Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/STEM
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Vital articles/Level/5/STEM redirect. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 12 months  |
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Introduction
editThe purpose of this discussion page is to select 50,000 topics for which Wikipedia should have high-quality articles.
Any article currently on this list may be challenged. The discussion is open to the following rules:
| P = passes F = fails |
opposing votes | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ||
| 0 | supporting votes
|
– | – | – | – | F | F | F | F | F | F |
| 1 | – | – | – | F | F | F | F | F | F | F | |
| 2 | – | – | F | F | F | F | F | F | F | F | |
| 3 | – | F | F | F | F | F | F | F | F | F | |
| 4 | P | P | P | F | F | F | F | F | F | F | |
| 5 | P | P | P | P | F | F | F | F | F | F | |
| 6 | P | P | P | P | F | F | F | F | F | F | |
| 7 | P | P | P | P | P | F | F | F | F | F | |
| 8 | P | P | P | P | P | P | F | F | F | F | |
| 9 | P | P | P | P | P | P | F | F | F | F | |
- Before being closed, a Level 5 proposal must:
- Run for at least 15 days; AND
- Allow at least 7 days after the most recent vote; AND
- Have at least 4 participants.
- For a proposal to be implemented on the Level 5 list:
- It must have over 60% support (see table); AND
- It must have at least 4 support votes !votes.
- For proposed additions from August 2024 onwards, the nominator should list (and possibly link to) at least one potential section in the level 5 vital articles list for the article to be added to. Supporters can also help in this regard.
For reference, the following times apply for today:
- 15 days ago is: 21:39, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
- 7 days ago is: 21:39, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
If you're interested in regularly participating as a closer, the following browser tools may also be helpful:
- Streamlined closing with User:DaxServer/DiscussionCloser.js
- One click archiving with User:Elli/OneClickArchiver
- Consider User:andrybak/Scripts/Archiver if you prefer archiving several discussions in one go
The following links represent all current Level 5 Vital articles that are classified as STEM subjects:
This is a common supplement available at American grocery stores, often sold as Oxitriptan. The 5-Hydroxytryptophan page has an average of 792 pageviews per day over the past 10 years. In the views, you can see there has been some fluctuations in view counts, but there has been a recent spike over the past year or so. There are some pretty serious side effects if the supplement is misused, so I believe it would be important to include on the list to increase attention on it.
- Support
- As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 20:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- After some thought, sure. Naturally occurring so let's list it under Biochemistry. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:58, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- It seems better to list Oxitriptan. If we do list either, it should be under antidepressant drugs, as its biological role it not enough to list it for that reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lophotrochozoa (talk • contribs) 15:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
- After thinking about it, no, as it's not broad in any way and if its just to increase attention, there are other ways. Earth605 (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discuss
If its because it needs attention, vehemently oppose, as vital articles is to highlight articles that need attention because they are important. Mostly in Level 5, as here are where most of the "subpages" of other articles that are already level 4. Would support listing Oxitriptan to level 4 and then listing 5-Hydroxytryptophan here. I don't know if that would succeed, but count on me. Earth605 (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
- Proposal signature
Remove Oil tanker 
5
edit
We include Tanker (ship) 
4 at level 4. I'm not sure including oil tanker lot adds much, and we could use the space for other stuff.
- Support
- Oppose
- Major type of a sea vessel. Since tanker is V4, this can be at V5. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:40, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Per Prokonsul Piotrosul Earth605 (talk) 06:13, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
Another I'm on the fence about (full disclosure: I may have added this during the WP:BRD era). There's obvious overlap with the main Tanker article, but this is a much meatier article that also touches on unique geopolitical aspects. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
- Discuss
Add military tanks (alternative proposals)
edit@Swatjester mentioned these as alternatives to some previous proposals that failed. These would go to Military technology.
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 Cold War era Soviet tank. The most widely produced tank in history and still widely in use today.
- Support
- As nom. Makkool (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- Per nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 01:23, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- Per nom. In continuous service for 77 years and counting, and used in more than 50 significant conflicts. YFB ¿ 17:57, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
WW2 German tank, one of the most impactful tanks on the war. The only German tank to serve the entirety of the war.
- Support
- As nom. Makkool (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- Per nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 01:23, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- Iconic tank. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 23:13, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- I thought this was already vital Earth605 (talk) 17:52, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
Add Panther tank
editWW2 German tank, one of the most impactful tanks on the war. Widely considered to be one of the best German tanks.
- Support
- As nom. Makkool (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- I think one Nazi tank is enough personally, and think the Panze IV is more vital. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 01:23, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discuss
- Are there any swaps we can make, rather then straight adds? GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 21:32, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- I proposed some below in another section. Makkool (talk) 22:30, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks, voted on them as well. Appreciate the effort to balance this, I think planes are WAY over represented compared to other types of vehicles, and American vehicles are also way over represented. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 01:24, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- I proposed some below in another section. Makkool (talk) 22:30, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- Tiger is more famous, I think. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:41, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
Reorganizing animals?
editIn the table at the main level 5 page, User:Zar2gar1 wrote "Reorganize" next to Animals. What kind of reorganizatoin do they have in mind? Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:41, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- Mainly the one we've discussed elsewhere: Zoology concepts and Animal Anatomy should probably be moved in from General Bio. Plus TonyTheTiger has many more basic anatomy proposals in play here, some of which are already added to Animals. There's also the various sorting that I think you and Tony have been working on.
- We can do the same with the other Bio sections, but since those aren't close to quota yet, adding isn't an issue. I marked the Animals section as "Reorganize" so that people know not to get hung-up on things like balance or the quota just yet. The list and article count will still be in flux until the new organization is mostly complete. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:41, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
Add Trieste (bathyscaphe) to Naval transport
editThe bathyscaphe Trieste and its dive to the Challenger Deep is still interesting to a lot of users every month despite that this had happend some decades ago. There are Trieste articles in 29 languages. Right now its actually rated as non vital and C-Class. What´s your opinion about rating it as Level 5 vital? Yeti-Hunter (talk) 15:31, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
- Hello everybody, I re-new my proposal about adding the bathyscaphe Trieste. I just checked its page view statistic and the monthly average since April 2020 is 17.5k user views, albeit I have to admit that the Titan disaster contributed in an enourmous way to this number in June and July 2023 (415.6k respectivly 47.9k). Besides these two months the page view numbers per month varies between 6.69k and 18.4k with an average of 9.3k user views per month. Despite the fact that the bathyscaphe dived the last time long time ago, plenty of people are still interested to get proper information about it. I think the article could gain advantage of being upgraded from no vital to five.So, is it worth to shuffle other articles around to make space in the STEM section or is it not worth? Cheers Yeti-Hunter (talk) 10:55, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
- Support
- Support per nom. Makkool (talk) 18:14, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
- As nom. Yeti-Hunter (talk) 09:32, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- I would support this as a swap. It's a significant peace of oceanographic research history, but we'll have to be enforcing the Technology quota. Makkool (talk) 09:11, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, you mean a swap with an article e.g. Motor ship 5? Yeti-Hunter (talk) 11:54, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, but actually when we moved rooms and spaces out, the Technology quota is much more manageable now. So I would be actually supporting. Makkool (talk) 18:14, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, you mean a swap with an article e.g. Motor ship
- Discuss
Add a few isotopes
editCaesium-137 and Strontium-90 are infamous as a nuclear waste, while Polonium-210 is a prominent contaminant. Iodine-131 is a nuclear medicine and Cobalt-60 is a commonly used gamma source. Plutonium-239 can be used in the production of nuclear weapons, while Americium-241 is used in smoke detectors. Carbon-12 is used to define atomic mass unit. I think at least some of them is important enough to be listed.
- Discuss
- User:Nucleus hydro elemon, you seem like a new name around here and your last 500 edits going back 8 months only includes one other visit to VA. This is a hefty list with a bunch if different attributes. I am going to split the list out for others to feel free to render opinions one at a time, if necessary. Even your nomination seems to expect disparity of acceptances for your list.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:16, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
Add Caesium-137
edit- Support
- As nom. Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 14:51, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
- Per nom. Makkool (talk) 13:51, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- Lophotrochozoa (talk) 14:43, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose, there are obviously countless isotopes for the elements. We include all the elements already, and what makes a particular isotope significant is going to vary depending on topic. It is easy to go through and find a reason why an isotope stands out in the literature, and including ALL of them is impossible on the current list. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 20:58, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discuss
Add Strontium-90
edit- Support
- As nom. Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 14:51, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
- Per nom. Makkool (talk) 13:51, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose, there are obviously countless isotopes for the elements. We include all the elements already, and what makes a particular isotope significant is going to vary depending on topic. It is easy to go through and find a reason why an isotope stands out in the literature, and including ALL of them is impossible on the current list. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 20:58, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discuss
Add Polonium-210
edit- Support
- As nom. Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 14:51, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
- Per nom. Makkool (talk) 13:51, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose, there are obviously countless isotopes for the elements. We include all the elements already, and what makes a particular isotope significant is going to vary depending on topic. It is easy to go through and find a reason why an isotope stands out in the literature, and including ALL of them is impossible on the current list. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 20:58, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discuss
Add Iodine-131
edit- Support
- As nom. Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 14:51, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
- Per nom. Makkool (talk) 13:51, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- Lophotrochozoa (talk) 14:13, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose, there are obviously countless isotopes for the elements. We include all the elements already, and what makes a particular isotope significant is going to vary depending on topic. It is easy to go through and find a reason why an isotope stands out in the literature, and including ALL of them is impossible on the current list. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 20:58, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discuss
- Support
- As nom. Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 14:51, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
- Per nom. Makkool (talk) 13:51, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose, there are obviously countless isotopes for the elements. We include all the elements already, and what makes a particular isotope significant is going to vary depending on topic. It is easy to go through and find a reason why an isotope stands out in the literature, and including ALL of them is impossible on the current list. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 20:58, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discuss
Add Plutonium-239
edit- Support
- As nom. Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 14:51, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
- Per nom. Makkool (talk) 13:51, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- Lophotrochozoa (talk) 14:52, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose, there are obviously countless isotopes for the elements. We include all the elements already, and what makes a particular isotope significant is going to vary depending on topic. It is easy to go through and find a reason why an isotope stands out in the literature, and including ALL of them is impossible on the current list. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 20:58, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discuss
Add Americium-241
edit- Support
- As nom. Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 14:51, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
- Per nom. Makkool (talk) 13:51, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- Seems reasonable -- Americium is level 4 and chem is under-quota Mrfoogles (talk) 01:56, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose, there are obviously countless isotopes for the elements. We include all the elements already, and what makes a particular isotope significant is going to vary depending on topic. It is easy to go through and find a reason why an isotope stands out in the literature, and including ALL of them is impossible on the current list. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 20:58, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discuss
- Support
- As nom. Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 14:51, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
- Per nom. Makkool (talk) 13:51, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- Important as a standard for measuring atomic mass, and essential for the existence of life on Earth. Praemonitus (talk) 18:15, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose, there are obviously countless isotopes for the elements. We include all the elements already, and what makes a particular isotope significant is going to vary depending on topic. It is easy to go through and find a reason why an isotope stands out in the literature, and including ALL of them is impossible on the current list. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 20:58, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discuss
Pneumococcal vaccine is one of the vaccines recommended by the World Health Organization for all countries and 159 countries have introduced the vaccine. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 23:37, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
- Support
- As nom.-Lophotrochozoa (talk) 23:37, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
- Per nom. Makkool (talk) 13:51, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- Makes sense to me. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:08, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
- Sure Earth605 (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
- Important life-saving vaccine. Praemonitus (talk) 18:12, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
Otitis 5 is little more than a disambiguation.
- Support
- As nom. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 17:40, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
- Makkool (talk) 06:28, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
- With Otitis externa 5 and Otitis media 5 being vital, I fail to see why this article being basically a disambiguation would be vital. The Blue Rider 09:09, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
- Praemonitus (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Otitis is vital, as it's a well known disease and while being just a disambiguation, keeping it here will make it way more visible. Earth605 (talk) 18:05, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
Remove Dagger-axe 5
edit
A type of Polearm 5 used in ancient China. Technology is over quota and this weapon does not seem vital. There are plenty of other similar topics that I would rather include, and we also already list its successor, Ji (polearm) 5. 11 interwikis is also the lowest among polearms we list.
- Support
- As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:54, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
- Agree, a hybrid weapon, there must be many at the same level or perhaps slightly higher that are missing Carlwev 17:33, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
- Agree, Ji (polearm) is redunding (?) this entry. Would like to see Polearm at level 4 though. Earth605 (talk) 19:33, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
- Praemonitus (talk) 18:10, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
- I am a fan of the historical handheld combat weapons and see that many are listed at Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Technology#Military_technology. In the Partisan (weapon), discussion I asked for an explanation on the emphasis on historic weapons.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:31, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
- While tech is over quota, I've been personally hesitant to go after technology that isn't western in origin. I'd prefer to cut away from Western swords before this. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 04:02, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
Add Desquamation
editHealth is under quota. Desquamation, also known as peeling skin, is both a natural phenomenon and a medical symptom. Most people will have experienced this at least once in their life. I'm putting it under Health because the harmful symptom version is much more vital than the healthy natural version.
- Support
- Oppose
- No it's not important Earth605 (talk) 07:43, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discuss
Add more vaccines
editThese vaccines are recommended by the World Health Organization for all countries and most countries have introduced them to their vaccine programs.
Hepatitis B vaccine
editThe 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.
Nearly all countries have introduced the Hepatitis B vaccine 5.
- Support
- As nom. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:35, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
- Famous. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:49, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Aye. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 04:01, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
- Indeed common and therefore vital. KatVanHuis (talk) 07:38, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discussion
Haemophilus influenzae vaccine
editAccording to old statistics whose up-to-date counterpart I can't find now, all countries except China, Russia, Thailand, and Belarus had introduced the Hib vaccine as of late 2010s.
- Support
- As nom. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:35, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
- Aye. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 04:01, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- I'm in doubt about this one... Earth605 (talk) 07:46, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- Discussion
Rotavirus vaccine
editRotavirus vaccine has been intruduced by 123 countries.
- Support
- As nom. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:35, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
- Aye. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 04:01, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- If Rotavirus itself becomes lvl 4, (it's curently lvl nothing) then yes, but I don't see why only the vaccine should be here. Earth605 (talk) 07:33, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discussion
Under either Electromagnet or Superconductivity.
- Support
- As nom. 3df (talk) 21:33, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- It is not famous or that relevant really. Earth605 (talk) 07:49, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discuss
Add more anti-malaria drugs
editIf Quinine 4, the original antimalaria drug, belongs on level 4, newer malaria drugs should be listed on level 5. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
Chloroquine
editChloroquine was probably the most important antimalaria drug in the second half of the 20th century.
- Support
- As nom. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- Malaria 3 is Level 3. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
- Per nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 02:34, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discussion
Artemisinins
editArtemisinin (there are several chemically similar variants) is the most important antimalaria drug currently.
- Support
- As nom. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- Malaria 3 is Level 3. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
- Per nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 02:34, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
- Per Nobel Prize. Earth605 (talk) 07:50, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discussion
I forgot to point out that Tu Youyou 5 was awarded the Nobel prze for discovering artemisinin. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 21:28, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
Various technology removals
editTo balance out my assorted additions.
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 think that Fish farming 5 is enough on this level.
- Support
- As nom. Makkool (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- Very niche. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:13, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Fish farming seems specific enough to me too YFB ¿ 23:11, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
- Per YFB¿ Earth605 (talk) 07:55, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
Remove Cuniculture
editThe 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.
Breeding and raising rabbits for agriculture. Not needed on this level.
- Support
- As nom. Makkool (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- Very niche. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:13, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Lophotrochozoa (talk) 19:05, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
- YFB ¿ 23:12, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
Remove Heliciculture
editThe 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.
Raising edible snails. Not needed on this level.
- Support
- As nom. Makkool (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- Very niche. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:13, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Lophotrochozoa (talk) 19:25, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
- It's nice to have learned that there's a word for this, but it does not merit a vital article slot. YFB ¿ 23:10, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
Remove Agro-terrorism
editThe 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.
Feels a bit too specific for a vital article. Not sure if Bioterrorism 5 even belongs in Technology.
- Support
- As nom. Makkool (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support Carlwev 08:44, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
- The article doesn't make it clear how often this has actually happened. Also, too specific. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 18:58, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
- Very niche. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:13, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
Remove Counting board
editThe 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.
Feels a bit too obscure to take a vital article slot. Abacus 4 should be enough for ancient counting devices.
- Support
- As nom. Makkool (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- Very niche. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:13, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:12, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
- Earth605 (talk) 07:56, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
Articles added without discussion
editPrimalMustelid added several topics without discussion along with topics that had been discussed. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:33, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- @PrimalMustelid Pinging the editor mentioned above, so they can vote anbd promise not to add stuff without discussion... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- I know about this thread already, and sure. I haven’t done that since anyways. PrimalMustelid (talk) 11:13, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Keep
- Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:33, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- EchoVanguardZ (talk) 18:55, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
- PrimalMustelid (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
- Earth605 (talk) 07:58, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- Remove
- Gland 4 is only VA5. This is very niche incomparison to that.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:02, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
- I'm going to propose adding Gland 4 to VA4. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
- @EchoVanguardZ can you follow up on this? The V4 people are very finnicky… -1ctinus📝🗨 01:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- @1ctinus See here: Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4#Add Gland 5. The current vote is 4-0 in support. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 04:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- @TonyTheTiger: Now the vote to add Gland to the level 4 list has passed. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 11:29, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
- @1ctinus See here: Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4#Add Gland 5. The current vote is 4-0 in support. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 04:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- @EchoVanguardZ can you follow up on this? The V4 people are very finnicky… -1ctinus📝🗨 01:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- I'm going to propose adding Gland
- Makkool (talk) 06:28, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
- Discuss
- Keep
- Remove
- Gland 4 is only VA5. This is very niche incomparison to that.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:02, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
- Makkool (talk) 06:28, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
- Earth605 (talk) 08:02, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- Discuss
- The entry on Exocrine gland which is above, says:
Examples of exocrine glands include sweat, salivary, mammary, ceruminous, lacrimal, sebaceous, prostate and mucous.
The current vote there is 4-2, which is enough to keep, but if were gonna do that we shouldn't pass this then. Earth605 (talk) 08:02, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
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.
- Keep
- Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:33, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:02, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
- Makkool (talk) 06:28, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
- --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:20, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
- Definitely. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
- Pretty much nobody hasn't experienced this. Mrfoogles (talk) 02:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
- Remove
- Discuss
- Keep
- Remove
- Gland 4 is only VA5. This is very niche incomparison to that.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:02, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
- Makkool (talk) 06:28, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
- Earth605 (talk) 08:04, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- Discuss
- The entry on Exocrine gland, which is above, says:
Examples of exocrine glands include sweat, salivary, mammary, ceruminous, lacrimal, sebaceous, prostate and mucous.
The current vote there is 4-2, which is enough to keep, but if were gonna do that we shouldn't pass this then. Earth605 (talk) 08:04, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
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.
- Keep
- Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:33, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- Makkool (talk) 06:28, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
- PrimalMustelid (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
- TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:35, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:32, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
- Remove
- Discuss
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.
- Keep
- Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:33, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:02, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
- Makkool (talk) 06:28, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
- --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:20, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
- Definitely. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
- Remove
- Discuss
Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:33, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
Add CRISPR gene editing, remove CRISPR
editCRISPR is very neat but the important part is how scientists are using Cas9.
- Support
- 3df (talk) 02:23, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
- Per nomination. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
- Support addition. ALittleClass (talk) 18:09, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support adding CRISPR gene editing, but oppose removing CRISPR. Both are central topics in molecular biology. Whether "how scientists are using Cas9" doesn't matter, and is not a factor in determining vitality. In addition, from WP:VACRIT, CRISPR has more coverage and about double the pageviews and language entries than CRISPR gene editing. --ZergTwo (talk) 23:56, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
You may know this as a crop duster, pretty common type of plane, part of Aerial application 5.
- Support
- As nom. Kevinishere15 (talk) 22:57, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- If aerlial application is just lv5, it doesn't seem clear that aircrafts by such specialized type and use are vital at this level. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:58, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Per Prokonsul Piotrus Earth605 (talk) 08:06, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discuss
Induced pluripotent stem cells are a huge part of modern biological research. Propose adding at level 5 with Embryonic stem cell and Hematopoietic stem cell. GraziePrego (talk) 10:49, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support
- Support as Nom GraziePrego (talk) 10:49, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:05, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Lophotrochozoa (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
Swap White-necked jacobin with Toco toucan
editIn terms of Hummingbird 4 species, Rufous hummingbird 5 and Patagona 5 are both listed, but there is no Toucan 4 species listed. The toco toucan gets on average about 13x more daily pageviews.
- Support
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
Add Basal ganglia
editSeem like an important part of the brain
- Support
- As nominator. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 22:10, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
- Lophotrochozoa (talk) 17:31, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discussion
Seem to be important membranes around the brain, consisting of the dura mater, arachnoid mater, and pia mater.
- Support
- As nominator. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 22:10, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
- Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:37, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
- Meningitis 4 is VA4, so this definitely makes VA5. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:23, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- per QuicoleJR Earth605 (talk) 19:24, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discussion
Add Electric chair
editClassic and culturally influential executiion device.
- Support
- As nominator.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:08, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 06:42, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- Definitely. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 04:15, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- The Blue Rider 09:13, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- I would prefer to add it on Politics and economics (with Capital punishment 4) and that subpage is far over quota. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
- Discussion
Add Guillotine
editClassic and culturally influential executiion device.
- Support
- As nominator.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:08, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 06:41, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- Sahaib (talk) 19:06, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- Definitely. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 04:15, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- ALittleClass (talk) 02:48, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:41, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- per ALittleClass Earth605 (talk) 19:25, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discussion
I would prefer to list it on the Law list, indented under Decapitation (if that will be indented under capital punishment), but unfortunately that page is far over quota. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 13:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Classic and culturally influential executiion device.
- Support
- As nominator.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:08, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 06:42, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support, but hanging and stoning should also be added as well. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 04:16, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:41, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discussion
Good suggestion - would hanging not be better? - stoning is also significant too. Carlwev 10:52, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Classic and culturally influential punishment device.
- Support
- As nominator.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:08, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- Sure. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 04:17, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discussion
Horror (emotion) redirects there. It may warrant renaming back to this, given interwikis and the fact that terror (emotion) redirects to Fear 3. Still, as horror (emotion), with 19 iwikis, this may round up our emotions/psychological states, and Fear, at V3, warrants such subtopics at V5.
- Support
- As nominator.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:56, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- Seems important enough. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 04:19, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discussion
In recent years, both have nearly the same number of page views, currently around 600. Both are frequently used for scanning, payments, inventory tracking, authorizations, and other things.
- Support
- As nominator. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 03:17, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
- Support NFC, no opinion on RFID. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 04:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- Support both Lophotrochozoa (talk) 15:41, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
- Support both. YFB ¿ 23:00, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discussion
Add Biometrics
editQuite common and important today. Similar to Fingerprint 4.
- Support
- As nominator. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 03:37, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
- Sure. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 04:22, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- Good general category to have. ALittleClass (talk) 01:57, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
- Lophotrochozoa (talk) 16:42, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:10, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discussion
@JpTheNotSoSuperior, ALittleClass, and Piotrus: Where should we list it? Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:03, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
Quite common and important today. Similar to Speech recognition 5.
- Support
- As nominator. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 03:37, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
- Definitely. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 04:22, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:40, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
- Sure. Facial recognition is a disambig, in case anyone wonders. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:10, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discussion
The argument was made to defend Iron 3 at level 3 because of the Iron age 3. When it comes to the Stone Age 3, we include Rock (geology) 3, at level 3, Flint 5, Rhyolite 5 and Obsidian 5 at level 5. I think that when it comes to stone tools, chert is often over looked as it isn't as flashy as obsidian, but it is a very common type of rock used for Knapping 5.
- Support
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
Aviation 4 is Level 4 and Aircraft 3 is Level 3. I think that this is an important enough concept to be listed. Planes have had a massive negative impact on the environment.
- Support
- As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:45, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
- Lophotrochozoa (talk) 15:03, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
- YFB ¿ 22:58, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
- @QuicoleJR, Lophotrochozoa, and Yummifruitbat: Would it make more sense to add Health and environmental effects of transport as a broader topic? "Within the transport sector, road transport is the largest contributor to climate change." 172.56.170.142 (talk) 20:47, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
Add Endocrine gland
editEndocrine gland secrete Hormone 3 (pardon my bad grammar; the {{VA link}} template doesn't mix with suffixes) that play an important role in the physiology of humans and other animals.
- Support
- As nominator. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 14:21, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
- This hasn't been added yet? JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 22:14, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
- 172.56.170.142 (talk) 20:48, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discussion
Add some charts/graphs
editAdd Correlogram
editIn the analysis of data, a correlogram is a chart of correlation statistics.
- Support
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
Add Radar chart
editA radar chart is a graphical method of displaying multivariate data in the form of a two-dimensional chart of three or more quantitative variables represented on axes starting from the same point.
- Support
- As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 16:49, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
Add Violin plot
editA violin plot is a statistical graphic for comparing probability distributions.
- Support
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
A stem-and-leaf display or stem-and-leaf plot is a device for presenting quantitative data in a graphical format, similar to a histogram, to assist in visualizing the shape of a distribution.
- Support
- As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 16:49, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
- Common enough. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 22:15, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
China National Space Administration 4 is a Level 4 vital article, but there's currently only one Chinese space technology at Level 5, being the Tiangong space station. The CLEP includes the Chang'e programs such as Chang'e 1 which made China the fourth country to launch an object out of orbit (after the obvious 2 and Japan) and the third country to land a lunar rover. Chang'e 4 marked the first ever soft landing on the far side of the moon, and the subsequent mission Chang'e 6 obtained the first ever samples from the far side, marking a area where the Chinese space program has not just caught up but is doing things without precedence. I believe we list extensive amounts of NASA projects of equal importance.
- Support
- Oppose
- Discuss
Phobia Proposals (set 2 of 2)
editAdd Acrophobia
editThe fear of heights. One of the most common phobias, 57 interwikis.
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
- As nom. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 23:59, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
- ALittleClass (talk) 01:01, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
- Very important. QuicoleJR (talk) 11:50, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
- AllyWithInfo (talk) 20:34, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discuss
Add Fear of flying
editAlso known as aerophobia. Also one of the most common phobias, 37 interwikis.
- Support
- As nom. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 23:59, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
- QuicoleJR (talk) 12:01, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
Add Agoraphobia
editThe fear of unsafe situations. Another common phobia, 67 interwikis.
- Support
- As nom. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 23:59, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
- ALittleClass (talk) 01:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
- QuicoleJR (talk) 12:01, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
Add Death anxiety
editI wasn't gonna propose this, but as ALittleClass mentioned it in the claustrophobia proposal, I'm just gonna throw it out there. Also known as thanatophobia, 24 interwikis.
- Support
- As nom. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 23:59, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
CS swap
editTechnology is already over quota, so I'll do a swap.
important subtopic of Object-oriented programming.
- Support
- Per nom. -1ctinus📝🗨 01:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Remove Rocker box
editThe 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.
Have you heard of this? I have not. Three interwikis (interwikis are perfectly acceptable for technology). Looks too niche for the list of the most important technology.
- Support
- Per nom. -1ctinus📝🗨 01:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
- Lophotrochozoa (talk) 19:45, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
- Relatively minor tool. Maybe Placer mining could be added. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 04:14, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
- ALittleClass (talk) 01:44, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Replace New Zealand Romney with Romney sheep
editMore important topic, higher page views and interwikis. New Zealand Romney is the subtopic.
- Support
- As nom. -1ctinus📝🗨 15:35, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
- Per nom. J947 ‡ edits 23:00, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
- ALittleClass (talk) 02:53, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discussion
Add dog breeds
editSome animals that interact with our readers the most every day.
Probably the most common Chinese dog breed.
- Support
- As nom. -1ctinus📝🗨 15:47, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
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.
From the article: "Since the mid-20th century, Poodles have enjoyed enormous popularity as pets and show dogs – Poodles were the AKC's most registered breed from 1960 to 1982, and are now the FCI's third most registered breed." These are everywhere.
- Support
- Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:02, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
- -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:01, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
- oops forgot -1ctinus📝🗨 00:26, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
- Definitely. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 22:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
- Discussion
@1ctinus: Are you voting as nominator? Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:02, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Add French Bulldog
editThese are also everywhere. Extremely common dog breed.
- Support
- As nom. -1ctinus📝🗨 15:47, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
- Definitely. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 22:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
The most popular dog breed of Native American origin.
- Support
- As nom. -1ctinus📝🗨 15:47, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
- Definitely. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 22:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
- Lophotrochozoa (talk) 21:31, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
Add Golden retriever
editThe 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 get we already list Retriever 5, but this is what most people think when they think of "dog".
- Support
- As nom. -1ctinus📝🗨 15:47, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
- Common. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:47, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
- -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:01, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
- Definitely. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 22:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
Add German Shepherd
editThe 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 working dog. 87 INTERWIKIS.
- Support
- As nom. -1ctinus📝🗨 15:47, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
- -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:01, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
- Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:20, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
- Definitely. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 22:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
- One of the most common and famous dogs. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Remove Sodium citrate
editThis is just a name for three separate, already listed chemicals.
- Support
Since chemistry is under quota, I need to do a swap to justify removal. Knowing about pKa and pKb are important when dealing with acids and bases.
- Support
Add Grindstone
editA previous discussion on adding grindstone and millstone decided to add one of them but didn't get enough votes to add both. Thus I relist the nomination of Grinstone. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 14:09, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
- Support
- GeogSage is the original nominator.
- Tabu Makiadi voted support in the original discussion.
- Lophotrochozoa voted support in the original discussion.
- Oppose
- Zar2gar1 voted against adding both [[Grindstone and Millstone in the original discussion on the grounds that the technology subpage is over quota.
- Discussion
Add Hess's law
editChemistry is under quota, well known law, 50 interwikis.
- Support
- Per nom. -1ctinus📝🗨 18:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
- Seems important enough. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 22:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
- Lophotrochozoa (talk) 21:42, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
important in stats -1ctinus📝🗨 22:56, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
Group Theory Proposals
editIt seems like math proposals get less traffic than the other sections. One area that's oddly structured currently is group theory. At level 4, there are currently 6 entries under group theory, however at level 5 there are only 5 more, when you would expect an average of 4 times as many at that level. This leads me to believe that group theory has been underrepresented at this level, which is what these suggestions try to fix.
Add Cyclic group
editThe 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 most essential thing to add out of my suggestions. Arguably the simplest form of group, very related to Modular arithmetic 4. 32 interwikis which is strong for a higher level math concept.
- Support
- As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 04:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
- EchoVanguardZ (talk) 04:51, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
- Lophotrochozoa (talk) 12:07, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
- Gramix13 (talk) 00:13, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Add Simple group
editThe 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.
Analogous to the prime numbers of groups. I don't think it makes sense to have Classification of finite simple groups 5 at VA4 and not even explain what a simple group is at any level.
- Support
- As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 04:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
- EchoVanguardZ (talk) 04:51, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
- Lophotrochozoa (talk) 13:28, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
- Gramix13 (talk) 00:13, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
The second infinite family of finite simple groups. The structure of these groups was used to prove that there is no general solution for polynomials with elementary functions, which is a very important result for Equation solving 4.
- Support
- As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 04:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
- EchoVanguardZ (talk) 04:51, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
- Gramix13 (talk) 00:13, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Add Sporadic group
editIncludes the 26 exceptions to the three other categories in the classification, the largest and most famous of which being the monster group. They have noted for how bizarre they are by many mathematicians such as John Conway and Richard Borcherds, I mean, how does such a nontrivial, hairy set of objects arise from such a simple, fundamental concept? Also connected to the monster group is Monstrous moonshine, which aside from adding to the weirdness, is also an insightful connection between number theory, abstract algebra and even a part of string theory.
- Support
- As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 04:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
- EchoVanguardZ (talk) 04:51, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
- Gramix13 (talk) 00:13, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
This article could be a good candidate for level 4 since we already list large language model there and could potentially replace it there. It's what ChatGPT is.
- Support
- Oppose
- Too much overlap with Large language model 4 (which is both a more general and a more famous concept); I would rather add first Transformer (deep learning architecture), Reinforcement learning, Backpropagation and Gradient descent.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 05:14, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
- Discuss
Move nuclides and synthetic elements
editAll chemical elements and their isotopes/nuclides are listed on the chemistry subpage, but isotopes are chemically the same, only differing in their nuclei, and synthetic elements are generally more of nuclear interest than chemical.
- Support
- As nominator. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:35, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Isotopes of hydrogen should be listed under hydrogen; not in an entirely different place. And isotopes are absolutely not chemically the same -- drinking deuterium water will kill you. One example is the Kinetic isotope effect. Mrfoogles (talk) 23:44, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- Nevertheless isotopes are more interesting to nuiclear physics than to chemistry, and the chemical differences are small except for hydrogen and helium. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 12:30, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discussion
Common display device seen in several applications, most notably digital clocks and calculators.
- Support
- As nom. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 04:38, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- ALittleClass (talk) 18:19, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- Lophotrochozoa (talk) 12:00, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
Remove all derivative square and cubic units
editThese articles:
- Square inch
- Square foot
- Square yard
- Square metre
- Square kilometre
- Square mile
- Cubic inch
- Cubic foot
- Cubic metre
- Cubic centimetre
All of these are essentially stubs and there's a good reason for it. What else are you supposed to do besides say they are just the square of a different unit? They are entirely redundant articles. We list too many measurements, so I believe that these should be cut down.
- Support
- As nom. -1ctinus📝🗨 11:19, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- Support removing all but the SI units (square meter and cubic meter). Johnnie Runner (talk) 21:10, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support except for SI units, per above. Praemonitus (talk) 18:04, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Strongly oppose removal of Square metre and Cubic metre. ALittleClass (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- Per above, I'd keep these two, pretty common meaasure, and even as derivative, useful. Kill the others, including the imperial ones (American centrism, not useful outside US). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:57, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discuss
- Are these all really less important than the other elements at Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Physical_sciences/Basics_and_measurement#Area? This represents 6 off of the list. Should we treat the cubic measures at Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Physical_sciences/Basics_and_measurement#Volume the same way?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:51, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- In my opinion, yes. I added them to the nomination. -1ctinus📝🗨 12:04, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Move websites
editWebsites are listed on the technology subpage, but as Zar2gar1 pointed out, that's not the best place for them. I suggest that we move them to other subpages, mostly Journalism and mass media|mass media. However, I think the cloud server services (Amazon Web Services and Google Cloud Platform) and Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing should stay listed on technology and a few others should be moved to Companies. There is a thread elsewhere about moving Alipay. Feel free to list other alternatives if you don't agree with my suggestions. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 17:02, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Most of the listed websites
edit- Move to Mass media
- As nominator
- Keep on Technology
- Neutral
- Discussion
craigslist and Taobao
edit- Move to Internet and e-commerce companies
- As nominator Lophotrochozoa (talk) 17:02, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- Keep on Technology
- Neutral
- Discussion
Remove all but 2 RGB color spaces
editSpecifically, remove every specific RGB color space except sRGB and Adobe RGB color space (note that scRGB has already been proposed for removal).
Unless RGB color spaces 5 becomes Level 4, I don't think it's justified to link 11 different individual RGB color spaces. For example, EciRGB 5 is a stub, has one interwiki, gets an average of ~6 pageviews.
- Support
- As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 21:05, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- Lophotrochozoa (talk) 10:48, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- Praemonitus (talk) 18:02, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Traditional medicine proposals
editOur current list of "traditional medicine" currently reflects only eastern practices with Ayurveda 4, Traditional Chinese medicine 4, Acupuncture 4, Chinese herbology 5, and Tui na 5. These are some proposals to give us more global representation. (Note that the category of "Health, medicine, and disease" at VA5 is currently under quota by around 40)
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.
Widespread idea since Ancient Greece. Includes the four humors. and many of the labels have carried over into modern medicine. 36 interwikis.
- Support
- As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- Lophotrochozoa (talk) 00:05, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
- Iostn (talk) 22:13, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 18:42, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Add Bloodletting
editThe 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.
Used across numerous cultures from around the world for thousands of years until the 20th century. 40 interwikis.
- Support
- As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- Lophotrochozoa (talk) 00:10, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
- Iostn (talk) 22:13, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- Classic. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:14, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 18:42, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
- Support
- As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
I would argue that listing no European traditional medicines can feed into a biased idea that traditional European medicine was significantly different or superior to Eastern medicine. This was arguably the founding point for Western medicine as we know it.
- Support
- As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- Iostn (talk) 22:13, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:42, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Greatly influenced Ancient Greek medicine.
- Support
- As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
- Support
- Oppose
- Discuss
The latter especially is an essential part of Machine learning 5 but the parent topic should be included too. I suggest placing them under Mathematics#Optimization. Mathematics has room for both at 1,193/2,000 quota.
- Support
- As nom.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 06:24, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
- Support for Gradient descent. ALittleClass (talk) 20:25, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
- Lophotrochozoa (talk) 13:07, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Mixed
- Discuss
Swap: Remove Job (computing) 5 and Task (computing) 5, add Execution (computing)
edit
The first two aren't well-distinguished concepts, according to a comment on the former's talk page and the latter's article. Probably covered well enough by related articles in the same section such as Process (computing) 5. Low pageviews, appearing in the bottom 10% Technology list I once posted.
Execution on the other hand not only has way better stats but has an overview of multiple concepts (such as Instruction cycle which I remember learning about in university, maybe it should be added too). A possible place for the addition is in Technology#Computer architecture concepts, because with its coverage of Instruction cycle its scope expands outside strictly operating system and software topics.
- Support
- As nom.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:11, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
- Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- Per nom. 172.56.170.142 (talk) 20:49, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Mixed
- Discuss
Move viruses
editViruses are listed on medicine < infectious disease but they are interesting on their own rather than merely as pathogens. Thus I want to move the section Specific viruses and the articles Virus, Introduction to viruses (unless we remove it) and probably Virus latency to Other organisms.
- Support
- As nominator. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 13:37, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discussion
The plant taxon Cardueae roughly corresponds to the common name thistle. If this passes I might propose for it to replace Cirsium 4 on level 4.
- Support
- As nominator. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 17:46, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discussion
Add Optical storage
editWe include Hard disk drive 4 and Optical disc 4 at level 4, and Compact disc 5, DVD 5, LaserDisc 5, and Blu-ray 5 at level 5. Optical Storage should be the umbrella for these different storage mediums in my opinion. If this passes, I will propose swapping either Optical disc or Hard disk drive with this to bring it up to level 4, as I think this is an oversight in the project. Pinging two editors involved at a related level 4 discussion now @Interstellarity and @SameOldSameOldSameOld
- Support
- As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 04:26, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- Interstellarity (talk) 09:29, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- Lophotrochozoa (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- I don't see what is better about Optical storage over Optical disc 4 as a level four parent for the various types of disc listed, as they're all discs. The only other form of optical storage mentioned in the article is Microform which is a completely different concept outside computing. Also what does this have to do with Hard disk drive 4? That's a form of magnetic, not optical storage. YFB ¿ 09:57, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discuss
Drug Class Proposals
editInspired by 3df's proposal. I don't think the first two proposals should be very controversial.
A class of drugs that lowers cholesterol and is generally used to lower risk of heart failure. They sell around US$19 billion per year and many statins appear on the list of the most prescribed medications.
- Support
- As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 19:29, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- Lophotrochozoa (talk) 15:32, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- YFB ¿ 09:59, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:46, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discussion
Add ACE inhibitor
editA class of drugs used to treat high blood pressure. Many of these drugs appear on the list of most prescribed medications, such as Lisinopril which was is third most prescribed medication in the US.
- Support
- As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 19:29, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- Lophotrochozoa (talk) 19:11, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- Per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:46, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discussion
Obviously vital in scope, the question is whether this is too broad to be useful. I personally don't think it is.
- Support
- As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 19:29, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- Lophotrochozoa (talk) 00:13, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:46, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discussion
Specific Drug Proposals
editThese are the top 3 most prescribed drugs in the US. I could not find as much data on whether these were also the most prescribed drugs globally (although these medications articles also mentioned high prescription rates in other countries).
Add Atorvastatin
editA type of statin, also known by the brand name Lipitor. Since 1996 it has been the most commonly prescribed medication in the US, with more than 109 million prescriptions filled for over 27 million people in 2022.
- Support
- As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 19:56, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- Lophotrochozoa (talk) 00:39, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- QuicoleJR (talk) 14:33, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discussion
The main medication used to treat type 2 diabetes (we currently list no anti-diabetes medication). The second most prescribed medication in the US with ~20 million patients.
- Support
- As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 19:56, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- Lophotrochozoa (talk) 01:05, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- In the top ten most prescribed medications in US, UK and France according to [1] and appears on the essential medicines list of 133 countries according to [2] YFB ¿ 09:44, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- QuicoleJR (talk) 14:33, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discussion
Add Lisinopril
editAn ACE inhibitor, it is the third most prescribed medication in the US with ~19 million patients.
- Support
- As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 19:56, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
Lophotrochozoa (talk) 01:21, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- There are many different ACE inhibitors and it's not clear this one is the most widely used everywhere, or the most effective. In this source [3] it is listed as the 27th most prescribed drug in the UK and only the 420th most prescribed in France, behind Ramipril in both cases. This meta-analysis [4] found it to be the least effective of the ACE inhibitors analysed and with the highest all-cause mortality. YFB ¿ 09:44, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Per Yummifruitbat. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 14:03, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
- Discussion
Add Nanoparticle
editImportant subtopic of Particle.
- Support
- Interstellarity (talk) 23:59, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- To Condensed matter physics — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:Lophotrochozoa (talk)|Lophotrochozoa (talk)]] ([[User talk:Lophotrochozoa (talk)#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Lophotrochozoa (talk)|contribs]]) 12:59, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
Add Spermatozoon and Egg cell
editTwo important cells for reproduction.
- Support
- Interstellarity (talk) 00:11, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- Can hardly believe these aren't vital articles yet, as we all started like this once. KatVanHuis (talk) 07:54, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- Egg cell should absolutely be listed. No opinion on spermatozoon. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 18:42, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- Support egg cell. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:23, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- Support Egg cell.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 17:30, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
- Support both, and Egg cell should then be proposed for L4. YFB ¿ 17:46, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Spermatozoon should be merged with Sperm 4 instead. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 15:37, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
- That seems unnecessary, as spermatozoon focuses on a specific type of sperm cell, whereas the Sperm article addresses the general concept including non-animal sperm cells. But there is some overlap between the articles which could be cleaned up. YFB ¿ 08:55, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discuss
Why is Spermatozoon a separate article from Sperm? Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:23, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
I was wondering the same, they both appear to be about the same thing, the cell(s). Both are in mostly the same categories too? odd. At first I thought perhaps the articles are set up different to what I would have thought, that sperm may be about the fluid, but that is not the case, that article is semen (which is level 4) and is what I would have expected. A discussion for there - but perhaps a merge may be suggested if one has not been already?? Carlwev 16:19, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Carlwev and Yummifruitbat: It's hard to close this vote before we have decided whether to add spermatozoon. We need one more oppose vote to fail it or two more support votes to pass it. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 14:37, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
Add African elephant
editWe list the individual species of African elephants, but not the broad topic.
- Support
- Interstellarity (talk) 00:23, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- This nom should be paired with some removals. Other than Asian Elephant, I'm not sure if any of the others belong.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- We can decide later if we should remove the species. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 17:12, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
- support Carlwev 18:00, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
- I don't understand what species are listed. I see Elephant 4 with nothing under it.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:08, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- Let me take that back because I was looking at Elephant at level 4.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:13, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
Add either LZ 129 Hindenburg or Hindenburg-class airships
editWe list the disaster, but not the airship itself. No opinion on which one should be added.
- Support
- Interstellarity (talk) 00:33, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- Support LZ 129 Hindenburg, the class was only 2 airships and one of them never even saw flight. The other was LZ 129. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 18:45, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
...the concept of a smell. 73 interwikis.
- Support
- As nominator. ALittleClass (talk) 06:14, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- Iostn (talk) 22:13, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- Vital. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:57, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
- Support Carlwev 16:25, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 18:46, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- Basic and fundamental. Praemonitus (talk) 17:56, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
Basic and fundamental. Praemonitus (talk) 17:56, 26 August 2025 (UTC)- @Praemonitus Did you mean to vote oppose? The way you phrased it made me think it was a support vote, although I could understand if I misread it. ALittleClass (talk) 20:18, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry, yes I meant to place it a line above. Praemonitus (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Praemonitus Did you mean to vote oppose? The way you phrased it made me think it was a support vote, although I could understand if I misread it. ALittleClass (talk) 20:18, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- Discussion
@ALittleClass: Where should we list it? Lophotrochozoa (talk) 23:23, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
Move Leaf vegetable and Pseudocereal
editI have moved Leaf vegetable 5 and Pseudocereal 5 from Plants to Everyday life > Food when I sorted the edible plants by taxonomy (as I've proposed before). I previously proposed moving Grain and Berry for the same reason but I didn't mention the articles Leaf vegetable 5 and Pseudocereal 5, so I thought I should mention this. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
Move evolution of specific groups
editThe human evolution section and other articles about evolution of specific groups of organisms are listed on the general biology subpage, but since those articles are in large part about specific past organisms, it would make more sense to move them to the taxonomical subpages, mostly Animals.
- Support
- As nominator Lophotrochozoa (talk) 23:44, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discussion
Add Reynoutria japonica (aka Japanese knotweed)
editBasically the Terminator of invasive plants, one of the most-viewed in 100 of the World's Worst Invasive Alien Species (some others could be added too). Evolved to withstand volcanic conditions, this Darwinian grandmaster is nigh invincible and grows & spreads fast, fully reproducing from even the tiniest fragment. Disturbing it will inspire it to (re)grow with even higher vigour, and surviving roots can lay dormant underground for decades, patiently waiting for resurrection. It reduces Biodiversity 3 by swiftly outcompeting most native species (literally overshadowing them) and has spread to many parts of Europe and North America already, causing untold property damage. It will never, ever, stop, until your garden/ecosystem is taken over.
Here are two lengthy articles about it, [5][6], one of them mentions it as being even worse than Kudzu 5.
Add as subtopic of Polygonaceae, in WP:Vital articles/Level/5/Biology and health sciences/Plants#Caryophyllales.
I've been battling a patch for a couple of years at my grandparents' cottage, but until now had always either been too lazy to research and write a nom, or forgot about it as I only deal with it during visitations in summer.
- Support
- As nom.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 07:07, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- Iostn (talk) 22:13, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- Lophotrochozoa (talk) 16:53, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Add Rock shelter
editA very basic natural feature used by humans and other Hominini for shelter.
- support
- As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 19:56, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- oppose
- neutral
- Cave is already a VA, and it covers archeological and cultural uses. Praemonitus (talk) 17:55, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- discuss
Plant articles added without discussion
editI recently listed several articles about plant families and genera in order to group entries and Bluevestman linked to them. I removed the links because they haven't been approved on the talk page but we can vote on them now. "Support" means support for adding them back and "Oppose" means support for keeping them unlinked or for removing them.
Annonaceae or Annona
editAnnonaceae includes several species of edible fruits belonging to the genus Annona of which we list Cherimoya 5, Soursop 5 and Annona squamosa 5.
- Support
- As nominator; I haven't decided which of them. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 15:59, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
- Bluevestman (talk) 06:26, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discussion
Zingiberaceae includes about 1600 known species, including spice plants such as Alligator pepper 5, Grains of paradise 5, Galangal 5, Cardamom 4, Turmeric 5 and Ginger 4
- Support
- As nominator. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 15:59, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
- Bluevestman (talk) 06:26, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discussion
Droseraceae includes the carnivorous plants Aldrovanda vesiculosa 5, Drosera 5 and Venus flytrap 5.
- Support
- Bluevestman (talk) 06:26, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- One of the largest families of carnivorous plants. YFB ¿ 10:29, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- As nominator. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 15:59, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
- Discussion
I would support swapping out Aldrovanda vesiculosa which is a less-well-known species. YFB ¿ 10:29, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Polygonaceae includes about 1200 species including Buckwheat 4 and Rhubarb 5.
- Support
- As nominator. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 15:59, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
- Bluevestman (talk) 06:26, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discussion
The genus Vaccinium includes edible berries such as Blueberry 4, Cranberry 4, Vaccinium myrtillus 5 and Vaccinium vitis-idaea 5.
- Support
- As nominator. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 15:59, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
- Bluevestman (talk) 06:26, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discussion
Sapotaceae includes about 800 species, including Manilkara zapota 5 (sapodilla), Lucuma campechiana 5, Pouteria sapota 5 and Vitellaria 5 (shea tree).
- Support
- Oppose
- Neutral
- As nominator. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 15:59, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
- Discussion
Lentibulariaceae includes carnivorous plants such as Pinguicula 5 and Utricularia 5.
- Support
- Bluevestman (talk) 06:26, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- Another major family of carnivorous plants YFB ¿ 10:30, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- As nominator. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 15:59, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
- Discussion
Salicaceae includes Populus 5 (poplars and aspens) and Salix (Willow 4).
- Support
- As nominator. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 15:59, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
- Bluevestman (talk) 06:26, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discussion
Rhamnaceae includes about 950 species, including Jujube 5
- Support
- Oppose
- Neutral
- As nominator. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 15:59, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
- Discussion
Anacardiaceae includes about 860 known species, including Cashew 4, Mango 4, Pistachio 5, Schinus 5 (pink peppercorn), Sumac 5 and Poison ivy 5 (Toxicodendron 5).
- Support
- As nominator. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 15:59, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
- Bluevestman (talk) 06:26, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discussion
Sapindaceae includes over 1800 species, including Lychee 4, Maple 4 (we additionally list five species of maples) and Rambutan 5.
- Support
- As nominator. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 15:59, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
- Bluevestman (talk) 06:26, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discussion
Changes to specific armor (tanks)
editAdding to recent discussions about imbalance in specific military (x), I have a few more proposals, starting with tanks.
Formed the backbone of Soviet armour during WW2 and had a profound effect on the course of the war on the Eastern Front (World War II) 4. Influential on subsequent tank designs. More than 80,000 produced; also the most losses of any tank in history. In service for 80+ years.
- Support
- As nom. YFB ¿ 18:47, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- Of course. Historically and culturally significant. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:31, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
- I proposed a bunch of tanks and military hardware a while ago. I'm not sure if this was or was not one of the ones I proposed, but what I took from those is that we should try to swap rather then straight add this kind of thing. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 19:06, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- I am effectively proposing adding these as (adjacent category) swaps with the ones to remove below. YFB ¿ 20:29, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Literally the first tanks / tracked armoured vehicles. Touted as a wonder weapon in British propaganda, probably not militarily game-changing in their own right but started the course of armoured warfare for the next century. Directly led to the development of the first Armor-piercing bullet 5.
- Support
- As nom. YFB ¿ 18:47, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- Per nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 19:06, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose. Instead I'd suggest adding Tanks in World War I. The image of WWI era tank is culturally significant, and historically and techologically important. But it wasn't just British whose tanks were important. French (Renault) were important too, for example. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:31, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- I don't have a problem with this suggestion and would support if proposed. YFB ¿ 15:54, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- I concur, that article title would be a better choice. Praemonitus (talk) 17:52, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discuss
Removal of some specific aircraft
editTechnology is over quota and there are a disproportionate number of specific aircraft types listed compared to land and sea craft; the list is also dominated by types in current US service which breaches "No (Western) bias". @GeogSage has attempted to even this out, I'm giving it another go here.
Remove Rockwell B-1 Lancer 5
edit
Only ever used by the US. Only just over 100 built. Wasn't even used operationally until 24 years after its introduction. Just not in any way 'vital'.
- Support
- As nom. YFB ¿ 19:33, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- Per nom. The B-1 is special, but we could make room for the Tupolev Tu-160 to give some more Soviet aircraft representation on the list. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 17:10, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- I wouldn't support a swap for the Tu-160 (fewer produced and again only operated by one AF) but there are other Soviet a/c that I would support instead. YFB ¿ 21:14, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- These weapons systems are/were part of the Nuclear triad maintained by the U.S., Russia, and to a lesser extent China. Strategic bombers are a political weapons as much as a practical. The Northrop B-2 Spirit 5 only had 21 produced, was only ever made for the U.S., but is notable for several technological innovations. The B-1 is another approach to the same problem, while the B-2 relies on stealth, the B-1 is fast, and the B-52 Boeing B-52 Stratofortress 5 is much cheaper. Ohio-class submarine 5 is an example of a similar technology that is rarely if ever used, few units produced (comparatively), but that has massive geo-political significance. The Tu-160 is the the Russian counterpart to these platforms, and while all three of the U.S. strategic bombers are on the list, the Russian/Soviet aircraft is a bit limited. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 23:39, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, I'm familiar with all this. My point is, why the Tu-160? Compared to, say the Tupolev Tu-16 or Tupolev Tu-95—also Soviet strategic bombers—the Tu-160 was produced in vastly smaller numbers, has served for less time, and arguably has fewer interesting features. It was apparently rushed into service and Tupolev nearly got prosecuted over inadequacies in the design (ref is in the Tu-22M article). I can see it's the obvious swap for the B-1 if we were just going for a straight sub to improve geographic spread, but if we want to include a Soviet strategic bomber I think there are more compelling options. YFB ¿ 01:12, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- Ah, the three approaches to strategic bombers from the cold war I mentioned above: fast, stealth, cheap. This is technology, so history and service is secondary consideration to the technological innovation itself in my opinion. Currently, these are represented by the B1, B2, and B52 at the moment, and we could swap the B1 for the TU-160 and still maintain the supersonic strategic bomber approach. The Tu-16 and Tu-95 would be a bit redundant from a technological standpoint with the bombers we already have on the list (not just limited to the B52). The interesting point is the existence of the Xi'an H-6 Chinese copy of the 95, but other then being non-western it doesn't really stand out much. The Boeing B-29 Superfortress 5 is the technological ancestor of the Tupolev Tu-4, which is what kickstarted Soviet bomber technology. It would be the last bomber I'd ever recommend removing. The B52 is likely the best example of a classic strategic bomber you can find. The B-2 is the only stealth strategic bomber ever to be used, only flying winged manned aircraft in use, and a bunch of other points that make it stand out. The B1 and TU-160 both represent super sonic bombers equally well IMO, although the B-1 might have a bit more history, the TU-160 might help to balance the 'Mericaness of the list. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:20, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for the explanation. I agree on the technological aspects being more important here than the historical. I'm not sure I agree with the characterisation of the "three approaches" per se... The B-52 wasn't primarily designed to be 'cheap', in fact it went through many revisions from the original requirement which seem to have been primarily driven by 'fast', relatively speaking. Cheap (relative to the more advanced platforms that came later) just explains why it managed to stay in service so long. But even if we accept the premise of the three approaches, we are talking here about three solutions to the same narrow problem (in the big picture of military aerospace tech)— strategic nuclear bomber—and that is only one leg of the triad. Can we really expect to provide a specific example for every permutation like this and stay within quota? What about air-launched standoff weapons, or other alternative approaches to the air part of the triad (say, the Mirage IV/2000N)? We could easily be at 1% of the entire Tech quota just listing specific vehicles used for nuclear weapon delivery, without even getting into the weapons themselves or any of the associated concepts... Going to start a separate thread on the overall thought process for these I think. YFB ¿ 07:05, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- Military projects are multi-billion dollar investments that have geo-political and technological impacts. I'd like to see the section grow to be more balanced overall, I struggle to believe that there are less vital specific weapons then sports figures, actors/actresses, and entertainment media. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 20:36, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for the explanation. I agree on the technological aspects being more important here than the historical. I'm not sure I agree with the characterisation of the "three approaches" per se... The B-52 wasn't primarily designed to be 'cheap', in fact it went through many revisions from the original requirement which seem to have been primarily driven by 'fast', relatively speaking. Cheap (relative to the more advanced platforms that came later) just explains why it managed to stay in service so long. But even if we accept the premise of the three approaches, we are talking here about three solutions to the same narrow problem (in the big picture of military aerospace tech)— strategic nuclear bomber—and that is only one leg of the triad. Can we really expect to provide a specific example for every permutation like this and stay within quota? What about air-launched standoff weapons, or other alternative approaches to the air part of the triad (say, the Mirage IV/2000N)? We could easily be at 1% of the entire Tech quota just listing specific vehicles used for nuclear weapon delivery, without even getting into the weapons themselves or any of the associated concepts... Going to start a separate thread on the overall thought process for these I think. YFB ¿ 07:05, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- Ah, the three approaches to strategic bombers from the cold war I mentioned above: fast, stealth, cheap. This is technology, so history and service is secondary consideration to the technological innovation itself in my opinion. Currently, these are represented by the B1, B2, and B52 at the moment, and we could swap the B1 for the TU-160 and still maintain the supersonic strategic bomber approach. The Tu-16 and Tu-95 would be a bit redundant from a technological standpoint with the bombers we already have on the list (not just limited to the B52). The interesting point is the existence of the Xi'an H-6 Chinese copy of the 95, but other then being non-western it doesn't really stand out much. The Boeing B-29 Superfortress
- Sure, I'm familiar with all this. My point is, why the Tu-160? Compared to, say the Tupolev Tu-16 or Tupolev Tu-95—also Soviet strategic bombers—the Tu-160 was produced in vastly smaller numbers, has served for less time, and arguably has fewer interesting features. It was apparently rushed into service and Tupolev nearly got prosecuted over inadequacies in the design (ref is in the Tu-22M article). I can see it's the obvious swap for the B-1 if we were just going for a straight sub to improve geographic spread, but if we want to include a Soviet strategic bomber I think there are more compelling options. YFB ¿ 01:12, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- These weapons systems are/were part of the Nuclear triad maintained by the U.S., Russia, and to a lesser extent China. Strategic bombers are a political weapons as much as a practical. The Northrop B-2 Spirit
- I wouldn't support a swap for the Tu-160 (fewer produced and again only operated by one AF) but there are other Soviet a/c that I would support instead. YFB ¿ 21:14, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- Milhist geek trivia. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:28, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- Not seeing any sort of vitality here. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:52, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
Remove McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle 5
edit
For air superiority fighters of the same era we already have the General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon 5 which was produced in much greater numbers and used much more widely than the F-15. There doesn't appear to be a viable argument that the F-15 made a critical difference in any major conflict theatre (yes, it scored a lot of a2a kills in Iraq but many of them were against obsolete or non-fighter aircraft).
- Support
- As nom. YFB ¿ 19:33, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- I think we could do with fewer fighter aircraft, and have nominated several removals myself. That said, if we could only have ONE jet fighter aircraft, the F-15 would be a suitable candidate. It is widely believed to be one of the most successful aircraft in history, and defines Gen IV fighter aircraft. While the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II 5 is being widely produced by the U.S. now, it has not seen the same level of service. General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon 5 has widespread use, but doesn't stand out quite as much as the F-15. The Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II 5 is iconic, but is mostly an obsolete aircraft designed for a battle that never happened. There are better planes to remove. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 17:10, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- I don't feel very strongly about which of the F-15 or F-16 gets dropped, but it makes no sense to me for both to be kept. I opted to retain the F-16 because twice as many were produced and it is apparently the most common fixed-wing aircraft in military service worldwide. YFB ¿ 21:04, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- The U.S. doesn't export the best hardware as openly, from a technology standpoint, if I had to pick one generation IV fighter to represent all of them, the F-15 would be it. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 23:43, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- I don't feel very strongly about which of the F-15 or F-16 gets dropped, but it makes no sense to me for both to be kept. I opted to retain the F-16 because twice as many were produced and it is apparently the most common fixed-wing aircraft in military service worldwide. YFB ¿ 21:04, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discuss
Remove Embraer EMB 314 Super Tucano 5
edit
I can't find the discussion whereby this was nominated in the first place, and I can't understand what makes it a vital article at any level.
- Support
- As nom. YFB ¿ 19:33, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- Nothing in the lead suggests vitality, minor and mostly unknown aircraft. Avoiding bias is great, but that doesn't mean adding non-vital trivia. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:06, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose. I didn't nomiate this because it is the only plane we include from South America. From the lede "a Brazilian turboprop light attack and counter-insurgency aircraft designed and built by Embraer as a development of the Embraer EMB 312 Tucano." Trying to avoide western bias in aviation is a challenge becasue the U.S. dominates that industry. I would prefer to maintain the token examples we have from non-U.S. companies. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 17:10, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- I know it's Brazilian, but why this specific aircraft? The original Tucano was produced in greater numbers (more than double), served in 18 air forces and was surely more influential on the design of trainers, not least on the Super Tucano itself? YFB ¿ 21:12, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discuss
Approach to specific military (x)
editMilitary technology is currently at 304 articles out of Tech quota of 3200, ie. just under 10%, which is probably about right given how influential warfare has been on the overall advancement of technology. Of those 304, 46 (~15%) are 'specific' models/classes of military vehicle or weapon e.g. AK-47 5, Ohio-class submarine 5, Rockwell B-1 Lancer 5, with the distribution as follows:
- 9 guns (56% US origin)
- 1 missile (0% US)
- 2 tanks (100% US)
- 20 aircraft (70% US), of which
- 14 jets (incl turboprop) (64% US)
- 3 piston-engined (100% US)
- 3 helicopters (67% US)
- 5 warship classes (60% US)
- 5 submarine classes (20% US)
- 4 named ships (100% US)
Some observations:
- This is probably too many specific vehicles / weapons given that at best, each one is really only exemplifying a concept we should already have covered in the general sense
- If we're going to have specific (x) then the distribution is extraordinarily biased not just to the 'West' but specifically to the USA (63% of the total). Not disputing the US's dominance in military tech from mid-20th-century onward, but that's a tiny slice of the overall development of military technology.
- The list of aircraft illustrates the folly of trying to include a specific example for every permutation. Almost half our list of specific military things are aircraft, 85% of these are jet age, we're struggling to agree to drop any of them, and we still haven't covered major aspects of military aircraft development - there's no biplanes, no carrier-launched or VSTOL aircraft until the F-35, no airships, no cruise missiles, no bombers from the pre-nuclear age...
Should we have a rethink, maybe try to agree some ___domain/era-specific mini-quotas or other guiding principles to help rationalise these lists? YFB ¿ 08:20, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- A bit too much US in tanks and warship classes, clearly... Probably in aircrafts too. Normal for en wiki/vitals, until we clean stuff up. Good start. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:05, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- If you check the achieves, I've tried to both trim these, and balance by adding other countries/types of weapons. Specifically, I tried to add more warships to balance the planes a bit, however people were really only interested in the U.S. ships. Soviet Carriers, British Carriers, etc. were rejected. Military tech is a lot like sports figures, people take a special interest in a topic and are likely to promote and defend it here. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 20:33, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- Yes - I've seen your prior efforts on this. Fandom tendencies is why I'm suggesting we might need some stronger guidelines in this particular topic area, as from the evidence of your recent efforts the likelihood of getting to a list that complies with the "no bias" criterion is otherwise looking slim. YFB ¿ 22:52, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- Military technology is a huge place for innovation when it comes to our species, for better or worse. If anything, we under represent this topic even within technology. We have 621 articles related to Computing and information technology, which is likely appropriate, however we only have 304 articles that broadly cover "Military technology." You've mentioned several of the contemporary exclusions we have. One of the criticisms of the Voyager Golden Record 5 was the lack of depictions of military stuff. Now this could be for pragmatic/strategic reasons, however I think it is mostly because some humans don't want to depict ourselves as violent warmongers. Other members of our society really take a special interest in being armchair military historians/strategists, and might want to religiously catalog their favorite weapons. I think this is what we have here, a small section that is allowed to exist populated by the most popular weapons you hear about in COD and late night history channel documentaries. Humans beating our swords into plowshares has been the driving force of much of our technological progress in the last century (aviation, remote sensing, GPS, computers, etc. all have very clear defense origins). If we take the current section as a fine representation of the U.S. contributions, and of the 21st century, we can proportionally argue for coverage of non-Western technology from before the 21st century. Just looking at Military Naval technology, stuff like as Man-of-war, or Turtle ship are missing. Topics that relate to ships are also much thinner then I would expect, with the types of sailing ships like Full-rigged ship and specific terminology related to sailing ships like Mast (sailing) missing. Trying to increase the quota here would mean taking it from somewhere else though. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 06:25, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
- I just fundamentally disagree that we need anywhere near so many specific examples of 21st-century US military tech. Surely the whole point of having the criteria is that people are supposed to put aside, or at least moderate, their personal interests / favourites and attempt to provide some balance and breadth of coverage in the listings? The fact that a lot of en-Wiki editors are American miltech geeks does not make US miltech articles intrinsically vital. YFB ¿ 07:02, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
- Also, the fact that a lot of technology with military origins eventually becomes ubiquitous in non-military usage is probably a reason not to increase the quota for specific military things. We need to minimise the sprawl of 'my favourite plane' precisely so that we have room for other important concepts that aren't exclusively military, like your mast example. YFB ¿ 07:09, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
- Planes in particular can probably be trimmed or swapped for non-U.S. versions, I agree. However, I don't think that multi-billion dollar technological breakthroughs that have outsized impacts on geopolitics are the place to start cutting. For example, if we just look at the nuclear arms race many technologies that come up often in the discussion are excluded. Concepts like Multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle are not included. Specific weapons like the Tsar Bomba, the largest nuclear weapon ever made,, W87, LGM-118 Peacekeeper are not included. If we look at technology before the 20th/21st centuries we have some major gaps. For example, Blunderbuss, an early firearm that had an impact on the evolution of firearms, is absent. The type of Mounted infantry known as a Dragoon derives its name from a version of the Blunderbuss, and not only are these infantry types missing, the category of mounted infantry is missing. If we look at types of Shield 4, we only have the Scutum 5 included as an example, excluding concepts like Aspis, Buckler, Nguni shield, Kite shield etc. I believe the military technology section likely needs to be expanded tremendously, and that technology as a whole needs to grow to accommodate more ubiquitous stuff as well. It isn't hard to find entire veins of concepts that are under represented, literally just pick a century and culture and you're likely to find a few articles we exclude. We have 15,000 biographies included at level 5, including 474 actors, 467 actresses, and a quota of 1,100 sports figures. We have 46 articles for Military aviation, and 48 basketball players. I don't think the 304 military technology articles are adequate coverage of the topic, and think we should focus on pulling quota from biographies. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 19:19, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
- No argument with most of those points from me. I was going to propose MIRV myself, and was considering Tsar Bomba and whether there is/are particular ballistic missile(s) we should add alongside V2. No objection to trying to gain some quota from biography. I would still argue though that not all the planes listed individually represent any sort of major technological breakthrough or necessarily had much impact on geopolitics. The fact they cost billions of dollars isn't necessarily relevant either - the US military budget is nearly a trillion dollars a year so almost anything significant the US invests in is $Bns. YFB ¿ 23:17, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
- @GeogSage: I've said it before and I'll say it again: I think Writers should take a quota cut. Trimming that page has been a project of mine for a while, and I think that there are definitely enough removals left to get it down enough for a cut. I was planning on giving those slots to Narrative Arts, but I could see Technology taking them as well. (or Health, which also deserves more coverage) QuicoleJR (talk) 13:03, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
- I'm more or less on board with cutting ANY biographies, within reason. I tend to think specific academics, religious leaders, and military strategists have outsized influence and are under represented. I posted on the main page, and tagged you, with a raw dataset with some statistics on my github here. I made a first iteration of a "vital score" and "vital index" as well, and although these are going to need some work and fine tuning, they seem to be a pretty good starting point, especially for within category comparisons. The variables I chose were after a bit of exploratory analysis in R, and while they are likely not the whole picture, I think they're pretty good for what we have. The dataset I posted is a month out of date, and takes a few days to generate in its entirety. I have the library I used to make the list posted on my Github, but it is a bit rough still. If you wanted an up to date one for just writers, I could either make one, or I could walk you through getting the code to run yourself.
- One long term goal I have is to get all of the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines added. The list is 591 drugs, which sounds like a lot of slots, but these are life saving medicines that have been vetted by an international organization as vital. I think they should make the cut for top 50,000 vital articles, but it's hard to make room for them with all the biographies we have. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 04:17, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
- I opened the proposal to cut the Writers quota. Once it passes, we can decide where to send the slots. Eventually we will get the proportion of bios on the list down to a better size. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:19, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
- Supported it. Do you want an updated list specific to the writers? I'm working on moving the code to a bot of some sort, but am in the "thinking about it" phase. No one, like at all, has expressed any interest in this since I got the first part done so I'm not sure if there is really any interest. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 17:14, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
- That does seem helpful. I would appreciate the Writers list. Also, if possible, do you think you could make the table sortable? It would make it easier to use, but I understand if you can't. Anyway, thanks for making this. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:17, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
- Will do. Making the table sortable in wiki-markup is easy enough, I was going to provide a CSV you can download though. It will be fairly large, so the other option would be a page in my user space. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 17:44, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
- I do all my editing on an iPhone, so if you wouldn't mind, I'd prefer the user page approach to the one that involves large downloads. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:53, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
- Ah, sorry didn't think about editing in mobile. I'm a fossil who does most of my Internet stuff with a keyboard. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 17:57, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
- I do all my editing on an iPhone, so if you wouldn't mind, I'd prefer the user page approach to the one that involves large downloads. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:53, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
- Will do. Making the table sortable in wiki-markup is easy enough, I was going to provide a CSV you can download though. It will be fairly large, so the other option would be a page in my user space. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 17:44, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
- That does seem helpful. I would appreciate the Writers list. Also, if possible, do you think you could make the table sortable? It would make it easier to use, but I understand if you can't. Anyway, thanks for making this. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:17, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
- Supported it. Do you want an updated list specific to the writers? I'm working on moving the code to a bot of some sort, but am in the "thinking about it" phase. No one, like at all, has expressed any interest in this since I got the first part done so I'm not sure if there is really any interest. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 17:14, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
- I opened the proposal to cut the Writers quota. Once it passes, we can decide where to send the slots. Eventually we will get the proportion of bios on the list down to a better size. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:19, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
- Planes in particular can probably be trimmed or swapped for non-U.S. versions, I agree. However, I don't think that multi-billion dollar technological breakthroughs that have outsized impacts on geopolitics are the place to start cutting. For example, if we just look at the nuclear arms race many technologies that come up often in the discussion are excluded. Concepts like Multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle are not included. Specific weapons like the Tsar Bomba, the largest nuclear weapon ever made,, W87, LGM-118 Peacekeeper are not included. If we look at technology before the 20th/21st centuries we have some major gaps. For example, Blunderbuss, an early firearm that had an impact on the evolution of firearms, is absent. The type of Mounted infantry known as a Dragoon derives its name from a version of the Blunderbuss, and not only are these infantry types missing, the category of mounted infantry is missing. If we look at types of Shield
- Military technology is a huge place for innovation when it comes to our species, for better or worse. If anything, we under represent this topic even within technology. We have 621 articles related to Computing and information technology, which is likely appropriate, however we only have 304 articles that broadly cover "Military technology." You've mentioned several of the contemporary exclusions we have. One of the criticisms of the Voyager Golden Record
- Yes - I've seen your prior efforts on this. Fandom tendencies is why I'm suggesting we might need some stronger guidelines in this particular topic area, as from the evidence of your recent efforts the likelihood of getting to a list that complies with the "no bias" criterion is otherwise looking slim. YFB ¿ 22:52, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
Was about to nominate this solely for its use as a musical instrument (it's the thing that makes the singer's voice sound like a robot), but it seems like it's an important tool in general.
- Support
- Bluevestman (talk) 21:00, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- Sure. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 18:48, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Add Rocket artillery
editOne of the original uses of rocketry right back to the medieval period, and a major driver of rocket development. Used in conflict for over 500 years. Originally Chinese, but appears in the US national anthem so surely we can find room for it ;) YFB ¿ 07:34, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
- Support
- As nom. YFB ¿ 07:36, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
- Per nom.GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 19:31, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 18:42, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
- Important. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:05, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Add printing technologies
editWe seem to be missing any of the major / ubiquitous technologies under Printer (computing) 4
Ubiquitous printer tech of the 1970s and 80s YFB ¿ 07:34, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
- Support
- As nom. YFB ¿ 09:57, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
- Weak support. ALittleClass (talk) 17:28, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
- Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:36, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Add Inkjet printing 5
edit
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.
Printing technology that made home colour printing widely affordable YFB ¿ 07:34, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
- Support
- As nom. YFB ¿ 09:57, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
- ALittleClass (talk) 17:28, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
- Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:37, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 18:45, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Add Laser printing 5
edit
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.
Used in basically every office worldwide. YFB ¿ 07:34, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
- Support
- As nom. YFB ¿ 09:57, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
- ALittleClass (talk) 17:28, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
- Lophotrochozoa (talk) 23:43, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 18:45, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Add Thermal printing
editUsed in pretty much every retail business and in many Fax 5 machines
YFB ¿ 07:34, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
- Support
- As nom. YFB ¿ 09:57, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
- Weak support. ALittleClass (talk) 17:28, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Remove Aldrovanda vesiculosa 5
edit
Little-known aquatic carnivorous plant, very interesting but also very niche. YFB ¿ 10:16, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
- Support
- As nom. YFB ¿ 10:16, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
The intersection between Quantum mechanics 3 and Information 3. An important and well defined area of research.
- Support
- As nominator. ALittleClass (talk) 15:30, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
- The Blue Rider 17:17, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- Praemonitus (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
Add aviation-related concepts
editWe are missing a number of key concepts from Aviation 4:
To flight surfaces. Vital to the stability and performance of many aircraft. YFB ¿ 15:07, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Support
- As nom. YFB ¿ 15:07, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Weak support. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 15:39, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
I have proposed merging this article with VTOL and STOVL - whatever the resulting combination, the concept of vertical takeoff and landing needs to be represented here somehow. YFB ¿ 15:07, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Support
- As nom. YFB ¿ 15:07, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Support. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 15:39, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Add Thrust vectoring
editExtremely important in missiles/rocketry, V/STOL, VTVL and in some fighter aircraft for manoeuvrability.
- Support
- As nom. YFB ¿ 15:07, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Weak support. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 15:39, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Where it all began, for powered fixed-wing flight. YFB ¿ 15:07, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Support
- As nom. YFB ¿ 15:07, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Support. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 15:39, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 18:48, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
- Lophotrochozoa (talk) 17:16, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
The most efficient configuration, once it became technically feasible and performant. YFB ¿ 15:07, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Support
- As nom. YFB ¿ 15:07, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Support. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 15:39, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 18:48, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
- Lophotrochozoa (talk) 21:24, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Allowed even more lift for a given span than a biplane, at the expense of weight - the basis for the first ever free flight of a heavier-than-air manned aircraft, and the fighter flown by Manfred von Richthofen 5 YFB ¿ 15:07, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Support
- As nom. YFB ¿ 15:07, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Weak support. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 15:39, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Sure. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 18:48, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
(Which would possibly benefit from the merger of Floatplane and Flying boat) YFB ¿ 15:07, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Support
- As nom. YFB ¿ 15:07, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Support. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 15:39, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Add Swept wing
editEnabled efficient transonic / Supersonic aircraft. YFB ¿ 15:07, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Support
- As nom. YFB ¿ 15:07, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Support. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 15:39, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Add Delta wing
editVery common wing design with major performance advantages in some contexts. YFB ¿ 15:07, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Support
- As nom. YFB ¿ 15:07, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Support. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 15:39, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Add Flying wing
editThe design basis of the most famous stealth aircraft as well as a number of significant UAVs. YFB ¿ 15:07, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Support
- As nom. YFB ¿ 15:07, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Support. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 15:39, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Widely used in military aircraft until the 1980s, allowing improved balance of high- and low-speed aerodynamic performance. YFB ¿ 15:07, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Support
- As nom. YFB ¿ 15:07, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Support. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 15:39, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Amongst the most significant advances in aviation history. YFB ¿ 16:09, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Support
- As nom. YFB ¿ 16:09, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Per nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 16:30, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know a lot about aircraft but this definitely passes. ALittleClass (talk) 02:37, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
- Shouldn't we list Supersonic speed first? JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 18:48, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
- I thought about this but I wasn't sure what category it would fit under? YFB ¿ 14:15, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
Crucial to spaceflight, ballistic missiles, and many current advanced weapon systems. YFB ¿ 16:09, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Support
- As nom. YFB ¿ 16:09, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Weak support. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 16:31, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
- Shouldn't we list Hypersonic speed first? JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 18:48, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
Add types of bridges
editWe are heavy on specific bridges and very light on fundamental types of bridge construction.
Often confused with, but in design terms quite different from Suspension bridge 5. Used in many of the world's largest bridges. YFB ¿ 15:52, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Support
- As nom. YFB ¿ 15:52, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 18:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
- Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:39, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Add Truss bridge
editExtremely widespread type of bridge construction (with many subtypes) YFB ¿ 15:52, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Support
- As nom. YFB ¿ 15:52, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 18:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
- Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:02, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
- 96.95.142.29 (talk) 21:52, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
We have Aqueduct (water supply) 4 under Water supply network 4 but not the kind that allowed Canal 3 transport over major obstacles like valleys YFB ¿ 15:52, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Support
- As nom. YFB ¿ 15:52, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Add Trestle bridge
editFamous for collapsing at crucial moments in Looney Tunes 4 animations but also quite important in the real world, particularly in the development of Rail transport 4 YFB ¿ 15:52, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Support
- As nom. YFB ¿ 15:52, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Add engine configurations
editWe list Radial engine 5 but not any of the other major configurations of Internal combustion engine 3.
Add Straight engine
editThe most commonly used configuration in car engines.
- Support
- As nom. YFB ¿ 23:32, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
- pbp 13:27, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
- Lophotrochozoa (talk) 19:11, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
The other ubiquitous configuration, without which we'd have no Muscle car 5
- Support
- As nom. YFB ¿ 23:32, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
- pbp 13:27, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
- Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:28, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Add Flat engine
editNot quite as well known, but widely used in aviation and motorcycles as well as some iconic cars.
- Support
- Oppose
- Discuss
Add GRB 080319B
editThe furthest astronomical event that can be seen by naked eye. Have been on "On This Day" section previously.
- Support
As nom.—WiiUf🐉 13:23, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Thanks for nominating, but as this Gamma-ray burst 4 lasted less than a minute a few years ago, and doesn't seem to have made much impact on Earth, it doesn't seem significant enough to me to be a vital article. YFB ¿ 23:55, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
- This distance record has already been surpassed. We've already got List of the most distant astronomical objects as a VA. Praemonitus (talk) 17:43, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- Discuss
- We DO include SN 1987A 5. This is arguably the most important super nova we've observed in terms of scientific knowledge. I'm not sure if we need another one. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 01:36, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
Iconic boat/symbol of Venice 4.
- Support
- Oppose
- Discuss
Add Bioluminescence
edit"...the emission of light during a chemiluminescence reaction by living organisms." This is a very common characteristic of sea creatures.
- Support
- As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 02:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
- Per nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 02:30, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
- YFB ¿ 17:49, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
- Makes sense. ZergTwo (talk) 17:37, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Add Modal logic
editNoted for being an axiomatic system that has wide application in philosophy. "Applications include game theory, moral and legal theory, web design, multiverse-based set theory, and social epistemology." This was one of the fields in which Saul Kripke 5 did heavy work in.
- Support
- As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 10:15, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
- Lophotrochozoa (talk) 13:12, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
- --Thi (talk) 15:13, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
- Bluevestman (talk) 20:27, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Also known as a parking garage. A common type of building and common place to park cars. Very common in populated city downtowns.
- Support
- As nom. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 18:53, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
I wasn't sure if this should be listed under the cooking utensils (since these are used there most), but I decided that these could be used for anything, so they'll go under tools. Still, an everyday item used to grab objects.
- Support
- As nom. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 19:07, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
- Important. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:21, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
On the same level as the soon to be added Laboratory flask 5 and Beaker (laboratory equipment) 5.
- Support
- As nom. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 19:12, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
Add Bunsen burner
editAnother common piece of laboratory equipment.
- Support
- As nom. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 19:15, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
I think this is vital. I'm not very sure though...
- Support
- As nom. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 01:59, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
- ALittleClass (talk) 05:27, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
- --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 17:32, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
Probably the easiest way to start a fire nowadays.
- Support
- As nom. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 04:50, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
- ALittleClass (talk) 05:27, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
- --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 17:31, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
- Support Carlwev 21:19, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:22, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
Another common way to start a fire, or to burn something.
- Support
- As nom. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 04:52, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
Wood used for fire. I think this and its 69 interwikis explains itself.
- Support
- As nom. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 05:03, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
- Seems straightforward enough. The Blue Rider 10:52, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
I'm not sure where to put these, but I think under this page may be fine. Still, two very common types of fires.
- Support
- As nom. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 05:04, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
- Easy adds. The Blue Rider 10:54, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
A pretty game-changing innovation with significant usage during WWII and still has a very wide range of applications including aircraft navigation, wildlife conservation etc.
- Support
- As nom. YFB ¿ 18:04, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Archiving bot
editIs there a bot set up to archive this page? If not can we explore getting one? YFB ¿ 18:29, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Yummifruitbat: We used to use an archival bot for this page, but we disabled it a while back because it was archiving unclosed discussions. We decided that with how long the wait can sometimes be between votes, it was better to use manual archiving. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:23, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
Important medical topic which even has its own category. Affects tons of people every year. It also has some importance in botany. 46 interwikis.
- Support
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
The vaccine that prevents meningitis. Should definitely be listed with the other vaccines, as it is often required or recommended to take.
- Support
- As nom. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 01:58, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:17, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
- Makes sense. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:36, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
Add Essential oil
editEucalyptus oil, lavender oil, peppermint oil, et cetera. They are often used in practices of Traditional Chinese medicine 4 and Ayurveda 4, and centrally in Aromatherapy, which, like it or not, is a multi-billion dollar industry. Other uses include uses as a pesticide, antimicrobial, and perfume.
- Support
- As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 02:25, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- 172.56.170.142 (talk) 19:57, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
@ALittleClass: Where should we list it? Lophotrochozoa (talk) 11:34, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
@Lophotrochozoa: :Chemistry > Hydrocarbons > Aromatic hydrocarbons is my initial guess. ALittleClass (talk) 18:21, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
Probably VA4 (edit: Geothermal power 4 is currently VA4, it's not completely clear to me how the two articles differ in scope)
- Support
- As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 18:37, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- Reasonable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:32, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
- A main form of energy. The Blue Rider 17:15, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Geothermal power 4 specifically covers electricity generation from geothermal sources; Geothermal heating covers using the heat directly; Geothermal energy is the umbrella article. There's quite a lot of overlap / repetition between the three articles though. YFB ¿ 00:10, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
Add Identity element
editAn element for a given operation that leaves the other element unchanged. As two examples, for standard numbers, the additive identity is 0, because for every number x, x+0=0, and the multiplicative identity is 1, because for every number x, x*1=x. This also is very important for more abstract algebras such Group (mathematics) 4, Ring (mathematics) 4 and Field (mathematics) 4.
- Support
- As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 19:14, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- Lophotrochozoa (talk) 11:15, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Add Inverse element
editAn element for a given element and operation such that the two under the operation will return the identity. (As two examples, for standard numbers the additive inverse for any number x is -x, because x+(-x)=0, which is the additive identity, and for any nonzero number x the Multiplicative inverse 5 is 1/x, because x*(1/x)=1, which is the multiplicative inverse. Also very important in abstract algebra.
- Support
- As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- Lophotrochozoa (talk) 12:52, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Add Human anatomy
editAnatomy 3 has the scope of the anatomy of all animals. This is at least VA4.
- Support
- As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 19:36, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
- This does seem quite important. YFB ¿ 00:02, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
- Though I don't see why it should have a separate article from Human body. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:27, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
- I would consider it the difference between the articles for Life and Biology: one is article on the thing itself, the other is the study of that thing. (Although currently, much of this article just lists human body elements, so it could be improved quite a bit) ALittleClass (talk) 22:32, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
- Makes sense. ZergTwo (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
We have Byte 4, Kilobyte 5, Megabyte 5, and Gigabyte 5. Now, TB is becoming a more common measurement. Laptops, tablets and cellphones will come with TB of space. Its importance will continue to grow.
- E.g., MacBook Pro comes with 512GB, 1TB, 2TB, 4TB and 8TB storage options now. IPad Pro (7th generation) has up to 2TB storage. iPhone 16 Pro has options up to 1TB storage.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:39, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
- Alternatively, we could discuss delisting KB, MB and GB right here. My point is that TB is on its way to being as important as the other derivative subjects. If we should just focus on improving byte, that is fine.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:16, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
- Support
- As nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:50, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Currently a redirect to Byte 4 and, honestly, I can't see how we would find anything substantial to say about TB that hasn't been said repetitively about kB, MB and GB. I'm personally inclined to think that all of those should be merged back into Byte since, with the possible exception of Gigabyte because of the legal / consumer confusion history, the rest are mostly just restatements of the same concepts plus a few examples of data items of that size magnitude. kB, MB and GB would be good candidates for delisting from computing, which seems to me quite bloated relative to other Technology areas. YFB ¿ 00:01, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
- Would a merger discussion be the proper first move or should a removal discussion be the proper first move.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:07, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
- Well, I think by the look of this thread there may be a consensus findable to delist those even if there's not one for merging, so we could start here. YFB ¿ 23:59, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- I was just nominating TB because if KB, MB and GB are vital, TB is becoming vital too. If consensus is that KB, MB and GB are mistakenly listed articles then TB would be too. It is trending toward whatever treatment KB, MB and GB get. I could also support delisting everything but Byte.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:16, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
- Well, I think by the look of this thread there may be a consensus findable to delist those even if there's not one for merging, so we could start here. YFB ¿ 23:59, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- Would a merger discussion be the proper first move or should a removal discussion be the proper first move.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:07, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I would rather remove units of measurement in bulk. They're footnotes in an encyclopedia that don't warrant fully-fledged articles, let alone VA4/VA5 status. For that reason terabyte isn't even an article anymore. J947 ‡ edits 00:02, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
- I also prefer removing unit multiples. Moreover, Terabyte is a redirect (as already said), and Cewbot automatically replaces them with their targets on the VA lists, which would result in a duplicate of Byte 4.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 11:00, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
- Per above. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:18, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Discuss
Add Lapis lazuli
editImportant rock throughout history. It has been prized by humans since the Indus Valley Civilization. Often used for jewelry.
- Support
- As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 22:30, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
- Support per nominator. Æ's old account wasn't working (talk) 10:27, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 00:52, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
- For sure. Johnnie Runner (talk) 21:28, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Aye. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 05:38, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Historic programming language and an influence on a number of programming languages (Java (programming language) 4, Python (programming language) 5, PHP 5, Scala (programming language) 5, Ruby (programming language) 5, and Swift (programming language) 5, just to name a few).
- Support
- As nom. Æ's old account wasn't working (talk) 10:52, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
- Seems pretty important. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:50, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
- An influential language, but now rarely used. Its history is covered by the Object-oriented programming VA article, for example. Praemonitus (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
Add Raynaud syndrome
editA common medical condition causing reduced blood flow to the fingers and toes, often triggered by cold. Appears in 4% of the human population. 39 interwikis, rated High-Importance by WikiProject Cardiology.
- Support
- As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:46, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
Very surprised this isn't listed yet.
- Support
- As nom. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 04:36, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
- Wow. Another face-palm one here. Good spot. YFB ¿ 20:35, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
- Very culturally significant. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:37, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
- One of the best recognized classes of watercraft. Praemonitus (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
A mop is definitely vital.
- Support
- As nom. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 04:37, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
- Facapalm as usual. See also: Broom 5, Brush 4, Bucket 5... (why is brush V4 compared to the others?). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:02, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
- Makes sense. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:38, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
- The Blue Rider 17:14, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
Remove unit multiples
editPer discussion above re: Terabyte, I propose removing most unit multiples, specifically:
- Kilobyte 5
- Megabyte 5
- Gigabyte 5
- Millimetre 5
- Centimetre 5
- Micrometre 5
- Millisecond 5
- Nanosecond 5
- Picosecond 5
- Microgram 5
In the majority of cases these are pretty trivial articles that describe the conversion to other multiples and provide examples of things measured in that unit. I wouldn't oppose delisting Femtosecond 5 and Attosecond 5 either but there does seem to be at least a bit more to say about why they're significant, so I've not included them in this proposal.
To enable the consensus to be determined easily, please specify clearly what you're !voting for (e.g.) 'delist all' or 'keep all except Kilobyte'.
- Support
- As nom. YFB ¿ 21:17, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
- Support All but Microgram because the main base unit article for gram does not have a table with conversions to microgram and other multiples.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:28, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks Tony. That table does exist in Kilogram 4 though, which is the base SI unit of mass (gram is a derived unit, even though the names of all those units are based on '-gram'). YFB ¿ 13:42, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
- OK. Support all but oppose cm per QJR.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:51, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks Tony. That table does exist in Kilogram
- Eh support. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 17:09, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose centimeter, support the rest. If Inch 4 is Level 4, then we should have centimeter at Level 5. It has also previously been discussed and kept. Other than that, we don't need the rest. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:14, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
- Support all on principle. J947 ‡ edits 04:25, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose removing gigabyte and centimeter, support removing all else. Those two get a lot more colloquial use than the others. Johnnie Runner (talk) 21:21, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose centimeter ALittleClass (talk) 07:23, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose centimeter, which is part of the still-used CGS system. Praemonitus (talk) 17:29, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- Discuss
Courtesy ping TonyTheTiger, J947 and LaukkuTheGreit who participated in the Terabyte discussion above. YFB ¿ 12:09, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
Add fluid dynamics concepts
editSome pretty important concepts in fluid dynamics are currently missing from the list:
Add Coandă effect
editTendency of a fluid jet to hug a surface. Relevant in lots of different situations including in flying saucers, air conditioning, NOTAR helicopters and blown flaps.
- Support
- As nom. YFB ¿ 12:47, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Add Magnus effect
editLift force generated by a spinning object moving through a fluid. The basis of topspin, backspin etc. in sports; significant in ballistics; and exploited by rotor ships.
- Support
- Oppose
- Discuss
Important in abstract algebra. Important in category theory. Important in computer science.
- Support
- As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 07:28, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Pregnancy 3 is at level 3, so this can probably be added.
- Support
- As nom. Sahaib (talk) 17:14, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
- ALittleClass (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
- 96.95.142.29 (talk) 18:37, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- support Carlwev 18:38, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
A statement that is always true. This is a fundamental classification of logical statements.
- Support
- As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 20:56, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- I don't understand why this is among the top 0.7% of articles that an encyclopedia should have.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:50, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
- Discuss
What about Contradiction?--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:26, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
- would also be ok with adding this ALittleClass (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
I'm sure this is in all of our ears.
- Support
- As nom. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 00:38, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
- --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:25, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
More common tool proposal dumps
editThese should all be self-explanatory.
- Support
- As nom. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 00:49, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
- The Blue Rider 17:13, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
- Support
- As nom. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 00:49, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
Add Hole punch
edit- Support
- As nom. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 00:49, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
- Support
- As nom. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 00:49, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support - bugs me that gavel is listed before this, we over represent high culture over common. Carlwev 17:39, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
Add Sledgehammer
edit- Support
- As nom. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 00:49, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Neutral
- Discuss
Don't know where to place this discussion, but regardless this is a very important occupation that has prevented who knows how many people from drowning.
- Support
- Oppose
- Discuss
- Probably comparable to a Security guard, which is a VA. But not really a STEM profession. Praemonitus (talk) 17:26, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
Remove mathematical symbols
editThese symbols don't seem like particularly important topics that need to be covered by good Wikipedia articles. They are hardly "vital".
Remove Plus and minus signs 5, Multiplication sign 5, and Division sign 5
edit
- Support
- As nom. 166.140.230.92 (talk) 22:46, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Saying that mathematical symbols are not vital (for mathematics) would be similar to saying that the Apostrophe 5 and Comma 5 are not vital (for language). The Blue Rider 10:42, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
- Discuss
- We do have a Mathematical notation VA, but it does not cover individual signs to the necessary degree. Praemonitus (talk) 17:21, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
Remove Percent sign 5
edit
- Support
- As nom. 166.140.230.92 (talk) 22:46, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Per my comment on the above proposal. The Blue Rider 10:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
- Discuss
Remove Infinity symbol 5
edit
- Support
- As nom. This one is a GA, however. 166.140.230.92 (talk) 22:46, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Per my comment on the above proposal. The Blue Rider 10:44, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
- Discuss
Remove Microsoft Edge 5
edit
As far as internet browsers go this one is certainly the least important of the ones listed. Edge was only released back in 2020 and hasn't had much of an impact outside of being Microsoft's currently supported browser. Its current market share of 11.8% is higher than both Firefox 5 and Safari (web browser) 5, but those have existed for a lot longer and have had a larger impact on the internet as a whole. This also applies to Microsoft's own Internet Explorer 5, despite its retirement.
- Support
- As nom. AllyWithInfo (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- Major in some developing countries, minor elsewhere...annoying as hell as well. The Blue Rider 17:12, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Add Lemnoideae
editAlso known as duckweeds. Rather interesting group of plants that many people have heard of. Removed from VA4 in 2014, but should be listed at VA5.
- Support
- As nom. 96.89.118.93 (talk) 17:41, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
This is the asexual form of Plant propagation 5 but please put it under Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Biology and health sciences/Biology#Plant reproduction (with Germination 5) instead of under horticulture. It includes forms such as Stolon 5, Bulb 5, and Tuber 5.
- Support
- As nom. 96.89.118.93 (talk) 19:38, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discussion
Add Human skin color
editHumans can care about this a lot.
- Support
- As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 22:21, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
- Per nom. 204.195.97.109 (talk) 03:41, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
- Human hair color 5 is listed. Johnnie Runner (talk) 21:25, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support Carlwev 17:35, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- We've already got Melanin, but human skin pigmentation is culturally important.
- Oppose
- Discuss
Pneumonia is already Level 3, so Classification of pneumonia should follow. After promotion, I will nominate it to Level 4, as the rules say.
- Support
- As nom Earth605 (talk) 18:44, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose Carlwev 18:49, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- I must agree with Carlwev. The Blue Rider 10:34, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
- Discuss
Article is in one other language. We list a lot of "of" articles, some many, some few, like history of, economy of, culture of, politics of, music, literature, cuisine. Some seem very strong, some less so. Classification of seems to make the least sense to me, even if pneumonia is level 3, there are several diseases at level 3, should we list classification of all of them? or just this one? why is this one more important than the rest? There is a category Category:Medical_classification with 39 articles, why would this one stand above all of those? Also, there is an article Medical classification, which doesn't look amazing, appears in 5 other languages, we do not list this. Unless there was a very well explained and thought out reason, I wouldn't list classification of pneumonia or any disease before Medical classification itself. I know there are many expanded kinds of articles at level 5, and each could be argued, but in this case I really can't see why Classification of pneumonia, would be vital in addition to and separate from pneumonia itself. The pneumonia article has a section called classification which covers this, and I cannot see why it would be stand alone vital, sorry. Carlwev 18:49, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hi! I didn't think about all of that paragraph, but Medical classification should be a vital article. I DON'T think this one is special, I didn't check what you did. Still, that's a great reflexion! Earth605 (talk) 19:08, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
Throwing this in mostly due to the high interwikis its has. Survived the Battle of Tsushima 5, and believed to have fired the shot that indicated the start of the October Revolution 5.
- Support
- Oppose
- Discuss
"a manufacturing process in which a liquid material is usually poured into a mold, which contains a hollow cavity of the desired shape, and then allowed to solidify. [...] Casting is a 7,000-year-old process"
- Support
- As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 17:37, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support Carlwev 10:48, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Although Molding (process) seems to treat Casting as its subtype, the latter article is more popular.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 11:02, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Historically important in many fields. Praemonitus (talk) 17:12, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Add Eclipse (horse)
editWe list three American (Seabiscuit 5, Secretariat (horse) 5 and Man o' War 5) and one NZ/Australian (Phar Lap 5) Thoroughbred racehorses. I suggest that we should also include one British racehorse for more global representation. The article states that Eclipse "was considered the greatest racehorse of his time" and that "his sire line has become dominant in the modern Thoroughbred worldwide".
- Support
- As nom. Makkool (talk) 17:05, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Zonal and meridional flow
editPlease consider adding the Zonal and meridional flow article to: Earth science => Air => Atmospheric circulation. This global phenomenon is common to all Solar System planets with a dense atmosphere, and most likely to many exoplanetary atmospheres as well. It is a better fit under the 'Earth science' VA organization, rather than 'Planetary science' under 'Astronomy'.
- Support
- As nom. Praemonitus (talk) 20:03, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Add Dietary fiber
edit"...the portion of plant-derived food that cannot be completely broken down by human digestive enzymes." Found mainly in plants and supports your health and digestion.
- Support
- As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 20:00, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Perhaps under Biochemistry? We've already got Fiber. Praemonitus (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- This topic is completely different than Fiber. 96.95.142.29 (talk) 18:12, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
These airports basically serve the two largest cities in the US and nothing else. I don't see how each are vital besides that.
- Support
- Oppose
- I believe airports are vastly underappreciated by VA compared to other more local physical structures. I think we could easily remove a few local physical structures like buildings, and replace them with more airports. Airports do not just serve their placement locality. International airports are vital for their connections to the world, probably more so than many of the other types of structures that we list at VA.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:41, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
Add Water wheel
editWe seem to bias modern tech. Water wheels have been in use over 2000 years, still used today in some places. Article is in 52 other languages and has 1.3 million views over 10 years, [7] quite high, for an old tech. Watermill is at level 4, a main use, but not only use of the water wheel, but it is not unusual to expand level 4 concepts at level 5. Article includes history since ancient times all over the old world, and the several different types that exist.
- Support
- Oppose
- Discussion
Diseases that are characterized by the progressive loss of neurons. ALS 5, Multiple sclerosis 4, Parkinson's disease 4, Huntington's disease 5, Prion 4 diseases and almost all forms of Dementia 4 such as Alzheimer's disease all fall under this umbrella category.
- Support
- As nom. ALittleClass (talk) 06:06, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- 96.95.142.29 (talk) 18:10, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Remove North American donkeys
edit"North American donkeys constitute approximately 0.1% of the worldwide donkey population."
This is not vital, Donkeys are not even native to North America. There aren't even equivalent pages for other continents where domestic donkeys have lived longer. Low importance on relevant wikiprojects. This is just a random cross category article.
- Support
- As nom. -1ctinus📝🗨 18:08, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support Carlwev 18:17, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- Too specific and americentric, with low stats. Can be sufficiently covered in the History section of Donkey 4 (There's already a paragraph, "The first donkeys came to the Americas on ships...").--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 19:22, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Add Multiple myeloma
editAnother cancer that I believe is important enough to include. It gets around 3000 views per day.
- Support
- As nom. 96.95.142.29 (talk) 18:15, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss
Under neurotransmitters. "It is involved in mood, cognition, reward, learning, memory, and physiological processes such as vomiting and vasoconstriction."
- Support
- As nom. 96.95.142.29 (talk) 21:29, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 21:37, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discuss