Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/STEM/Archive 8#Alternate proposal: swap for Problem statement

{{atopg|status=failed|result=Not added 1-3 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 15:31, 30 April 2025 (UTC)}}

These devices were the precursor to smartphones.

;Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 01:41, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Oppose, partly just on procedure (Tech is over quota & computing is way over-represented). -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Oppose, might be possible to swap if there's a less deserving tech article, but tech is over-quota. Mrfoogles (talk) 02:00, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Weak oppose. Short-lived in the greater scheme of things. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:26, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discussion

If you add this now, it will be removed in 10 years. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 14:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

Went through the list we have for {{VA link|Infrastructure}} and of the 239 articles we have in that section, these jumped out as ones we might be able to remove.

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Removed 4-1. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

}}

We list 5 broad types of environmental remediation in addition to {{VA link|Environmental remediation}}. I think we can trim this.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Support  Carlwev  23:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Low view count Makkool (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
4. per nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:09, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Weak oppose for now, I'll have to push back on this one at least. The title is convoluted and the current page isn't great, but IIUC this is pretty much a default method for treating many brownfield sites. I'm also struggling to believe waste management and remediation are where we're over-represented right now. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
2. :To address all the comments, {{VA link|Environmental remediation}} is only level 5 but has 9 articles in the section, all at level 5. This made me think the section was either over represented, or some needed to be bumped to level 4. Looking at Environmental remediation, there are a few pages like {{VA link|Thermal desorption}} that could also be added based on the existing articles, but I don't really think it should be. I looked at [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2015-07-01&end=2025-01-15&pages=Remediation_of_contaminated_sites_with_cement|Soil_vapor_extraction|In_situ_chemical_oxidation|Groundwater_remediation|Phytoremediation|Biostimulation|Bioaugmentation|Bioremediation|Environmental_remediation|Thermal_desorption page views] for all 9 over roughly 10 years (plus Thermal desorption for comparison). I proposed cutting the lowest viewed of the 9, Remediation of contaminated sites with cement (17,661 views), and In situ chemical oxidation (66,978 views). {{VA link|Bioremediation}} has 3 sub articles, all also at level 5, so I proposed cutting all three as I believe bioremediation covered the topic fairly well. I don't feel strongly about any, just trying to make room. If these fail, I'll likely nominate Environmental remediation to level 4 (we might want to do that anyway). GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Removed 4-0. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

}}

We list 5 broad types of environmental remediation in addition to {{VA link|Environmental remediation}}. I think we can trim this.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Weak support, no section should be immune from quota discipline. IIUC this is a relatively newer and rarer technique so we can cut it for now; we can always re-evaluate later and add it back if we need it. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 20:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Low view count Makkool (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
4. per nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:09, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

Weak oppose for now, the title is convoluted and the current page isn't great, but I'm struggling to believe waste management and remediation are where we're over-represented right now. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopr

| status = Failed.

| result = Not removed, closed 3-2. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:22, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

I believe {{VA link|Bioremediation}} is adequate, and we don't need to list out three articles for sub-methods.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Low view count Makkool (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
3. per nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:09, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Weak oppose, I see your point that maybe these turn out to be niche in the long-run, but I'm struggling to believe waste management and remediation are where we're over-represented right now. As an argument for keeping them, the 3 sub-methods add depth in complementary ways, this one through bacterial cultures (and a pretty active research area IIUC). -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Per above; this is an interesting concept I didn't know about before. Mrfoogles (talk) 02:23, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

;Neural

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopr

| status = failed

| result = Not removed 1-2. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

}}

I believe {{VA link|Bioremediation}} is adequate, and we don't need to list out three articles for sub-methods.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Oppose, I see your point that maybe these turn out to be niche in the long-run, but I'm struggling to believe waste management and remediation are where we're over-represented right now. As an argument for keeping them, the 3 sub-methods add depth in complementary ways, this one through plants (and a pretty active research area IIUC). -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Per above Makkool (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Removed 5-0. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

}}

I believe {{VA link|Bioremediation}} is adequate, and we don't need to list out three articles for sub-methods.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Support  Carlwev  23:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Weak support, no section should be immune from quota discipline. IIUC this is a relatively simple technique that only gets used in ideal conditions. It's also less actively researched than the other two forms of bioremediation. So let's cut it for now; we can always re-evaluate later and add it back if need be. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 20:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Low view count Makkool (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
5. per nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:10, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

Weak oppose for now, I see your point that maybe these turn out to be niche in the long-run, but I'm struggling to believe waste management and remediation are where we're over-represented right now. As an argument for keeping them, the 3 sub-methods add depth in complementary ways (this one through fertilizer-like means). -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopy

| status = moved

| result = Not removed 1-3, but all agreed to move to Architecture. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

}}

We list {{VA link|Buttress}}, I don't think this specific type is necessary.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Strong oppose of removal, but support moving to Architecture. Some would say this is the characteristic innovation of Gothic architecture. Tech may not be the best place for it (though it is fundamentally an engineering solution), but I don't see how we can omit this at Lv5. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
2. :I could support moving it. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Support move per above Makkool (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
4. per above.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:09, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Removed 4-1. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:23, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

We list {{VA link|Tunnel}} and {{VA link|Tunnel construction}}, I don't think this method is necessary.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Low view count Makkool (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
3. per nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:09, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
4. Very niche. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Weak oppose, I see your point that maybe these turn out to be niche in the long-run, but I'm struggling to see how construction techniques are over-represented right now. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

;Proposal signature

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop}}

{{ping|GeogSage}} Hi there, I saw your comment above about the pageview statistics, but I thought I would reply here to minimize any clutter, and also as more of a notice for everyone to participate. I'm not surprised at all that pageviews are low for all of these topics, and they're definitely starting to get into details we may ultimately decide are too niche for Lv5. As these progress, I might even concede and switch to cutting 1 or 2, probably {{VA link|Biostimulation}} first.

I'm mostly opposed to cutting any of these for now though because I think it's part of a trend we really need to move away from:

• Unpopular topics are shaved to squeeze a few more slots, without any consideration for their economic impact or the part they play in wider systems or technical solutions.
• At the same time, we only keep adding to categories that are consumer-facing and receive media attention

At 9 articles right now, environmental remediation topics only take up ~0.28% of our entire 3,200 article allotment. I'm not suggesting this as a mechanical rule, but compare that to the topic's % GDP share as an industry in any technologically complex economy. From that PoV, I imagine we're an entire order lower in representation. Meanwhile, Computing & IT takes up a whopping ~19.56% of our allotment.

And for all of that leeway, the Computing section is frankly a hot mess. Just on its own terms, we're still missing basic, applied software concepts like {{VA link|Unit testing}}, {{VA link|Continuous integration}}, {{VA link|Software design pattern}}, and {{VA link|Database transaction}} (or {{VA link|ACID}}). But we do list {{VA link|Pornhub}}, {{VA link|WinRAR}}, over 30 social media apps, and at least 20 or so specific file extensions.

I can't and don't want to stop people from proposing what they're interested in. But when we still don't even list things like {{VA link|Forest management}}, {{VA link|Joinery}}, or {{VA link|Waste collection}}, not to mention engineering concepts, I feel like I have to hold the line on cutting topics like this. And yes, I should be more proactive about making proposals myself, but I keep hoping the page will shrink to a more manageable size first. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

:Fair, I try to balance additions I propose with removal proposals, even if it isn't a one to one swap. Also, while going through the lists and skimming stuff from a more top down POV to see what we have, I'm drawn more to areas I have knowledge about and avoid others that take more research on my part. These in this one might be over zealous. I haven't taken a class that touches on remediation for a decade, so I'm probably really rusty. I'm trying to work out a smooth way to get a solid series of proposals for geography, and this stuff I notice along the way. I'm trying to get around 80% of what I think needs to be on the list to at least level 5 while moving a few things to around at the higher levels where possible. I'm struggling with the projects organization when it comes to tech/history/geography and things like spatial statistics and math. Not sure where the various topics should be in the project. For example, I proposed the V-2 Rocket here, but I think it could just as easily be in history.

:The Computer software is a hot mess. I've tried to chip off sections, but it is hard to sort. I think we could start proposing swaps for it, rather then outright removals or additions. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

::No worries, you're good. And like I said, you're definitely not wrong that these are less popular and probably more niche. Partly in the spirit of compromise, and partly in line with my "war of maneuver" view of VA5, I decided to switch my vote on ISCO and Biostimulation. If it turns out we need them and more, we can always add them back later.

::But yeah, I don't know exactly why, but balance definitely seems to be ignored especially in the Tech section. My theory is simply that we don't get many engineers or technical specialists coming through (power engineering is a weird exception) so most proposals relate to consumer-facing and/or in-the-news topics. I've actually never studied remediation so if anyone has better topics in mind, I'd be all for adding them; I guess I've just hung around enough people in adjacent fields to be aware of it.

::As for the Software section, it is definitely a big ball of mud. I think if we get a little more space here, I can figure out a way to prioritize some cuts. Even before that though, once things settle down on the Lv5 talk page, I may have a clean way to trim the most egregious stuff pretty quickly. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 20:12, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Added 5-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 08:38, 25 March 2025 (UTC)}}

We have {{VA link|Mineral}} and {{VA link|Vitamin}}, but these seems different and vital.

;Support

1. As nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Sure, easy to add both, under Biology basics / Biochemistry? -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
3. Support both Makkool (talk) 19:54, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
4. Support to add both articles. --Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 14:46, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
5. Definitely add both. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 19:26, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopy

| status = Closed

| result = Already on VA4. Aurangzebra (talk) 20:07, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

}}

Under Hydraulic infrastructure.

; Support

1. 3df (talk) 02:39, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
2. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 08:31, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

; Oppose

; Neutral

; Discuss

1. This is already VA4 ({{VA link|Aqueduct (water supply)}}) so I will be closing this. Aurangzebra (talk) 20:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop

| status = Passed

| result = Uncontroversial removal per Interstellarity. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 01:47, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

}}

Article just links to the Level 4 VA {{VA link|Means of communication}}. There's literally zero point to list this.

;Support

1. As nom. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:@JpTheNotSoSuperior: I think this is probably uncontroversial, so being bold and doing it yourself is probably best. Interstellarity (talk) 20:58, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atop

| status = Passed

| result = Uncontroversial swap per Interstellarity. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 01:47, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

}}

Trailer is a disambiguation page and should not be listed. Considering where it's placed under Technology, I believe that trailer (vehicle) was meant to be listed under there.

;Support

1. As nom. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 18:55, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:Also uncontroversial per my statement above. Interstellarity (talk) 20:59, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Added 4-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 19:33, 30 April 2025 (UTC)}}

This is a very high level topic that I'm surprised isn't already included. I think this should be higher then level 5 but starting here. The article itself is pretty self explanatory, but from the lede "Analysis (pl.: analyses) is the process of breaking a complex topic or substance into smaller parts in order to gain a better understanding of it. The technique has been applied in the study of mathematics and logic since before Aristotle (384–322 B.C.), though analysis as a formal concept is a relatively recent development."

;Support

1. As nom GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
2. We didn't already include this? Oof. Strong support, can go under Science -> Basics. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Definitely. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 19:16, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
4. 3df (talk) 21:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

1. {{ping|GeogSage}} Where should we list it? Lophotrochozoa (talk) 16:50, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:I'd imagine mathematics would be the most appropriate place, just based on the articles lead. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:27, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Physical sciences/Basics and measurement#Science basics together with {{VA link|Scientific method}} and {{VA link|Research}}? (Would vote support BTW but can't remember current rules about waiting to close after last vote.)--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 18:44, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

;Proposal signature

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Added 4-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:59, 30 April 2025 (UTC)}}

This NAZI weapon was the first artificial object to travel into space by crossing the Kármán line (edge of space) with the vertical launch of MW 18014 on 20 June 1944. After WWII, the U.S.A. brought several NAZI scientists involved in the project to the U.S. through {{VA link|Operation Paperclip}}. The Soviet Union captured the manufacturing facilities for the rockets and brought them to the USSR. This weapon helped serve as the foundation for space programs in the United States, USSR, France, the United Kingdom, and China.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
2. per nom Aurangzebra (talk) 02:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Weak support, would be stronger if we weren't over quota. I get the feeling we'll need to revisit specific military plaforms at some point, but this one is pretty notable. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
4. :Definitely. As you know, I recently proposed cutting several military aircraft and other weapons, as well as proposing some others. I think the cuts were not as successful as the additions I proposed, which is a shame. Don't know how to approach cutting it back without repeating failed proposals. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
5. Agreed. Has cultural and technological significance. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:28, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

;Proposal signature

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = removed

| result = Removed all. See table for breakdown of votes. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:52, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

}}

We are starting to bump into the upper levels of quota, and math is over quota while still missing many important concepts. We need to make tough decisions, and I think cutting most of the numbers would be a good start. I believe we can start with the ones that are at level 5, and I'm going to propose bringing the ones at higher levels down. In this proposal, we'll start with {{VA link|One half}}, {{VA link|2}}, {{VA link|3}}, {{VA link|4}}, {{VA link|5}}, {{VA link|6}}, {{VA link|7}}, {{VA link|8}}, {{VA link|9}}, {{VA link|10}}, {{VA link|100}}, and {{VA link|1000 (number)}}.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:25, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Support all, for the same basis as we don't have individual letters of the alphabet Makkool (talk) 17:12, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
3. Support removing only One half, 100, and 1000 for now, unsure about the rest. This is something where we really need to have a discussion about what vital means for the math section. I'm mostly on the side of adding more depth, but there are also cultural considerations (e.g. {{VA link|Numerology}} for the small counting numbers). -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
4. Support 2-9.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:54, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
5. Support all -- reading the articles, they aren't really all that helpful. Numerology works for covering its topics, probably Mrfoogles (talk) 01:58, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
6. Support only 9 and 1000 for now. Least culturally significant.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:38, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Weak oppose all except 100 and 1000, as I think they are all very important. Support cutting 100 and 1000 for now. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:02, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
2. oppose half, 100 and 1000. I think the arguments here are all backwards. 100 and 1000 are the important numbers up for discussion here. The metric system changes names every 1000. We add a comma for every 1000. PerCENTages are based on 100.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:54, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
3. :We include {{VA link|Metric system}}, do we need to include these? If so, why not 1,000,000 or 1,000,000,000 or 1,000,000,000,000? We don't even include the {{VA link|Duodecimal}} (base 12) system, much less {{VA link|12}}, which while not as prominent to day as the metric still has remnants used around the world, in many of our units of time, as well as in Imperial measurements. With all that we don't include, I don't think we need a particular focus on specific numbers. While we include {{VA link|Hexadecimal}} (base 16), we don't include {{VA link|16}}, {{VA link|Base32}} (duotrigesimal), or {{VA link|Base64}} (tetrasexagesimal), despite the importance of these to computers today. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:12, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
4. ::User:GeogSage, other numbers that start with 1 and end with zero have nothing to do with the arguments in favor of 100 and 1000. In almost every country that has a dollar, they are made up of 100 cents. Percentages are parts of 100. Meters, grams go from meters to Kilo-. Every 1000x they are renamed.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:06, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:25, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopr

| status = passed

| result = Removed 4-0. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:34, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

Technology is over quota, so something has to go, and this seems like a good candidate for removal. This object is an obscure tool used in fashion design to make curves. It does not seem vital enough to warrant listing.

;Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:01, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Support  Carlwev  12:28, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Makkool (talk) 06:28, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
4. Very niche. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:47, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

Reading article, it looks like a specific kind of "stencil". Stencil is not listed, and it's not more vital than than. I would probably support swapping in stencil, which wouldn't help get the numbers down, either way I would support removing this, with or without a swap.  Carlwev  12:28, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Added 4-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 10:54, 1 May 2025 (UTC)}}

(Some support already suggested within pubic hair above, so will open this) We list a lot of hairstyles and more are being proposed. Even if we end up listing both pubic and body hair surely body hair is more vital than many numerous articles dedicated to a single hairstyle for an encyclopedia.

;Support

1. As nom.  Carlwev  17:52, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
2. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 18:27, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
3. Pretty obvious. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 19:19, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
4. 3df (talk) 21:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = passed

| result = Removed 4-0. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:38, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

From the lede, The article is about "crosshairs on the reticle of a theodolite or other surveying instrument that allow stadiametric rangefinding"

We list theodolite at level 4 and reticle at level 5. I guess they are kind of important to people that use them, but really Why the article which is essentially only about the lines that appear on a reticle is vital independently and separately from the article about reticle itself, I cannot see. It might be an unfair comparison but in my head it would be like suggesting the line marks on a ruler or tape measure need their own article and that article should also be vital in addition to ruler. There is not really any vital information that could appear in stadia mark article, that could not appear in the article about reticle.

Also...this is a start class with 2 references and only appears in 2 other languages. Has an average of 25 daily page views [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=all-time&pages=Stadia_mark] and has only been edited 39 times in the 18 years the article has existed.

;Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  16:46, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
2. I'm not even sure if this should be a standalone article, so it definitely shouldn't be listed here. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:07, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
3. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 22:20, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Per above. Sahaib (talk) 22:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atop|Already listed Lophotrochozoa (talk) 14:31, 2 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Mono seems vital to me.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Support. "Health, medicine, and disease" still has a bit of room (a bit more then 50 according to the chart), but we have a lot missing still from it in my opinion. We will either need to give it more space or start making cuts from it sooner rather then later. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:42, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Strong support, this is an easy add, good find. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:03, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discussion

{{abot}}

{{atopr|status=failed|result=Not added 2-3 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 00:07, 3 May 2025 (UTC)}}

It looks like we are going to add {{VA link|Disposable product}}. This is a great umbrella term that encompasses a wide variety of disposable products. In relation to this topic, we list {{VA link|Towel}}, {{VA link|Toilet paper}} and {{VA link|Paper towel}}, but don't list {{VA link|Disposable towel}}, or other items. I think we can keep toilet paper as it is a huge hygiene topic, but other disposable products are probably unnecessary to include. With both disposable product and towel included, I believe we can drop this one.

;Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:22, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Sure, we also already cover more of the production details with {{VA link|Tissue paper}} (which is not just a consumer product). -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. If we added {{VA link|Aluminium foil}} and are going to add {{VA link|Plastic wrap}} soon, then we should keep this to match. Makkool (talk) 19:22, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Everyday item. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 19:19, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
3. I think such everyday items are vital at V5. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:31, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:22, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg|status=passed|result=added 4-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 17:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)}}

An observable event that we all see. Interstellarity (talk) 01:56, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 01:56, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Support, but with Philosophy. These are definitely important to Science, but not only, plus the topic is very abstract with mostly philosophical details. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Support in Philosophy Makkool (talk) 19:54, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
4. Per above. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Added 8-1 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)}}

;Support

1. support As nom. -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:55, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Sure, good find, probably works in Human Physiology or Anatomy (though {{VA link|Hand}} itself may be more general for all primates). -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 23:07, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
3. Makkool (talk) 19:06, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
4. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:04, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
5. Definitely worth listing. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:23, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
6. feminist🩸 (talk) 03:41, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
7. Support as a left-handed person. Sahaib (talk) 09:28, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
8. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:36, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. We are over quota. This might be okay, with a swap.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:54, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
2. :I don't think that is a valid argument. As of January 29, overall Biology and health sciences is 5486/5600 and Biology, biochemistry, anatomy, and physiology is 1076/1100. Swaps are not necessary. In fact, we need adds.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:39, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

;Proposal signature

TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:55, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{Atop|status=passed|result=By discussion on the level 4 talk page Lophotrochozoa (talk) 19:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)}}

I have proposed elsewhere that {{VA link|Plant}}, {{VA link|Flowering plant}}, {{VA link|Dicotyledon}}, {{VA link|Eudicots}}, {{VA link|Magnoliids}}, and {{VA link|Monocotyledon}} should be moved from Botany to Plants and I would like to notify here, especially since I wasn't clear about which entries I wanted to move until after the first votes. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 21:26, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

:So you would probably want to take a vote on it, but like I mentioned on Lv4, I personally think the entire Botany section should be moved from Biology to Plants (and Zoology to Animals). On a related note, the current Health section could also arguably become the Human-specific one (Health, Medicine, Human anatomy, even Human evolution). More to your point, if you boldly move a few other plant topics out of General Biology, I personally won't complain. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Added 4-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 19:51, 6 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Since I manage my own money, this seems like an important type of chart. Let me know if you agree.

;Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:06, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Support. What other charts are we missing, if any? We should probably add all the major ones taught in intro stats/finance courses. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:02, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Weak support, oppose adding further charts for now. Math is over quota and we still really haven't discussed what our balance between topics should be. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 19:59, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discussion

{{ping|TonyTheTiger}} {{ping|GeogSage}} {{ping|Zar2gar1}} {{ping|Tabu Makiadi}} Where should we list it? Lophotrochozoa (talk) 17:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:Statistics and probability> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Mathematics#Statistics Statistics] > Data and information visualization GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Added 5-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)}}

20/20 vision, which is quite important, redirects to this article.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:18, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

;Support

1. support As nom. -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:17, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Not over the quota for this section AFAICT, and this makes sense to list. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:53, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
3. per nom Aurangzebra (talk) 18:20, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
4. Per nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:22, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
5. Sure, appears to be human-specific so Human Phyisiology or Anatomy (though {{VA link|Eye}} is technically much more general). -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 23:07, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

{{strikethrough|#We are over quota. This might be okay, with a swap.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:54, 8 February 2025 (UTC)}}

1. :I don't think that is a valid argument. As of January 29, overall Biology and health sciences is 5486/5600 and Biology, biochemistry, anatomy, and physiology is 1076/1100. Also, Health, medicine, and disease is 1047/1100. Swaps are not necessary. In fact, we need adds.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:40, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
2. ::Sorry, confused with the T and M sections. Health, medicine, and disease are on my Radar because I think they to be expanded in quota by a thousand, at least. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:21, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
3. :{{ping|GeogSage}} Please explain how we are over the quota here, I'm not seeing it. The general project and this specific topic page are both under their quotas. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discuss

;Proposal signature

TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:17, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Added 4-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 19:46, 7 May 2025 (UTC)}}

among the most abundant and well studied birds in North America.

;Support

1. -1ctinus📝🗨 23:05, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 19:06, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
3. Sure, the Animals section may be seeing changes soon, but I think we have room for 1 more well-known songbird. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
4. I agree. This bird was a spark bird for me when I moved to the suburbs from NYC. I had never seen anything like it, mostly pigeons, gulls and sparrows. --Needsmoreritalin (talk) 02:07, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Removed 4-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 13:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Not sure why this is listed. I don't think it makes any sense to list this when we already have articles on the list that cover similar things.

;Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 01:33, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Sure, though this is actually kind of an interesting timeline, the current precedent is to deprecate lists, plus we already include {{VA link|Chronology of the universe}}. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:03, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
3. Makkool (talk) 19:54, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
4. I think lists should only be excluded if they're a directory type of list. This is not a directory, but provides sufficient information to a reader even if they don't click any links. That said, this is redundant to Chronology of the Universe. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:41, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Removed 4-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 13:40, 8 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Similar reasons for nom above.

;Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 02:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Sure, though this is actually kind of an interesting timeline, the current precedent is to deprecate lists, plus we already include {{VA link|History of life}}. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:03, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
3. Makkool (talk) 19:54, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
4. I think lists should only be excluded if they're a directory type of list. This is not a directory, but provides sufficient information to a reader even if they don't click any links. That said, this is redundant to History of life. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:42, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Added 5-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 13:59, 8 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Extremely important tool, used by miners and farmers for thousands of years, and well-known in popular culture. 59 interwikis, rated High-Importance by WikiProject Mining.

;Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:57, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
2. I support this add, but would prefer a swap. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:29, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
3. Obviously. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
4. Support. Probably a bit more vital than mattock which is listed.  Carlwev  16:47, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
5. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 17:00, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Added 4-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:59, 8 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Let's add heart transplantation, kidney transplantation, skin grafting to the health and medicine list. Heart transplantation and kidney transplantation are labelled high importance by WPMedicine and represent popularly known organ transplants. Skin grafting is historically important as the first human-human allotransplantation performed.

;Support

1. Cincotta1 (talk) 18:57, 7 March 2025 (UTC) As Nom
2. Support all. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 23:17, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Support all -- under quota Mrfoogles (talk) 01:52, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Famous procedures. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Discussion

{{abot}}

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Added 6-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:15, 8 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Vasectomy is one of the most effective methods of birth control. According to the article, this procedure is performed on about 500,000 men per year in the USA (not sure about the worldwide rate).

;Support

1. As nominator. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 23:14, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
2. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 23:29, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Per nom. --Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 08:21, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
4. Per nom. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 19:32, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
5.  Carlwev  14:19, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
6. How is this article not a VA already? --ZergTwo (talk) 19:41, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Comments

{{abot}}

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Added 4-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:33, 8 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Health is under quota, and stomach ulcers are certainly vital enough to include. They are present in about 4% of the world's population. 71 interwikis, rated High-Importance by WikiProject Medicine.

;Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:40, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Sahaib (talk) 08:32, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Common medical issue, many interwikis, and the article is long, indicating there's a lot to say about the subject. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 06:04, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
4. Marked high importance by wp:med and >50 interwikis. As a disease, prevalence is measured in percentage which means it is really common, and it causes >300,000 deaths global (albeit mostly in developing countries without good medical systems). From a popular perspective, I think most people have encountered the claims that worry and stress will give you ulcers, and since the connection to bacterial infections was only found in recent memory, many people have probably have encountered conflicting information about the cause and would seek clarity from wikipedia.--Cincotta1 (talk) 14:12, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopg

| status = PASSED

| result = Added 4-1. Added in architecture since it doesn't make much sense to not include it there, and only one person objects to that. PrimalMustelid (talk) 12:33, 9 March 2025 (UTC) PrimalMustelid (talk) 12:33, 9 March 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) 14:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
4. PrimalMustelid (talk) 12:27, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

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

;Neutral

;Discussion

{{abot}}

{{atopr|status=failed|result=Not added 3-2 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 13:00, 8 May 2025 (UTC)}}

N.B. {{VA link|stairs}} above

;Support

1. as nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
2. Obviously. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 19:05, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 21:57, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Oppose here, but weak support in Everyday Life or Architecture. I missed some of these from earlier. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Redundant with Stairs. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:31, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discussion

1. Maybe staircase should be moved to stairwell, since this is the article about the room of stairs.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Added 4-0
Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:48, 29 April 2025 (UTC)}}

;Support

1. as nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
2. Obviously. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 19:05, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 00:00, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
4. Of course. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:19, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Oppose here, but neutral if moved to Everyday Life. I had to think about it more, and while there is craft knowledge behind this, the primary justification is its every-day-ness. So it should really be ranked against Everyday Life articles, especially when Tech is so bloated. Actually, Everyday Life may be a better place for all specific rooms (they're defined by use patterns, not necessarily technical design). -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discussion

Maybe this should just be merged into {{VA link|Hall}}-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:56, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

:No, it's not the same thing at all. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 00:00, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atopr|status=failed|result=Not added 3-3 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 11:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)}}

;Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:43, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
2. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Ubiquitous. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:20, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Oppose here, but neutral if moved to Everyday Life. I had to think about it more, but I'm not sure this adds much technical depth to the underlying switch article. The relationship to lighting is all about use so should probably be judged on every-day-ness. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Redundant with Switch. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 16:27, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
3. I agree, redundant with Switch. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:30, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discussion

{{abot}}

{{atopr|status=failed|result=Not added 3-2 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 17:19, 10 May 2025 (UTC)}}

;Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:43, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
2. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:09, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Oppose here, but neutral in Everday Life. they definitely involve engineering, but with our current space, not sure this adds enough that isn't already covered by other Electricity articles. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Until recently added (just below) {{VA link|Power cable}} gets to V4. Then - sure. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:22, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discussion

{{abot}}

{{atopg|status=Passed|result=Added 4-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 17:50, 9 April 2025 (UTC)}}

;Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:43, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
2. Support, not sure how I feel about the others yet, but since this also stands in for {{VA link|High-voltage cable}}, let's add it. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
3. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
4. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discussion

{{abot}}

{{atopr|status=failed|result=Not added 3-2 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 19:49, 29 April 2025 (UTC)}}

;Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:43, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
2. Has had wide ramifications Mathwriter2718 (talk) 15:35, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
3. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

;Oppose

1. Weak oppose, purely on annoying procedural grounds. If someone suggests 2 or more Computing / Consumer electronics articles to cut though, I'll switch to weak support. They're notable, but I'm not sure how much coverage camera + phone actually adds to {{VA link|Smartphone}} and {{VA link|Camera}}. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Too technical; it's pretty much one of many functionalities of modern mobile. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:22, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

;Neutral

;Discussion

{{abot}}

{{atopr|status=failed|result=Not added 1-2 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 12:16, 25 May 2025 (UTC)}}

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

;Support

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

;Oppose

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

;Neutral

;Discussion

{{abot}}

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

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

;Support

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

;Oppose

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

;Neutral

;Discuss

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

{{abot}}

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

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

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

;Support

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

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

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

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

;Support

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

;Oppose

;Neutral

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

;Discuss

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

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

{{abot}}

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

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

;Support

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

;Oppose

;Neutral

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

;Discuss

{{abot}}

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

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

;Support

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

;Oppose

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

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Added 4-1 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 16:28, 20 May 2025 (UTC)}}

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

;Support

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

;Oppose

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

;Neutral

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

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Added 4-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:23, 20 May 2025 (UTC)}}

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

;Support

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

;Oppose

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

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Added 4-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 11:51, 25 May 2025 (UTC)}}

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

;Support

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

;Oppose

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

;Neutral

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

;Discuss

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

{{abot}}

{{atopg|status=passed|rresult=Added 4-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 21:08, 22 May 2025 (UTC)}}

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

;Support

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

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

:{{ping|Lophotrochozoa}} Would this be added to swords? EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:51, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::Done. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:48, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Added 4-1 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 17:45, 21 May 2025 (UTC)}}

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

;Support

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

;Oppose

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

;Neutral

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

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

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

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

;Proposal signature

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

{{abot}}

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

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

;Support

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

;Oppose

;Discuss

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

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

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

{{abot}}

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

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

;Support

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

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

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

{{abot}}

{{atop|status=partial pass|result=One article added 4-0
The other article relisted 3-1
Millstone added in preference of grindstone1-0
Lophotrochozoa (talk) 13:56, 20 May 2025 (UTC)}}

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

;Support

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

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

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

{{abot}}

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

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

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

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

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

::{{ping|Cincotta1}} Since we have four votes, I can close this discussion now that it's over a week since your comment. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 17:30, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

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

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

;Support

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

;Oppose

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

;Neutral

;Discuss

;Proposal signature

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

{{abot}}

{{atop|status=partial pass|result=Shutter speed added 4-1
Film speed not added 3-2
Lophotrochozoa (talk) 17:55, 18 May 2025 (UTC)}}

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

;Support

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

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

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

{{abot}}

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

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

;Support

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

;Oppose

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

;Discussion

{{abot}}

Technology is over-quota, so while I don't disagree per se, this should be a swap. Looking for swaps, Problem statement seems fairly unnecessary -- as an article it just describes "Writing down what the problem is" -- it really doesn't need to be a vital article. So, I propose swapping out problem statement. Pinging prior participants: @Carlwev, @GeogSage, @TonyTheTiger, @Kevinishere15, @LaukkuTheGreit.

;Support

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

;Oppose

;Discussion

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

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Added 4-1 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 16:59, 18 May 2025 (UTC)}}

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

;Support

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

;Oppose

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

;Discuss

{{abot}}

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

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

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

;Support all

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

;Support some

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

;Oppose

;Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

{{abot}}

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

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

;Support

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

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discussion

{{abot}}

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Added 4-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 13:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC)}}

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

;Support

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

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discussion

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

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

::It looks like some of the isotopes have potential to become longer. (I'm thinking of 230 and 233, 229m is long but too niche to be vital) Changed to neutral. --Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 14:04, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

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

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

;Support

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

;Oppose

;Discussion

{{abot}}

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

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

;Support

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

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

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

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

;Support

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

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

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

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

;Support

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

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

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

{{abot}}

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

We seriously haven't listed this yet?

;Support

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

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Added 4-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 14:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)}}

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

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

{{abot}}

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

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

;Support

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

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

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

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

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

;Support

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

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

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

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

;Support

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

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Added 4-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:51, 25 May 2025 (UTC)}}

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

;Support

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

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

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

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

;Support

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

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

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

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

;Keep

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

;Remove

;Neutral

;Discussion

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

{{abot}}

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

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

;Support

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

;Oppose

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopg|staus|passed|result=Added 4-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)}}

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

; Support

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

; Oppose

; Neutral

; Discuss

{{abot}}

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

Under Nutrition.

; Support

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

; Oppose

; Neutral

; Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Added 4-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Under Nutrition.

; Support

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

; Oppose

; Neutral

; Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Added 4-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 19:52, 21 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Under Nutrition.

; Support

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

; Oppose

; Neutral

; Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Added 4-1 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:01, 21 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Under Specific drugs.

; Support

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

; Oppose

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

; Neutral

; Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopg|status=passed|Added 4-0, under working animals, not under cattle. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:12, 25 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Common type of cattle that has not been listed yet.

;Support

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

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

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

{{abot}}

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

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

;Support

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

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Added 4-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2025 (UTC)}}

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

;Support

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

;Oppose

;Comment

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

{{abot}}

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

So how is this not listed yet?

;Support

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

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

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

{{abot}}

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

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

;Support

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

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

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

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

;Support

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

;Oppose

;Neutral

;Discuss

{{abot}}

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Added 4-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 14:32, 22 May 2025 (UTC)}}

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

;Support

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

;Oppose

;Discussion

{{abot}}

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

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

;Support

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

;Oppose

;Discussion

{{abot}}

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Removed 4-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 17:11, 23 May 2025 (UTC)}}

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

;Support

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

{{abot}}

{{atopg|status=passed|Added 4-0 under Car. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 21:37, 23 May 2025 (UTC)}}

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

;Support

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

;Oppose

;Discussion

{{abot}}

{{atopg|status=passed|result=Added 5-0 Lophotrochozoa (talk) 23:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)}}

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

;Support

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

;Oppose

;Discussion

{{abot}}