Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/STEM/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/STEM. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Add several statistics pages

Latest comment: 16 days ago34 comments7 people in discussion

Kriging

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

---

Kriging is a family of Interpolation   5 statistics. It is likely the most widely employed.

Support

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

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

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

Getis–Ord statistics

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

---

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

 

HotSpot map of the estimated percent of people 25 or over without a high school diploma by county in the contiguous United States in 2020

Support

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

Oppose

1. Autocorrelation   5 is more vital yet not V5.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:39, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

   Thanks for pointing that out, I just nominated autocorrelation. I'm always surprised at what is missing from this project and what is prioritized. I think both should definitely be included. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 07:01, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

   You seem to have gotten very active recently. Probably as you got active you noticed that your specialty seemed in need of more subjects. I have only been active here about a year and a half, but before you were active there was a big movement to strip out a lot of state capitals, state population leaders, and I think even some small country capitals. I got fed up with it all and was not active for a few months. I think they stripped out regions. Now you show up with a lot of interesting topics. I would personally rather readd the 35th or 40th most important U.S. State capital than a lot of these geography topics that you come up with. In fact, the more that you come up with, the more pissed I am that so many modestly important cities were stripped because I think they would serve us better than a lot of them. However, if we are not going to readd those, I think geography should give spaces to other subjects. I'd rather see the 3rd or 4th most important painting by Monet or Lichtenstein get the slot than have a geography expert fill them up to the best of his ability. I am not feeling this nom and it is representative of many that you post. I'd rather have modest cities back than half of these. I'd even rather let musicians or actors bloat than some of these. We really chopped U.S. politicians. I'd rather the 15th through 30th most important U.S. president be added back. I really think we are getting in the weeds on geography and think there are better subjects to include.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:24, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

   I think GeogSage's proposals have been a really welcome addition to the project. Geography hasn't received similar attention during the time when the list was assembled. Comparing to Mathematics or the other STEM subjects it doesn't have the same depth and lacks as advanced topics as for example Mathematics has in Vital articles. The situation is the same with Psychology or with Literature which is my specialty. (But with Lit I've faced up the fact that we're never be able to include as many basic topics as I would like to because the works take so many slots) So I think it's good were working on a neglected subject now. My wish would be that some psychologist would join us as well to further broaden the list's coverage. If it were upto me, we'd cut Mathematics and Physical sciences down until all subjects have about the same level of higher and advanced topics. Makkool (talk) 09:24, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

   Thank you, I'm glad I'm not making everyone "pissed" by my participation. I wish there were more experts involved across the board. Random question, when it comes to literature, do you believe the works or authors are generally more "vital" based on the project criteria? Psychology and health is painfully under represented, psychology has 220 articles, Mental disorders has 70, and Psychiatric drugs has 18. That is a huge blind spot in coverage that should be addressed. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:48, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

   I'm not the one you asked, but I say authors vs. works go on a case-by-case basis, but often an author known for multiple influential works would go higher; William Shakespeare   3 & Hamlet   4 and J. K. Rowling   5 & Harry Potter   4 are examples of good arrangements IMO.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 01:06, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

   Thanks for the feedback none the less. This is one I've struggled with in terms of thinking about books and works. While it would always be case by case, this is less obvious then other areas as to which way it leans in my opinion. Most academic's are going to be vital based on their whole career, it's unlikely that a single work would be important enough to include. A band or musicians will be included before their music it seems as music has 824 articles while musicians and composers have 1408. These sections I don't have much opinion on. For film, We have 212 specific films, 481 actors, 466 actresses, and 387 film directors. These sections feel wrong to me, as I think the movies themselves are more important then the people in them, so the slant towards people feels wildly unbalanced. I think we could/should the people involved with movies and replace them with movies, if nothing else. I'm not a film buff, but I watch a movie every week and rarely repeat, so I've seen more then 212 films in the last 4ish years. I couldn't tell you the directors, actors, or actresses of half of them. Literature has 1040 and we have 902 prose writers, which is a better ratio in my opinion, but I'm not sure how literature people feel about that compared to other media. I tend to discuss book titles more then authors, which is what I've noticed others doing. There are some major authors though, so the ratio of slightly more books to prose writers makes some sense. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:29, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

   My free time has changed recently, so I can't be as active on other areas of Wikipedia. Looking at the vital articles is less thought/time intensive then writing stuff, and my writing time is all dedicated to professional pursuits lately. I vote on breaks when my code is running or I need a break from grading papers. I'm a geographer/cartographer, so my opinion on what is vital is likely to be different from others. I think it's kind of like a mechanic thinking a Camshaft   5 (big oof, I just checked to see if that was vital when making the example) is vital while a non-mechanic might think Ford Mustang   5 is much more important. If your measure for vitality is how much you would like to read the article, then I can't help you, but if that's how people are voting I understand why the list has so many sports figures and celebrities. Different experiences lead to different perceptions, for example regions/cities are much less important to me then concepts like Moran's I or Getis-Ord statistics. I have had to do spatial-temporal analysis using historic records, meaning I've had to make the corrections for changing boundaries, place names, etc., or determine when it is impossible and note it, and feel cities/regions are constantly in a state of change. Defining regions is subjective, and having sat through long winded debates on drawing lines for them, I feel they're more social construct then objective reality. Trying to nail down a list of place names feels like an exercise in futility to me. For a geographer/cartographer, in my opinion, Getis-Ord Statistics are extremely important, and unless we invent something better will likely see use. You're idea of geography and mine are fundamentally different. I'd rather have a collection of experts nominate what they think is vital to their discipline then rely on what people who aren't involved in the discipline find interesting. I'd say that it looks like the geography section was put together by 5th graders, but Children's books include Tobler and Tobler's first law of geography, something widely debated, cited, and discussed in geography but impossible to add here because it isn't something most people stumble upon. I'm sorry if the stuff I "come up with" to make the section reflect my values makes you feel "pissed," but I don't really feel the need to change my votes or what I nominate based on that. Is this comment just you thinking out loud, or is there something constructive you want me to do? GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:37, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

   We used to list Cam (mechanism) until it was moved from the primary topic and dropped from the list instead of corrected: Special:Diff/1197682591. I think I added it during the WP:BRD era and decided not to list Camshaft   5 as a strongly overlapping, slightly more auto-centric topic. I know that's not your point, but it does suggest that emotional attachment to an ideal of the VA list is a recipe for disappointment. Time devours everything. But we do still list Cam follower   5 and Tappet   5 (which arguably should be merged) so it's not a total loss!

   I think both you and TonyTheTiger come up with a lot of good ideas, both as proposers and voters, and I'm glad you're both here. And honestly, I don't think anyone stays at this WikiProject (or much of Wikipedia) more than a month without wanting to pull out their hair, or somebody else's. I hope you both can work things out and get past this recent friction.

   That said, I do think we all need to double-check how we're participating here from time to time. I'm almost positive my weird conditional votes and nagging about "the process" are annoying at least some of you. At the same time, I'll cop to being bothered by how uneven participation is becoming. Just here, we're back over 3x what Wikipedia generally considers an unwieldy talk-page, but until Interstellarity dropped by this weekend, the top proposal had been languishing since October. And Makkool's still waiting since mid-Nov on a 4th yea to see if we're going to add Incunable   5 or not.

   Maybe I'm wrong and some people just want to vote, but assuming we all want to participate fully in roughly the same amount, almost nothing will pass unless we average 3 votes minimum for every proposal of our own. And that's before considering any concrete issues with bandwidth (i.e. cognitive load on voters and closers), which will only become more precious now that Lv5 is effectively full and almost everything will take more deliberation than before. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:57, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

   I hope you did't get the impression that I am pissed. I just get annoyed when the changing sentiments wipe out subjects that I feel are vital. You are a great contributor. I just look at some specialized geog topics and wonder if it is really more important than things we have decided to cast off. Since you keep coming up with them, I keep wondering this. We have enough good minds to weed through your suggestions. I often make batches looking to see what sticks to the wall. Keep up the good work although we won't always agree.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:23, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

   TBF, I think a large part of why the geography proposals have such momentum is they're overwhelmingly going to sections we still haven't finished topping up initially. I know others don't approach it that way, but in my mind, we're still brainstorming and the votes are mainly rubber-stamping. Many may turn out too niche, but it will be easier to determine that once we have full & reorganized sections to compare against.

   That's true to a point even for these Math proposals. While we're at quota, we're also making balanced cuts and Stats is definitely under-represented within the section. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

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

Moran's I

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

---

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

Support

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

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

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

Scan statistic

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

---

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

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Strong support, really good find, can also apply to things like Time series   5 and scanning text, genomes, etc. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 11:12, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

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

Neutral

Discuss

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

Bernoulli distribution   5

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

---

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

Support

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

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Proposal signature

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

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

Add some statistical/geographical problems

Latest comment: 5 days ago20 comments7 people in discussion

Adding some commonly referenced problems in statistics/spatial statics.

Modifiable Areal Unit Problem

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

---

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

Support

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

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

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

Modifiable temporal unit problem   5

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

---

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

Support

1. As nom GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Sure, should probably go in Math -> Statistics. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 21:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Earth605 (talk) 17:48, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

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

Ecological fallacy   5

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

---

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

Support

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

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

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

Optimal facility ___location

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

---

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

Support

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

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Proposal signature

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

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

Add Activities of daily living

Latest comment: 16 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

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

---

Under Health and fitness: General.

Activities like self care and eating, the kinds of things people might need help with in assisted living.

Support

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

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

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

Add Pheromone  5

Latest comment: 15 days ago8 comments8 people in discussion

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

---

I'm a bit surprised this wasn't listed. Pheromones are commonly used by animals for signalling.

Support

1. As nom. 96.89.118.93 (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
2. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 23:44, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
3. Big miss, potentially Level 4. ALittleClass (talk) 08:24, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
4. supoort  Carlwev  12:36, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
5. This is level 4 Earth605 (talk) 18:44, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
6. V4 indeed. Sigh. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:28, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
7. +1 --ZergTwo (talk) 19:28, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

Remove Animal-free agriculture

Latest comment: 10 days ago5 comments5 people in discussion

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

---

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

Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:16, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Makkool (talk) 06:28, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Pretty nicje. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:48, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Yes, yes, yes, and yes! This should be removed Earth605 (talk) 19:30, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

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

Remove Microcar

Latest comment: 10 days ago6 comments6 people in discussion

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

---

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

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:48, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Makkool (talk) 17:14, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
3. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 17:15, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
4. No business being vital, but needs improvement. Will place at WP:AFI. Earth605 (talk) 06:12, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

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

Discuss

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

Swap Duodecimal with 100

Latest comment: 5 days ago9 comments5 people in discussion

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

---

We capture the base 10 system Decimal   4 adequately by including numbers 1 through 10 (among others). I believe 100 is not necessary to include, and the base 12 Duodecimal system is extremely important historically and has implications today. Quoting the article, "Historically, units of time in many civilizations are duodecimal. There are twelve signs of the zodiac, twelve months in a year, and the Babylonians had twelve hours in a day (although at some point, this was changed to 24). Traditional Chinese calendars, clocks, and compasses are based on the twelve Earthly Branches or 24 (12×2) Solar terms. There are 12 inches in an imperial foot, 12 troy ounces in a troy pound, 12 old British pence in a shilling, 24 (12×2) hours in a day; many other items are counted by the dozen, gross (144, square of 12), or great gross (1728, cube of 12). The Romans used a fraction system based on 12, including the uncia, which became both the English words ounce and inch. Pre-decimalisation, Ireland and the United Kingdom used a mixed duodecimal-vigesimal currency system (12 pence = 1 shilling, 20 shillings or 240 pence to the pound sterling or Irish pound), and Charlemagne established a monetary system that also had a mixed base of twelve and twenty, the remnants of which persist in many places." Above I am suggesting a swap to remove 1000, if both pass this would reduce the number of numbers we include. I include this proposal of Duodecimal, but under it we could justify adding numbers 11 and 12 as well. I don't think that's necessary, so think we should cut the numbers above 10 unless there is specific reason.

Support swap

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

Support straight add

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

Support removal only

1. I've never particularly liked over-listing simple constants and functions; they may be well-known but mathematically, most aren't actually more important or interesting than any other random number. As for Duodecimal, not only was the previous consensus to remove pretty strong, but I think as a mathematical topic, we implicitly subsumed it along with Vigesimal under Sexagesimal   5 for now. Maybe we add both back someday, but for now, I think we have bigger gaps to fill in. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Let's just remove 100 from the list so we don't go over quota, shall we? Earth605 (talk) 19:07, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

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

Neutral

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

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

Discuss other possible swaps.

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

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

Add missing exercises

Latest comment: 5 days ago39 comments10 people in discussion

We only list Pull-up   5, Push-up   5, and Sit-up   5 in terms of exercises. Here are a few more common ones that arguably need no explanation that I am putting up for proposal.

Add Lunge (exercise)

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

---

Support

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

Oppose

1. Not as impactful or famous as the others. Earth605 (talk) 07:34, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

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

Add Burpee (exercise)

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

---

Support

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

Oppose

1. I think this one is sufficiently covered by Push up and Jumping jack. ALittleClass (talk) 02:51, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
2. If Push up and Jumping jack become lvl 4, which they absolutely they should, then yes. Earth605 (talk) 06:07, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

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

Add Jumping jack   5

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

---

Support

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

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

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

Add Crunch (exercise)   5

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

---

Support

1. As nom. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 02:40, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
3. -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:32, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
4. Yup. Earth605 (talk) 07:35, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

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

Add Plank (exercise)   5

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

---

Support

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

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

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

Add Squat (exercise)   5

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

---

Support

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

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

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

Add Bench press   5

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

---

Support

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

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

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

Add Deadlift   5

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

---

Support

1. As nom. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 02:40, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
3. ALittleClass (talk) 02:51, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
4. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:33, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

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