Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/STEM#Add Lance

{{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)

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

;Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Oppose. This is a gimmick knife that is sometimes shown in media and sold at stores that carry mall ninja stuff. They are not commonly carried or used. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
2. Per GeogSage. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 17:55, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discussion

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)

{{atopr|status=failed|result=Not removed 1-3 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:15, 12 May 2025 (UTC)}}

I think this one speaks for itself. {{VA link|island}} is vital, obviously. I struggle to think why the concept of an island that is not inhabited by humans is vital though.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Weak oppose, I'm actually going to tap the brakes on this one. The article in its current form is definitely weak, but I could see this being vital for ecological reasons.
2. Per the user just above (although they did not sign their comment) Mrfoogles (talk) 02:09, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Two oppose votes should be enough to close as failed. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 16:24, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

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)

;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)

{{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)

;Oppose

;Netural

;Discuss

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

{{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)

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

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)

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.

;Neutral

;Discuss

;Proposal signature

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

I was looking into ancient tools, and was a bit disappointed with our coverage. Here are a few pages I believe should definitely be included. Several of the more broad ones I believe should be at much higher levels then 5 and will likely nominate them if they pass here. There are a lot more then these we are missing, I stopped adding to keep the list a bit more managable.

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Added 6-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)}}

This is pretty self explanatory, but these are tools that have been employed by Homo sapiens and other members of the genus Homo. They survive in the archeological record well so they are fairly well known.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 09:44, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
3. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:45, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Support here, obvious historical importance but we're drifting further over quota. Will also support elsewhere, like with Archaeology. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
5. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:00, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
6. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:14, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Added 4-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 13:17, 18 May 2025 (UTC)}}

From the lede, "A category of stone tool formed by the grinding of a coarse-grained tool stone, either purposely or incidentally." These are one of the main types of stone tools.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 09:44, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Changing to support; I still think we need to focus on reorganizing Tech & trimming further. But we should be getting back closer to quota soon and I do like the idea of including some depth to stone tools. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:48, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
4. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 14:46, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

Neutral here for now, we're drifting further over quota but this is a pretty basic stone tool type. Strong support if someone can find more room with another relevant topic like Archaeology. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

1. Is this the proper topic in this vein or do we want Grindstone or Millstone?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:15, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

:We don't have {{VA link|Grindstone}} or {{VA link|Millstone}}?!?!?!?! This is a tragedy. I'll propose them as well... GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:58, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Added 5-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)}}

From the lede, "Knapping is the shaping of flint, chert, obsidian, or other conchoidal fracturing stone through the process of lithic reduction to manufacture stone tools, strikers for flintlock firearms, or to produce flat-faced stones for building or facing walls, and flushwork decoration." This is how many of the more famous types of stone tools are manufactured.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 09:44, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Changing to support; I still think we need to focus on reorganizing Tech & trimming further. But we should be getting back closer to quota soon and I do like the idea of including some depth to stone tools. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:48, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
4. Support  Carlwev  06:42, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
5. Fairly fundamental Mrfoogles (talk) 01:14, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

Neutral here for now, we're drifting further over quota but this is an interesting process one. Strong support if someone can find room with another relevant topic like Archaeology; see also {{VA link|Lithic reduction}}. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Added 5-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 10:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Extremely surprised this wasn't included, and think it likely needs to be higher then level 5. Quote from the lede, "A hand axe (or handaxe or Acheulean hand axe) is a prehistoric stone tool with two faces that is the longest-used tool in human history." These tools were used from 1.6 million years ago to about 100,000 years ago, mostly by Homo erectus rather then contemporary humans.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 09:44, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
3. With {{VA link|Axe}}, {{VA link|Battle axe}}, {{VA link|Dagger-axe}}, {{VA link|Halberd}} and {{VA link|Adze}}, I am not sure this needs to be higher than VA5, but it deserves a spot. Maybe there should be broader parentage to things like Broadaxe, Hatchet, Ice axe, Pickaxe and Mortise and tenon though.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:17, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
4. :The word "Hand axe" might be misleading. These were mostly used by Homo erectus we think, although they probably were used to some extent by homo sapiens. We think they served as a bit of a multi tool. Essentially, pointy rock for digging, smashing, throwing, prying, etc. This is one of the first tools used consistently by the genus homo. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:56, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
5. ::I am happy to support at VA5 in large part for this reason.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:35, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
6. As a type artifact for an archaeological industry, I'm still not sure Tech is the best place for it, but I do like the depth to stone tools and we're freeing up a bit of room for now. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:48, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
7. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 05:57, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

Weak oppose here for now, we're drifting further over quota. Support if someone can find room with other relevant topics like Archaeology (or even Human evolution in this case). -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

From the lede, "A microlith is a small stone tool usually made of flint or chert and typically a centimetre or so in length and half a centimetre wide. They were made by humans from around 35,000 years ago, across Europe, Africa, Asia and Australia. The microliths were used in spear points and arrowheads." These are a very commonly used tool across multiple groups of humans.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 09:44, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Changing to support; I still think we need to focus on reorganizing Tech & trimming further. But we should be getting back closer to quota soon and I do like the idea of including some depth to stone tools — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zar2gar1 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
4. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 13:50, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. I am not sure we even need {{VA link|arrowhead}} separate from {{VA link|arrow}} and {{VA link|Bow and arrow}}. Since the article {{VA link|Spear}} does not mention it, I don't think it is that important for the spear use.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:37, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
2. :They were a bit more important 35,000 years ago. Recency bias in technology might be obscuring the several thousand years these were "cutting edge." Pun fully intended. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:05, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
3. ::It is not mentioned in the arrowhead article either.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:21, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

Oppose here for now, we're drifting further over quota. Support if someone can find room with other relevant topics like Archaeology though. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

From the lede, "a long, narrow, specialized stone flake tool with a sharp edge, like a small razor blade." These were very common in Mesoamerica and the term is generally specific to that region.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 09:44, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Changing to support; I still think we need to focus on reorganizing Tech & trimming further. But we should be getting back closer to quota soon and I do like the idea of including some depth to stone tools. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:48, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
4. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 15:40, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

Oppose here for now, we're drifting further over quota. Support if someone can find room with other relevant topics like Archaeology though. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

From the lede "Quern-stones are stone tools for hand-grinding a wide variety of materials, especially for various types of grains." These were used in multiple cultures, including Europe, China, and Mesoamerica.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 09:44, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Changing to support; I still think we need to focus on reorganizing Tech & trimming further. But we should be getting back closer to quota soon and I do like the idea of including some depth to stone tools. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:48, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
4.  Carlwev  13:41, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. This is a bit specific. As stated above, maybe Grindstone or Millstone are more vital.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:40, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

Oppose here for now, we're drifting further over quota. Support if someone can find room with other relevant topics though (Archaeology, Everyday Life, etc.) -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

{{ping|GeogSage}} The topic is is also covered by Millstone. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 14:31, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

From the lede, "a weapon, a wooden sword with several embedded obsidian blades." These swords were used by the Aztec (Mexicas), Olmec, Maya, Mixtec, Toltec, and Tarascans. Could help round out our list of swords a bit.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 09:44, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Weak support, although we're drifting further over quota, the point on balance in melee weapons is a good one. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 15:49, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

Clovis points are a famous type of stone age tool found in the America's (mostly North America) and used between 13,400–12,700 years ago. They are a fairly famous type of projectile point, but likely a bit more specific then many of the other tools I'm nominating. I believe these would be great at level 5 though.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 09:44, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
3. As a type artifact for an archaeological industry, I'm still not sure Tech is the best place for it, but I do like the depth to stone tools and we're freeing up a bit of room for now. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:48, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
4. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 11:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. {{VA link|Arrowhead}} is barely VA5 in my mind. This niche topic is a bit in the weeds.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:44, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

Oppose here for now, we're drifting further over quota. Strong support if someone can find room with another relevant topic like Archaeology (unsure which page that's on). -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

:The {{VA link|Clovis culture}} represents the earliest widely recognised archaeological culture in North America, and the points are the thing that most distinguishes them. I'll try to find something in Archaeology, but we're getting really lean on science, history, and geography articles. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:52, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

::Oh, you're right, and while I'm not an archaeologist, I've read they sort of represent the pinnacle of Paleolithic craftsmanship. I definitely think they should be somewhere on VA5 eventually, and I would be fine putting them in Tech if there was room. Unfortunately, we're in this weird muddle right now where Lv5 overall is finally hitting the 50k wall and we can't easily sweep things from place to place to make room. Whoever closes should definitely note to revisit this if it fails now (the bold is to grab the closer's attention). -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Fair. I'm seeing how hard we're hitting the wall and trying to think of proposals removals that could help give breathing room. I feel like I'm looking at a University budget, trying to make small cuts to various departments while any discussion about the athletics department is a non-starter. Athletes get new locker room while the computer labs use machines from 2015. It's a bit depressing to see the same attitudes here, can't add the founder of modern epidemiology if it means an athlete might get removed. I'm never going to understand it, but seeing it here definitely helps explain the massive destruction of habitat, loss of cultural sites, and extermination of species to make room for golf courses and sports stadiums. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:39, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

;Proposal signature

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Moved 4-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 14:58, 10 May 2025 (UTC)}}

{{VA link|Miscibility}} is listed on the physics list but I think a better place is the chemistry list, indented under {{VA link|Solution (chemistry)}}.

;Support

1. As nom Lophotrochozoa (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
2. :Seconding the move, not sure this needs a full proposal. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Makes sense -- hydrogen bonds and suchlike are also part of materials physics, but with solution in particular it's definitely a major subject in chemistry. Neither are perfect, but one is a bit better. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:14, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

{{ping|Lophotrochozoa}} Since this is just a single article and you have a clear rationale in mind, you can probably just move it boldly. It's a gray area, but moves don't necessarily need a proposal unless they're controversial or more than a couple now-and-then. As long as you pace it out, worst-case scenario is that someone just reverts it to discuss. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|Zar2gar1}} I bit the bullet and moved miscibility since it hadn't been done yet. Is there anything I need to do here to close this?--Cincotta1 (talk) 14:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{ping|Cincotta1}} Technically we aren't allowed to make any changes without four votes; I have proposed a change to this rule. However, we now have four votes counting Zar2gar1 and you. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 19:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

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.

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

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

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)

;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)

;Neutral

;Discuss

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)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

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

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)

;Neutral

;Discuss

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)

;Neutral

;Discuss

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)

;Neutral

;Discuss

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)

;Neutral

;Discuss

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

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Added 4-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:20, 10 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Always surprised at what we are missing. An important concept in statistics that was noted to be missing in another nomination above.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:57, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Support, we can fit in one more basic stats topic like this. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 19:59, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 15:37, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

I mistakenly closed this discussion even though it didn't have enough votes. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 15:37, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

Grindstones are for sharpening tools. Millstones are for grinding grain. We should add both.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:00, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Support only 1 of 2 for now, indifferent on which (that millstone article is really good). Unfortunately, we're drifting further over quota, and we do at least include {{VA link|Mill (grinding)}}, though it's a stubbier, engineering-oriented page. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Both are vital early tech concepts. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:35, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Support both. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 13:59, 6 May 2025 (UTC) If we only add one of them, I prefer Millstone. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 21:04, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:00, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

;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 = Removed 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}}

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Removed 4-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 17:30, 10 May 2025 (UTC)}}

{{VA link|Celadon}} is listed as a color, but the article is about a kind of pottery. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 01:32, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

:Someone else might revert, but honestly, I think you could boldly remove that one. I'm pretty sure it was originally referring to Celadon (color), which has since been merged into {{VA link|Shades of green}}. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:29, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

:Agree with Zar2gar1, it's one of those rare cases where a bold removal is in place. They've obviously meant Celadon (color), which doesn't exist any more. Makkool (talk) 10:11, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|zar2gar1|makkool}} I rm'd that one from the list. Is there anything I need to do to close this thread?--Cincotta1 (talk) 14:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{ping|Cincotta1}} Since we have four votes, I can close this discussion now that it's over a week since your comment. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 17:30, 10 May 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

;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

;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

;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

;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

;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)

;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

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

{{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)

;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)

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Not added 1-3 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 10:18, 17 May 2025 (UTC)}}

This is the best selling vehicle in the US since 1981.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:50, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. support As nom. -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:50, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Oppose straight add without a proposed swap. If we are going to list another personal vehical, I don't think it should be a Ford. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:27, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
2. We do not need three Fords. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:23, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Two oppose votes should be enough to clse as failed. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:48, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

;Proposal signature

TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:50, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

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)

;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)

;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)

{{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)

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)

;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

{{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

;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

;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

;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

;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

;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

;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

;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

;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

{{VA link|Photography}} is the art of capturing light. Most current camera equipment has three main methods to moderate light exposure: {{VA link|Shutter speed}} (How long the light exposure lasts), {{VA link|Aperture}} (the size of the opening for the light), {{VA link|Film speed}} (the sensitivity of the film or digital sensor to light). There are other tools to moderate light exposure such as adding quantity of light via flashes or continuous light or reducing quantity of light via filters, but the first three are the controls used by every camera for photography. Shutter speed and film speed are as important as aperture, IMO. Although technology is overquota, the science of photography is really a part of Physics which is under quota.

;Support

1. As nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:48, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Conditional support -- this seems like a good idea but only if it goes into technology -- it doesn't really fit into physics. A swap proposal would be better but I think these need to get added anyway. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:29, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Support Shutter speed only. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:45, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Support both for technology. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 17:36, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

1. Technology is over quota, we need to start enforcing swaps. The amount of vital technology we don't include probably exceeds the list of stuff we do, until we pull quota from somewhere else we will continue to find this kind of stuff. Most technology can be really considered a part of another science. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:38, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
2. User:GeogSage, Aperture is already listed at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Physical_sciences/Physics#Optics since this is about capturing light. Are you questioning whether the other two are also physics?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:28, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

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)

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Removed 5-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Small part used in manual or loom weaving. Loom and Weaving are level 4. Although they are very helpful if you are weaving, it is a very simple, non technical part to wrap the thread around and pull it off from. It's not as technical or innovative as the flying shuttle, not it's only use, but it is used in flying shuttles, which themselves are quite small, but they are already listed at level 5 anyway, and the use of pirns in flying shuttles, is covered in that article. Also a Bobbin is a similar item that does a similar, but not identical task, that looks more well known, and is not listed. Other things that are needed for a larger object or system to work, but are almost an inseparable part of a larger item or process are not listed. Compare with say, candle wick is not listed in addition to candle. Hilt is not listed in addition to sword, even though they are needed for candles and swords to function or work, we do not list them, as candle and sword would cover the vital info, I think loom, weaving and flying shuttle would cover anything vital about a pirn. Also Pirn is stub and only appears in 2 other languages.

;Support

1. As nom.  Carlwev  23:53, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 13:51, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
3. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 23:15, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
4. Does not seem vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:53, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
5. Per nom; plus, technology needs to be trimmed Mrfoogles (talk) 01:32, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

{{abot}}

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Added 5-1 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:12, 8 May 2025 (UTC)}}

More common historically but still around, other jobs/skills that were more prominent to industry in the past but still exist in the present, like glassblowing which may be less significant, but are already listed at level 5. Even though it's use in the west is much lower today than the past, it was a big profession for many centuries. We do list Forge, but their content is not identical, and we list fire fighter in addition to fire fighting, and accountant in addition to accounting. Blacksmith appears in 88 other languages, has had 2.5M page views since 2015, averaging 727 a day [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=all-time&pages=Blacksmith]

;Support

1. As nom.  Carlwev  23:53, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Strong support per nom. Cross culture and goes way far back in time. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:48, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
3. At one point these were essential workers for any settlement.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:51, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
4. Easy support, almost V4 IMO. Kevinishere15 (talk) 10:48, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
5. Probably one of the more deserving professions (considering overlap with the equivalent fields) to be listed.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 11:40, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. This should be a swap as Tech is over-quota Mrfoogles (talk) 01:37, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

;Discussion

{{abot}}

Technology is over-quota, so while I don't disagree per se, this should be a swap. Looking for swaps, 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. So, I propose swapping out problem statement. Pinging prior participants: @Carlwev, @GeogSage, @TonyTheTiger, @Kevinishere15, @LaukkuTheGreit.

;Support

1. As nom Mrfoogles (talk) 01:37, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Support removing Problem statement  Carlwev  22:39, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 15:34, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

I agree this article is not vital. I support removing it. I didn't immediately understand what this thread is. A swap - Removing problem statement to make room for blacksmith. My own preferred way of using this page - but each to their own - I often do not place an add and a remove in the same thread unless it's a direct comparison. As often people agree with the add but the removal or vice versa, and don't vote, or do vote, and explain the half support half oppose POV in the one or two votes which makes counting up the votes slightly more complicated but not impossible. In my mind I suggested Pirn for a removal, at the same time as Blacksmith for add. A kind of swap. But put them in separate threads in case a person agreed or opposed only one of the proposals but not both, it would make stating said votes more straightforward. - It doesn't really matter as I agree with removing both Pirn and Problem statement anyway - I just thought I'd explain that's all. May I suggest renaming this thread, as it wasn't initially clear to me what was being proposed. problem statement to me looks very unvital. I am wondering if others have not voted just because they are not sure what this is suggesting as well. Especially now blacksmith and pirn have been added and removed too. I suggest just simply renaming this to "Remove problem statement"  Carlwev  22:39, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Somewhat of a broad concept, but it's an enduring topic in daily life, especially in the workplace. Place under Technology#Writing tools.

;Support

1. As nominator. feminist🩸 (talk) 13:10, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Sure. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 19:02, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Makkool (talk) 19:56, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
4. Support has its own category, is used across much of the world for centuries and still today  Carlwev  02:43, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. I like the idea but something should be swapped out as tech is over-quota (looked, but no ideas). Mrfoogles (talk) 01:43, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

{{atop|status=partial pass|result=Isotopes of helium, isotopes of lithium, isotopes of beryllium, isotopes of boron and isotopes of fluorine removed
Isotopes of hydrogen, isotopes of carbon, isotopes of nitrogen and isotopes of oxygen not removed
Lophotrochozoa (talk) 23:33, 10 May 2025 (UTC)}}

I noticed that we have list articles for the isotopes of many of the elements in the Chemistry section. These seem a bit unnecessary to have as vital articles, and I suggest removing them. Chemistry is only slightly under the quota, and I think we could find more individual vital compounds to add, like user Nucleus hydro elemon has above. Removing these would make sense in that regard.

For transparency, these would be the articles to remove: {{VA link|Isotopes of hydrogen}}, {{VA link|Isotopes of helium}}, {{VA link|Isotopes of lithium}}, {{VA link|Isotopes of beryllium}}, {{VA link|Isotopes of boron}}, {{VA link|Isotopes of carbon}}, {{VA link|Isotopes of nitrogen}}, {{VA link|Isotopes of oxygen}}, {{VA link|Isotopes of fluorine}}

;Support all

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 14:03, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. --Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 05:15, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Per nom, good find. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:02, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

;Support some

1. Support removal of all except hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen because they seem more significant. Neutral on those four. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 23:59, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Isn't Isotopes of uranium the most important/vital one? nominating that one below. That seems to be the most essential one to list as vital. I am willing to assume some of these must be important and will vote with EchoVanguardZ for that reason. Also note that when you put "Isotopes of" in the search bar, Isotopes of thorium is the only one listed above Uranium-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:25, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Support removing all except hydrogen and carbon 3df (talk) 05:45, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
4. Support removing Lithium, Beryllium, Boron, Fluorine Mrfoogles (talk) 01:47, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
5. Changed my mind, carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen can stay. --Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 09:55, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

I'm not an expert of Chemistry, but I don't get why these nine? Why we have them, but not {{VA link|Isotopes of potassium}}? Makkool (talk) 14:03, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

:Probably because the next element, neon, has no notable isotopes or nuclear uses. However, listing the lists in strictly ascending atomic number doesn't make sense, as some heavier lists (like isotopes of iodine and isotopes of uranium) are more notable. --Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 05:15, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

{{re|EchoVanguardZ|3df}} Perhaps carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen's removal are debatable, but I don't know why isotopes of hydrogen stay. The main information inside that article are all listed, ({{VA link|Hydrogen atom}}, {{VA link|Proton}}, {{VA link|Deuterium}}, {{VA link|Tritium}}, and {{VA link|Proton decay}}) while the heaviest isotopes of hydrogen aren't notable enough to be listed in vital articles. --Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 14:17, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

:The vital articles project seems to like to have structure, where if you have Deuterium & Tritium, you have Isotopes of hydrogen. To be honest, I kind of like it. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:49, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::The problem is, there are too many hydrogen isotope-related articles, such that this list provides no new information. --Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 09:55, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

{{ping|Mrfoogles}} Are you neutral or in favor of removing the other lists? {{ping|TonyTheTiger}} Should I read your vote as neutral on all isotopes lists actually listed? Lophotrochozoa (talk) 15:40, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:Against removing the other lists. Sorry for the confusion. Mrfoogles (talk) 23:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::Then we have 3-3 on hydrogen, 5-1 on helium, 6-0 on lithium, beryllium, boron and fluorine, 2-4 on carbon, and 3-3 on nitrogen and oxygen. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 13:27, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Added 4-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 19:41, 9 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Add Teeth cleaning to Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Biology_and_health_sciences/Health#Dental_treatments

;Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:11, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
2. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 19:33, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Cincotta1 (talk) 02:41, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Common. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discussion

{{abot}}

The above nomination for #Remove all "Isotopes of..." Chemistry list articles brought my attention to this. Isotopes of uranium is the most important/vital one in my mind. When you put "Isotope(s)" or "Isotopes of" in the search bar, Isotopes of thorium is the only one listed above Uranium so we may also want to consider that one.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:32, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:32, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Weak support, see below. --Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 08:10, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Very good addition 3df (talk) 21:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
4. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 21:30, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discussion

I originally want to oppose this, as I thought these lists of isotopes are at an awkward position. If the list (for example, Isotopes of yttrium) is nominated because there is an important isotope (for example, Yttrium-90), then I will just nominate that article of the important isotope instead. However, uranium just has too many important isotopes, so nominate the list might be better than nominating every isotope that has an article (Uranium-232, 233, 234, 235, 236, and 238). I will oppose Isotopes of thorium because only Thorium-232 has its own article, we can nominate that instead. --Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 08:10, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

:I would argue that the list of thorium isotopes is of greater importance than {{sup|232}}Th alone. Many of the isotopes without articles are not non-notable or trivial. 3df (talk) 21:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

::It looks like some of the isotopes have potential to become longer. (I'm thinking of 230 and 233, 229m is long but too niche to be vital) Changed to neutral. --Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 14:04, 25 March 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

{{atopg|status=passed|result=removed 4-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 00:13, 11 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Been in use over 150 years including its earliest attempts. The way it physically works, and the different fields it is used by are both of interest. It is of use in several professional fields, including, archaeology, military, construction, security, and forensics. Used by professionals and also amateurs/hobbyists as well. As a hobby, the culture surrounding metal detectors includes, clubs, magazines, websites and some TV shows. The article appears in 47 languages, and its page views since 2015 are 1.46 million, or 413 daily average [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=all-time&pages=Metal_detector].

;Support

1. As nom.  Carlwev  14:12, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Definitely vital, although I would have preferred a swap. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:41, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Pretty obvious. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 02:17, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
4. 3df (talk) 21:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

{{abot}}

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)

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Added 4-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Was mentioned by Carlwev as something that should replace {{VA link|French curve}}, which was nominated for removal above. If that passes, this can be treated as a swap. Stencils are a very common artistic tool, and should be included. 44 interwikis.

;Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:01, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
2.  Carlwev  17:27, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Common enough. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 02:16, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
4. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 18:10, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

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)

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Added 4-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 21:18, 9 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Not sure why this is not listed. There is several types of whips such as bians, bullwhips, cat o' nine tails, chain whips, crops, disciplines, knouts, kurbashes, nagaikas, pomlázkas, quirts, scourges, sjamboks and stockwhips. It could go in the animal-powered transport section, somewhere in the weapons section or elsewhere.

;Support

1. As nom. Sahaib (talk) 22:13, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
2. per nom Aurangzebra (talk) 22:15, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Obvious overlook. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 02:16, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
4. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 07:11, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

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

;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)

;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)

;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)

;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

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Swapped 4-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 19:51, 10 May 2025 (UTC)}}

I was looking at Cactus McCoy [https://cactusmccoy.fandom.com/wiki/Weapons weapons] and found that tomahawk was not listed despite getting twice as many [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2015-07-01&end=2025-03-14&pages=Partisan_(weapon)%7CTomahawk pageviews] than partisan (weapon). Partisans are a type of {{VA link|polearm}} whereas tomahawks are a type of {{VA link|axe}}, and so unless polearms are moved to level 4, it does not need to be listed. Also looking at exclusively different polearm pages, lances (which are not listed) are probably more vital than partisans in terms of historical importance.

;Support

1. As nom. Sahaib (talk) 08:57, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Support add.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:24, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Definitely support add, no opinion on removal. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
4. Strong support -- obviously polearms matter, but we're aiming for geographic balance and tomahawks were more important in the Americas than partisans were in Europe. Also, tomahawk throwing is still a big thing today. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:22, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

1. There are a lot of historic weapons among the over 300 elements listed at Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Technology#Military_technology. I don't really understand the reasoning. Before I support the removal, I would like to have a better understanding of this.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:24, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
2. :{{reply|TonyTheTiger}} The reasoning was not that good, so I have changed it. Sahaib (talk) 19:38, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
3. ::There is some agreement that lance is pretty vital at Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/STEM#Add_Lance, which is still open and standing at 4-0 with the last vote on 3/9. I definitely feel that Tomahawk needs to be added. With two Polearms on the chopping block (Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/STEM#Remove_Dagger-axe_5), I want to make sure I understand arguments in their favor before supporting their removal.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:38, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Added 5-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 21:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)}}

We seriously haven't listed this yet?

;Support

1. As nom. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 03:27, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
2. But {{VA link|Vacuum cleaner}}. Not right.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:44, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Sahaib (talk) 07:37, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
4. 106 interwikis. Still waiting for a vitality estimator tool to hopefully catch stuff like this.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:45, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
5. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:19, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

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

To the section Nucleic acids. NAD is arguably the next most important after DNA, RNA and ATP. It is key to cellular respiration/metabolism and is covered in high school biology.

1. 3df (talk) 05:41, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
2. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 06:05, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
3. It should have a separate section for coenzymes, along with ATP. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:29, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
4. Per nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:01, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Filed under either Alarm device or the section Law enforcement equipment, or somewhere else?

1. 3df (talk) 21:33, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Common. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 23:14, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Indeed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:49, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:24, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

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)

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Added 4-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:33, 10 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Basic everyday item. I think everyone knows what these are.

;Support

1. As nom. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 02:44, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
2. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 08:42, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
3. I'm shocked that this isn't already listed. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:35, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
4. Of course. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:50, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

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)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

We added {{VA link|Police dog}}, {{VA link|Guide dog}} and {{VA link|Sled dog}} some time ago. I noticed that we are lacking the traditional types of working animals used throughout history. I thought it would be good idea to have these along side the three dog occupations we now have.

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Added 4-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 00:28, 11 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Also known as beast of burden. Very important, considering trade and transport.

;Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 19:48, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
2. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
3. QuicoleJR (talk) 11:27, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
4. Of course. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:16, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Added 5-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 23:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Also an important way dogs serve people even today. And was a significant role for dogs in ancient times.

;Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 19:48, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 03:05, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
3. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
4. QuicoleJR (talk) 11:27, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
5. Of course. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:16, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

Crucial role for horses over generations in farming, logging and transport.

;Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 19:48, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
2. QuicoleJR (talk) 11:27, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Of course. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:16, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Added 4-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 16:43, 11 May 2025 (UTC)}}

I was thinking we could include the general term in addition to {{VA link|Guide dog}}.

;Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 19:48, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Definitely. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 03:05, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
3. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
4. QuicoleJR (talk) 11:27, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

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}}

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Kept 4-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:25, 11 May 2025 (UTC)}}

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Biology_and_health_sciences/Animals&diff=prev&oldid=1278565620 Varoart2005 linked] to {{VA link|Bison}} without discussion; it was previously listed without link in order to group the listed species. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 12:33, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

;Keep

1. Weak support Lophotrochozoa (talk) 12:33, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Keep  Carlwev  13:03, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
3. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:17, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
4. Keep this and add vulture. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 03:03, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

;Remove

;Neutral

;Discussion

This reminds me of the article vulture. As in there exists similar animals with similar body and behavior in the old world and the new world and have been given the same common name despite not being closely related, we list species of the new world and the old world but not the common everyday name bison or vulture. I will support including bison at level 5, we list many many specific and common terms for animals and groups of animals, bison even though not accurate or scientific is still an accepted and known term and concept, and not obscure, I would probably support vulture too.  Carlwev  13:03, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Added 4-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:54, 11 May 2025 (UTC)}}

The article about the actual physical device that receives broadcast signal and produces the image and sound, as opposed to the art medium industry that produces and broadcasts the shows. Computer monitor is level 4, I am surprised TV set isn't as important as a monitor when they are just as old, and where common place in western homes decades before monitors where. At level 5 we list VCR, several video game consoles, and portable walkman and gameboy and more, I am sure TV set is at least level 5. It's in 74 wiki languages and has 1.5 million views over last 10 years, average 440 a day [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=all-time&pages=Television_set|Videocassette_recorder] slightly more than VCR. The set itself, different models and improvement over the decades and how the image, sound, and receiving broadcast works is at least level 5 vital.

;Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  08:59, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Per nom. Kevinishere15 (talk) 20:28, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
4. Definitely. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 03:03, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

{{abot}}

Cell division is a broad yet crucial topic in biology, especially molecular and cell biology, that covers {{VA link|Mitosis}} and {{VA link|Meiosis}}. It would not make sense for this article not to be considered vital. The related subject is under quota, allowing room for additional articles to be added.

; Support

1. As nom. ZergTwo (talk) 19:24, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Definitely. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 03:04, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
3. This should be level 4 Mrfoogles (talk) 02:26, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:47, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

; Oppose

; Neutral

; Discuss

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

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Added 4-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:46, 11 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Under Nutrition.

; Support

1. 3df (talk) 02:23, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
2. This hasn't been listed yet? JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 03:07, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
3. This isn't being snowballed passed? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:36, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Makes sense to me. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

; Oppose

; Neutral

; Discuss

{{abot}}

Under Nutrition.

; Support

1. 3df (talk) 02:23, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
2. This hasn't been listed yet? JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 03:07, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
3. V5 still has so many gaps... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 00:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

; Oppose

; Neutral

; Discuss

Under Nutrition.

; Support

1. 3df (talk) 02:23, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Seems common enough. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 03:07, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Blerp. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:20, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
4. To Digestion. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 23:35, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

; Oppose

; Neutral

; Discuss

Under Health and fitness: General.

; Support

1. 3df (talk) 02:23, 1 April 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

Under Specific drugs.

; Support

1. 3df (talk) 02:39, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Important with high levels of opioid abuse. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 22:48, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Contrary to what Piotrus said, Naloxone is a household name in the US, because it is the main way of saving someone from an opioid overdose. We see it in anti-fentanyl commercials all the time. Very important medicine, and we should list more medicines. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Support. I think we need to really look into making room for drug. Like it or not, people will look to Wikipedia to research a drug their doctor gave them in addition to WebMD and other sources. We should ensure these articles are of the absolute highest quality. Would like to see at least 500 added to medicines/drugs. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:00, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

; Oppose

1. Why? Not a household name. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:34, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
2. :"Narcan" is a "household name" in the USA. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 22:48, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

; Neutral

; Discuss

Common type of cattle that has not been listed yet.

;Support

1. As nom. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 03:09, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
2. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 08:52, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Support  Carlwev  06:39, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
4. List under working animals. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 10:49, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

Note that {{VA link|Bull}} (which has somewhat less interwikis and pageviews) isn't listed.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 08:57, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Added 4-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Per the ox thread, another common type of cattle (I'd argue more common than ox) that has not been listed yet.

;Support

1. As nom. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 19:37, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Support  Carlwev  06:42, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
3. One of the most surprising absences. Kevinishere15 (talk) 06:48, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Bulls "have long been an important symbol in many religions"; they "play a significant role in beef ranching, dairy farming, and a variety of sporting and cultural activities"; plus, their excrement is expressed by untruthful people.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 07:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

Most common type of headache. I have one at the time of writing this.

;Support

1. As nom. -1ctinus📝🗨 23:22, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
2. {{VA link|headache}} should probably be V4. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:59, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
3. labelled high importance by wp:med, but see aside below about other metrics people commonly use for importance--Cincotta1 (talk) 14:35, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 21:07, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Comment

1. An aside, of the three most common headache types, only migraines are already listed as vital. Cluster headaches have more interwikis than tension headache and draw more daily page views despite being much less common. I guess tension headaches are so common and accepted as a part of life that people don't talk to doctors about them, and don't learn names beyond "headache" for them. I guess it goes to show these metrics are a good guide, but not a strict rule for what topics are more important in daily life. If we have room in medicine section, maybe we should propose cluster headache as well and have all three vital at this level.--Cincotta1 (talk) 14:35, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

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

{{atopg|status=passed|result=added 5-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:33, 16 May 2025 (UTC)}}

So how is this not listed yet?

;Support

1. As nom. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 02:01, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
2. support  Carlwev  16:04, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
3. per nom Aurangzebra (talk) 04:39, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Of course. --_{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 06:26, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
5. Per nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{Reply|JpTheNotSoSuperior}} I think because {{vital article link|Meteoroid}} and {{vital article link|Meteor shower}} are listed. Sahaib (talk) 08:55, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Added 4-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:23, 12 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Probably should be V4 and i’m shocked it’s not listed. Domestic goose is listed.

;Support

1. As nom. -1ctinus📝🗨 12:10, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Sure. {{VA link|Domestic goose}} is V5 as you say. I also checked {{VA link|Domestic chicken}}, {{VA link|Domestic cat}}, {{VA link|Domestic dog}}, {{VA link|Domestic animal}} but they redirect to stuff that is listed; or in the last case, a list (it probably should be an article and then vital, but since it is not, oh well). --_{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here}
3. Support  Carlwev  13:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Seems important enough. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 02:18, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Added 4-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 23:40, 17 May 2025 (UTC)}}

On March 29, in the Bison discussion, User:Carlwev suggested that we nominate this subject. I concur that it is a worthy candidate and since no one has gotten around to this, here it is.

;Support

1. As nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:44, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Famous animal. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:50, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Support yep, you got there before me, not only significant to biology, but appears in popular culture quite a lot as well, more than most birds we List.  Carlwev  12:58, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
4. I supported it above and I'll support it here too. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 02:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

Seems to be a major portion of the brain, but unlisted.

;Support

1. As nominator. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 22:10, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Support - appears in 59 languages, significant article for important topic, brain is level 3, it makes sense to add parts of brain at level 4 and definitely level 5. A well studied topic.  Carlwev  03:34, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Definitely. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 04:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 23:27, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

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)

;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)

;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)

;Oppose

;Discussion

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|status=passed|result=Added 7-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:06, 16 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Loss of function and/or feeling in one or more muscles, either permanent or temporary, several causes. Article states different forms of paralysis effects one in fifty in the US alone. Article appears in 70 languages, has had 1.77 million page views since 2015 averaging 495 per day. [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2015-07-01&end=2025-04-30&pages=Paralysis]. There is a category for different types of :Category:Cerebral palsy and other paralytic syndromes. Cerebral palsy appears at level 4, and Bell's palsy appears at level 5, which are specific types of paralysis syndromes. This overview article is probably level 5 as well. The article also explains it can also effect non human animals too.

;Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  08:50, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
2. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:12, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
3. List it under symptoms. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 16:45, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Certainly. Maybe VA4. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 05:18, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
5. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:17, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
6. --Cincotta1 (talk) 14:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
7. Another obvious one. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 04:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

{{abot}}

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)

I apologize if I am being ignorant, but how is this vital? Zero interwikis.

;Support

1. Per nom. -1ctinus📝🗨 00:28, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
2. I often hear Barrel (unit), but that's already a separate entry on VA5. The wine cask units don't seem important enough. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 03:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Not seeing the vitality. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:34, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Per nom. ALittleClass (talk) 01:27, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

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)

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

Likely to become popular in the next decade. One of the best known emerging technologies in development today.

;Support

1. As nominator. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 03:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
2. I guess. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 04:21, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Will soon be a very important topic. {{VA link|Car}} is VA3, so we can definitely add subtopics. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:48, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
4. support  Carlwev  19:48, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

Has an important role in {{VA link|Ageing}}.

;Support

1. As nominator. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 03:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
2. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 06:13, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
3. Per nom. --Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 10:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
4.  Carlwev  03:53, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
5. Aye. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:15, 12 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)

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)

;Oppose

;Discussion

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)

;Oppose

;Discussion

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)

;Oppose

;Discussion

{{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)

;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)

;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)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

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

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)

;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)

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)

;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)

;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)

;Oppose

;Discuss