:Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/STEM#Remove Matrix addition

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1990265150}}

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:

{{Vital article level 5 rules}}

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

{{See|Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Biological and health sciences/Animals}}

{{See|Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Biological and health sciences/Biology}}

{{See|Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Biological and health sciences/Health}}

{{See|Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Biological and health sciences/Plants}}

{{See|Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Physical sciences/Basics and measurement}}

{{See|Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Physical sciences/Astronomy}}

{{See|Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Physical sciences/Chemistry}}

{{See|Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Physical sciences/Earth science}}

{{See|Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Physical sciences/Physics}}

{{See|Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Technology}}

{{See|Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Mathematics}}

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

;Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 23:17, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
2. Sure. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 19:04, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:51, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discussion

I know we just added Intercity rail so if this picks up momentum, I may support on precedent... but we just closed the same proposal as stalled out earlier this month. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

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

;Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 10:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
2. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 10:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Per nom. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 19:15, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Weak oppose, purely on annoying procedural grounds. We already list {{VA link|Wireless}} too, and while I normally like overlap in Lv5, we need to get back down to quota. Will change to Support if someone finds 2 or more weak Computing or smartphone-related articles to cut. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

Couldn't find 2 articles to swap out as is @Zar2gar1's desire, unfortunately, but Peripheral is a stub article that basically just says "an input or output device", and we already have both of those. We should just get rid of it and put the input devices listed under it under "input device". That would allow us to add wireless network without causing harm. @Makkool @[User:LaukkuTheGreit|LaukkuTheGreit]] @JpTheNotSoSuperior. Mrfoogles (talk) 02:06, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. As nom. Mrfoogles (talk) 02:06, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 16:57, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

• {{ping|Mrfoogles|Lophotrochozoa}} There's a proposal to add Input/output below. It seems like that article better covers this topic, don't you think? EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:34, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:Makes sense Mrfoogles (talk) 19:53, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

As vital as {{VA link|Balcony}}, {{VA link|Porch}} and {{VA link|Patio}}, IMO.

;Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
2. If we can move architectural elements from Technology. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 19:25, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Oppose here, but Support if moved to Architecture. I had to think about it more, and while there is engineering behind this, the article doesn't mention it and focuses on architectural aspects. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Agreeing with the comment above. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 19:16, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discussion

This topic is a bit of a more novel discipline, but I think it should be included. In my experience it is a more commonly used term in Europe, and in the United States generally refers to things like Bioinformatics, which studies computer use in healthcare. Essentially, to quote the lede, it is the study of computational systems, and can be sometimes used as a synonym for {{VA link|Computer Science}}. There is a large organization dedicated to it called Informatics Europe, and several sub-disciplines like geoinformatics (how I am familiar with it). I think that it should be included at least at level 5, but would nominate it for level 4 if it passes. According to [https://amia.org/careers-certifications/informatics-academic-programs this] link, there are several informatics programs at American universities, and the department of computer science at Oxford lists it among their research activities [https://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/activities/informatics/ here]. Google Scholar returns several highly cited results when you search for "Informatics," as you can see [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C49&q=informatics&btnG= here]. While not as widespread in the US, I believe a discipline with many subdisciplines, used at multiple academic departments, with a large body of literature should be included.

;Support

1. As nom.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)}
2. Definitely, though not sure exactly the best place for it. Would make sense in either Science -> Basics or Math -> Theoretical comp sci. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
3. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:32, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

;Proposal signature

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Essential communication component in computing. {{VA link|Input device}} and {{VA link|Output device}} were listed not too long ago (albeit, I proposed them if that may be important noting) so I feel that it makes sense to add this as well. B3251_(talk) 20:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. as nom. B3251_(talk) 20:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 19:17, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
3. 3df (talk) 21:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
4. Swap for {{VA link|Peripheral}}, as proposed elsewhere. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 12:33, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Weak oppose, purely on annoying procedural grounds. I'll switch to strong support if someone proposes 2 or more weak Computing (or Consumer electronics) articles to cut. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
2. :@Zar2gar1 I appreciate what you're trying to do, but I don't think you're going to get a lot of results asking for 2 articles to cut -- even 1 is difficult. Mrfoogles (talk) 02:10, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
3. ::I'm too busy to participate regularly, but I'm glad you replied. So while I obviously only have a vote, part of why I opposed like I did is to challenge people to really look at how overweight computer topics are again. Personally, I've kind of been waiting for people to get bored with Tech in general so we can at least fill out the remaining Science sections.
4. ::Maybe I'm biased, but I'd argue it's actually quite easy to find a lot of articles to cut. For example, just in the same Hardware subsection, do we really need to list old bus standards like PATA and ISA? Or 9 different port standards?
5. ::And that's before getting into the other issues I've mentioned before: Should we even be listing specific brands of software (as opposed to generic application)? Shouldn't most web-services and media platforms be listed like companies or publications (we don't list specific newspapers or telephone networks under Tech)? Zar2gar1 (talk) 21:56, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

Adding some commonly referenced problems in statistics/spatial statics.

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Added 4-0 GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:51, 5 May 2025 (UTC)}}

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

;Support

1. As nom GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Sure, should probably go in Math -> Statistics. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
3. To be honest, I think Gerrymandering might deserve it, but if it's not there this will do. Mrfoogles (talk) 02:11, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 17:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

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

;Support

1. As nom GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Sure, should probably go in Math -> Statistics. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 21:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Added 4-0 GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:51, 5 May 2025 (UTC)}}

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

;Support

1. As nom GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Sure, should probably go in Math -> Statistics. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Pretty major, I still remember it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:29, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 13:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

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

;Support

1. As nom GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Absolutely, can go near Applied Math -> Operations Research. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 16:50, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

;Proposal signature

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Added 4-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2025 (UTC)}}

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

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Sure, the other scientific specialists are a clear precedent. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Pretty obvious. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
4. ALittleClass (talk) 08:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Netural

;Discuss

{{abot}}

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

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Sure, the other scientific specialists are a clear precedent. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Pretty obvious. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Netural

;Discuss

{{atop|status=Closed |result=Article redirects to the already listed cartography. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 22:23, 20 May 2025 (UTC)}}

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

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Sure, the other scientific specialists are a clear precedent. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Pretty obvious. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. I don't think it needs a sepaate article. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 10:54, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

;Netural

;Discuss

{{ping|GeogSage}} Cartographer redirects to Cartography. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:19, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

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

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Sure, the other scientific techniques are a clear precedent. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 12:24, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Netural

;Discuss

{{ping|GeogSage}} Where should we list it? Lophotrochozoa (talk) 12:24, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

;Proposal signature

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Kriging is a family of {{VA link|Interpolation}} statistics. It is likely the most widely employed.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Sure, we can worry about the related articles like {{VA link|Gaussian process}} later. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 13:44, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

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

File:USA Contiguous NoHighschool 2020 Hotspot.jpg

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Sure, has clear applications and we can worry about balance later. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:36, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. {{VA link|Autocorrelation}} is more vital yet not V5.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:39, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
2. :Thanks for pointing that out, I just nominated autocorrelation. I'm always surprised at what is missing from this project and what is prioritized. I think both should definitely be included. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 07:01, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
3. ::You seem to have gotten very active recently. Probably as you got active you noticed that your specialty seemed in need of more subjects. I have only been active here about a year and a half, but before you were active there was a big movement to strip out a lot of state capitals, state population leaders, and I think even some small country capitals. I got fed up with it all and was not active for a few months. I think they stripped out regions. Now you show up with a lot of interesting topics. I would personally rather readd the 35th or 40th most important U.S. State capital than a lot of these geography topics that you come up with. In fact, the more that you come up with, the more pissed I am that so many modestly important cities were stripped because I think they would serve us better than a lot of them. However, if we are not going to readd those, I think geography should give spaces to other subjects. I'd rather see the 3rd or 4th most important painting by Monet or Lichtenstein get the slot than have a geography expert fill them up to the best of his ability. I am not feeling this nom and it is representative of many that you post. I'd rather have modest cities back than half of these. I'd even rather let musicians or actors bloat than some of these. We really chopped U.S. politicians. I'd rather the 15th through 30th most important U.S. president be added back. I really think we are getting in the weeds on geography and think there are better subjects to include.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:24, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
4. :::I think GeogSage's proposals have been a really welcome addition to the project. Geography hasn't received similar attention during the time when the list was assembled. Comparing to Mathematics or the other STEM subjects it doesn't have the same depth and lacks as advanced topics as for example Mathematics has in Vital articles. The situation is the same with Psychology or with Literature which is my specialty. (But with Lit I've faced up the fact that we're never be able to include as many basic topics as I would like to because the works take so many slots) So I think it's good were working on a neglected subject now. My wish would be that some psychologist would join us as well to further broaden the list's coverage. If it were upto me, we'd cut Mathematics and Physical sciences down until all subjects have about the same level of higher and advanced topics. Makkool (talk) 09:24, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
5. ::::Thank you, I'm glad I'm not making everyone "pissed" by my participation. I wish there were more experts involved across the board. Random question, when it comes to literature, do you believe the works or authors are generally more "vital" based on the project criteria? Psychology and health is painfully under represented, psychology has 220 articles, Mental disorders has 70, and Psychiatric drugs has 18. That is a huge blind spot in coverage that should be addressed. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:48, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
6. :::::I'm not the one you asked, but I say authors vs. works go on a case-by-case basis, but often an author known for multiple influential works would go higher; {{VA link|William Shakespeare}} & {{VA link|Hamlet}} and {{VA link|J. K. Rowling}} & {{VA link|Harry Potter}} are examples of good arrangements IMO.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 01:06, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
7. ::::::Thanks for the feedback none the less. This is one I've struggled with in terms of thinking about books and works. While it would always be case by case, this is less obvious then other areas as to which way it leans in my opinion. Most academic's are going to be vital based on their whole career, it's unlikely that a single work would be important enough to include. A band or musicians will be included before their music it seems as music has 824 articles while musicians and composers have 1408. These sections I don't have much opinion on. For film, We have 212 specific films, 481 actors, 466 actresses, and 387 film directors. These sections feel wrong to me, as I think the movies themselves are more important then the people in them, so the slant towards people feels wildly unbalanced. I think we could/should the people involved with movies and replace them with movies, if nothing else. I'm not a film buff, but I watch a movie every week and rarely repeat, so I've seen more then 212 films in the last 4ish years. I couldn't tell you the directors, actors, or actresses of half of them. Literature has 1040 and we have 902 prose writers, which is a better ratio in my opinion, but I'm not sure how literature people feel about that compared to other media. I tend to discuss book titles more then authors, which is what I've noticed others doing. There are some major authors though, so the ratio of slightly more books to prose writers makes some sense. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:29, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
8. :::My free time has changed recently, so I can't be as active on other areas of Wikipedia. Looking at the vital articles is less thought/time intensive then writing stuff, and my writing time is all dedicated to professional pursuits lately. I vote on breaks when my code is running or I need a break from grading papers. I'm a geographer/cartographer, so my opinion on what is vital is likely to be different from others. I think it's kind of like a mechanic thinking a {{VA link|Camshaft}} (big oof, I just checked to see if that was vital when making the example) is vital while a non-mechanic might think {{VA link|Ford Mustang}} is much more important. If your measure for vitality is how much you would like to read the article, then I can't help you, but if that's how people are voting I understand why the list has so many sports figures and celebrities. Different experiences lead to different perceptions, for example regions/cities are much less important to me then concepts like Moran's I or Getis-Ord statistics. I have had to do spatial-temporal analysis using historic records, meaning I've had to make the corrections for changing boundaries, place names, etc., or determine when it is impossible and note it, and feel cities/regions are constantly in a state of change. Defining regions is subjective, and having sat through long winded debates on drawing lines for them, I feel they're more social construct then objective reality. Trying to nail down a list of place names feels like an exercise in futility to me. For a geographer/cartographer, in my opinion, Getis-Ord Statistics are extremely important, and unless we invent something better will likely see use. You're idea of geography and mine are fundamentally different. I'd rather have a collection of experts nominate what they think is vital to their discipline then rely on what people who aren't involved in the discipline find interesting. I'd say that it looks like the geography section was put together by 5th graders, but [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/2325548X.2023.2240973#:~:text=Under%20%E2%80%9CT%20is%20for%20Tobler,there%20are%20five%20themes%20of Children's books] include Tobler and {{VA link|Tobler's first law of geography}}, something widely debated, cited, and discussed in geography but impossible to add here because it isn't something most people stumble upon. I'm sorry if the stuff I "come up with" to make the section reflect my values makes you feel "pissed," but I don't really feel the need to change my votes or what I nominate based on that. Is this comment just you thinking out loud, or is there something constructive you want me to do? GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:37, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
9. ::::We used to list {{VA link|Cam (mechanism)}} until it was moved from the primary topic and dropped from the list instead of corrected: Special:Diff/1197682591. I think I added it during the WP:BRD era and decided not to list {{VA link|Camshaft}} as a strongly overlapping, slightly more auto-centric topic. I know that's not your point, but it does suggest that emotional attachment to an ideal of the VA list is a recipe for disappointment. Time devours everything. But we do still list {{VA link|Cam follower}} and {{VA link|Tappet}} (which arguably should be merged) so it's not a total loss!
10. ::::I think both you and TonyTheTiger come up with a lot of good ideas, both as proposers and voters, and I'm glad you're both here. And honestly, I don't think anyone stays at this WikiProject (or much of Wikipedia) more than a month without wanting to pull out their hair, or somebody else's. I hope you both can work things out and get past this recent friction.
11. ::::That said, I do think we all need to double-check how we're participating here from time to time. I'm almost positive my weird conditional votes and nagging about "the process" are annoying at least some of you. At the same time, I'll cop to being bothered by how uneven participation is becoming. Just here, we're back over 3x what Wikipedia generally considers an unwieldy talk-page, but until Interstellarity dropped by this weekend, the top proposal had been languishing since October. And Makkool's still waiting since mid-Nov on a 4th yea to see if we're going to add {{VA link|Incunable}} or not.
12. ::::Maybe I'm wrong and some people just want to vote, but assuming we all want to participate fully in roughly the same amount, almost nothing will pass unless we average 3 votes minimum for every proposal of our own. And that's before considering any concrete issues with bandwidth (i.e. cognitive load on voters and closers), which will only become more precious now that Lv5 is effectively full and almost everything will take more deliberation than before. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:57, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
13. ::::I hope you did't get the impression that I am pissed. I just get annoyed when the changing sentiments wipe out subjects that I feel are vital. You are a great contributor. I just look at some specialized geog topics and wonder if it is really more important than things we have decided to cast off. Since you keep coming up with them, I keep wondering this. We have enough good minds to weed through your suggestions. I often make batches looking to see what sticks to the wall. Keep up the good work although we won't always agree.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:23, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
14. :::::TBF, I think a large part of why the geography proposals have such momentum is they're overwhelmingly going to sections we still haven't finished topping up initially. I know others don't approach it that way, but in my mind, we're still brainstorming and the votes are mainly rubber-stamping. Many may turn out too niche, but it will be easier to determine that once we have full & reorganized sections to compare against.
15. :::::That's true to a point even for these Math proposals. While we're at quota, we're also making balanced cuts and Stats is definitely under-represented within the section. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

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

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Sure, has clear applications and we can worry about balance later. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:58, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

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

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Strong support, really good find, can also apply to things like {{VA link|Time series}} and scanning text, genomes, etc. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 11:12, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. seems very niche.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:23, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Added 4-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 19:18, 25 May 2025 (UTC)}}

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

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Strong support, really good find, definitely belongs here as an elementary statistical distribution. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
3. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:35, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 12:21, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

;Proposal signature

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

This is a common supplement available at American grocery stores, often sold as {{VA link|Oxitriptan}}. The 5-Hydroxytryptophan page has an average of [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2015-07-01&end=2025-01-18&pages=5-Hydroxytryptophan 792 pageviews] per day over the past 10 years. In the views, you can see there has been some fluctuations in view counts, but there has been a recent spike over the past year or so. There are some pretty serious side effects if the supplement is misused, so I believe it would be important to include on the list to increase attention on it.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
2. After some thought, sure. Naturally occurring so let's list it under Biochemistry. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:58, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. It seems better to list {{VA link|Oxitriptan}}. If we do list either, it should be under antidepressant drugs, as its biological role it not enough to list it for that reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lophotrochozoa (talk • contribs) 15:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

;Proposal signature

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

We are missing a lot of key articles related to navigation and timekeeping. I have a few here I've noticed, but there are many more. Most of these are extremely basic and elementary to navigation.

{{atopr|status=failed|result=Not added 2-2 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 19:39, 25 May 2025 (UTC)}}

From the lede, "wayfinding (or way-finding) encompasses all of the ways in which people (and animals) orient themselves in physical space and navigate from place to place. "

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Weak support. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Weak oppose for now, we're drifting further over quota, and while I normally try to give stubs a handicap, this appears to be either an organizational placeholder or definition that can probably be merged elsewhere. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
2. I do'nt see how the definition is distinct from {{VA link|Navigation}}. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 01:30, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopr|status=failed|result=Not added 3-2 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 03:04, 23 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Pretty self explanatory, navigating on land on foot or in a vehicle.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
2. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:08, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
3. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Oppose for now, we're drifting further over quota, plus it seems to be largely a placeholder article (c.f. {{VA link|Orienteering}} and land subsection of {{VA link|Navigation}}. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Per Zar2gar1. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:26, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Added 5-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 14:45, 26 May 2025 (UTC)}}

The process of making new trails.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Weak support. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
3. This is a rather substantial topic and it's evident that it's fairly common, so I'll support. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 05:59, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
4. Support under outdoor recreation. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 16:09, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Oppose for now, we're drifting further over quota; weak support with other Outdoorsmanship topics though (under Recreation?) -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
2. :Since I'm going to list it on outdoor recreation, I count that as a support vote. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 14:45, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Added 4-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 11:24, 3 June 2025 (UTC)}}

Navigating in air or water using fixed points of reference.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Support, applied sciences like this are still really lacking but we're drifting further over quota. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
3. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
4. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 15:36, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

Using radio waves to determine where you are and aid in navigation.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 16:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Weak oppose for now, might support in the future but we're drifting further over quota. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{atopr|status=failed|result=Not added 3-2 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 16:23, 26 May 2025 (UTC)}}

the cardinal direction in which the craft is to be steered.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
2. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Crucial concept. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:32, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Oppose for now, we're drifting further over quota and this is getting closer to WP:DICTIONARY territory. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Per Zar2gar1. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 15:30, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopr|status=failed|result=Not added 1-2 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 16:23, 26 May 2025 (UTC)}}

the horizontal angle between the direction of an object and north or another object.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Oppose for now, we're drifting further over quota and this is getting closer to WP:DICTIONARY territory. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Per Zar2gar1. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 15:30, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopr|status=failed|result=Not added 2-2 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 16:23, 26 May 2025 (UTC)}}

The heading of a vessel or aircraft is the compass direction in which the craft's bow or nose is pointed.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Weak support. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Oppose for now, we're drifting further over quota and this is getting closer to WP:DICTIONARY territory. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Per Zar2gar1. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 15:30, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopg|status=failed|result=Not added 1-2 00:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)}}

From the lede, "Pace count beads or ranger beads are a manual counting tool used to keep track of distance traveled through a pace count. It is used in military land navigation or orienteering. A typical example for military use is keeping track of distance traveled during a foot patrol." These are essentially an {{VA link|Abacus}} but for counting your paces. They are great for orienteering, and widely used in the U.S. military.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Weak oppose for now, we're drifting further over quota. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Per Zar2gar1. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 15:30, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

Weapons are a huge part of our culture, for better or worse, however this section could probably be trimmed when compared to some of our other sections. As starting to struggle with quotas at this level, I think we need to trim some of the more specific articles from this section. I list the articles from least to most viewed, you can see the chart [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2015-07-01&end=2025-01-27&pages=Multiple-barrel_firearm|Rotary_cannon|Burst_mode_(weapons)|Man-portable_air-defense_system|Ammunition_box|Active_Denial_System here]

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Removed 4–0. Makkool (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

}}

I understand ammo boxes are useful for other purposes and are common on the battlefield, but I'm not sure it is a vital concept in itself. This is the least viewed article I'm nominating.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:32, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Support, I may have added this during the WP:BRD era. With a full section to compare against, I agree we should cut it. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Low view count Makkool (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Does not seem vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:46, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

We include {{VA link|Rotary cannon}} which gets consistently more [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2015-07-01&end=2025-01-27&pages=Multiple-barrel_firearm|Rotary_cannon views]. I think we can cut one, and think the least viewed can go.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:32, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Weak support, I may have added this during the WP:BRD era. Would prefer we remove by figuring out a merger with rotary cannon, but I agree we should cut it now. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Per above Makkool (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Weak support. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 19:50, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Removed 4–0. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

We include {{VA link|Select fire}}, I think we can remove burst mode.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:32, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Weak support, I may have added this during the WP:BRD era. Would prefer we remove by figuring out a merger with select fire, but I agree we should cut it now. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Per above Makkool (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Per above. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 21:00, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Removed 4–0. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

From the lede "The Active Denial System (ADS) is a non-lethal directed-energy weapon developed by the U.S. military, designed for area denial, perimeter security and crowd control. Informally, the weapon is also called the heat ray since it works by heating the surface of targets, such as the skin of targeted human beings. Raytheon had marketed a reduced-range version of this technology. The ADS was deployed in 2010 with the United States military in the Afghanistan War, but was withdrawn without seeing combat." I don't think this particular weapon system is vital.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:32, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Support, I may have added this during the WP:BRD era. With a full section to compare against, I agree we should cut it for now. If directed-energy weapons or crowd control start becoming more prevalent, we can revisit adding something similar. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Per above Makkool (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 00:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopr

| status = failed

| result = Kept 0–3. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

We include {{VA link|Surface-to-air missile}}, I think we can remove MANPADs. This is the most viewed article I'm nominating here.

;Support

1. {{Strikethrough| As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:32, 29 January 2025 (UTC)}}

;Oppose

1. Weak oppose for now, partly for incrementalism, partly for the asymmetric warfare angle. Arguably forms a trinity with {{VA link|Anti-tank guided missile}} and {{VA link|Rocket-propelled grenade}}. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Per above Makkool (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Change my vote to oppose as nom per Zar2gar1. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:32, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

Indexes in statistics are important. The page isn't in the best of shape but that is all the more reason to add it. We list numbers {{VA link|-1}}, {{VA link|0}}, {{VA link|One half}}, {{VA link|1}}, {{VA link|2}}, {{VA link|3}}, {{VA link|4}}, {{VA link|5}}, {{VA link|6}}, {{VA link|7}}, {{VA link|8}}, {{VA link|9}}, {{VA link|10}}, {{VA link|100}}, {{VA link|1000 (number)}} and a couple others. I understand some of the reasoning here, but 1000 is a bit excessive. We capture base 10 adequately, and I'd imagine numbers like 12, and 360 would make more sense to help capture base 12 systems. I think 1000 is excessive. As we are over quota, we should discuss swaps instead of straight adds.

;Swap {{VA link|Index (statistics)}} with {{VA link|1000 (number)}}

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:05, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Support, the Probability & Stats section is still relatively light. I've never particularly liked over-listing simple constants and functions either; they may be well-known but mathematically, most aren't actually more important or interesting than any other random number. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:13, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

;Remove {{VA link|1000 (number)}} with no swap

1. Failing swap, I still think 1000 is excessive and should be replaced with something else.

;Neutral

;Oppose all

1. oppose remove via swap. It should be considered along with other number nominations.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:45, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
2. :I included this in that nomination below. If that passes first, I think this would become a proposal for a straight add of Index (statistics). GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:48, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
3. ::The other discussion has decideed to remove 1000. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:13, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss other articles to add/remove

We capture the base 10 system {{VA link|Decimal}} adequately by including numbers 1 through 10 (among others). I believe 100 is not necessary to include, and the base 12 Duodecimal system is extremely important historically and has implications today. Quoting the article, "Historically, units of time in many civilizations are duodecimal. There are twelve signs of the zodiac, twelve months in a year, and the Babylonians had twelve hours in a day (although at some point, this was changed to 24). Traditional Chinese calendars, clocks, and compasses are based on the twelve Earthly Branches or 24 (12×2) Solar terms. There are 12 inches in an imperial foot, 12 troy ounces in a troy pound, 12 old British pence in a shilling, 24 (12×2) hours in a day; many other items are counted by the dozen, gross (144, square of 12), or great gross (1728, cube of 12). The Romans used a fraction system based on 12, including the uncia, which became both the English words ounce and inch. Pre-decimalisation, Ireland and the United Kingdom used a mixed duodecimal-vigesimal currency system (12 pence = 1 shilling, 20 shillings or 240 pence to the pound sterling or Irish pound), and Charlemagne established a monetary system that also had a mixed base of twelve and twenty, the remnants of which persist in many places." Above I am suggesting a swap to remove 1000, if both pass this would reduce the number of numbers we include. I include this proposal of Duodecimal, but under it we could justify adding numbers 11 and 12 as well. I don't think that's necessary, so think we should cut the numbers above 10 unless there is specific reason.

;Support swap

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:44, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

;Support straight add

1. I don't think we should go over quota really, but think this should be included. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:44, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

;Support removal only

1. I've never particularly liked over-listing simple constants and functions; they may be well-known but mathematically, most aren't actually more important or interesting than any other random number. As for {{VA link|Duodecimal}}, not only was the previous consensus to remove pretty strong, but I think as a mathematical topic, we implicitly subsumed it along with {{VA link|Vigesimal}} under {{VA link|Sexagesimal}} for now. Maybe we add both back someday, but for now, I think we have bigger gaps to fill in. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 23:26, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

We actually listed this and several more number systems before voting to cut it last January: Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/STEM/Archive 2#Remove Duodecimal. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:29, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

:We still use various things based on it today, and I think it is more vital then the number 100. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:09, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss other possible swaps.

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:44, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

There is a section about soil mechanics on the physics subpage, but I think a better place for those articles would be the earth science subpage, specifically the soil science section. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 16:15, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

:That's a tricky one. Personally, I'd leave it with Physics for now. Even if it studies the specifics of soil, I think it's still from a physics perspective and technically a subtopic of granular mechanics (which redirects to {{VA link|Granular material}}, a topic we don't currently list). -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:29, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

We are over quota and need to start making tough decisions. I've proposed donating some slots from other sections elsewhere, but those are not permanent solutions even if they pass. Therefore, we need to start looking for things to trim, and file extensions are a good place to start. File extensions come and go, and we are likely to see many more as long as we keep using computers. Adding each type of file extension will not be sustainable long term, so trimming now makes sense. Starting with this batch of 10.

{{atopr

| status = failed

| result = Blanket removal not implemented 2-3. Makkool (talk) 06:39, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

}}

This might make things quicker. Would free up some space and avoid going through one at a time.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:12, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Support removing all specific file extensions / formats, not just the 10 listed here. These are largely minutiae that even most people who work with computers don't need to read about in depth. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
3. :I don't know if I need to clarify, but that is what I mean by remove all. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:06, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. I think there are vital file formats like .mp3 and .zip, so I wouldn't support a blanket removal. It's better to propose removals on a one-by-one basis. Makkool (talk) 19:24, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
2. I'd rather first look into this list of low-view Technology articles to get ideas for removing things people generally don't care about, instead of deciding specific examples of an entire subcategory are worthless. That list is a bit out of date however in that a bunch of entries from it have been removed already, it might be good to generate a new one (instructions here).--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 21:03, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
3. :I'm open to using pageviews to think up proposals, but honestly, I find it a little troubling to suggest we should base especially the Tech list on popularity. Done enough times, it almost guarantees we'll shed every in-depth engineering or technical article. The imbalance towards "very online" topics and consumer products will probably also worsen.
4. :And on the matter of file extensions, it's just my opinion, and I really don't like to be blunt or pull rank. But as someone that worked in software for several years, enumerating them while we omit some other foundational or widely-used topics, even in software, feels kind of embarrassing. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 00:52, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
5. ::Comment Not to pile on but just something from my limited professional experience with :Category:GIS file formats . Two file types most people aren't familiar with are a .gbd (Geodatabase (Esri)), and .shp or (shapefile), but they are absolutely critical for any computer cartography/navigation. In 3D printing and CAD, we have :Category:CAD file formats and stuff like .stl (STL (file format)) files. The file types we list are well known for consumer computers and normal business users, but if you look at :Category:Computer file formats, you can see many that are a bit less famous but might be crucial to modern civilization. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:09, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
6. case-by-case please.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:06, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

If you support removing all, please vote to support removing all listed in the event the first doesn't pass.

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Removed 4-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:38, 14 May 2025 (UTC)}}

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:08, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Makkool (talk) 19:24, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
3. per nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:06, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
4. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:08, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Makkool (talk) 19:24, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
3. per nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:06, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Rempved 4-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 13:06, 24 May 2025 (UTC)}}

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:08, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Makkool (talk) 19:24, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
3. per nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:06, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
4. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 17:10, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:08, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Makkool (talk) 19:24, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 17:05, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Removed 4-1 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 14:37, 20 May 2025 (UTC)}}

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:08, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Makkool (talk) 19:24, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
3. per nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:06, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
4. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:45, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. This should be fine to keep to cover {{VA link|Advanced Video Coding}} and its successors (despite having lower pageviews).--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:29, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
2. :Actually, since I support the whole batch removal, I just now skimmed the individual items. And should DivX even be listed as a file format? They've created a couple proprietary, container formats, but otherwise, they implement media apps and codecs to standards developed elsewhere. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:08, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Makkool (talk) 19:24, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:08, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Makkool (talk) 19:24, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
3. per nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:06, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
4. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 12:36, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:08, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Makkool (talk) 19:24, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
3. per nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:06, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Removed 4–0. Makkool (talk) 06:39, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

}}

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:08, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Makkool (talk) 19:24, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
3. per nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:06, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
4. Superseded by {{VA link|High Efficiency Video Coding}}.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:29, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopr

| status = failed

| result = Not removed 2-2. Makkool (talk) 06:39, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

}}

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:08, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Makkool (talk) 19:24, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. From this list this is the only one that I think is still important.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:06, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
2. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:29, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:08, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

We're over quota so cuts need to happen to keep adding articles for vital topics that keep being found. I went through the transportation section to pick a couple I think we could remove while still maintaining broad coverage. I have found a few articles I think we should include related to ground transportation (loosly) that I think we should include. I'm proposing seven removals and three additions. I'm hoping to help contribute to cutting the page while adding a few articles I think are vital.

{{atopr

| status = passed

| result = Removed 4-0. nominate 22 days ago. last vote 12 days ago.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:31, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

}}

From the article "a generic term to encompass race bikes." We list 10 specific types of bike, I think this loose definition can be trimmed

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:48, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Strong support, especially since we already list {{VA link|BMX}} as a sport. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
3. Makkool (talk) 17:14, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
4. per above. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopr

| status = failed

| result = Sigh, was hopeful this would be an easy one to make room, but think it's safe to close for now. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

Extremely niche vehicle. I don't think it is necessary to include for coverage of ground vehicles when we are missing so many other topics.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:48, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
2. "FRIDAY, FRIDAY, FRIDAY!" I have to admit even I had to think for a second because it's clearly a loud part of American culture, but yeah, we don't need this as a technology. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
3. Makkool (talk) 17:14, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Weak oppose. I understand the points to remove, but I feel like monster trucks are pretty big culturally. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 19:25, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Per above. Common in baby toys, for example. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:39, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopr

| status = failed

| result = Not removed 2-3. opened 25 days ago, last vote 17 days ago. -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:30, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

}}

We list four cars, and the {{VA link|Ford Model T}} is more vital in my opinion then the Mustang. As we have an exhaustive list of types of car, I'm not sure we need any of these at all.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:48, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Out of the other three specific car models, we list, {{VA link|Toyota Corolla}} is the highest selling car in history, {{VA link|Ford Model T}} was the first commercially available car for the masses, and {{VA link|Volkswagen Beetle}} is extremely iconic and noteworthy. I don't know what the Mustang does to warrant being in the same level of historically important car models. λ NegativeMP1 06:11, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. This is the most iconic sports car of all time. IMO, more vital than the Corolla. Elsewhere we are debating whether best selling newspapers are more vital than historic and successful newspapers. There I stated that sales needed to be balanced against history. No one puts a picture of a Corolla on their bedroom wall. No one dreams about a Corolla. It is the sports car for the common man. We did not err two months ago. This nomination should not even be happening this soon after a promotion.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:11, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
2. :The Mustang is more accessible/affordable, but not as long run as cars like the {{VA link|Chevrolet Corvette}}. We list the manufacturer {{VA link|Ferrari}} and {{VA link|Ford Motor Company}}, and don't list the manufacturer {{VA link|Lamborghini}}. The Corolla is the most sold car in history, the model T is the first commercially available car, and as stated above the Volkswagen beetle has a unique place in history. We don't list {{VA link|Jeep}}, which is in my opinion a bit more iconic then the Mustang. If we list a sports car, it should likely not be American, much less a Ford as we already have the model T. I think we did err two months ago, and there isn't a time limit for nominations. Fundamentally, including the Ford Mustang means we might not be able to include other topics, like any I mentioned below (including Disc breaks). GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:02, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
3. ::I don't think this is the place to debate Ford Mustang vs. Chevrolet Corvette. With Ferrari and Lamborghini, off the top of my head, I don't think there is one model that represents the brand as the supreme sports car for the brand, making it impossible for any to be vital here. E.g. type Ferrari into the search bar and the one that I would think of (Ferrari Testarossa) is not even first. Same for Lamborghini (Lamborghini Countach) although the brand/manufacturer should be considered. Porsche 911 would I guess be the non-American contender. I think what makes the Mustang more vital than the 911 and Corvette is that its was modestly priced so as to be accessible to 100s of thousand per year. The first model sold 400k. The first Corvette only had 300 produced. I would guess the 911 has the same issue. Neither has been accessible enough to be vital now. The Mustang is the sports car for the masses.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:46, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
4. Weak oppose, purely based on the previous proposal result. I was actually the one opposing vote last time, but I dislike the idea of reopening things too soon even less than I like keeping it on the list. Can't give a timeline, but I would definitely support revisiting once there seems to be a collective shift in how we see the Tech list. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
5. Makkool (talk) 17:14, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

We actually just voted to add this 4-1 less than 2 months ago: Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/STEM/Archive 5#Add Ford Mustang 5. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:58, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = passes

| result = Remove 4-0.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:30, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

We list {{VA link|Ultralight aviation}}, I think we can cut this specific example.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:48, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Makkool (talk) 17:14, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
3. {{VA link|Ultralight aviation}} and {{VA link|Paragliding}} are both only VA5, so I don't think we need to list this obscure cross between the two. There are plenty of other topics I would rather use this Technology slot for. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:09, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
4. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 11:53, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
5. Per QuicoleJR.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 12:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

Another I'm honestly on the fence about. As someone that likes to see a bit more low / appropriate tech, maybe ultralight aviation should keep its few representative articles? My other votes should at least allow for swapping in the 3 car components though. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

{{abot}}

We list 14 types of car, I think this niche type can be trimmed while still maintaining coverage.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:48, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Makkool (talk) 17:14, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
3. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 17:15, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

I'm honestly not sure how I feel about this one. OTOH it's maybe the most niche weight class, but OTOH it is actually one of the general car classes, which is probably more relevant to engineering and regulation than several other auto-related topics we list. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

{{atopr

| status = failed

| result = kept, 1 to 3

}}

We include {{VA link|Parking}} at level 4. I'm not sure including parking lot adds much, and we could use the space for other stuff.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:48, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Oppose removal, but strong support moving to Cities -> Urban Planning. Definitely vital to a lot of urban issues, but agree it's only a technology in the weakest sense (i.e. functional, manmade object). -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Move per above Makkool (talk) 17:14, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
3. Per above. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 19:26, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

We include {{VA link|Tanker}} at level 4. I'm not sure including oil tanker lot adds much, and we could use the space for other stuff.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:48, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Makkool (talk) 17:14, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Major type of a sea vessel. Since tanker is V4, this can be at V5. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:40, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

Another I'm on the fence about (full disclosure: I may have added this during the WP:BRD era). There's obvious overlap with the main Tanker article, but this is a much meatier article that also touches on unique geopolitical aspects. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Added 4-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2025 (UTC)}}

I think this is the most important one we're missing I found in this batch. We include {{VA link|Bicycle brake}}, which I agree with, but if this doesn't pass it should probably be removed as well.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:48, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Strong support, it looks like we never actually got around to automobile internals much, even during the WP:BRD phase. Clearing out space will take some patience and finesse, but once we do, we should definitely brainstorm further. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
3. Makkool (talk) 17:14, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
4. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 21:12, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atop|status=passed|result=Added 4-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 23:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)}}

We include {{VA link|Bicycle gearing}} and {{VA link|Derailleur}}, which I agree with, however I think they are less vital then transmission, and if this doesn't pass those should probably be removed as well.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:48, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Strong support, it looks like we never actually got around to automobile internals much, even during the WP:BRD phase. Clearing out space will take some patience and finesse, but once we do, we should definitely brainstorm further. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
3. Makkool (talk) 17:14, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
4. Support  Carlwev  12:49, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Added 4-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 17:52, 16 May 2025 (UTC)}}

From the lede "A camshaft is a shaft that contains a row of pointed cams in order to convert rotational motion to reciprocating motion. Camshafts are used in piston engines (to operate the intake and exhaust valves), mechanically controlled ignition systems and early electric motor speed controllers." They are an essential component in cars using internal combustion engines.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:48, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Strong support, it looks like we never actually got around to automobile internals much, even during the WP:BRD phase. Clearing out space will take some patience and finesse, but once we do, we should definitely brainstorm further. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
3. Makkool (talk) 17:14, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
4. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:12, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

As I mentioned elsewhere, we actually used to list the very general {{VA link|Cam (mechanism)}}, but that got dropped on accident. We should probably go through a vote to add it back at this point though. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

;Proposal signature

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:48, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

Trying to make room and do spring cleaning, nominating another batch for removals.

{{atopr

| status = failed

| result = Not removed 1-4, closing early per WP:SNOW. However, interest in a potential move along with other platforms was not discussed. We may revisit in the near-future. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

}}

I don't think this is a particular vital article, despite the popularity of the site.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. For better or for worse, this site has definitely cemented itself as vital for changing how {{VA link|Pornography}} is distributed. It's also the most visited adult website, which are definitely widespread enough to warrant representation. λ NegativeMP1 06:07, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
2. If porn wasn't seen as a taboo, this wouldn't even be a proposal. All the other sites that frequently feature in the Alexa/SimilarWeb Top 20 rankings are all VA5, either as the parent company or the website itself. Unsavoriness aside, while {{VA link|pornography}} is VA4, the service that revolutionized its distribution should be listed as well. I'm curious why you chose not to include a proposal to remove {{VA link|Steam (service)}}. It has less monthly visitors, less page views, and has users in fewer countries. Surveys seem divided on if people tend to consume porn or play video games more often but considering the fact that those who watch porn are less likely to report that fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Pornhub had the advantage here too. Aurangzebra (talk) 09:01, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
3. :I thought stream was broader than a specific streaming service. While Hulu, Peacock, Prime Video, or whatever may come or go, the concept of streaming will likely be around for a while. Didn't realize it was refering to a specific service. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:01, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
4. ::BTW, easily done, You're misreading Steam as stream, one has an R like a river stream, the other has no R like water vapour steam  Carlwev  17:45, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
5. :::Thanks for pointing that out. I'm getting old and straight up didn't notice stream vs steam. I use steam like every day. . . GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:14, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
6. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:52, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
7. Very important topic, for better or worse. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:55, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

Probably more vital than Deep Throat (film) which we list, and Debbie Does Dallas which is up for voting at 2-1. .. I notice we do not list Internet pornography which is probably more significant topic than all of these. We list pornography at level 4 and Pornographic magazine at level 5 also.  Carlwev  13:38, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

:I think these websites likely belong somewhere else besides STEM. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:15, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopr

| status = failed

| result = Not removed 1-5, closing early per WP:SNOW. However, interest in a potential move along with other platforms was not discussed. We may revisit in the near-future. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

}}

Significant because of streaming, but I don't know if it is vital. We don't include other services, and I don't want to risk the urge to add them.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Currently, Netflix is as important as all other streamers combined. When they announced their most recent earnings, CNBC mentioned that they account for half of some worldwide metric. If I recall correctly, it was paid streaming movie/television viewing hours.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:39, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
2. This nomination confuses me. Is the rationale here to remove a topic from the list so that other subjects like it don't get added later on...? I doubt that would happen anyways, because no streaming service like Netflix can or ever will compare to it from a historical standpoint, so this seems like unnecessary future proofing. Also, we list {{VA link|Spotify}} and {{VA link|YouTube}}, the latter of which is close enough to a streaming service for the sake of this argument, so saying that we don't list any other streaming services is wrong. Anyways, to actually explain why I'm opposing: Netflix changed the way movies, TV shows, and more are delivered to the masses. It pioneered streaming content digitally, meaning that the rise of Netflix can be attributed to the decline of physical media and cable television. It has definitely cemented itself in the history of the internet and it's impact on society, and probably the history of the film and television industries as well. And this isn't even touching on the fact that it is by far the largest streaming service, a title it has held for almost two decades, and is unlikely to be overtaken (even if it was, its historical important is more than enough for vitality). Honestly, it surprises me that Netflix isn't V4 when YouTube is. λ NegativeMP1 06:02, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
3. per everyone above. Aurangzebra (talk) 09:12, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
4. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:52, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
5. This is the streaming platform. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:55, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Sure, this one hasn't seen much opposition yet so let's see where it goes. My other general thoughts on platforms under Tech apply here too. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
3. Makkool (talk) 19:54, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Although there are a lot of repositories for stock photography now, this has been important in the past.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:11, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{atop|Not removed 2-2
Moved to financial companies 3-0
Lophotrochozoa (talk) 00:11, 4 June 2025 (UTC)}}

We include 3 E-commerce articles, two are Chinese. Of two, Alipay has the fewer [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-20&pages=Taobao|Alipay views]

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Makkool (talk) 19:54, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Alipay is more of a payment service rather than an e-commerce platform (may be worth moving?), and holds extreme significance in China despite only having ~8,000 pageviews in the last 30 days here. It's practically a staple for Chinese technology users, along with {{VA link|WeChat}}; if you want to make an electronic transaction in China, 99% of the time you'll be using AliPay. It overtook {{VA link|PayPal}} as the world's largest mobile payment platform over a decade ago and I'm pretty sure still holds this title, even above mobile payment giants like Apple Pay and Google Pay. B3251_(talk) 01:39, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
2. :Moving it might be smart then. I'm just trying to trim articles where I see possible bloat. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:48, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
3. ::Moving it to Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences/Politics and economics#Financial, which is where PayPal is located, would probably be a good idea. B3251_(talk) 01:52, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
4. :::Honestly, based on that, most of "Specific websites and other computing services" could go under society or every day life. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:20, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
5. Move to financial companies per B3251. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:25, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopr

| status = failed

| result = Not removed 1-4, closing early per WP:SNOW. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

}}

We include {{VA link|Adobe Creative Suite}}, we can cut this.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Photoshop is enough of it's own tool with its own cultural consciousness and importance to be listed separated as a definitely essential piece of software. I would actually rather remove the Creative Suite, because I don't think a single tool from Adobe besides maybe Acrobat and Flash are nearly as important as Photoshop, even when combining them all. λ NegativeMP1 05:46, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
2. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:52, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
3. Strong oppose.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:12, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
4. Most websites don't become a verb like Google and Photoshop have. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:55, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

We include {{VA link| Mac (computer)}} at level 4, I think we can cut iMac

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 23:08, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Weak oppose, purely based on the previous proposal result. In isolation, I would probably support removing it, but I dislike the idea of reopening things too soon even less than I like keeping it on the list, especially if most of the active participants are different. Can't give a timeline, but I would definitely support revisiting once there seems to be a collective shift in how we see the Tech list. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

Note that removing this failed last time in July: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/STEM/Archive_3#Remove_iMac Makkool (talk) 19:54, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

;Proposal signature

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Sort of like B3251 mentions above for {{VA link|Alipay}}, I've been waiting to propose a bulk move of most platforms to the relevant sections. Personally, I'd support cutting most of them from VA5 entirely, but that's just my opinion and a separate issue from where to place them & how to weigh them.

I definitely don't think they belong in Tech; we don't list specific newspapers here with {{VA link|Printing press}} or broadcast stations with {{VA link|Television}}. The catch is, with the destination sections even more over-quota, such a move will almost definitely require a 100 slot cut to Tech for now, either upfront or after the move as part of an understanding. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

:Agree that we should move them or delete them. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:01, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

:I would support moving them out of Tech, but what page would they be moved to? I'd say probably Everyday Life. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:50, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

::Honestly, I think there isn't just one category, but I think deciding which is pretty straight-forward once you remember they're all economic services. Many are just media platforms, even with the same revenue model as a TV station or a newspaper, only they use a website or app (and the audience often generates the content). I don't see why those shouldn't go in the same category as {{VA link|The New York Times}} or {{VA link|NBC}}.

::Messaging apps are P2P instead of broadcast, but again, besides using an app and allowing video, they're really not that different from a phone service provider. A few like {{VA link|GitHub}} or {{VA link|Amazon Web Services}} probably do belong here though. Worst-case scenario, if something doesn't really fit anywhere else, it could probably be listed as a business (especially if its parent company is already).

::Honestly, I think the hardest part about this wouldn't be the move, but getting almost everyone to agree we need to cut Tech's quota for the short-term. Even if we bump it back up again someday, I don't see how it's fair to dump so many articles onto other categories (especially factoring in other moves), then expect them to figure out what to cut. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 20:32, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Since we have {{VA link|Cartesian coordinate system}} and {{VA link|Plane (mathematics)}}, we have Quadrant (plane geometry) at VA5.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:52, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. as nom. -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:52, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
2. For sure is vital. We need to start finding slots for swaps though, cause this stuff is really pushing quota on math. The list has it 9 over quota, and that 9 is going to be hard to find. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:26, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
3. Definitely. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 19:27, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Oppose, while this is well-known from the standard public-school curriculum (at least in the US when I was in school), it's largely just a definition. AFAIK it doesn't have any remarkable properties, and even in a situation you might refer to a quadrant as shorthand, everything essential will be covered by other topics. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Per Zar2gar1. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 14:00, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:52, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

@Swatjester mentioned these as alternatives to some previous proposals that failed. These would go to Military technology.

A Cold War era Soviet tank. The most widely produced tank in history and still widely in use today.

;Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:23, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

WW2 German tank, one of the most impactful tanks on the war. The only German tank to serve the entirety of the war.

;Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:23, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
3. Iconic tank. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 23:13, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

WW2 German tank, one of the most impactful tanks on the war. Widely considered to be one of the best German tanks.

;Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. I think one Nazi tank is enough personally, and think the Panze IV is more vital. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:23, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

1. Are there any swaps we can make, rather then straight adds? GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:32, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

:#I proposed some below in another section. Makkool (talk) 22:30, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

:#:Thanks, voted on them as well. Appreciate the effort to balance this, I think planes are WAY over represented compared to other types of vehicles, and American vehicles are also way over represented. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:24, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

1. Tiger is more famous, I think. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:41, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

In the table at the main level 5 page, User:Zar2gar1 wrote "Reorganize" next to Animals. What kind of reorganizatoin do they have in mind? Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:41, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

:Mainly the one we've discussed elsewhere: Zoology concepts and Animal Anatomy should probably be moved in from General Bio. Plus TonyTheTiger has many more basic anatomy proposals in play here, some of which are already added to Animals. There's also the various sorting that I think you and Tony have been working on.

:We can do the same with the other Bio sections, but since those aren't close to quota yet, adding isn't an issue. I marked the Animals section as "Reorganize" so that people know not to get hung-up on things like balance or the quota just yet. The list and article count will still be in flux until the new organization is mostly complete. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:41, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

The bathyscaphe Trieste and its dive to the Challenger Deep is still interesting to a lot of users every month despite that this had happend some decades ago. There are Trieste articles in 29 languages. Right now its actually rated as non vital and C-Class. What´s your opinion about rating it as Level 5 vital? Yeti-Hunter (talk) 15:31, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. Support per nom. Makkool (talk) 18:14, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
2. As nom. Yeti-Hunter (talk) 09:32, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

1. I would support this as a swap. It's a significant peace of oceanographic research history, but we'll have to be enforcing the Technology quota. Makkool (talk) 09:11, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

::Hello, you mean a swap with an article e.g. {{VA link|Motor ship}}? Yeti-Hunter (talk) 11:54, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Yes, but actually when we moved rooms and spaces out, the Technology quota is much more manageable now. So I would be actually supporting. Makkool (talk) 18:14, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

We list MBTA which covers the buses and subways. However, for Chicago and Washington, the article only covers the metro system and not the buses which I think makes sense for a swap.

;Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 21:10, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 09:11, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Neutral for add.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:12, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
4. Support removal only. Niche stuff related to US, and regional too. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:42, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Oppose remove. The L is iconic.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:12, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Per TonyTheTiger. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 16:23, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

See reason above.

;Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 21:10, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 09:11, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Support removal only. Niche stuff related to US, and regional too. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:42, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

{{atopg|Moved 2-0, and we no longer need four votes Lophotrochozoa (talk) 09:16, 2 June 2025 (UTC)}}

{{VA link|Grain}} is listed on Plants but I would prefer listing it on Food, along with {{VA link|Cereal}}. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2025 (UTC) I would also like to move {{VA link|Berry}} as there is a searate article about the botanical definition. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 00:15, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

:I see no problem with it; if you leave this notice up for at least another few days and nobody opposes, I say you can just move them boldly. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

Crossed my mind, when Pornhub was suggested and failed for removal, that we do not list internet pornography. For context, at lev 5 we list {{VA link|pornography}} (lev 4), {{VA link|pornographic magazine}}, {{VA link|Playboy}} (lev 4), {{VA link|Hustler (magazine)}}, {{VA link|Penthouse (magazine)}}, {{VA link|pornographic film}}, {{VA link|Deep Throat (film)}}, {{VA link|Pornhub}}, {{VA link|Webcam model}}, {{VA link|Child pornography}}, {{VA link|revenge porn}}, and 24 people under adult actresses/actors/porn stars. That's around 35 articles or more in the area of soft/hard pornography. If we are listing 24 individual people, 3 magazines, a website and other topics, someone wanting to read up on the topic would presumably want to read the article on internet pornography before 24 individual porn stars. If we are worried about the numbers, I would suggest removing one or two of the adult stars, 24 seems quite a lot, similar to or more than cyclists, gymnasts, swimmers, rugby, figure skating, climbing and skiing, all which have people listed at lev 4, unlike porn which does not, but are then overtaken by it at level 5.... Or perhaps swap with web cam model, which seems to be largely a sub topic of internet pornography. I imagine internet pornography is the most wide spread type of viewing of the content, but I'm not sure on that.

I was unsure were to place this. But all movies are together, all mags together, and all internet website types are in one place, such as, internet forum, online dating, and chat room are all here. If online dating is under internet not dating, pornographic magazine is under magazine not pornography, pornographic film is under film not pornography, then internet pornography would be under internet, not pornography, following the current pattern.

...I have just noticed, we list under sexuality and gender...- Amateur pornography, Child pornography, Ethnic pornography, Gay pornography, Hardcore pornography, Hentai, Lesbian erotica, Softcore pornography, Transgender pornography that's around 43 porn based articles. Perhaps internet porn should be added here to this list instead, it would not look so out of place. I am sure it is more significant topic than most of these, and especially webcam model.

;Support

1. As nom.  Carlwev  14:48, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Seems reasonable -- it definitely changed how it was distributed historically Mrfoogles (talk) 01:55, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Major element of digitial culture - whatever it says about humans... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:43, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
4. List under Everyday life > Sexuality. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 13:16, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
5. More general than {{VA link|Pornhub}}. Everyday life > Sexuality sounds good.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 13:20, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
6. Essential to the history of both the internet and pornography. ALittleClass (talk) 02:42, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Oppose here, neutral to anywhere under society. You're absolutely right that most websites and consumer apps are here right now. AFAICT that's entirely a holdover from the list's dumping-ground era though, and I feel a mistake we should move away from. We don't list other media or service providers with the underlying technology (printing press, television, telephone, etc.) I don't see why the internet or smartphones should be treated differently. Actual productivity or data-processing software OTOH probably makes sense here, at least for now. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
2. :User:Zar2gar1, are you actually registering an oppose here? Your final statement seems pretty positive.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:33, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
3. ::Oh, I definitely oppose listing it here. My last sentence was just a tangent (thinking of exceptions out-loud) from my main point: that we need to move away from listing things here that aren't really technologies. For the topic itself, I don't participate on the Society page at this point so I'm not going to voice a yay or nay. Long-run, it sounds like porn topics take up way too much space at VA5, but even then, maybe this one should stay for the social issue angle. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 23:31, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
4. Per above. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:41, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

1. I am having trouble supporting since other internet/digital media are not that vital. E.g. {{VA link|Streaming television}}, {{VA link|Digital media}} and {{VA link|Streaming media}}, but we have {{VA link|Digital art}}. {{VA link|pornography}} is less vital than {{VA link|television}}, {{VA link|Media (communication)}}/{{VA link|Mass media}} and {{VA link|art}}, so the digital/internet version of it should be below the respective internet versions of these other elements.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:29, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

;Discussion

{{ping|GeogSage}} You're opposed to listing it under Technology, but what do you think about listing it under Everyday life > Sexuality Lophotrochozoa (talk) 13:16, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

{{VA link|Caesium-137}} and {{VA link|Strontium-90}} are infamous as a nuclear waste, while {{VA link|Polonium-210}} is a prominent contaminant. {{VA link|Iodine-131}} is a nuclear medicine and {{VA link|Cobalt-60}} is a commonly used gamma source. {{VA link|Plutonium-239}} can be used in the production of nuclear weapons, while {{VA link|Americium-241}} is used in smoke detectors. {{VA link|Carbon-12}} is used to define atomic mass unit. I think at least some of them is important enough to be listed.

;Discuss

• User:Nucleus hydro elemon, you seem like a new name around here and your last 500 edits going back 8 months only includes [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/STEM&diff=prev&oldid=1260188664 one other visit to VA]. This is a hefty list with a bunch if different attributes. I am going to split the list out for others to feel free to render opinions one at a time, if necessary. Even your nomination seems to expect disparity of acceptances for your list.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:16, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. As nom. Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 14:51, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 13:51, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 14:43, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Oppose, there are obviously countless isotopes for the elements. We include all the elements already, and what makes a particular isotope significant is going to vary depending on topic. It is easy to go through and find a reason why an isotope stands out in the literature, and including ALL of them is impossible on the current list. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:58, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

;Support

1. As nom. Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 14:51, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 13:51, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Oppose, there are obviously countless isotopes for the elements. We include all the elements already, and what makes a particular isotope significant is going to vary depending on topic. It is easy to go through and find a reason why an isotope stands out in the literature, and including ALL of them is impossible on the current list. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:58, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

;Support

1. As nom. Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 14:51, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 13:51, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Oppose, there are obviously countless isotopes for the elements. We include all the elements already, and what makes a particular isotope significant is going to vary depending on topic. It is easy to go through and find a reason why an isotope stands out in the literature, and including ALL of them is impossible on the current list. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:58, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

;Support

1. As nom. Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 14:51, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 13:51, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 14:13, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Oppose, there are obviously countless isotopes for the elements. We include all the elements already, and what makes a particular isotope significant is going to vary depending on topic. It is easy to go through and find a reason why an isotope stands out in the literature, and including ALL of them is impossible on the current list. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:58, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

;Support

1. As nom. Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 14:51, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 13:51, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Oppose, there are obviously countless isotopes for the elements. We include all the elements already, and what makes a particular isotope significant is going to vary depending on topic. It is easy to go through and find a reason why an isotope stands out in the literature, and including ALL of them is impossible on the current list. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:58, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

;Support

1. As nom. Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 14:51, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 13:51, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 14:52, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Oppose, there are obviously countless isotopes for the elements. We include all the elements already, and what makes a particular isotope significant is going to vary depending on topic. It is easy to go through and find a reason why an isotope stands out in the literature, and including ALL of them is impossible on the current list. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:58, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

;Support

1. As nom. Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 14:51, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 13:51, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Seems reasonable -- Americium is level 4 and chem is under-quota Mrfoogles (talk) 01:56, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Oppose, there are obviously countless isotopes for the elements. We include all the elements already, and what makes a particular isotope significant is going to vary depending on topic. It is easy to go through and find a reason why an isotope stands out in the literature, and including ALL of them is impossible on the current list. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:58, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

;Support

1. As nom. Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 14:51, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 13:51, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Oppose, there are obviously countless isotopes for the elements. We include all the elements already, and what makes a particular isotope significant is going to vary depending on topic. It is easy to go through and find a reason why an isotope stands out in the literature, and including ALL of them is impossible on the current list. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:58, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{VA link|Pneumococcal vaccine}} is one of the vaccines recommended by the World Health Organization for all countries and [https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/immunization-coverage 159 countries have introduced the vaccine]. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 23:37, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. As nom.-Lophotrochozoa (talk) 23:37, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 13:51, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Makes sense to me. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:08, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

The article says it causes 4 million deaths per year. That would certainly make it vital, if it's not covered in a similar article. Although the WHO website [https://www.who.int/teams/maternal-newborn-child-adolescent-health-and-ageing/newborn-health/perinatal-asphyxia] estimates it as 900,000 deaths per year, which would also certainly make it vital. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 22:55, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. As nominator. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 22:52, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 13:51, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:01, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

{{VA link|Otitis}} is little more than a disambiguation.

;Support

1. As nom. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 17:40, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Makkool (talk) 06:28, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

The concept of farming without animals or animal products. I don't think this seems vital, and it was among the lowest-viewed Technology articles between 2020 and 2023, with many of the others having been removed already. With Technology being over quota, I think this can be removed.

;Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:16, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Makkool (talk) 06:28, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Pretty nicje. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:48, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

A type of {{VA link|polearm}} used in ancient China. Technology is over quota and this weapon does not seem vital. There are plenty of other similar topics that I would rather include, and we also already list its successor, {{VA link|Ji (polearm)}}. 11 interwikis is also the lowest among polearms we list.

;Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:54, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Agree, a hybrid weapon, there must be many at the same level or perhaps slightly higher that are missing  Carlwev  17:33, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

1. I am a fan of the historical handheld combat weapons and see that many are listed at Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Technology#Military_technology. In the Partisan (weapon), discussion I asked for an explanation on the emphasis on historic weapons.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:31, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
2. While tech is over quota, I've been personally hesitant to go after technology that isn't western in origin. I'd prefer to cut away from Western swords before this. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:02, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Health is under quota. Desquamation, also known as peeling skin, is both a natural phenomenon and a medical symptom. Most people will have experienced this at least once in their life. I'm putting it under Health because the harmful symptom version is much more vital than the healthy natural version.

;Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:06, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

These vaccines are recommended by the World Health Organization for all countries and [https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/immunization-coverage most countries have introduced them to their vaccine programs].

Nearly all countries have introduced the {{VA link|Hepatitis B vaccine}}.

;Support

1. As nom. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:35, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Famous. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:49, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Aye. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:01, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discussion

According to old statistics whose up-to-date counterpart I can't find now, all countries except China, Russia, Thailand, and Belarus had introduced the {{VA link|Hib vaccine}} as of late 2010s.

;Support

1. As nom. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:35, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Aye. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:01, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discussion

{{VA link|Rotavirus vaccine}} has been intruduced by 123 countries.

;Support

1. As nom. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:35, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Aye. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:01, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discussion

Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:35, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

We only list {{VA link|Pull-up}}, {{VA link|Push-up}}, and {{VA link|Sit-up}} in terms of exercises. Here are a few more common ones that arguably need no explanation that I am putting up for proposal.

;Support

1. As nom. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 02:40, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

;Support

1. As nom. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 02:40, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. I think this one is sufficiently covered by Push up and Jumping jack. ALittleClass (talk) 02:51, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

;Support

1. As nom. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 02:40, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
2. 3df (talk) 21:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
4. ALittleClass (talk) 02:51, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

;Support

1. As nom. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 02:40, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

;Support

1. As nom. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 02:40, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Famous. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:33, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
4. ALittleClass (talk) 02:51, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Added 4-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 13:49, 10 May 2025 (UTC)}}

;Support

1. As nom. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 02:40, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
2. 3df (talk) 21:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
4. Famous. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:33, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

;Support

1. As nom. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 02:40, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Famous. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:33, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
4. ALittleClass (talk) 02:51, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

;Support

1. As nom. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 02:40, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
3. ALittleClass (talk) 02:51, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

This is the generic term for the trademarked term Velcro, which is a common product by Velcro Companies and in generic form by competitors.

;Support

1. As nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:16, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:44, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

Under either Electromagnet or Superconductivity.

• 3df (talk) 21:33, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

If {{VA link|quinine}}, the original antimalaria drug, belongs on level 4, newer malaria drugs should be listed on level 5. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

{{VA link|Chloroquine}} was probably the most important antimalaria drug in the second half of the 20th century.

;Support

1. As nom. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
2. {{VA link|Malaria}} is Level 3. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Per nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:34, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discussion

{{VA link|Artemisinin}} (there are several chemically similar variants) is the most important antimalaria drug currently.

;Support

1. As nom. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
2. {{VA link|Malaria}} is Level 3. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Per nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:34, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discussion

I forgot to point out that {{VA link|Tu Youyou}} was awarded the Nobel prze for discovering artemisinin. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 21:28, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

A container that stores ink. Common enough (although not as much back then) to warrant an addition.

;Support

1. As nom. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 02:48, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Historically significant. Culturally, too. Trivia: appears relatively often in lego sets depicting historical topics. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:18, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Very historically significant, {{VA link|Ink}} is Level 4. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:59, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

To balance out my assorted additions.

I think that {{VA link|Fish farming}} is enough on this level.

;Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Very niche. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:13, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

Breeding and raising rabbits for agriculture. Not needed on this level.

;Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Very niche. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:13, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 19:05, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

Raising edible snails. Not needed on this level.

;Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Very niche. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:13, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 19:25, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{atopr

| status = passed

| result = Removed 4-0. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:36, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

Feels a bit too specific for a vital article. Not sure if {{VA link|Bioterrorism}} even belongs in Technology.

;Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Support  Carlwev  08:44, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
3. The article doesn't make it clear how often this has actually happened. Also, too specific. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 18:58, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
4. Very niche. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:13, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

Feels a bit too obscure to take a vital article slot. {{VA link|Abacus}} should be enough for ancient counting devices.

;Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Very niche. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:13, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:12, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Biology_and_health_sciences/Biology&diff=next&oldid=1279600320 PrimalMustelid added several topics without discussion] along with topics that had been discussed. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:33, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:@PrimalMustelid Pinging the editor mentioned above, so they can vote anbd promise not to add stuff without discussion... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::I know about this thread already, and sure. I haven’t done that since anyways. PrimalMustelid (talk) 11:13, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

;Keep

1. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:33, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
2. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 18:55, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
3. PrimalMustelid (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

;Remove

1. {{VA link|Gland}} is only VA5. This is very niche incomparison to that.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:02, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
2. :I'm going to propose adding {{VA link|Gland}} to VA4. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
3. ::@EchoVanguardZ can you follow up on this? The V4 people are very finnicky… -1ctinus📝🗨 01:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
4. :::@1ctinus See here: Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4#Add Gland 5. The current vote is 4-0 in support. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 04:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
5. Makkool (talk) 06:28, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

;Keep

1. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:33, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
2. PrimalMustelid (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

;Remove

1. {{VA link|Gland}} is only VA5. This is very niche incomparison to that.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:02, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Makkool (talk) 06:28, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

{{atopg|Kept 6-0}}

;Keep

1. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:33, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
2. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:02, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Makkool (talk) 06:28, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
4. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:20, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
5. Definitely. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
6. Pretty much nobody hasn't experienced this. Mrfoogles (talk) 02:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

;Remove

;Discuss

{{abot}}

;Keep

1. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:33, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
2. PrimalMustelid (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

;Remove

1. {{VA link|Gland}} is only VA5. This is very niche incomparison to that.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:02, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Makkool (talk) 06:28, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

;Keep

1. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:33, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Makkool (talk) 06:28, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
3. PrimalMustelid (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

;Remove

;Discuss

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Kept 5-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:17, 11 May 2025 (UTC)}}

;Keep

1. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:33, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
2. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:02, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Makkool (talk) 06:28, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
4. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:20, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
5. Definitely. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

;Remove

;Discuss

Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:33, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

Both {{vital article link|orangutan}} and {{vital article link|baboon}} are at level 4. There is three orangutan species listed {{vital article link|Bornean orangutan}}, {{vital article link|Sumatran orangutan}} and {{vital article link|Tapanuli orangutan}} but only one baboon species ({{vital article link|Hamadryas baboon}}), despite baboons being far more common. According to the article Tapanuli orangutans were only described as a distinct species in 2017 and have a population of about 800.

; Support

1. As nom. Sahaib (talk) 19:45, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Support  Carlwev  06:47, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Makes sense. Mrfoogles (talk) 02:26, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

; Oppose

; Neutral

; Discuss

Under Health and fitness: General.

; Support

1. 3df (talk) 02:23, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:31, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

; Oppose

; Neutral

; Discuss

CRISPR is very neat but the important part is how scientists are using Cas9.

; Support

1. 3df (talk) 02:23, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nomination. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

; Oppose

; Neutral

; Discuss

You may know this as a crop duster, pretty common type of plane, part of {{VA link|Aerial application}}.

;Support

1. As nom. Kevinishere15 (talk) 22:57, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. If aerlial application is just lv5, it doesn't seem clear that aircrafts by such specialized type and use are vital at this level. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:58, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{VA link|Induced pluripotent stem cell}}s are a huge part of modern biological research. Propose adding at level 5 with Embryonic stem cell and Hematopoietic stem cell. GraziePrego (talk) 10:49, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. Support as Nom GraziePrego (talk) 10:49, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
2. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:05, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

In terms of {{vital article link|hummingbird}} species, {{vital article link|Rufous hummingbird}} and {{vital article link|Patagona}} are both listed, but there is no {{vital article link|toucan}} species listed. The toco toucan gets on average about 13x more daily [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2015-07-01&end=2025-04-16&pages=Toco_toucan%7CWhite-necked_jacobin pageviews].

;Support

1. As nom. Sahaib (talk) 00:38, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 14:17, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

Seem like an important part of the brain

;Support

1. As nominator. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 22:10, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 17:31, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

Seem to be important membranes around the brain, consisting of the dura mater, arachnoid mater, and pia mater.

;Support

1. As nominator. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 22:10, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:37, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

This is how neurons transmit signals.

;Support

1. As nominator. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 22:10, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:43, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Definitely. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
4. ALittleClass (talk) 00:49, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

Classic and culturally influential executiion device.

;Support

1. As nominator.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:08, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
2. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 06:42, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Definitely. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 04:15, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

Classic and culturally influential executiion device.

;Support

1. As nominator.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:08, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
2. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 06:41, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Sahaib (talk) 19:06, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Definitely. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 04:15, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
5. ALittleClass (talk) 02:48, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

I would prefer to list it on the Law list, indented under Decapitation (if that will be indented under capital punishment), but unfortunately that page is far over quota. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 13:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Classic and culturally influential executiion device.

;Support

1. As nominator.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:08, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
2. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 06:42, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Support, but hanging and stoning should also be added as well. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 04:16, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

Good suggestion - would hanging not be better? - stoning is also significant too.  Carlwev  10:52, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Classic and culturally influential punishment device.

;Support

1. As nominator.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:08, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Sure. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 04:17, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

{{VA link|Stress (biology)}} is V4; this is a major subtopic.

;Support

1. As nominator.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:56, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Also known as shock, but not to be confused with circulatory shock. Well known phenomenon. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 05:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Per EchoVanguardZ. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 04:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:25, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

{{ping|Piotrus|JpTheNotSoSuperior}} Should it be listed on psychology or mental disorders?

Horror (emotion) redirects there. It may warrant renaming back to this, given interwikis and the fact that terror (emotion) redirects to {{VA link|Fear}}. Still, as horror (emotion), with 19 iwikis, this may round up our emotions/psychological states, and Fear, at V3, warrants such subtopics at V5.

;Support

1. As nominator.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:56, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Seems important enough. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 04:19, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

{{atopg|Moved 2-0, and we no longer need four votes Lophotrochozoa (talk) 09:24, 2 June 2025 (UTC)}}

There is a section for Carnivorous plants, which doesn't fit into the taxonomy. I would prefer to list the nontaxonomical terms {{VA link|Pitcher plant}} and {{VA link|Protocarnivorous plant}} in the Botany section, indented under Carnivorous plant, and the other entries in the taxonomical sections: {{VA link|Aldrovanda vesiculosa}}, {{VA link|Drosera}} and {{VA link|Venus flytrap}} as Caryophyllales and {{VA link|Pinguicula}} and {{VA link|Utricularia}} as Lamiales.

;Support

1. As nominator. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:27, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
2. support  Carlwev  03:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discussion

Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:27, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

This would be the correct way and follow how we list other organisms especially animals. Unless they happen to be closely related, We don't list animals following their diet, whether they are carnivore, herbivore, scavenger, grazer etc. Or by their locomotion if they swim fly or walk etc. We list them according to their taxonomy their species family genus etc so it would be right to do the same with these plants 🪴 It may be conveniant to list all carniverous plants together but it doesn't follow how we list anything else.  Carlwev  03:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

How is this not listed already? 40 interwikis.

;Support

1. Per nom. -1ctinus📝🗨 01:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Pretty obvious. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 03:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Support. AllyWithInfo (talk) 01:35, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:45, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
5. ALittleClass (talk) 02:52, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

In recent years, both have nearly the same number of page views, currently around 600. Both are frequently used for scanning, payments, inventory tracking, authorizations, and other things.

;Support

1. As nominator. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 03:17, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Support NFC, no opinion on RFID. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 04:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

Quite common and important today. Similar to {{VA link|Fingerprint}}.

;Support

1. As nominator. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 03:37, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Sure. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 04:22, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Good general category to have. ALittleClass (talk) 01:57, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

== Add {{VA link|Facial recognition system}} ==

Quite common and important today. Similar to {{VA link|Speech recognition}}.

;Support

1. As nominator. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 03:37, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Definitely. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 04:22, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

The argument was made to defend {{VA link|Iron}} at level 3 because of the {{VA link|Iron age}}. When it comes to the {{VA link|Stone Age}}, we include {{VA link|Rock (geology)}}, at level 3, {{VA link|Flint}}, {{VA link|Rhyolite}} and {{VA link|Obsidian}} at level 5. I think that when it comes to stone tools, chert is often over looked as it isn't as flashy as obsidian, but it is a very common type of rock used for {{VA link|knapping}}.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:35, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 23:04, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:35, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Removed 4-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 11:06, 28 May 2025 (UTC)}}

This isn't a clinical term anymore, and it doesn't have the same level of recognition as Asperger syndrome (which is also not a clinical term anymore, but still vital). I'll quote the page:

HFA has never been included in either the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) or the World Health Organization's International Classification of Diseases (ICD), the two major classification and diagnostic guidelines for psychiatric conditions.

Unless anyone has a good argument for keeping this, I don't think it belongs on this level.

;Support

1. As nominator. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 04:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nominator. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 11:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Agreed. Sahaib (talk) 14:13, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
4. This was never even listed in the DSM? And it's no longer a clinical term? Definitely remove. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 22:12, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

{{abot}}

{{atopg|staus=passed|result=Added 4-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 15:29, 28 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Both obviously important.

;Support

1. As nominator. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 04:13, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Both, sure. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:53, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Support  Carlwev  19:28, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 15:33, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
5. Add both, sure. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 22:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

{{abot}}

This is the big concern about both nuclear war and nuclear power. During the Cold War it was heard about all the time, and there's no guarantee a nuclear war won't occur this century. I think it could go under Pollution, unless anyone has another idea.

;Support

1. As nominator. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 04:31, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Important topic. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:46, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 23:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Support  Carlwev  19:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
5. Definitely. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 22:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

Where should we list it? Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:38, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

{{VA link|Aviation}} is Level 4 and {{VA link|Aircraft}} is Level 3. I think that this is an important enough concept to be listed. Planes have had a massive negative impact on the environment.

;Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:45, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 15:03, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

Important type of {{VA link|internal combustion engine}} that is very commonly used in vehicles. Seeing as we also list {{VA link|Wankel engine}}, this should probably be listed as well, being an article with 33 interwikis. Would go under Technology#Engines.

;Support

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discussion

{{VA link|Endocrine gland}} secrete {{VA link|hormone}} (pardon my bad grammar; the {{tl|VA link}} template doesn't mix with suffixes) that play an important role in the physiology of humans and other animals.

;Support

1. As nominator. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 14:21, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
2. This hasn't been added yet? JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 22:14, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discussion

Lophotrochozoa (talk) 14:21, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

In the analysis of data, a correlogram is a chart of correlation statistics.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:49, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

A radar chart is a graphical method of displaying multivariate data in the form of a two-dimensional chart of three or more quantitative variables represented on axes starting from the same point.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:49, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

A violin plot is a statistical graphic for comparing probability distributions.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:49, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 14:36, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

A stem-and-leaf display or stem-and-leaf plot is a device for presenting quantitative data in a graphical format, similar to a histogram, to assist in visualizing the shape of a distribution.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:49, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Common enough. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 22:15, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:49, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Removed 4-0}}

I have no idea how this was listed. cadmium zinc telluride is not vital. There are zero interwikis or claims of legacy. Zero talk page activity.

;Support

1. As nom. -1ctinus📝🗨 16:38, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
2. support  Carlwev  16:54, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
3. ALittleClass (talk) 20:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Less important that the decay modes studied. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:28, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

;Discussion

:I don't think the experiment is relevant because it used cadmium zinc telluride. The relevance is in searching for a particular form of radioactive decay. That said, I have no idea whether this experiment is important. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:15, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:The type of beta decay its studying is not vital either, although there is a (weak) case it could be. -1ctinus📝🗨 19:18, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{ping|Meno25|Zar2gar1}} Can either of you explain if this experiment is significant enough for this list EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:44, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

too niche and does not seem like this is very important technology to me.

;Support

1. Per nom. -1ctinus📝🗨 16:48, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
2. support  Carlwev  16:53, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
3. ALittleClass (talk) 18:16, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

;Discussion

:There are 11 articles under RGB color spaces. I'm guessing this one was nominated for removal simply for its lack of interwikis. But are the others vital? Was there a reason this was added? That would give important context. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:18, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:I was looking at a list for lowest interwikis. It's useful to find articles but it does not create a good justification. The rest of that list may have to be looked at, especially eciRGB. -1ctinus📝🗨 19:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{ping|RekishiEJ}} Can you comment on this? Because you added some color spaces to this list in the past. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:32, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

{{VA link|China National Space Administration}} is a Level 4 vital article, but there's currently only one Chinese space technology at Level 5, being the Tiangong space station. The CLEP includes the Chang'e programs such as Chang'e 1 which made China the fourth country to launch an object out of orbit (after the obvious 2 and Japan) and the third country to land a lunar rover. Chang'e 4 marked the first ever soft landing on the far side of the moon, and the subsequent mission Chang'e 6 obtained the first ever samples from the far side, marking a area where the Chinese space program has not just caught up but is doing things without precedence. I believe we list extensive amounts of NASA projects of equal importance.

;Support

1. As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 06:42, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 23:31, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

{{VA link|English wine cask units}} was recently nominated for deletion, and is on track to do be deleted unanimous support. This article essentially is the equivalent with beer instead of wine. Zero interwikis, List of unusual units of measurement is literally linked on the page.

;Support

1. As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 07:54, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Support - no other languages - specific to both beer and English, and only really those that produce or store it as opposed to drink it, article is very listy as well. I am English, and I have drank beer, but the only place I have heard any of these units appear was a very brief mention in a pub quiz. Not vital at all.  Carlwev  08:00, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
3. I don't like bundled nominations so I should have done it with the wine cask units. No clue how these were listed at all. -1ctinus📝🗨 01:35, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 17:53, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

• Lophotrochozoa (talk) 14:17, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

1. :Why? -1ctinus📝🗨 15:31, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
2. ::I meant to vote support. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 17:53, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

Technology is already over quota, so I'll do a swap.

important subtopic of Object-oriented programming.

;Support

1. Per nom. -1ctinus📝🗨 01:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Have you heard of this? I have not. Three interwikis (interwikis are perfectly acceptable for technology). Looks too niche for the list of the most important technology.

;Support

1. Per nom. -1ctinus📝🗨 01:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 19:45, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Relatively minor tool. Maybe {{VA link|Placer mining}} could be added. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 04:14, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
4. ALittleClass (talk) 01:44, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

More important topic, higher page views and interwikis. New Zealand Romney is the subtopic.

;Support

1. As nom. -1ctinus📝🗨 15:35, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. J947 ‡ ^edits 23:00, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
3. ALittleClass (talk) 02:53, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

Some animals that interact with our readers the most every day.

Probably the most common Chinese dog breed.

;Support

1. As nom. -1ctinus📝🗨 15:47, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

From the article:

"Since the mid-20th century, Poodles have enjoyed enormous popularity as pets and show dogs – Poodles were the AKC's most registered breed from 1960 to 1982, and are now the FCI's third most registered breed."

These are everywhere.

;Support

1. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:02, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
2. -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:01, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
3. oops forgot -1ctinus📝🗨 00:26, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Definitely. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 22:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

;Discussion

{{ping|1ctinus}} Are you voting as nominator? Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:02, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

These are also everywhere. Extremely common dog breed.

;Support

1. As nom. -1ctinus📝🗨 15:47, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Definitely. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 22:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

The most popular dog breed of Native American origin.

;Support

1. As nom. -1ctinus📝🗨 15:47, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Definitely. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 22:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 21:31, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

I get we already list {{VA link|Retriever}}, but this is what most people think when they think of "dog".

;Support

1. As nom. -1ctinus📝🗨 15:47, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Common. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:47, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
3. -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:01, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Definitely. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 22:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Important working dog. 87 INTERWIKIS.

;Support

1. As nom. -1ctinus📝🗨 15:47, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
2. -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:01, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:20, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Definitely. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 22:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
5. One of the most common and famous dogs. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

This is just a name for three separate, already listed chemicals.

;Support

1. Per nom. -1ctinus📝🗨 16:00, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
2. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 04:12, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 21:46, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Since chemistry is under quota, I need to do a swap to justify removal. Knowing about pKa and pKb are important when dealing with acids and bases.

;Support

1. Per nom. -1ctinus📝🗨 16:00, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:37, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
3. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 04:12, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

A previous discussion on adding grindstone and millstone decided to add one of them but didn't get enough votes to add both. Thus I relist the nomination of {{VA link|Grinstone}}. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 14:09, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. GeogSage is the original nominator.
2. Tabu Makiadi voted support in the original discussion.
3. Lophotrochozoa voted support in the original discussion.

;Oppose

1. Zar2gar1 voted against adding both Grindstone and [[Millstone in the original discussion on the grounds that the technology subpage is over quota.

;Discussion

Lophotrochozoa (talk) 14:09, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Chemistry is under quota, well known law, 50 interwikis.

;Support

1. Per nom. -1ctinus📝🗨 18:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Seems important enough. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 22:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 21:42, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

This is too niche to be vital. Tech is over quota.

;Support

1. As nom. -1ctinus📝🗨 18:12, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
2. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 04:11, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Like a more famous but still unimportant brother of {{VA link|Polygraph (duplicating device)}} which we removed as niche trivia. I think we should make room for a few more AI topics like {{VA link|Backpropagation}} and {{VA link|Reinforcement learning}} (and whatever else that deserves to be listed in Technology).--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 05:48, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. I'm going to oppose this one. They're kind of a big deal, just not in our plebian lives. The recent controvesy with the president complaining about their use by another president is only one example. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:55, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

important in stats -1ctinus📝🗨 22:56, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Despite the saying, from a statistical point of view, coincidences are remarkably common. I think the concept is vital, and am disappointed it isn't already included.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:10, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Sure? JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 01:06, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:10, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:I wonder whether {{VA link|Null hypothesis}} would be a better option? Although these don't necessarily need to be mutually exclusive.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 06:23, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::Null hypothesis is good to add too. Coincidence is pretty important in popular culture though. Average person knows of coincidence, I teach a spatial stats class and more then half the graduate students I've worked with need to be taught what a null hypothesis is. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:39, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:I'm unsure that this falls under statistics. ALittleClass (talk) 01:43, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::In statistics "Measuring the probability of a series of coincidences is the most common method of distinguishing a coincidence from causally connected events." {{VA link|Causality}} is what we are trying to determine, the null hypothesis is that the observation is a coincidence. Comes up in my stats classes, I use it, if not here should go somewhere. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 07:00, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

These should be V4. These are used in so many chemistry experiments.

;Support

1. As nom. -1ctinus📝🗨 10:47, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Both should be added. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 01:07, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Important chemistry equipment.

;Support

1. As nom. -1ctinus📝🗨 10:47, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
2. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 06:08, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Literally saved my respiratory system from damage at one point. As I'm not even a chemist, I imagine it is an important technology. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:50, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
4. This and ventilation should both be added. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 01:07, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

Fume hood is in the category :Category:ventilation. What makes fume hood stand out compared to other types of ventilation like others in the category? We also do not list Ventilation (architecture), the main article of the category. I suggested that years ago for level 4 but it failed, but that article is probably level 5.  Carlwev  06:48, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

You can't do hypothesis testing without this in statistics (used in nearly everything statistics).

;Support

1. Per nom. -1ctinus📝🗨 15:03, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Aye.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:38, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
3. {{VA link|Scientific control}} and {{VA link|Treatment and control groups}} are also worth cosidering.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 17:24, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 19:09, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
5. ALittleClass (talk) 06:02, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
6. This, scientific control, treatment and control groups, and {{VA link|Dependent and independent variables}} should all be added. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 01:08, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

On the section for plants, edible plants are listed is subsections according to their culinary categories instead of in the taxonomica subsections. I would like to move them to the taxonomical subsections.

;Support

1. As nominator. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discussion

I have already reorganized the level 4 list as suggested, before I realized that we aren't allowed to reorganize the lists without voting (I have proposed that we relax that rule). Lophotrochozoa (talk) 23:09, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

This refers specifically to images generated by AI. The phrase "AI art" itself is controversial, which means this article also covers some philosophical implications. It's more widespread a concept than {{VA link|Computer Go}}, for example, and it's the main product of the {{VA link|AI boom}}, other than text based outputs.

;Support

1. As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 01:05, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Support, with a caveat that this is completely based on the "collective watchlist" function of the vital articles. I work on the Dead Internet Theory page a bit, and man does it get vandalism. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:51, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

• This might be better suited to "Society" or "Art." I also would not compare this to the mile stones that are involved with Computer Go. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:53, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

We include {{VA link|Earth}}, as a level 1 article, as well as {{VA link|Plate tectonics}}, {{VA link|Crust (geology)}}, {{VA link|Lithosphere}}, {{VA link|Craton}}, {{VA link|Upper mantle}}, {{VA link|Lower mantle}}, {{VA link|Earth's outer core}}. {{VA link|Earth's inner core}}. That's not to mention {{VA link|Geology}}, {{VA link|Seismology}} and {{VA link|Geomorphology}} that all focus heavily on the mantle. I think missing the general page for Earth's mantle is a major oversight, and I would like to get it to level 4 with the crust, lithosphere, outer, and inner core.

;Support.

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 07:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
2. We have {{VA link|Mantle (geology)}}, but that is not an Earth-specific article and so is misplaced on level 5 where it is currently listed under {{VA link|Internal structure of Earth}}.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 07:34, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
3.  Carlwev  09:11, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 12:09, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
5. ALittleClass (talk) 06:50, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
6. Definitely. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 01:09, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 07:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

It seems like math proposals get less traffic than the other sections. One area that's oddly structured currently is group theory. At level 4, there are currently 6 entries under group theory, however at level 5 there are only 5 more, when you would expect an average of 4 times as many at that level. This leads me to believe that group theory has been underrepresented at this level, which is what these suggestions try to fix.

The most essential thing to add out of my suggestions. Arguably the simplest form of group, very related to {{VA link|Modular arithmetic}}. 32 interwikis which is strong for a higher level math concept.

;Support

1. As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 04:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
2. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 04:51, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 12:07, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Gramix13 (talk) 00:13, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

Analogous to the prime numbers of groups. I don't think it makes sense to have {{VA link|Classification of finite simple groups}} at VA4 and not even explain what a simple group is at any level.

;Support

1. As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 04:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
2. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 04:51, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 13:28, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Gramix13 (talk) 00:13, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

The second infinite family of finite simple groups. The structure of these groups was used to prove that there is no general solution for polynomials with elementary functions, which is a very important result for {{VA link|Equation solving}}.

;Support

1. As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 04:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
2. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 04:51, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Gramix13 (talk) 00:13, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

Includes the 26 exceptions to the three other categories in the classification, the largest and most famous of which being the monster group. They have noted for how bizarre they are by many mathematicians such as John Conway and Richard Borcherds, I mean, how does such a nontrivial, hairy set of objects arise from such a simple, fundamental concept? Also connected to the monster group is Monstrous moonshine, which aside from adding to the weirdness, is also an insightful connection between number theory, abstract algebra and even a part of string theory.

;Support

1. As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 04:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
2. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 04:51, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Gramix13 (talk) 00:13, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

This article could be a good candidate for level 4 since we already list large language model there and could potentially replace it there. It's what ChatGPT is.

;Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 23:24, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Too much overlap with {{VA link|Large language model}} (which is both a more general and a more famous concept); I would rather add first {{VA link|Transformer (deep learning architecture)}}, {{VA link|Reinforcement learning}}, {{VA link|Backpropagation}} and {{VA link|Gradient descent}}.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 05:14, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

My proposal is to move Cocaine & Nicotine to under "Recreational Drugs", Caffeine under "Individual drugs" and Morphine under "Opioid". Almost all of the substances listed in the "Biology" section are chemicals which serve an essential function in the human body. I don't think these substances should be in a different category to all the other drugs.

;Support

1. As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 00:08, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Assuming that you mean to move them from biochemistry (where they are listed now) to drugs rather than the other way. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 00:27, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

A previous discussion proposed removal of {{VA link|Problem statement}} partly as a swap for {{VA link|Blacksmith}} (whose addition passed) and partly because, as the nominator put it, {{xt|Problem statement seems fairly unnecessary -- as an article it just describes "Writing down what the problem is" -- it really doesn't need to be a vital article}}. The original thread was prematurely archived along with the proposal to add Blacksmith. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 16:54, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. Mrfoogles was the original nominator.
2. Carlwev supported the proposal in the original thread.
3. Lophotrochozoa (talk) supported the proposal in the original thread.
4. ALittleClass (talk) 21:28, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discussion

Lophotrochozoa (talk) 16:54, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

All chemical elements and their isotopes/nuclides are listed on the chemistry subpage, but isotopes are chemically the same, only differing in their nuclei, and synthetic elements are generally more of nuclear interest than chemical.

;Support

1. As nominator. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:35, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Isotopes of hydrogen should be listed under hydrogen; not in an entirely different place. And isotopes are absolutely not chemically the same -- drinking deuterium water will kill you. One example is the Kinetic isotope effect. Mrfoogles (talk) 23:44, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
2. :Nevertheless isotopes are more interesting to nuiclear physics than to chemistry, and the chemical differences are small except for hydrogen and helium. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 12:30, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discussion

While the addition of matrices is certainly important, I do not think it warrants enough notability for its own article, and certainly not enough to be considered a vital article. There aren't any other vital articles that cover the addition of objects (with the exception of series/summations, but that mainly focuses on numbers themselves whose addition is already understood). The closest comparison to matrix addition would simply be vector addition, but that doesn't have its own separate article. If this article itself wasn't vital, it would probably be merged onto Matrix (mathematics), which is why I am proposing to remove its vital status to allow for such a merge.

;Support

1. As nominator. Gramix13 (talk) 00:36, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
2. There's no reason for this to be a vital article. If someone wants a replacement vital article related to matrices, I recommend Singular value decomposition. –jacobolus (t) 01:17, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Too straightforward a concept as far as I'm aware.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 05:35, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 11:41, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discussion

Regarding merges, I don't think there's any rule against merging or deleting articles marked as vital. When a listed article is redirected, Cewbot automatically replaces it with the target on the VA list, and it can be boldly removed as duplicate if it is now one.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 05:35, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:I haven't seen a rule preventing merges either, but I wanted to put this nomination since I feel that merging a vital article would be gaming the intent behind the procedures put into place behind vital articles. A merge has less restrictions on when to close than a nomination for adding/removing level 5 vital articles, in particular the later requires at least 14 days of discussion for one, whereas merge simply needs consensus whenever that is attained, possibly sooner than 14 days. What's more complicated is that {{VA link|Matrix (mathematics)}} is already a vital article, so a merge would result in a net loss of a vital article. I am hence performing this nomination out of precaution to avoid having it be challenged for the reasons I've outlined here, and to arrive at a consensus on whether the article actually is vital or not. Gramix13 (talk) 05:51, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:Does Cewbot replace links to merged articles or only links to renamed articles? Goby is still listed though the article has been merged with Gobioidei. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 11:41, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

How have we not added this yet?

;Support

1. As nom. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 04:32, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Perhaps due to overlap with {{VA link|Ironing}}? Regardless, this is the more viewed article, and some overlap should be allowed on VA5 especially on important topics like this.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 05:42, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

Common bird that's surprisingly not listed yet.

;Support

1. As nom. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 04:34, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
2. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 05:44, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 12:58, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
4. I wonder if we're even 75% of the way to getting all the obvious articles at this level. ALittleClass (talk) 21:31, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

Common display device seen in several applications, most notably digital clocks and calculators.

;Support

1. As nom. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 04:38, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
2. ALittleClass (talk) 18:19, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

These articles:

• Square inch
• Square foot
• Square yard
• Square metre
• Square kilometre
• Square mile
• Cubic inch
• Cubic foot
• Cubic metre
• Cubic centimetre

All of these are essentially stubs and there's a good reason for it. What else are you supposed to do besides say they are just the square of a different unit? They are entirely redundant articles. We list too many measurements, so I believe that these should be cut down.

;Support

1. As nom. -1ctinus📝🗨 11:19, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Strongly oppose removal of Square metre and Cubic metre. ALittleClass (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

:Are these all really less important than the other elements at Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Physical_sciences/Basics_and_measurement#Area? This represents 6 off of the list. Should we treat the cubic measures at Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Physical_sciences/Basics_and_measurement#Volume the same way?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:51, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::In my opinion, yes. I added them to the nomination. -1ctinus📝🗨 12:04, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Websites are listed on the technology subpage, but as Zar2gar1 pointed out, that's not the best place for them. I suggest that we move them to other subpages, mostly Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Society and social sciences/Culture. However, I think the cloud server services (Amazon Web Services and Google Cloud Platform) and Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing should stay listed on technology and a few others should be moved to Companies. There is a thread elsewhere about moving Alipay. Feel free to list other alternatives if you don't agree with my suggestions. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 17:02, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

;Move to Mass media

1. As nominator

;Keep on Technology

;Neutral

;Discussion

;Move to Internet and e-commerce companies

1. As nominator Lophotrochozoa (talk) 17:02, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

;Keep on Technology

;Neutral

;Discussion

Specifically, remove every specific RGB color space except sRGB and Adobe RGB color space (note that scRGB has already been proposed for removal).

Unless {{VA link|RGB color spaces}} becomes Level 4, I don't think it's justified to link 11 different individual RGB color spaces. For example, {{VA link|

eciRGB}} is a stub, has one interwiki, gets an average of ~6 pageviews.

;Support

1. As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 21:05, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

Our current list of "traditional medicine" currently reflects only eastern practices with {{VA link|Ayurveda}}, {{VA link|Traditional Chinese medicine}}, {{VA link|Acupuncture}}, {{VA link|Chinese herbology}}, and {{VA link|Tui na}}. These are some proposals to give us more global representation. (Note that the category of "Health, medicine, and disease" at VA5 is currently under quota by around 40)

Widespread idea since Ancient Greece. Includes the four humors. and many of the labels have carried over into modern medicine. 36 interwikis.

;Support

1. As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 00:05, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

Used across numerous cultures from around the world for thousands of years until the 20th century. 40 interwikis.

;Support

1. As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 00:10, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

;Support

1. As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

I would argue that listing no European traditional medicines can feed into a biased idea that traditional European medicine was significantly different or superior to Eastern medicine. This was arguably the founding point for Western medicine as we know it.

;Support

1. As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

Greatly influenced Ancient Greek medicine.

;Support

1. As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

;Support

1. As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

The latter especially is an essential part of {{VA link|Machine learning}} but the parent topic should be included too. I suggest placing them under Mathematics#Optimization. Mathematics has room for both at 1,193/2,000 quota.

;Support

1. As nom.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 06:24, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Support for Gradient descent. ALittleClass (talk) 20:25, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Mixed

;Discuss

The first two aren't well-distinguished concepts, according to a comment on the former's talk page and the latter's article. Probably covered well enough by related articles in the same section such as {{VA link|Process (computing)}}. Low pageviews, appearing in the bottom 10% Technology list I once posted.

Execution on the other hand not only has way better stats but has an overview of multiple concepts (such as {{VA link|Instruction cycle}} which I remember learning about in university, maybe it should be added too). A possible place for the addition is in Technology#Computer architecture concepts, because with its coverage of Instruction cycle its scope expands outside strictly operating system and software topics.

;Support

1. As nom.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:11, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Mixed

;Discuss

Viruses are listed on medicine < infectious disease but they are interesting on their own rather than merely as pathogens. Thus I want to move the section Specific viruses and the articles Virus, Introduction to viruses (unless we remove it) and probably Virus latency to Other organisms.

;Support

1. As nominator. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 13:37, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discussion

Lophotrochozoa (talk) 13:37, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

The plant taxon {{VA link|Cardueae}} roughly corresponds to the common name thistle. If this passes I might propose for it to replace {{VA link|Cirsium}} on level 4.

;Support

1. As nominator. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 17:46, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discussion

Lophotrochozoa (talk) 17:46, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

{{VA link|Synthetic biology}} is listed on Biology but I think Biotechnology is a better place.

;Support

1. As nominator Lophotrochozoa (talk) 23:28, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discussion

Lophotrochozoa (talk) 23:28, 2 June 2025 (UTC)