Weapons or Companies. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove or move AR-15–style rifle

[edit]
PASSED
Removed 4–0. Makkool (talk) 17:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Support remove
  1. As nom.GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 01:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Prefer removal, but support move, consider this a removal vote unless we wind up on the fence between keeping as is and just moving. Then consider it a move vote. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Makkool (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 01:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support move
Oppose
Neutral
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Bean bag round

[edit]
PASSED
Removed 4–0. Makkool (talk) 17:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Support
  1. As nom.GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 01:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, I think this is another one I added during the pre-vote days to swamp coverage. Agree it's not vital now at quota. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Makkool (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 01:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Plastic bullet

[edit]
PASSED
Removed 4–0. Makkool (talk) 17:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Support
  1. As nom.GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 01:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, agree it's not vital now at quota. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Makkool (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 01:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Rubber bullet

[edit]
PASSED
Removed 4–0. Makkool (talk) 17:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Support
  1. As nom.GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 01:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, agree it's not vital now at quota. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Makkool (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 01:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Sponge grenade

[edit]
PASSED
Removed 4–0. Makkool (talk) 17:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Support
  1. As nom.GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 01:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, agree it's not vital now at quota. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Makkool (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 01:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove CS gas

[edit]
PASSED
Removed 4–0. Makkool (talk) 17:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Support
  1. As nom.GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 01:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, agree it's not vital now at quota. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Makkool (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 01:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Pepper spray  5

[edit]
FAILED
Not removed 3-2. Makkool (talk) 17:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Support
  1. As nom.GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 01:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak support, agree it's maybe not that vital now at quota, though (at least in the US), it's also marketed to individuals for personal protection. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Tear gas is definitely vital, and it's enough we list that. Makkool (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Definitely not, pepper spray is certainly a vital topic. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Important topic around self-defense for women and vulnerable groups. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:46, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discuss

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

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

Add Eye color

[edit]

Seems important enough at this level.

Support
  1. As nom. Kevinishere15 (talk) 07:39, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Definitely vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:52, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sure, why not? We have room in phyisiology for sure. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:07, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose, Human eye  4 seems adequate. The page for Eye color seems fairly exclusive to human eye color, so it doesn't offer expanded range. The page Human skin color isn't listed, and I don't think it should be, but do think it is likely more culturally significant then eye color, sadly. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:07, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discuss

Replace Polonium hydride  5 with Chlorine dioxide

[edit]

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

Support
  1. As nom. Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 10:51, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sure, deferring to nom on this one. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:07, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Mixed
Discuss

Add Linear motor and Maglev

[edit]

Both of these suggestions came out of the railgun removal discussion above and sound like solid additions to me. It's been a bit since I looked at the list organization, but linear motor can go near our other electrical motors, while maglev can go somewhere under Rail transport.

Support
  1. Support as nom. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:40, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, would like to see railgun removed still but these are important. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 05:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:40, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remove TransMilenio  5

[edit]

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

Support
  1. As nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 15:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discuss

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

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

[edit]

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

Support


Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Remove Telephone number (mathematics)  5

[edit]

Zero interwikis suggest this number theory concept is too niche.

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

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

Add Safe

[edit]

This seems like an important item.

Support
  1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support  Carlwev  13:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Safe addition.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 13:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kevinishere15 (talk) 19:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Zipper storage bag

[edit]

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


Support
  1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. sure. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 20:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Aluminium foil

[edit]

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

Support
  1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Plastic wrap

[edit]

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

Support
  1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Tupperware or Tupperware Brands

[edit]

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

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

Add 2 for Astronomy -> Observation

[edit]

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

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

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

Add Structural coloration to Biology

[edit]

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

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

Add 5 shelters to Animal Behavior

[edit]
PASSED
Three added 6-0, two added 5-0 per WP:AVALANCHE. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

This came up in the previous proposal to add Spider web  5, but we don't have any other shelters used by animals listed. I figure this should be an easy addition so I'm just listing as a batch:

Support
  1. As nom. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 14:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support  Carlwev  15:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 21:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kevinishere15 (talk) 19:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Makes sense to me. Nest should be VA4. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support for Nest, Beehive, and Burrow. I don't have an opinion on the others. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 20:10, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

I would also suggest bird nest and Colony (biology) we have almost 400 articles about bird things, So I would expect bird nest within a list of 400 bird things.  Carlwev  15:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Add Glycated hemoglobin

[edit]

A1C is definitely vital, and Hemoglobin  4 is VA4.

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

Add Maternity den

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

Add Bird nest

[edit]

Pretty straight-forward, mentioned in another proposal, could go in our growing animal shelter list. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:52, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. As nom. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:52, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Nest should be VA4, and this should be a subtopic of it. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per nom. Brunoblocks274 (talk) 19:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. We just added nest.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:32, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral

Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:52, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add Colony (biology)

[edit]

Also suggested in another proposal, actually applies across multiple kingdoms of life so should probably go in General Biology.

Support
  1. As nom. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:53, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Should be listed. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 18:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral

Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:53, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optical phenomena

[edit]

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

Add Optical aberration

[edit]

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

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

Add Spherical aberration

[edit]

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

Support
  1. As nom. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per nom
Oppose
Neutral

Add Chromatic aberration

[edit]

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

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

Add Caustic (optics)

[edit]

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

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

Add Iridescence

[edit]

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

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

Add Dichroism

[edit]

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

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

Add Newton's rings

[edit]

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

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

Add Moiré pattern

[edit]

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

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

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

Add Information system and URL

[edit]

Important components of the World Wide Web.

Support
  1. Interstellarity (talk) 01:17, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. always surprised what isn't already included. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 20:11, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per nom. Brunoblocks274 (talk) 21:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Easy adds Mathwriter2718 (talk) 23:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Horseshoe

[edit]

We are getting over quota in tech, but this one appears to be an oversight. Horseshoes revolutionized agriculture, transportation, and warfare and are a symbol of good fortune in many cultures.

Support
  1. As nom. To agriculture. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 22:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. If we have to remove something most of these may be still applicable.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 23:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 22:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Remove Multilevel streets in Chicago  5 and Trou de loup  5

[edit]

Articles from here that I don't think are very vital. There is no world in which Trou de loup  5 is vital and Medieval fortification (currently not a VA) is not.

Support
  1. As nom Mathwriter2718 (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Add everyday containers

[edit]

I propose adding all or some subset of Cage, Clamshell (container), Disposable cup, Bucket, Plastic bottle, Vial, Test tube, Pipette, because they are all objects that many of us interact with often or every day.

Support
  1. I mildly support adding all. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 23:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Leaning oppose on Clamshell, support the rest. Kevinishere15 (talk) 02:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/STEM&oldid=1263689339"