Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/STEM/Archive 6

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Added 4–0. Makkool (talk) 19:56, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

}}

This seems like an important item.

;Support

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

{{abot}}

{{Clear}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Removed 4–2. Makkool (talk) 09:38, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

}}

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

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
2. Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
3. Weak support. It seems somewhat important, but also a bit recentist, and we list too many planes in general IMO. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:06, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
4. Weak support, very close to neutral, but we do list a lot of fixed-wing platforms already. Not sure it's needed as a representative of stealth either when we already list the concept itself at Lv 4 and the B-2. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

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

;Neutral

;Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Removed 4–0, 1 neutral. Makkool (talk) 09:38, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

}}

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

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
2. Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
3. I'm no expert, but this doesn't seem vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:15, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
4. Weak support, mainly just to push the proposal past the finish line. We do list a lot of fixed-wing platforms and nobody has really raised any reasons to keep it. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

;Neutral

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

;Discussion

{{abot}}

{{Clear}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Both removed 5–0. Makkool (talk) 17:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

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

;Support

1. As nom Mathwriter2718 (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
2. Per nom Makkool (talk) 10:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
3. Support both, I have no idea how the first one ever made the list. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
4. Support both, I may have added Trou de loup back in the "free brainstorming" days, but agree it's not vital. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
5. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 20:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{Clear}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Both added, URL 5–0 & Information system 4-0. Makkool (talk) 10:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

Important components of the World Wide Web.

;Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 01:17, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
2. always surprised what isn't already included. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:11, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
3. Per nom. Brunoblocks274 (talk) 21:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
4. Easy adds Mathwriter2718 (talk) 23:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
5. Support URL, now that we're clearing out some space in Computing. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Weak oppose. I know this will likely pass but I want to pump the brakes one more time. Computing is already way over-represented, and we're still adding to it. If someone proposes 4 or more Computer articles for removal with a good chance of passing though, I'll support URL and switch to neutral on Information system. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

;Neutral

• Neutral on Information system now that we're clearing out some space in Computing. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

;Discussion

{{abot}}

{{Clear}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Added 5-0. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

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

; Support

1. Support as nom. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:40, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
2. Support, would like to see railgun removed still but these are important. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
3. Per nom Makkool (talk) 10:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
4. per above. starship.paint (talk / cont) 02:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
5. per above EleniXDD※Talk 03:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

; Oppose

; Discuss

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

{{abot}}

{{Clear}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Swapped 4-0. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

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

;Support

1. As nom. Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 10:51, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
2. Sure, deferring to nom on this one. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:07, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
3. Per nom Makkool (talk) 10:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
4. per nom. starship.paint (talk / cont) 02:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{Clear}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Added 4-1. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

Seems important enough at this level.

;Support

1. As nom. Kevinishere15 (talk) 07:39, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
2. Definitely vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:52, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
3. Sure, why not? We have room in phyisiology for sure. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:07, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
4. per above. starship.paint (talk / cont) 02:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

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

{{abot}}

{{Clear}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Added 6-0. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

The science of aircraft design.

;Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 00:53, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
2. For sure, we could use more applied science topics. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
3. Per nom. Kevinishere15 (talk) 19:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
4. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 20:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
5. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
6. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 15:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{Clear}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Added 4-0. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

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

;Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:43, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
2. Per above GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
3. Definitely. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
4. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 20:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{Clear}}

{{atopy

| status = partial pass

| result = Dwelling added under Law 4-1, Caravan (trailer) not added 3-2, Mobile home already added in another proposal. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

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

;Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 21:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
2. Support the latter 2, per my "some overlap is good at Lv5" principle, and (except for transportation infrastructure) I think we're still relatively light on "built environment" articles. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
3. Support adding all, dwelling should probably go in law though. Kevinishere15 (talk) 19:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
4. Support Dwelling.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Hasn't someone suggested Shelter (building)? Big Blue Cray(fish) Twins (talk) 15:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
2. :That redirects to {{VA link|Shelter}}--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
3. Oppose adding Dwelling here. Skimming the article, it's actually about housing from a legal / real estate perspective. So I'd support adding it under the Law section of the Society lists. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
4. Oppose adding Caravan the until the more general Recreational vehicle and/or Trailer (vehicle) is added. Of the various RVs, not sure why Caravan deserves any priority over More interwikies than the other RVs Motorhome, Campervan, Truck camper, Popup camper and {{VA link|Coach (bus)}}, which has the 2nd most. Still none of these should be listed over the general RV.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
5. :{{ping|Zar2gar1|Interstellarity|Kevinishere15}}, I just want to make sure all Caravan supporters see this comment and note the nominations mentioned below.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discussion

1. {{VA link|Mobile home}} is already listed.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
2. Will list RV and trailer below.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{Clear}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Added 4-0. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

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

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

; Support

1. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 03:16, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
2. Interstellarity (talk) 12:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
3. Absolutely, glad to start seeing the math proposals. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
4. -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:55, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{clear}}

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

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Added 4–0. Makkool (talk) 17:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

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

;Support

1. As nomGeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
2. Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
3. It's the archetypical example of the modern guided missile destroyer in every facet. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 06:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
4. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{clear}}

{{atopr

| status = failed

| result = Not added 2-2. Makkool (talk) 17:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

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

;Support

1. As nomGeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
2. Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Unremarkable service record. Only built in extremely small numbers. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 06:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
2. per SwatJester, this one doesn't seem vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{clear}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Added 4–0. Makkool (talk) 12:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

WWII battleships that served in the {{VA link|Imperial Japanese Navy}}. Largest battleships ever constructed.

;Support

1. As nomGeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
2. Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
3. Important for their influence on US naval policy that shaped the course of the war. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 06:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
4. per above. starship.paint (talk / cont) 02:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{clear}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Added 4–0. Makkool (talk) 12:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

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

;Support

1. As nomGeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
2. Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
3. Vitally important to WWII history. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 06:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
4. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{clear}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Added 4–0. Makkool (talk) 09:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

}}

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

;Support

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

{{abot}}

{{clear}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Added 5-2. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

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

;Support

1. As nom. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:52, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
2. Nest should be VA4, and this should be a subtopic of it. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
3. Per nom. Brunoblocks274 (talk) 19:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
4. Per nom Makkool (talk) 10:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
5. Support  Carlwev  23:07, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. We just added nest.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:32, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
2. Per above. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{clear}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Added 5-0. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

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

;Support

1. As nom. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:53, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
2. Should be listed. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
3. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 18:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
4. Per nom Makkool (talk) 10:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
5. Support  Carlwev  23:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

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

{{abot}}

{{clear}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Added 5-0. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

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

;Support

1. As nom. To agriculture. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 22:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
2. If we have to remove something most of these may be still applicable.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 23:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
3. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 22:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
4. Maybe not a huge thing, but definitely a good find for Animal Husbandry, which is under-represented. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
5. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{clear}}

{{Clear}}

In the above discussion on URLs, @Zar2gar1 pointed out that computers are over represented. We currently have 630 articles on Computing and information technology, which definitely has some room to trim. Below are the first few that caught my attention.

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Removed 5–0. Makkool (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

From the articles lede "DNA computing is an emerging branch of unconventional computing which uses DNA, biochemistry, and molecular biology hardware, instead of the traditional electronic computing." This form of computing is mostly science fiction at this point, and until we have some legitimate applications, it isn't really vital.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:09, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
2. Support. As an aside, I think we should be skeptical by default towards VAs on technology that doesn't exist. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 14:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
3. Does not exist, does not seem vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
4. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 20:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
5. Theoretically interesting, but agree it's still too speculative. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

1. @Mathwriter2718, I agree. I proposed removing railguns for the same reason. Even stuff that is theoretically possible, if it isn't in widespread use (even if it may be one day in widespread use), it is not vital. Would support removing any similar example. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:19, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Removed 4–0. Makkool (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

This term relates to a specific situation where a computer connected to the internet becomes compromised and used for malicious activities. I don't think this is particularly vital, especially since we have an extensive list of malware types included.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:09, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
2. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 20:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
3. I think we already include {{VA link|botnet}} (and quota concerns override overlap benefits). -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
4. Makkool (talk) 10:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Removed 6–0. Makkool (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

While I understand the desire to include all the components of computers in the list of vital articles, I think that Computer case is excessive. While components like CPU, Motherboard, GPU, etc. are all rightly included, the page {{VA link|Power supply unit (computer)}} is not. I agree we should not include Power Supply Unit, and believe that computer cases are even less vital then that page (I just built a computer, and the case was the absolute last thing I thought about).

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:09, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
2. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 08:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
3. Per nom. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 14:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
4. Does not seem vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
5. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 20:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
6. Agree, while there are technical details, this is arguably WP:DICTIONARY territory as far as the VA list is concerned. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Removed 5–0. Makkool (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

Betamax is an obsolete format, and lost the "format wars" against VHS. It is an interesting footnote, but not really vital.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:09, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
2. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
3. Does not seem vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
4. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 20:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
5. Agree completely about this being a footnote, and arguably more of a business one at that. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Removed 5-2. Makkool (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

Vine was a video sharing service that launched in 2013 and was shut down by 2017, with the archive was removed in 2019. This seems like a bit of recency bias, and I think we should wait another 10 years to see if it is still considered vital.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:09, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
2. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 08:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
3. When it was going, it seemed like a peer to Twitter and IG, but in retrospect, it does not seem to have so much lasting vitality.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
4. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 20:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
5. Strong support, for above reasons, computing / internet over-represented, and my "no name brands in Tech" argument. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Vine had a lasting cultural influence and was a pioneer of the current trend of short-form video content. It has an important place in the history of social media. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 14:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
2. Per Mathwriter. Kevinishere15 (talk) 01:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

• N.B. Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/STEM#Swap_Vine_(service)_with_Fandom_(website) below.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Removed 5–0. Makkool (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

Hello world! is the traditional first thing students do in a programming course. It is a fun tradition and I'm including it in a Python class I'm teaching in the Spring, but it isn't any more "vital" then {{VA link|Rubber duck debugging}} in my opinion (And Rubber duck debugging might be MUCH more vital depending on who you ask).

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:09, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
2. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 08:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
3. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 14:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
4. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 20:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
5. Support, though I think I see the logic for including it (as a common introductory topic). -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:09, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Removed 5-0 per WP:AVALANCHE. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

Does not seem particularly vital, and the parent topic {{VA link|Boom (navigational barrier)}} is also only VA5. We don't even list anti-submarine warfare, so why should we list this obscure barrier? Only five interwikis, and it is in the bottom 10% of articles by pageviews.

;Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
2. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 14:34, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
3. Strong support, I may have added this in the free brainstorming days, but agree we have way less niche things to add. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
4. Makkool (talk) 09:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
5. Per nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Both added 4-0. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

We list {{VA link|Spinal cord}} and {{VA link|Human back}}-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:26, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

;Support

1. as nom. -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:26, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
2. Absolutely. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
3. Makkool (talk) 09:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
4. per nom. starship.paint (talk / cont) 02:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Added 4-0. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

Although we only list {{VA link|Ligament}}, I have made it a candidate for elevation to VA4 and consider this particular ligament to be crucial to many forms of elite athletic performance.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

;Support

1. as nom. -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
2. Sure, why not? -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
3. Makkool (talk) 09:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
4. per nom. starship.paint (talk / cont) 02:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Removed 6-0 per WP:AVALANCHE. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

We already list {{VA link|Mains electricity}}, and derivatives from the list of countries seem to be not very welcome. I would swap it with the main list.

;Support

1. As nom. Brunoblocks274 (talk) 13:54, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
2. per nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:03, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
3. Makkool (talk) 11:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
4. Not vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
5. Per nom, {{VA link|Mains electricity}} is already listed. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 14:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
6. Definitely, we're over-quota and these are definitely the kind of list articles we discourage. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. As you say country lists are not in favor. Stem is in the +/-1% range of quota. The parent is only level 5.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
2. :Exactly, I'm proposing to remove, not to add. Brunoblocks274 (talk) 19:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Removed 6-0 per WP:AVALANCHE. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

Outside of the {{VA link|Smartwatch}}, which is already listed separately, wearable computers are not yet a very important topic, and the Technology page is well above the quota.

;Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
2. There aren't many wearable computers other than smartwatches that are widely used. Yes, we have things like smartglasses, but I hardly see anybody other than one person in my life that uses them. Maybe if we see more of these types of devices, I may consider supporting the addition later on. Interstellarity (talk) 01:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Not yet. Kevinishere15 (talk) 07:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Per nom Mathwriter2718 (talk) 14:11, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
5. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
6. Not only is Tech over-quota & computing over-represented, but I'm starting to come around to the idea that mix-in topics like this (Item A + Quality B) aren't really vital. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

1. User:QuicoleJR, Does this include Virtual reality headset.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
2. :I'm not sure actually. I assume that strictly-speaking it would be considered one, but I don't think most people think of it as one. Either way, I still don't think that wearable computer should be listed. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{clear}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Added 4–0. Makkool (talk) 20:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

The study of research methods. An intersection between epistemology, philosophy of science, and the scientific method

;Support

1. As nom. To philosophy of science. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 23:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
2. feminist🩸 (talk) 02:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
3. Iostn (talk) 08:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
4. I'm a bit biased because this is where I live professionally. For sure consider it vital. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{clear}}

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

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Added 5-0. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

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

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
2. The definitional NATO cold war attack helicopter throughout the Cold War, the Iraq War, and the GWOT.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 02:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
3. Makkool (talk) 17:48, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
4. per above. starship.paint (talk / cont) 02:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
5. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{clear}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Added 4-0. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

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

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
2. Either this or the UH-1 Huey family. Both extremely influential utility helicopters. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 02:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
3. Makkool (talk) 17:48, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
4. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discussion

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

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

{{abot}}

{{clear}}

{{atop}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:Hi everyone, just another update. If you net the current Tech proposals (additions less removals), we're going to blow past our 2% cushion to be officially over-quota. Obviously, more removals are an option, and quota proposals on the main Lv5 page are always allowed.

:Personally though, I feel we may want to step back and rethink the Tech list, looking at the big picture. Even with more removals, the list is now pulling in several (somewhat contradictory) directions, plus our imbalances aren't getting any better. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

• Have there ever been any expressed shut down of nominations in the history of VA? I think we should just go forward and evaluate removals as well as quota reallocations. Note that when this discussion was started we were 20-25 nominations away from 2% cushion. Now we are at 3228/3200. 1% cushion would be 3232 and 2% cushion would be 3264, so we are 36 from 2% cushion and making progress.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:35, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
• :To your first question, there have never been any imposed shut-downs no, but it's never really been necessary. Once we're clearly over quota, everyone has typically throttled back most additions until we're back under 100%.
• :To your other points, the section is technically over quota with even 3201 articles, and we're supposed to try hovering around it. The cushion is just there for practical reasons, like allowing batch proposals and not requiring additions / removals to be balanced exactly in the moment. That's also why we don't mark a section as over-quota on the table until it's clearly grown out of control.
• :As for progress, the list hasn't moved much since last month, but if you count the active addition proposals here on the talk page, then subtract active removals, we're not going in the right direction.
• :On the matter of quotas, proposals are always allowed and everyone else may support it, but I would definitely oppose an increase in Tech's quota right now. Especially taking slots from the Life Sciences, which are almost definitely under quota due to neglect, not relative importance. The more I look at the list in terms of actual coverage, the worse I feel about it, and without us at least stepping back for a bit and rethinking our direction, I'm not sure even more removals would improve it. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
• ::I have made several currwntly active batch proposals for sciences and have seen a lot less interest than I expected. I am having trouble convincing myself, it is worth preserving hundreds of spaces for those subjects.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
• :::I wouldn't necessarily worry about them yet; for one, most of the editors on English Wikipedia are probably on holiday. I also tend to wait before replying to very large proposal batches. Sometimes I realize I have to think more about the underlying argument, which section we'll put them in, things like that. I plan to vote on yours in the coming weeks, and I'll probably support most of them, especially the anatomy ones.
• :::That said, if you keep working on Science proposals, definitely be prepared to wait a while. They don't attract the same interest, but I would strongly disagree with dropping their quotas for that reason.
• :::If you haven't already seen some discussions about it, including by former & current participants here, VA (and especially Lv5) are looked down on by most of Wikipedia. The criticism is pretty consistent too, that VA is a popularity contest and dumping ground for a relatively small group of editors, where we spend time arguing over niche interests instead of prioritizing and assisting improvements to the encyclopedia. If we shift quotas to sections just because current participants find them interesting, we're almost definitely feeding the habit. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
• I would support taking 50 places from biology and health sciences which is about 330 below quota (although 100 seem be headed to Culture).-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{clear}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Added 4-0, around Heating for now. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

;Support

1. as nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
2. Support  Carlwev  16:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
3. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 14:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
4. Support, mainly because it has both architectural and functional (HVAC) aspects. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{clear}}

{{atopy

| status = withdrawn

| result = Admittedly, I did not review the article page. I reviewed the talk page to confirm it was not vital. Apologies for wasting people's time. Thx User:Zar2gar1 for pointing out the confusing state of the article. It seems that {{VA link|Boiler (power generation)}} is listed, which delves into many related topics.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

;Support

1. as nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

• It looks like this may be a bit of a disambiguation page, but I'd totally support {{VA link|Furnace (central heating)}}— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zar2gar1 (talk • contribs) 04:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{clear}}

{{atopy

| status = withdrawn

| result = User:Mathwriter2718 mentioned that this may better fit with symbols. The article was in such a bad state, that I was not convinced. Upon further inspection, I think he may be right. Additionally, Technology is over quota and History is under quota.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

With 52 interwikis, this seems important.-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

;Neutral

;Discussion

I know tridents are literally technology and that's why this is nominated inside STEM, but I think they are more vital as a symbol than they are as a technology. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 14:20, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

:Are you talking about its use in sports team logos like Manchester United F.C., Arizona State Sun Devils, Crawley Town F.C., Fredonia Blue Devils, UMSL Tritons, UC San Diego Tritons, Washington and Lee Generals, Tampa Bay Tritons, White Rock Tritons and Nkana F.C., corporate logos like Maserati and Club Med or more of its mythological symbolism for things such as Trident of Poseidon and association with Aquaman? Nothing in the entire Trident#Modern_symbolism section is cited, wheras its military and hunting weapons uses are. I am happy to move this nomination if people feel it is better suited for VA placement in another area.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

:P.S. if the nomination is based on its value as a symbol, it probably is in line behind Star (heraldry) and Fleur-de-lis. The only pure symbols (aside from {{VA link|Flag}}) I see listed are {{VA link|Hammer and sickle}} and {{VA link|Crescent and star (symbol)}}.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{clear}}

It is looking like Basics and measures will soon be about 18% over quota. I wanted to see if this is a sensible change so I looked at units of measure which is the bulk of that group to see how easy it would be to find removal candidates. Measures is a place where we seem to keep a lot of obsolete and nebulous topics. Lets consider some of these.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Removed 6-0 per WP:AVALANCHE. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

;Support

1. Described as obsolete. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Makkool (talk) 16:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
3. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Extreme strong support, not sure we should even list most units per WP:DICTIONARY. Wouldn't be opposed to a single article like {{VA link|Historical Russian units of measurement}} though. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
5. Support per above. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
6. The article is far from vital. --ZergTwo (talk) 03:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Removed 5-1. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

;Support

1. Described as ancient and obsolete. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Makkool (talk) 16:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
3. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Extreme strong support, not sure we should even list most units per WP:DICTIONARY. Wouldn't be opposed to a single article like {{VA link|List of human-based units of measurement}} though (even if it's a list and not very good yet). -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
5. The article is not important enough to be vital. --ZergTwo (talk) 03:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Weak oppose, I think this is a bit more useful historically then others. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Removed 6-0 per WP:AVALANCHE. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

;Support

1. Described as formerly used. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Makkool (talk) 16:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
3. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Extreme strong support, not sure we should even list most units per WP:DICTIONARY. Note that we already include {{VA link|United States customary units}} and {{VA link|Gunter's chain}} under Tech. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
5. Suppor per above. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
6. The article is far from vital. --ZergTwo (talk) 03:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Removed 5-1. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

;Support

1. Descrived as no longer official in any country. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Makkool (talk) 16:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
3. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Strong support, even if this one has naval uses. Not sure we should even list most units per WP:DICTIONARY. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
5. The article is not important enough to be vital. --ZergTwo (talk) 03:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Support, it is both still in some use and has historic relevance. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Removed 6-0 per WP:AVALANCHE. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

;Support

1. Described as a historic unit. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Makkool (talk) 16:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
3. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Extreme strong support, not sure we should even list most units per WP:DICTIONARY. Note that we already include {{VA link|English units}}. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
5. Support per above. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
6. The article is far from vital. --ZergTwo (talk) 03:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Removed 6-0 per WP:AVALANCHE. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

;Support

1. Described as formerly used. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Makkool (talk) 16:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
3. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Extreme strong support, not sure we should even list most units per WP:DICTIONARY. Note that we already include {{VA link|English units}}. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
5. Support per above. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
6. The article is far from vital. --ZergTwo (talk) 03:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Removed 6-0 per WP:AVALANCHE. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

;Support

1. Seems nebulous. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Makkool (talk) 16:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
3. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Extreme strong support, not sure we should even list most units per WP:DICTIONARY. Note that we already include {{VA link|English units}}. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
5. Support per above. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
6. The article is far from vital. --ZergTwo (talk) 03:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Removed 6-0 per WP:AVALANCHE. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

;Support

1. Described as medieval. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Makkool (talk) 16:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
3. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Extreme strong support, not sure we should even list most units per WP:DICTIONARY. Note that we already include {{VA link|English units}}. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
5. Support per above. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
6. The article is far from vital. --ZergTwo (talk) 03:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Removed 6-0 per WP:AVALANCHE. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

;Support

1. Described as now obscure. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Makkool (talk) 16:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
3. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Extreme strong support, not sure we should even list most units per WP:DICTIONARY. Note that we already include {{VA link|English units}}. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
5. Support per above. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
6. The article is not important enough to be vital. --ZergTwo (talk) 03:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Removed 6-0 per WP:AVALANCHE. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

;Support

1. Described as "cannot be stated as a standard number..." as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Makkool (talk) 16:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
3. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Extreme strong support, not sure we should even list most units per WP:DICTIONARY. Note that we already include {{VA link|English units}}. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
5. Support per above. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
6. The article is far from vital. --ZergTwo (talk) 03:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Removed 6-0 per WP:AVALANCHE. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

;Support

1. Described in past tense. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Makkool (talk) 16:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
3. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Extreme strong support, not sure we should even list most units per WP:DICTIONARY.
5. Support per above. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
6. The article is far from vital. --ZergTwo (talk) 03:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Removed 6-0 per WP:AVALANCHE. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

;Support

1. Described nebulously as "any one of several weight measures". as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Makkool (talk) 16:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
3. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Extreme strong support, not sure we should even list most units per WP:DICTIONARY.
5. Support per above. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
6. The article is far from vital. --ZergTwo (talk) 03:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Removed 6-0 per WP:AVALANCHE. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

;Support

1. Described as a term of Ancient Rome. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Makkool (talk) 16:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
3. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Extreme strong support, not sure we should even list most units per WP:DICTIONARY. Wouldn't be opposed to the single article {{VA link|Ancient Roman units of measurement}} though. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
5. Support per above. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
6. The article is far from vital. --ZergTwo (talk) 03:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Removed 6-0 per WP:AVALANCHE. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

;Support

1. Described as no longer common. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Makkool (talk) 16:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
3. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Extreme strong support, not sure we should even list most units per WP:DICTIONARY. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
5. Support per above. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
6. The article is far from vital. --ZergTwo (talk) 03:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Removed 6-0 per WP:AVALANCHE. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

;Support

1. Seems to have too many different measures to makes sense as vital, IMO. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Makkool (talk) 16:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
3. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Extreme strong support, not sure we should even list most units per WP:DICTIONARY. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
5. Support per above. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
6. The article is not important enough to be vital. --ZergTwo (talk) 03:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Removed 6-0 per WP:AVALANCHE. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

;Support

1. Described as not well defined. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Makkool (talk) 16:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
3. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Extreme strong support, not sure we should even list most units per WP:DICTIONARY. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
5. Support per above. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
6. The article is far from vital. --ZergTwo (talk) 03:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Removed 6-0 per WP:AVALANCHE. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

;Support

1. Described with "no generally accepted standard". as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Makkool (talk) 16:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
3. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Extreme strong support, not sure we should even list most units per WP:DICTIONARY. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
5. Support per above. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
6. The article is not important enough to be vital. --ZergTwo (talk) 03:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{clear}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Removed 5-0 per WP:AVALANCHE. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

It's enough we list {{VA link|Submarine communications cable}}

;Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 17:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
2. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Yes, plus we typically discourage (though don't prohibit) list articles. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
4. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 10:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
5. Support. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discussion

I think it is surprising that {{VA link|Submarine communications cable}} is only V5. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 22:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{clear}}

{{atopg

| status = resolved

| result = Rogue edit but appears to be benign, removed from list. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

Per Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/STEM/Archive_2#Remove_3dfx,_Creative_Technology,_Gen_Digital,_and_Unisys, 3dfx should not have been on the list, but it remains listed. Please advise.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 09:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• Odd, it should have been remove back then. Somebody claimed in the discussion, that it would have been removed already, but it was back on the list. Went ahead and removed it now. Makkool (talk) 10:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
• I would have done that, but I was not sure if there was a subsequent discussion to readd it.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
• :Just for reference, it looked like somebody boldly added it here: Special:Diff/1251623948. I don't think there's any ill intent though; it looks like the user is just really into graphics cards and didn't realize the process. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{clear}}

{{atop

| status = redundant

| result = Already proposed in another discussion. Makkool (talk) 20:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

I'm shocked at this omission.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{clear}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Added 4-0. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

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

Support

1. As nominator Tabu Makiadi (talk) 18:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
2. Good point, about the precedent of including Roman roads. I'm no archaeologist, but the Incan road system also had a well-developed plan for complementary buildings (granaries, caravanserais, govt. archives, etc.) Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
3. Kevinishere15 (talk) 19:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
4. Support GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{clear}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Added 4-0. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

;Support

1. I mildly support. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 23:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
2. Support Kevinishere15 (talk) 02:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
3. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
4. Mild support, still may belong more in Everyday Life, but this has both engineering & environmental relevance. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

neutral for now, but I'm not sure how I feel about adding items primarily just for their ordinariness. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{clear}}

{{atopr

| status = failed

| result = Not added 3-2. Proposed 15 days ago as part of a batch of 18 units. The other 17 all passed without post haste. No votes in the last 9 days. I'm happy to see that 17 of 18 passed and that people paid close enough attention to pick one out that was a different (possibly high enough) level of vitality.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

;Support

1. Described as a legacy unit. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Strong support, even if this one is more technical; not sure we should even list most units per WP:DICTIONARY. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Support per above. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Propably vital enough. We could have some legacy units for history's sake. Makkool (talk) 16:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
2. The article is not very important, but enough to be vital. --ZergTwo (talk) 03:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{clear}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Added 5-1. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

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

;Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 19:52, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
2. We have the room and we've now added Typhoon. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
3. More vital than Typhoon, actually. --ZergTwo (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Makkool (talk) 10:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
5. Suport. To address opposition, regional hurricanes have important cultural significance to different cultural groups. They are extreme weather events and I think vital to include. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. I don't understand why regional hurricanes are vital.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
2. :I think the abstract physics are the same, but the similarities end there. The ocean currents, geography, and especially historical data are all different. I guess it would be a bit like listing different animal species from the same family. Like I mentioned too, we still have room in the section, plus we've already added {{VA link|Typhoon}} as precedent. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Removed 4-0. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

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

;Support

1. As nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 15:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
2. Per nom Makkool (talk) 10:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
3. per nom. starship.paint (talk / cont) 02:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
4. support  Carlwev  23:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

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

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Added 4-0. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

The most populous climate zone hosting over 2 billion people.

;Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 18:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
2. Suppot. If not here, this could fit under the geography section as well. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
3. Sure, why not? -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
4. Makkool (talk) 10:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

;Discussion

Based on our organization, should this be under geography? There are a lot of places it could go. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

:I figured it would just go in Earth Science; we already list our other climate types there. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Added 4-0. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

Another populated climate zone not listed.

;Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 01:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
2. Suppot. If not here, this could fit under the geography section as well. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
3. Sure, why not? -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
4. Makkool (talk) 10:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Removed 4-0, consider nominating a "principles of knot-tying" article, even if a redlink. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

Is probably another list that shouldn't be vital.Makkool (talk) 10:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

:FYK {{VA link|Knot}}-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 10:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Weak support, I could actually see knots being one of our exceptions to lists at VA. However, more than listing knots, I think what we really want is something that gives more depth to the topic (like a "principles of knot tying" article?) I'm not sure such an article exists though, and we can cut this in the meantime. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Support per above. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Support, roughly agree with above, perhaps knots could be covered in more detail, but not lists, they will tangle the project up.  Carlwev  23:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Added 4-0. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

Was cut between this and body hair, although this is longer, in more languages (68) and rated slightly higher in the same wikiprojects. (I am suggesting to remove Bowl cut on a different page, kind of a swap

I guess). We list several articles to do with hair, this seems more vital than many of them, almost universal across the world and across time, both/all genders. Would have to be in biology though, due to it being a natural thing rather than created. Seems much more vital than articles under hairstyle in everyday life like bowl cut, goatee, quiff, and flattop for an encyclopaedia, some of which we could remove.

;Support

1. As nom.  Carlwev  09:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
2. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Surprisingly high number of interwikis.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
4. :Would support body hair too.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:30, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
5. Makkool (talk) 21:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Swapped (7-0 for add, 5-2 for removal), closing a bit early per WP:BUREAU. Consider nominating {{VA link|Klein bottle}} and {{VA link|Regular polytope}}. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

The first is a theoretical 4-dimensional geometric shape, the latter is a more well-known topic in topology and geometry. They are rated Low-priority and High-priority respectively in Wikiproject Mathematics.

;Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 20:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
2. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 21:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Support  Carlwev  23:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
4. ZergTwo (talk) 22:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
5. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Mixed

1. Strong support addition, oppose removal. We should definitely list {{VA link|Möbius strip}} (and also {{VA link|Klein bottle}}), but see below for more details on the {{VA link|120-cell}}. The wikiproject priorities can also be really wonky (last I checked in Math, a lot of High-priority ones were very esoteric while some very elementary concepts were Mid or lower). -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Per above, support addition oppose removal. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

;Discuss

Just to add some context: the {{VA link|120-cell}} isn't listed arbitrarily, but it and the other shapes (like the {{VA link|Tesseract}}) are each analogous to a 3-dimensional {{VA link|Platonic solid}}. So if you cut it, you're then listing all but one of the most regular, 4-dimensional, "edged" shapes. It would be more consistent if we wanted to cut back the entire 4-dimensional subtopic, but we still have the cushion in Math for now, plus I feel there are better subtopics to target for trimming. I can suggest a bunch too, but with the STEM page creeping back towards 200 kB, I've been holding back on new proposals. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

:I realized this, but it wouldn't be "all but one." 600-cell has been already previously removed. They both assessed Low-importance, so the justification for 120 and 600-cells would be the same. I checked that Tesseract is High-importance, so that we should surely keep that. Not need to removed all of them from the list. Makkool (talk) 19:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

::Hmm, if everyone wants to sort of half fill-out that class of objects, I won't complain. There aren't many though and that subtopic is very tiny (and almost definitely under-represented), I'd personally still lean more towards putting them all in. We do technically still have room and can probably find more without requiring swaps. I'm probably letting my mathematician-side bias me though (complete classifications are always nice).

::For the WikiProject ratings, while they're definitely good for thinking up proposals, I'm still really skeptical about citing them as evidence. In this case specifically, I'd consider it a possible inconsistency that the tesseract is High-priority while some of the other regular 4-polytopes are Low instead of Mid at least. More generally, the priorities can be very arbitrary: esoteric things like C*-algebra and de Rham cohomology are listed as High, while relatively elementary concepts are rated lower, such as Sylow theorems (Mid) or Extended Euclidean algorithm (Low). Zar2gar1 (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

{{ping|Makkool}} So I've thought about this and looked over the geometry section some more, and I still want to leave my vote here as is. But if we want to revisit this in a clean proposal, once the talk page has settled down some, I would be fine cutting most of the specific 4-polytopes in exchange for adding at least {{VA link|Regular polytope}}. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{clear}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Added 4-0. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

United States Navy ballistic Missile Submarines currently in service.

;Support

1. As nomGeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
2. Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
3. Necessary for understanding the U.S. nuclear triad. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 06:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
4. Very weak support, mainly just to close the proposal out for now; not sure how this biases our coverage either. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{clear}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Added 4-0. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

British Royal Navy Ballistic Missile Submarine currently in service.

;Support

1. As nomGeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
2. Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
3. For the same reasons as Ohio. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 06:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
4. Very weak support, mainly just to close the proposal out for now; not sure how this biases our coverage either. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Added 4-0. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

New class of Russian submarines replacing Soviet legacy fleet.

;Support

1. As nomGeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
2. Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
3. Yes, same reasoning as Ohio. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 06:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
4. Very weak support, mainly just to close the proposal out for now; not sure how this biases our coverage either. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Added 4-0. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

Soviet nuclear attack submarine currently in service with Russia.

;Support

1. As nomGeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
2. Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
3. Yes, significantly influenced the course of submarine development. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 06:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
4. Very weak support, mainly just to close the proposal out for now; not sure how this biases our coverage either. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Added 4-0. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

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

;Support

1. As nomGeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
2. Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
3. The definitional example of the modern supercarrier. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 06:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
4. Very weak support, mainly just to close the proposal out for now; not sure how this biases our coverage either. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{clear}}

{{atopr

| status = failed

| result = Not added 2-2. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

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

;Support

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

;Oppose

1. Only built in small numbers, service record consists primarily of catching fire and being repaired, or being sold off to China (which is actively developing a nuclear-powered carrier to replace them as of November 2024).⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 03:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
2. Very weak oppose, if only to close out the proposal while keeping an eye on the Tech quota. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discussion

@Makkool, did you mean to support this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeogSage (talk • contribs) 17:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

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

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Added 4-0. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

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

;Support

1. As nomGeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
2. Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
3. Vitally important to WWII history. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 06:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
4. Very weak support, mainly just to close the proposal out for now; not sure how this biases our coverage either. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopr

| status = failed

| result = Not added 1-3. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

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

;Support

1. As nomGeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Only two ever built, Bismarck was destroyed on her first sortie, while Tirpitz accomplished nothing other than constantly being damaged and going in for repairs before being herself destroyed. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 03:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
2. Changing vote to oppose. Would support the specific warship Bismarck instead of the ship class article. Makkool (talk) 17:47, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
3. Very weak oppose, if only to close out the proposal while keeping an eye on the Tech quota. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discussion

@Makkool, I thought of this, but the German Battleship Tirpitz also had a significant role in WWII. while the Bismarck is the more famous of the ships, the Tirpitz had a bit more of a service history (Obviously) and impacted some parts of the war, if only by forcing the British to commit resources to trying to hunt it down and defend against it. From a historic persepctive, the Bismark is certainly more discussed, but from a technological perspecitve both ships seem impactful. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

:I hear you, but I'd say the more famous status of Bismarck would have priority in my book. Makkool (talk) 12:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Added 4-0, closing a bit earlier than 7 days per WP:BUREAU. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

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

;Support

1. As nomGeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
2. Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
3. Vital to understanding the age of ironclads. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 06:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
4. Very weak support, mainly just to close the proposal out for now; not sure how this biases our coverage either. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Added 4-0. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

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

;Support

1. As nomGeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
2. Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
3. Vital to understanding the age of ironclads. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 06:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
4. Very weak support, mainly just to close the proposal out for now; not sure how this biases our coverage either. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{clear}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Added 4-0. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

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

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
2. The definitional Warsaw Pact attack helicopter family of the Cold War and extensively used in conflicts around the world. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 02:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
3. Makkool (talk) 17:48, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
4. Very weak support, mainly just to close the proposal out for now; not sure how this biases our coverage either. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{clear}}

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

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Added 4-0. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

US WWII tank.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
2. Extremely important to WWII.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 04:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
3. Makkool (talk) 17:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
4. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Added 4-0. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

Current U.S. Main battle tank.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
2. Extremely important to late-Cold War and post-Cold War history of several nations, not just the U.S.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 04:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
3. Makkool (talk) 17:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
4. Very weak support, mainly just to close the proposal out for now; not sure how this biases our coverage either. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

;Proposal signature

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

{{abot}}

{{clear}}

I propose adding all or some subset of {{VA link|Cage}}, {{VA link|Clamshell (container)}}, {{VA link|Disposable cup}}, {{VA link|Bucket}}, {{VA link|Plastic bottle}}, {{VA link|Vial}}, {{VA link|Test tube}}, {{VA link|Pipette}}, because they are all objects that many of us interact with often or every day. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 23:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

:N.B. This nomination was split at 03:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC). Previous discussant preferences of User:Mathwriter2718, User:Kevinishere15 and User:Zar2gar1 were interpreted and included at the time of the split by me.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Added 4-0. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

;Support

1. I mildly support. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 23:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
2. Support Kevinishere15 (talk) 02:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
3. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
4. Weak support but let's go ahead and push this across the finish line. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

neutral for now, but I'm not sure how I feel about adding items primarily just for their ordinariness. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopr

| status = failed

| result = Not added 1-2, technically only 3 participants, but 2 opposing here and WP:BUREAU. If reopening/revisiting, propose on Society page for Everyday Life. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

;Support

1. I mildly support. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 23:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Leaning oppose. Kevinishere15 (talk) 02:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
2. Oppose here, but neutral if moved to Everyday Life. I had to think about it more, and while there is engineering behind this product, the primary justification is its every-day-ness. So it should really be ranked against Everyday Life articles, especially when Tech is so bloated. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

neutral for now, but I'm not sure how I feel about adding items primarily just for their ordinariness. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopr

| status = failed

| result = Not added 2-2, suggestion to revisit proposing Disposable product later. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

;Support

1. I mildly support. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 23:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
2. Support Kevinishere15 (talk) 02:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Would rather see a space go to Disposable product so as to include disposable plates, disposable utensils and more.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:24, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
2. :This makes sense. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 13:45, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
3. ::User:Mathwriter2718, Would you like to withdraw this proposal and nominate the suggested item?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:52, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
4. :::@TonyTheTiger sure. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 14:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
5. Weak oppose, largely to close the proposal out, but I would probably support {{VA link|Disposable product}}, which is notable from several angles. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

neutral for now, but I'm not sure how I feel about adding items primarily just for their ordinariness. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{clear}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Added 4-0. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

;Support

1. I mildly support. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 23:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
2. Support Kevinishere15 (talk) 02:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
3. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
4. Weak support but let's go ahead and push this across the finish line. This one could arguably go in Chemistry or Science Basics too. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

neutral for now, but I'm not sure how I feel about adding items primarily just for their ordinariness. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Added 4-0. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

;Support

1. I mildly support. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 23:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
2. Support Kevinishere15 (talk) 02:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
3. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
4. Weak support but let's go ahead and push this across the finish line. This one could arguably go in Chemistry or Science Basics too. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

neutral for now, but I'm not sure how I feel about adding items primarily just for their ordinariness. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{clear}}

{{atop}}

;Support

1. I mildly support adding all. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 23:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
2. Leaning oppose on Clamshell, support the rest. Kevinishere15 (talk) 02:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

I think I'm still neutral on all for now, but I'm not sure how I feel about adding items primarily just for their ordinariness. OTOH, vial, test tube, and pipette could possibly go under Science instead of Tech. This is somewhere we're still disorganized and inconsistent, but some scientific equipment is listed with the relevant science, while others are in Tech. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

:User:Mathwriter2718, I would like to see this nomination split into separate items. I am not sure that they all are of similar vitality for consideration.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

::@TonyTheTiger you're right, this should be split. I'm not sure what the kosher way of doing this is. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 02:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{clear}}

Of the 21 architectural elements at Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Technology#Architectural_elements, 16 are Level 4. With 16 level 4 items it seems surpising that only 21 are level 5. I feel several of these should be level 5, given the list of level 4 elements: {{VA link|Arch}}, {{VA link|Ceiling}}, {{VA link|Column}}, {{VA link|Door}}, {{VA link|Elevator}}, {{VA link|Façade}}, {{VA link|Floor}}, {{VA link|Foundation (engineering)}}, {{VA link|Ladder}}, {{VA link|Lighting}}, {{VA link|Roof}}, {{VA link|Room}}, {{VA link|Stairs}}, {{VA link|Wall}}, and {{VA link|Window}}, -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

:{{ping|TonyTheTiger}} I'm neutral on most of these architectural topics (but support a few); I pretty much don't know how I feel about prioritizing things for how common they are. I'll wait a bit to start a separate discussion, but these got me thinking about something more general. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Added 4-0 to Everyday Life section. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

;Support

1. as nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
2. Support  Carlwev  16:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
3. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 15:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Oppose here, but weak support in Everyday Life. I missed some of these from earlier. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Added 4-0 as subitem of {{VA link|Fortification}}. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

;Support

1. as nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
2. Support  Carlwev  16:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
3. Support, but it should go under Fortification Makkool (talk) 11:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Support under Fortification per Makkool. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{clear}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Added 4-0. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

;Support

1. as nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
2. Support  Carlwev  16:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
3. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 14:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
4. Support, had to think about it more, but drainage is actually a major engineering issue in construction. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{clear}}

{{atopr

| status = failed

| result = Not removed 2-2, likely borderline for VA5 but opposers noted close connection to {{VA link|Arrow}}, which has a deep history. Consider revisiting for removal in the future. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

With only 9 interwikis, this seems quite niche.-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)
2. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 10:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. This technology revolutionized a lot of human society involving hunting and warfare. It is at least as vital as {{VA link|Smokeless powder}}, and probably on the level of {{VA link|Gunpowder}} in reality. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
2. But with {{VA link|Arrow}} only being VA5, do we need both {{VA link|Arrowhead}} and {{VA link|Fletching}}. It should all be reasonably covered at Arrow. Just today, I decided not to make nomination of Fire alarm call box since we have {{VA link|Fire alarm system}}. Then I decided not to nominate Earlobe and Ear canal on top of nominating Outer ear.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:59, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
3. :I think Arrow should likely be higher then it is, however these should be looked at in the context of the overall weapon system, {{VA link|Bow and arrow}} (and to a lesser extent {{VA link|Crossbow}}). Here we don't seem to have a standalone article for "bow," but do have some specialty bows such as the {{VA link|Recurve bow}}, and an article for {{VA link|Bowstring}} is listed. For {{VA link|Arrow}}, we have {{VA link|Fletching}}, and {{VA link|Arrowhead}}. It's important to note that fletching is important to {{VA link|Crossbow bolt}} as well as arrow. The word has some relevance with the {{VA link|Flechette}}. We list out each component of a computer, the parts of a bow and arrow are only less important because of recent innovations. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
4. ::FYI, In December we reduced {{VA link|Bow and arrow}} from 3 to 4.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
5. I could support removing {{VA link|Arrowhead}} too.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
6. Weak oppose, for now at least. This is definitely on the border for Lv5, and the article isn't long at the moment, but in a way, I feel this provides the sort of depth we need more of on Lv5 Tech. Along with {{VA link|Arrowhead}}, this gets behind the simple concept, and while it's niche for modern society, arrows have such a deep history that probably warrants listing 1 or 2 craft details. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{clear}}

Keep in mind that the Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Biology and health sciences/Biology section that includes anatomy is at 1068/1200 (11% under quota)-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:42, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Added 5-0 to Chemistry, consider nominating {{VA link|Biological membrane}} in the future. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

;Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
2. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 15:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
3. Definitely, but might this be better in Chemistry? -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
4. This wasn't added before? Also, I believe this article would be better in biology. Chemistry doesn't mention membranes a lot, at least that's what I believe. --ZergTwo (talk) 23:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
5. Support. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

;Discussion

I double-checked the article and this one definitely belongs under Chemistry (still vital for sure though). Except for a brief mention in the first paragraph of the lead, the entire article is apparently about artificial membranes, with sections on things like process operating modes and recycling used reverse-osmosis filters. There is, however, a separate {{VA link|Biological membrane}} article that I would support too. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

:If this passes, I may nominate a swap with biological membrane.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Added 5-0. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

;Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
2. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 15:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
3. Definitely. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
4. This wasn't added before? --ZergTwo (talk) 23:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
5. Support. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Added 4-0. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

;Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
2. Definitely. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Looks vital to me. --ZergTwo (talk) 23:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Support. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Added 4-0. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

;Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
2. Definitely. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Of course it should. --ZergTwo (talk) 23:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Support. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{clear}}

Since Safe just passed, I have a few more nominees:

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Added 4-0, closing a bit early per WP:BUREAU. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

;Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
2. Definitely vital enough to include. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Support. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Weak support, I guess this is distinct enough from a generic {{VA link|Lock and key}}, at least for now.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zar2gar1 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:47, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{clear}}

{{atopr

| status = failed

| result = Not added 1-3 per WP:SNOW. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

;Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Too niche Mathwriter2718 (talk) 15:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
2. Does not seem vital, and the low interwiki count also shows that it isn't very important. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Oppose. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{clear}}