This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Vital Articles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of vital articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and work together to increase the quality of Wikipedia's essential articles.Vital ArticlesWikipedia:WikiProject Vital ArticlesTemplate:WikiProject Vital ArticlesVital Articles
The purpose of this discussion page is to select 50,000 topics for which Wikipedia should have high-quality articles.
Any article currently on this list may be challenged. The discussion is open to the following rules:
Voting count table (>60%)
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: 11:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
7 days ago is: 11:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
If you're interested in regularly participating as a closer, the following browser tools may also be helpful:
I think the abstract physics are the same, but the similarities end there. The ocean currents, geography, and especially historical data are all different. I guess it would be a bit like listing different animal species from the same family. Like I mentioned too, we still have room in the section, plus we've already added Typhoon5 as precedent. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since we have Roman roads5. This was the most extensive infrastructure project built in the Americas before European colonization and arguably remained so for centuries.
Good point, about the precedent of including Roman roads. I'm no archaeologist, but the Incan road system also had a well-developed plan for complementary buildings (granaries, caravanserais, govt. archives, etc.) Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We been using the idea of these things since 1878 (roughly, the modern jack did not exist til like the 60s). We list USB protocols like USB-C5, so what stopping this?
Support, since it's technically analog and for audio / telephony, it helps rather than hinders the current imbalance towards Computers. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The study of research methods. An intersection between epistemology, philosophy of science, and the scientific method
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Adding several classes of and specific Warships (set 2 of 2)
It's the primary example of the concept of a modern guided missile cruiser, but has been phased out by the U.S. Navy and the general concept did not catch on with other navies. Notable primarily for its history of historical engagements and being an Aegis platform. Not sure I'd call it vital. ⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!06:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how we can make recency bias arguments about U.S. aircraft and not expect those to be applicable for the Virginia-class. It's not vital to understanding the development of modern nuclear attack submarines like the Los Angeles class was. ⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!06:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the additional value in adding two smaller-sized carriers. They're relevant primarily for their immense cost to the UK and the political infighting over their commissioning, which is not unimportant but I'm struggling to see how it's vital. ⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!06:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only built in small numbers, service record consists primarily of catching fire and being repaired, or being sold off to China (which is actively developing a nuclear-powered carrier to replace them as of November 2024).⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!03:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only two ever built, Bismarck was destroyed on her first sortie, while Tirpitz accomplished nothing other than constantly being damaged and going in for repairs before being herself destroyed. ⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!03:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Makkool, I thought of this, but the German Battleship Tirpitz also had a significant role in WWII. while the Bismarck is the more famous of the ships, the Tirpitz had a bit more of a service history (Obviously) and impacted some parts of the war, if only by forcing the British to commit resources to trying to hunt it down and defend against it. From a historic persepctive, the Bismark is certainly more discussed, but from a technological perspecitve both ships seem impactful. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 02:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Specific United States Navy Warship. Early Ironclad that was employed during the U.S. Civil War and built in response to the CSS Virginia. The battle between the Monitor and Virginia is the first between ironclad warships.
I noticed we are missing many of the major helicopters used in military aviation. I don't think we have any specific models, which I believe is due to a bias towards fixed wing aviation. As it looks like we will be needing to expand this category, I have a few I think we should start with. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 23:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The definitional Warsaw Pact attack helicopter family of the Cold War and extensively used in conflicts around the world. ⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!02:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- it's cool that it's the largest, but I'd rather see the Mi-8 or Mi-17, which were significantly more influential overall. Or arguably the Ka-27/Ka-29 for a specialized naval helicopter variant that's also an example of contrarotating blades. ⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!02:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
U.S. built attack helicopter currently in use by several countries, including Japan, UK, Israel, and the UAE. The helicopter has seen widespread use in American conflicts.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.
U.S. built medium lift utility helicopter in use by multiple countries. Has seen widespread use in conflicts the U.S. has been involved with.
Are you planning on listing any other heavy lift helicopters? I'd also consider the CH-47 both as the premier example of the tandem-rotor concept and the stereotypical Western heavy-lift helicopter for the past 60 years. ⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!02:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed we were short on helicopters and did some quick research to come up with a list of ones that seemed notable. If you want to nominate that one, I'd support it. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 16:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Since we added Manuscript5 and Codex5, I'm thinking this concept could be next. Incunables are early printed books. An important step in the history of printing (and books in general).
We have 11 specific types of firearms and 19 specific types of planes, but no tanks. There are many noteworthy ones, but here are a few I think are important.
There should probably be *some* German tank but I'm not sure it should be the Tiger. I think there's a stronger argument for either the Panzer IV or Panther tank, both of which had more than 5x the number produced of Tigers and were more impactful on the war -- the Panzer IV being the only German tank to serve the entirety of the war, and the Panther widely being considered one of the best tanks of the war.⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!04:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but the T-55 is probably more important to include than this as far as Cold War Soviet tanks go, being the most widely produced tank in history and still widely in use today.⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!04:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I propose that section gets renamed into Energy storage. The section in general seems to reflect what was (expected to) be important 10-15 years ago, compared to what is actually important.
Gets only 11 pageviews per day. Reading the article, I do not see why this type of battery stands out compared to others. It's used in a couple of niches, but nothing screams vital to me.
I actually added this one before voting was standard on unfinished lists. I'm fine if everyone wants to cut it and agree it's niche, but just for context, I think I added it for balance. My understanding is it's one of the most time-tested battery chemistries, and it's arguably the most economical & robust in some appropriate technology situations. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only 14 pageviews per day. Similarly, used in a few niches, but not as big as the alternatives below. They are sometimes used in hybrid vehicles, but are being replaced with lithium-ion batteries.
Another I may have added before voting was standard. I'm fine if everyone wants to cut it; I figured it mainly has notability as a common (the main?) rechargeable chemistry for decades until lithium-ion recently became dominant. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Gets only 28 pageviews per day. The term is a bit of a neologism I believe, with power-to-X or power-to-gas the more commonly used phrases for similar ideas.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
266 daily views. Has large applications in industry and for domestic heating and is expected to grow in terms of power sector applications too (f.i. in Carnot batteries).
89 daily views. A core component of sector coupling (which might need its own article?), a trend in the energy transition that sees all energy-using sectors getting more intertwined to allow buffers for variable renewables (creating heat, gas or whatever during periods of overproduction).
Hi everyone, just to give a heads-up, we're technically already over quota for Tech and only have about 20-25 more articles before we're past the 2% cushion. We still have a decent number of open technology proposals too, most of them for addition.
This is meant more as a reminder than a discussion of anything. Obviously, if you can think of any likely swaps (or especially batch removals), then it's not an issue.
Quota proposals are also always an option, but I will say, for myself in advance, that I oppose increasing Tech's quota for now. It's not just that some subjects are way over-represented, but Tech could use some reorganization (including some headings being split-off or diverted to other lists). After refocusing, we could have a clearer idea of whether the section should have a bigger share of Lv 5. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Removals are really really hard. I've tried to reduce several areas that were over represented, but there is usually more resistance to removals then additions. Look at my attempt at trimming U.S. fighter jets for example and adding in some foreign made ones, some of the adds got support, but the removals are all heavily opposed... We have a a hoarder problem. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 00:36, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely, though if there's a silver lining (and this is just my impression), anyone that sticks around and doesn't get too discouraged can eventually push some through. I think editors that just participate here a few times are usually motivated by what they find interesting, which is good. They're often the ones that notice glaring coverage gaps. But it is biased towards addition, plus the discussions can also get lost in minutiae.
I think almost everyone that participates here over time though develops mostly general reasons for voting. In a way, it's almost like we've developed our own primitive case law here. And as a result, if you find an article that checks several "not vital" boxes, you can at least expect a lot of support from the regulars. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi everyone, just another update. If you net the current Tech proposals (additions less removals), we're going to blow past our 2% cushion to be officially over-quota. Obviously, more removals are an option, and quota proposals on the main Lv5 page are always allowed.
Personally though, I feel we may want to step back and rethink the Tech list, looking at the big picture. Even with more removals, the list is now pulling in several (somewhat contradictory) directions, plus our imbalances aren't getting any better. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have there ever been any expressed shut down of nominations in the history of VA? I think we should just go forward and evaluate removals as well as quota reallocations. Note that when this discussion was started we were 20-25 nominations away from 2% cushion. Now we are at 3228/3200. 1% cushion would be 3232 and 2% cushion would be 3264, so we are 36 from 2% cushion and making progress.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:35, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To your first question, there have never been any imposed shut-downs no, but it's never really been necessary. Once we're clearly over quota, everyone has typically throttled back most additions until we're back under 100%.
To your other points, the section is technically over quota with even 3201 articles, and we're supposed to try hovering around it. The cushion is just there for practical reasons, like allowing batch proposals and not requiring additions / removals to be balanced exactly in the moment. That's also why we don't mark a section as over-quota on the table until it's clearly grown out of control.
As for progress, the list hasn't moved much since last month, but if you count the active addition proposals here on the talk page, then subtract active removals, we're not going in the right direction.
On the matter of quotas, proposals are always allowed and everyone else may support it, but I would definitely oppose an increase in Tech's quota right now. Especially taking slots from the Life Sciences, which are almost definitely under quota due to neglect, not relative importance. The more I look at the list in terms of actual coverage, the worse I feel about it, and without us at least stepping back for a bit and rethinking our direction, I'm not sure even more removals would improve it. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have made several currwntly active batch proposals for sciences and have seen a lot less interest than I expected. I am having trouble convincing myself, it is worth preserving hundreds of spaces for those subjects.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't necessarily worry about them yet; for one, most of the editors on English Wikipedia are probably on holiday. I also tend to wait before replying to very large proposal batches. Sometimes I realize I have to think more about the underlying argument, which section we'll put them in, things like that. I plan to vote on yours in the coming weeks, and I'll probably support most of them, especially the anatomy ones.
That said, if you keep working on Science proposals, definitely be prepared to wait a while. They don't attract the same interest, but I would strongly disagree with dropping their quotas for that reason.
If you haven't already seen some discussions about it, including by former & current participants here, VA (and especially Lv5) are looked down on by most of Wikipedia. The criticism is pretty consistent too, that VA is a popularity contest and dumping ground for a relatively small group of editors, where we spend time arguing over niche interests instead of prioritizing and assisting improvements to the encyclopedia. If we shift quotas to sections just because current participants find them interesting, we're almost definitely feeding the habit. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not counting rail transport companies, we have 64 rapid transit systems. This one is a bus system, which means is not that significant in terms of infrastructure. In fact, Bogotá is kinda infamous for being one of the largest cities in the world without a metro system.
I mentioned it above, but I think I'm going to propose moving all specific facility and infrastructure articles to Geography (on the central Lv5 talk page). I could totally support some transit authorities / bus systems there though. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Atlanta's airport is the busiest airport in the world so that's obviously vital. I think we should cut down some US airports since it's the country with the most airports listed. I have no opinion on what airports should be removed, so I am interested to hear what others think. Interstellarity (talk) 23:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more ambivalent about specific instances in general, at least on the Tech list, so consider me neutral on swapping in another airport. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. Even given that the number of Vital number theory articles need not be reduced, this is simply not an important concept in number theory. A search of the math arxiv returns only a single paper about telephone numbers. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 19:17, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Strong oppose on a few counts. The more I think about it, the less I like interwikis as a proxy for vitality, but especially in hard science / mathematics. References will have an extreme bias towards a few languages, and readers / editors are probably disproportionally interested in detailed content over translation. On content, the telephone numbers nicely connect results across several fields, plus we should almost definitely be cutting from other sections before number theory. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
Just to add some detail on cutting from other sections, we almost definitely have too many niche articles in Foundations and Graph Theory. I personally added a lot of those articles back when Lv5 still allowed boldly adding to under-quota lists. I was trying to be comprehensive, but actually reached the quota before reaching the other sections. I'd like the talk page to shrink a little before adding batch proposals, but I can probably think of at least 25 articles to cut there if nobody else gets around to it. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose here, but neutral if moved to Everyday Life. I had to think about it more, and while there is engineering behind this product, the primary justification is its every-day-ness. So it should really be ranked against Everyday Life articles, especially when Tech is so bloated. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose here, but neutral if moved to Everyday Life. I had to think about it more, and while there is engineering behind this product, the primary justification is its every-day-ness. So it should really be ranked against Everyday Life articles, especially when Tech is so bloated. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose here, but neutral if moved to Everyday Life. I had to think about it more, and while there is engineering behind this product, the primary justification is its every-day-ness. So it should really be ranked against Everyday Life articles, especially when Tech is so bloated. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I don't think you need to move the proposal; they're all man-made objects so not really out of place here. They would also make sense in Everyday Life though so if people want to put them there, they can mention it in their vote. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:47, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure either. If you have to choose one or the other though, we probably want the one that fills in a bigger coverage gap. I haven't skimmed the articles, but Tub (container) will probably be more about materials & how they're built, while Food storage container will probably be more about usage & economics. Also, we do already list Food storage5 here in Tech, but related things like Pickling4 are in Everyday Life -> Food & Drink. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Add 2 for Astronomy -> Observation
I decided to stop waiting for the page size to shrink; let's try to fill in the remaining science sections.
Astronomy is already right around the quota (1 below), but I think we can add Fraunhofer lines and telluric contamination. They're respectively the absorption spectra of the sun's and the earth's atmosphere, and beyond revealing details about atmospheric chemistry, they're relevant to calibration and corrections in many observations. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 14:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A biological phenomenon widespread across multiple kingdoms of life, often used as a teaching example of how clever nature can be, and a continuing influence on physics and technology. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 14:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One of the primary types of aberration, due to the Thin lens5 assumption breaking down in the real world. This article has a its own content on corrective methods and measuring aberration.
Another major form of aberration, due to Refraction4 in real world materials varying with wavelength. This article actually has a lot of decent content on corrective methods, measurement, and applications (like photographic effects).
This is probably a little less well-known and may be more borderline, but it does explain the coloration of certain materials and also has several technical applications. The article still could use expansion but I tend to see that as a reason for adding to VA5 (to encourage editing) rather than removing. Related but distinct from Birefringence5.
Oppose here, but neutral if moved to Everyday Life. I had to think about it more, and while there is engineering behind this product, the primary justification is its every-day-ness. So it should really be ranked against Everyday Life articles, especially when Tech is so bloated. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose here, but neutral if moved to Everyday Life. I had to think about it more, and while there is engineering behind this product, the primary justification is its every-day-ness. So it should really be ranked against Everyday Life articles, especially when Tech is so bloated. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm still neutral on all for now, but I'm not sure how I feel about adding items primarily just for their ordinariness. OTOH, vial, test tube, and pipette could possibly go under Science instead of Tech. This is somewhere we're still disorganized and inconsistent, but some scientific equipment is listed with the relevant science, while others are in Tech. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I had to think about this one but they make sense on the list. As more of the processes / culture around flight though, maybe place under the applied sciences? -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose private aviation. In another life I was involved in private aviation with ambitions towards commercial and Military aviation5. I love planes, more then most people, but honestly think they are a bit over represented in vital articles. I loosly to support adding Commerical aviation, but private aviation is not really vital. I'd like to see several commercial airplanes removed in addition to this. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyTheTiger: I'm neutral on most of these architectural topics (but support a few); I pretty much don't know how I feel about prioritizing things for how common they are. I'll wait a bit to start a separate discussion, but these got me thinking about something more general. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose here, but neutral if moved to Everyday Life. I had to think about it more, and while there is engineering behind this product, the primary justification is its every-day-ness. So it should really be ranked against Everyday Life articles, especially when Tech is so bloated. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose here, but neutral if moved to Everyday Life. I had to think about it more, and while there is craft knowledge behind this product, the primary justification is its every-day-ness. So it should really be ranked against Everyday Life articles, especially when Tech is so bloated. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose here, but neutral if moved to Everyday Life. I had to think about it more, and while there is craft knowledge behind this product, the primary justification is its every-day-ness. So it should really be ranked against Everyday Life articles, especially when Tech is so bloated. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose here, but neutral if moved to Everyday Life. I had to think about it more, and while there is craft knowledge behind this product, the primary justification is its every-day-ness. So it should really be ranked against Everyday Life articles, especially when Tech is so bloated. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose here, but neutral if moved to Everyday Life. I had to think about it more, and while there is craft knowledge behind this, the primary justification is its every-day-ness. So it should really be ranked against Everyday Life articles, especially when Tech is so bloated. Actually, Everyday Life may be a better place for all specific rooms (they're defined by use patterns, not necessarily technical design). -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose here, but neutral if moved to Everyday Life. I had to think about it more, and while there is craft knowledge behind this product, the primary justification is its every-day-ness. So it should really be ranked against Everyday Life articles, especially when Tech is so bloated. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose here, but neutral if moved to Everyday Life. I had to think about it more, and while there is craft knowledge behind this, the primary justification is its every-day-ness. So it should really be ranked against Everyday Life articles, especially when Tech is so bloated. Actually, Everyday Life may be a better place for all specific rooms (they're defined by use patterns, not necessarily technical design). -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You make a good point. It would be an argument for moving all rooms away from Technology to Everyday life, but it's a separate discussion. Makkool (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose here, but neutral if moved to Everyday Life. I had to think about it more, and while there is craft knowledge behind this, the primary justification is its every-day-ness. So it should really be ranked against Everyday Life articles, especially when Tech is so bloated. Actually, Everyday Life may be a better place for all specific rooms (they're defined by use patterns, not necessarily technical design). -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose here, but neutral if moved to Everyday Life. I had to think about it more, and while there is craft knowledge behind this, the primary justification is its every-day-ness. So it should really be ranked against Everyday Life articles, especially when Tech is so bloated. Actually, Everyday Life may be a better place for all specific rooms (they're defined by use patterns, not necessarily technical design). -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A room for entertaining guests, the historical precursor to the living room. A part of large houses for several centuries. Rated High-Importance in Wikiproject Home living.
Oppose here, but neutral if moved to Everyday Life. I had to think about it more, and while there is craft knowledge behind this, the primary justification is its every-day-ness. So it should really be ranked against Everyday Life articles, especially when Tech is so bloated. Actually, Everyday Life may be a better place for all specific rooms (they're defined by use patterns, not necessarily technical design). -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The main room in a royal palace or large manor house. I don't feel as strongly for this, because we already have Hall5, but on the other hand, the great hall would be a major space to list for historical homes.
Oppose here, but neutral if moved to Everyday Life. I had to think about it more, and while there is craft knowledge behind this, the primary justification is its every-day-ness. So it should really be ranked against Everyday Life articles, especially when Tech is so bloated. Actually, Everyday Life may be a better place for all specific rooms (they're defined by use patterns, not necessarily technical design). -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose here, but neutral if moved to Everyday Life. I had to think about it more, and while there is craft knowledge behind this, the primary justification is its every-day-ness. So it should really be ranked against Everyday Life articles, especially when Tech is so bloated. Actually, Everyday Life may be a better place for all specific rooms (they're defined by use patterns, not necessarily technical design). -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, and even if we kept it, it should probably be ranked against Everyday Life articles, especially when Tech is so bloated. Actually, Everyday Life may be a better place for all specific rooms (they're defined by use patterns, not necessarily technical design). -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose, entirely on procedural grounds to tap the brakes. Will change to Support if someone proposes more Computing articles to cut. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose here, but neutral in Everday Life. they definitely involve engineering, but with our current space, not sure this adds enough that isn't already covered by other Electricity articles. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think Arrow should likely be higher then it is, however these should be looked at in the context of the overall weapon system, Bow and arrow4 (and to a lesser extent Crossbow4). Here we don't seem to have a standalone article for "bow," but do have some specialty bows such as the Recurve bow5, and an article for Bowstring5 is listed. For Arrow5, we have Fletching5, and Arrowhead5. It's important to note that fletching is important to Crossbow bolt as well as arrow. The word has some relevance with the Flechette5. We list out each component of a computer, the parts of a bow and arrow are only less important because of recent innovations. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 18:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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 know tridents are literally technology and that's why this is nominated inside STEM, but I think they are more vital as a symbol than they are as a technology. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 14:20, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This wasn't added before? Also, I believe this article would be better in biology. Chemistry doesn't mention membranes a lot, at least that's what I believe. --ZergTwo (talk) 23:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion
I double-checked the article and this one definitely belongs under Chemistry (still vital for sure though). Except for a brief mention in the first paragraph of the lead, the entire article is apparently about artificial membranes, with sections on things like process operating modes and recycling used reverse-osmosis filters. There is, however, a separate Biological membrane article that I would support too. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am thinking about the general version for Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Technology#Agricultural_tools, although there is a specialized version for masons. This is more of a tool for the flowerbed, greenhouse or residential interior, but it is still important.
It is looking like Basics and measures will soon be about 18% over quota. I wanted to see if this is a sensible change so I looked at units of measure which is the bulk of that group to see how easy it would be to find removal candidates. Measures is a place where we seem to keep a lot of obsolete and nebulous topics. Lets consider some of these.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Weak oppose, purely on annoying procedural grounds. We already list Wireless5 too, and while I normally like overlap in Lv5, we need to get back down to quota. Will change to Support if someone finds 2 or more weak Computing or smartphone-related articles to cut. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst Vine was important it was only a thing for less than five years. Fandom was founded over 20 years ago and is only becoming more popular (see List of most-visited websites). Wikipedia is at Level 4, so it makes sense to have this at level 5.
Oppose here, but Support if moved to Architecture. I had to think about it more, and while there is engineering behind this, the article doesn't mention it and focuses on architectural aspects. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very high level topic that I'm surprised isn't already included. I think this should be higher then level 5 but starting here. The article itself is pretty self explanatory, but from the lede "Analysis (pl.: analyses) is the process of breaking a complex topic or substance into smaller parts in order to gain a better understanding of it. The technique has been applied in the study of mathematics and logic since before Aristotle (384–322 B.C.), though analysis as a formal concept is a relatively recent development."
This topic is a bit of a more novel discipline, but I think it should be included. In my experience it is a more commonly used term in Europe, and in the United States generally refers to things like Bioinformatics, which studies computer use in healthcare. Essentially, to quote the lede, it is the study of computational systems, and can be sometimes used as a synonym for Computer Science. There is a large organization dedicated to it called Informatics Europe, and several sub-disciplines like geoinformatics (how I am familiar with it). I think that it should be included at least at level 5, but would nominate it for level 4 if it passes. According to this link, there are several informatics programs at American universities, and the department of computer science at Oxford lists it among their research activities here. Google Scholar returns several highly cited results when you search for "Informatics," as you can see here. While not as widespread in the US, I believe a discipline with many subdisciplines, used at multiple academic departments, with a large body of literature should be included.
Definitely, though not sure exactly the best place for it. Would make sense in either Science -> Basics or Math -> Theoretical comp sci. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Similar to Mitochondrial Eve which is nominated above, Y-chromosomal Adam is a significant concept in human genetic history and genomic research. Essentially, this is the most recent Male ancestor of every living human we can detect with current technology, as Mitochondrial Eve is the most recent Female ancestor of every living human.
I think this one speaks for itself. Island3 is vital, obviously. I struggle to think why the concept of an island that is not inhabited by humans is vital though.
Weak oppose, I'm actually going to tap the brakes on this one. The article in its current form is definitely weak, but I could see this being vital for ecological reasons.
This NAZI weapon was the first artificial object to travel into space by crossing the Kármán line (edge of space) with the vertical launch of MW 18014 on 20 June 1944. After WWII, the U.S.A. brought several NAZI scientists involved in the project to the U.S. through Operation Paperclip. The Soviet Union captured the manufacturing facilities for the rockets and brought them to the USSR. This weapon helped serve as the foundation for space programs in the United States, USSR, France, the United Kingdom, and China.
Weak support, would be stronger if we weren't over quota. I get the feeling we'll need to revisit specific military plaforms at some point, but this one is pretty notable. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. As you know, I recently proposed cutting several military aircraft and other weapons, as well as proposing some others. I think the cuts were not as successful as the additions I proposed, which is a shame. Don't know how to approach cutting it back without repeating failed proposals. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 05:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose, purely on annoying procedural grounds. I'll switch to strong support if someone proposes 2 or more weak Computing (or Consumer electronics) articles to cut. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discuss
Add some statistical/geographical problems
Adding some commonly referenced problems in statistics/spatial statics.
The example of the MAUP most people are aware of (at least in the USA) is Jerrymandering. When creating aerial units, there isn't a "best" or "correct" way to subdivide a population. Therefore, the way we aggregate the data impacts the final results.
Like the MAUP, the MTUP is a problem when working on temporal datasets. Depending on how you choose to aggregate your data (Days, Weeks, Minutes, etc.) you can skew your results. Sampling interval, study period start/end times, and unit of time used all impact this. Full disclosure this is one I originated.
This is a formal fallacy caused when making inferences about individuals in a group based on the groups aggregate data. The class average is a C, that does not mean I can assume a particular student has a C in the class.
Concerned with the optimal placement of facilities to minimize transportation costs while considering factors like avoiding placing hazardous materials near housing, and competitors' facilities.
Odd, it should have been remove back then. Somebody claimed in the discussion, that it would have been removed already, but it was back on the list. Went ahead and removed it now. Makkool (talk) 10:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just for reference, it looked like somebody boldly added it here: Special:Diff/1251623948. I don't think there's any ill intent though; it looks like the user is just really into graphics cards and didn't realize the process. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support, I could actually see knots being one of our exceptions to lists at VA. However, more than listing knots, I think what we really want is something that gives more depth to the topic (like a "principles of knot tying" article?) I'm not sure such an article exists though, and we can cut this in the meantime. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, roughly agree with above, perhaps knots could be covered in more detail, but not lists, they will tangle the project up. Carlwev 23:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Geography2 is a level 2 vital article, and we have several geographers listed at level 4. I think the profession for people who practice the discipline is vital based on the criteria. The term covers a broad scope, is essential to other pages, and is internationally practiced.
Like above, Geology2 is a level 2 vital article. We have geologists listed at level 4. I think the profession is vital. The term covers a broad scope, is essential to other pages, and is internationally practiced.
Cartography4 is a level 4 vital article, and we list several cartographers. I think the profession of map maker is vital. The term covers a broad scope, is essential to other pages, and is internationally practiced.
This is a rather important field related to Remote sensing4 and I think it is vital. The term covers a broad scope, is essential to other pages, and is internationally practiced.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Was cut between this and body hair, although this is longer, in more languages (68) and rated slightly higher in the same wikiprojects. (I am suggesting to remove Bowl cut on a different page, kind of a swap
I guess). We list several articles to do with hair, this seems more vital than many of them, almost universal across the world and across time, both/all genders. Would have to be in biology though, due to it being a natural thing rather than created. Seems much more vital than articles under hairstyle in everyday life like bowl cut, goatee, quiff, and flattop for an encyclopaedia, some of which we could remove.
The first is a theoretical 4-dimensional geometric shape, the latter is a more well-known topic in topology and geometry. They are rated Low-priority and High-priority respectively in Wikiproject Mathematics.
