Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/STEM

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
General Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
Level 5 Subpages

People History and geography Society STEM

Introduction

[edit]

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
  1. Before being closed, a Level 5 proposal must:
    1. Run for at least 15 days; AND
    2. Allow at least 7 days after the most recent vote; AND
    3. Have at least 4 participants.
  2. For a proposal to be implemented on the Level 5 list:
    1. It must have over 60% support (see table); AND
    2. It must have at least 4 support votes !votes.
  3. 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: 23:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
  • 7 days ago is: 23:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

If you're interested in regularly participating as a closer, the following browser tools may also be helpful:


The following link represent all current Level 5 Vital articles that are classified as STEM subjects:

Further information: Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Biological and health sciences/Biology
Further information: Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Biological and health sciences/Animals
Further information: Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Biological and health sciences/Plants
Further information: Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Biological and health sciences/Health
Further information: Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Physical sciences/Basics and measurement
Further information: Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Physical sciences/Astronomy
Further information: Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Physical sciences/Earth science
Further information: Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Physical sciences/Chemistry
Further information: Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Mathematics
Further information: Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Physical sciences/Physics
Further information: Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Technology

Add Tilikum (orca)

[edit]

Tilikum, a captive orca linked to three human deaths, symbolizes debates on animal captivity ethics and fostered awareness about animal welfare. The Blue Rider 01:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. As nominator. The Blue Rider 01:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SailorGardevoir (talk) 10:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Interstellarity (talk) 12:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I would also support adding animal ethics and animal rights, alongside having an example of an animal affected by these concepts. λ NegativeMP1 17:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Feels too recent events to consider vital. Makkool (talk) 20:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose  Carlwev  05:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

I'm not sure of this one. We do list animal welfare at level 4 in fact. The suggestion here is that this animal would "symbolize" or "represent" animal ethics. But we do not yet list animal ethics, and we also do not list animal rights either, which could be a much more obvious addition. This whale is definitely notable but I'm not sure if it's notable enough for the vital articles or not.  Carlwev  13:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two coefficients and one fallacy

[edit]

Add Coefficient of determination

[edit]
PASSED
Added 4-0. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:11, 23 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.

Variance  4 helps understand the spread of a sample, but its value alone may not provide much insight. This is where the coefficient of determination comes into play. The Blue Rider 13:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. As nominator. The Blue Rider 13:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Interstellarity (talk) 01:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 16:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support, very basic and we're still barely at quota in math. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose


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

Add Coefficient of correlation

[edit]
PASSED
Added 4-0 —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:11, 23 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.

Covariance  4 helps understand how two variables change together, but its value alone doesn't show the relationship's strength or direction. That's where the coefficient of correlation comes in. The Blue Rider 13:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. As nominator. The Blue Rider 13:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Interstellarity (talk) 01:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 16:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support, very basic and we're still barely at quota in math. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Correlation does not imply causation

[edit]
PASS
Added 4-0. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:09, 23 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.

In fields like economics and statistics, it's vital to remember this fallacy. Recognizing this distinction is crucial for accurate data interpretation and analysis. The Blue Rider 13:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. As nominator. The Blue Rider 13:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Interstellarity (talk) 01:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 16:16, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support, very basic and we're still barely at quota in math. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add OpenOffice.org

[edit]

The ancestor of LibreOffice  5 and Apache OpenOffice. Interstellarity (talk) 10:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Interstellarity (talk) 10:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. It was one of the most popular pieces of open-source software in its heyday, but it still had a significantly lower market share than MS Office even at its peak. It did not last a particularly long time, with less than ten years between its first and final releases. feminist🩸 (talk) 07:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose, purely on my no-name-brands-in-tech principle. I personally think word processor program would be sufficient, even for MS Word. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion

Add New York City Transit Authority and/or Metropolitan Transportation Authority

[edit]

We list NYC subway at L4, but we don't have coverage for the bus system that goes there. I suggest adding these so that the buses and other forms of transit are covered here. Interstellarity (talk) 21:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Interstellarity (talk) 21:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Microform

[edit]

Found a lot in libraries. Interstellarity (talk) 23:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Interstellarity (talk) 23:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. I continue to assert WP has many redlinks and redirects that could be vital articles. Microfilm and microfiche should not be redirecting to this subject and either or both could be VA5. This term is uncommon and made important by virtue of its vital subjects that redirect to it.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD)
    I think I'm neutral overall, but I'd imagine we could substitute either of those for this list if you'd prefer. It would just be on somebody to propose changing the main page and doing the move. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion

World additions

[edit]

World war

[edit]

Many world wars besides WWI and WWII have existed, a vital concept for history, politics and culture. 72 interwikis. The Blue Rider 23:06, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. As nominator. The Blue Rider 23:06, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. per above. starship.paint (RUN) 07:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. per nom. Interstellarity (talk) 00:13, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Supporting and agreeing with above. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 02:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support but only under History, not STEM. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Too general of a term.TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Not true, it is pretty well defined. Plus we list things much more abstract than this. The Blue Rider 14:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

World government

[edit]

Controversial issue that is often debated in politics. 37 interwikis. The Blue Rider 23:06, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. As nominator. The Blue Rider 23:06, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. per above. starship.paint (RUN) 07:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per nom. Interstellarity (talk) 00:13, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:51, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Besides being closer to a philosophical thought experiment or literary trope in my mind, we already have UN and international organizations. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

World population

[edit]
PASSED
Added 6–0 near Demographics, < 7 days after last vote per WP:AVALANCHE. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:43, 14 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.

Widely studied concept per itself but also its implications; important for geography, politics and demography. 77 interwikis. The Blue Rider 23:06, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. As nominator. The Blue Rider 23:06, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. per above. starship.paint (RUN) 07:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per nom. Interstellarity (talk) 00:13, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Important. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 02:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 18:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support, but only under the Social Sciences. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Gustave (crocodile), the Tsavo Man-Eaters, and the Beast of Gévaudan

[edit]

We can probably have some man-eaters on the individual animals section. These animals are held to at least killed 100 people. (There's also the Leopard of Rudraprayag, but we already have the hunter who killed him.)

Support
  1. SailorGardevoir (talk) 04:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Tsavo man-eaters and the beast of Gevaudan. Oppose Gustave, as it seems to be too recent and we can't see if it's a long-standing topic that has vitality in the future. Makkool (talk) 11:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. I just can't convince myself that these are vital in the same way that so many Vital Articles are. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 11:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss
  1. We literally have fourteen individual animals. Not sure if these are the next ones to add. Vileplume 🍋‍🟩 (talk) 02:54, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The animal page is still under quota. SailorGardevoir (talk) 04:43, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add Boulevard and Avenue (landscape)

[edit]

Important streets we have missed. Interstellarity (talk) 00:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Interstellarity (talk) 00:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sure why not. Supporting both. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 02:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Ridesharing company

[edit]

We list taxis, but not ridesharing. Interstellarity (talk) 00:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Interstellarity (talk) 00:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 16:27, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose here, but neutral if you'd move it to Economics and Business. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion

Add Intercity bus service

[edit]

We list Public transport bus service and this should be listed as well. Interstellarity (talk) 19:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Interstellarity (talk) 19:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Intercity rail

[edit]

An important type of rail not listed. Interstellarity (talk) 19:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Interstellarity (talk) 19:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:16, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Remove Attercopus, Brontoscorpio, Plesiosiro

[edit]

As much as I dislike contributing to the bias against invertebrates, I unfortunately don't see much indication that these fossil arachnids are important enough concepts to be vital articles given their taxonomic recency combined with not being very popular research topics in general. PrimalMustelid (talk) 19:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. As nom. PrimalMustelid (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Interstellarity (talk) 12:19, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Defering to nom on this one. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Mostly deferring here too. Don't see an argument for inclusion from reading the short articles or looking at pageviews. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:12, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Plantation

[edit]

Combining cash crops and large estates, plantations have been important in creating the modern world economy, and they date back to ancient times. Their history is full of exploitation and conflict.

Support
  1. As nominator. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 05:15, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 11:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Supporting. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 02:27, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Interstellarity (talk) 12:20, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support but shouldn't it be under Economics? This is more a historical form of production than a distinct technology in my mind.
Oppose
Discuss

Add Typesetting

[edit]

An important aspect of the Printing press  4.

Support
  1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 22:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Interstellarity (talk) 12:21, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I actually like this one for technology; very intricate topic with a long history but still relevant today. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Pan-American Highway

[edit]

The highway network from North to South America, with a small gap in Central America. According to the Guinness World Records, "the world's most longest motorable road".

Support
  1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 23:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Interstellarity (talk) 12:22, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Media (communication)

[edit]

We use these everyday like books and TV. Interstellarity (talk) 00:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Interstellarity (talk) 00:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Easy support. It connects all of this stuff together. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 02:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Makkool (talk) 10:23, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support, I actually like there to be some overlap in Level 5; it suggests ways to merge/split articles. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Replace Clopen set with Connected space  5

[edit]
PASSED
Passed 4-0. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:22, 23 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.

Clopen sets are really not an very important concept. They matter basically only insofar a connected space is defined to be a set with no nontrivial clopens. If anything, Connected space should be nominated, and in fact I will nominate it. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 13:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC) Edit: I am changing this proposal from just removing Clopen to replacing Clopen with Connected space, as I should have done from the outset. Connectedness is one of the most fundamental concepts in General topology  4. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 02:56, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Per nominator. The Blue Rider 02:59, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 03:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Interstellarity (talk) 12:22, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Absolutely, glad to start seeing the math proposals. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss
  • @Mathwriter2718:, hello! Here at WP:VA we support as nominator; also make sure to include a support, oppose and discuss subsection for people to vote. Cheers.
  • @The Blue Rider: I am changing this proposal from just removing Clopen to replacing Clopen with Connected space, as I should have done from the outset. Feel free to retract your per nom support if you disagree.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Riemannian manifold

[edit]

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

This page has 1,002 wikilinks by the way. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 18:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 03:16, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Interstellarity (talk) 12:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Absolutely, glad to start seeing the math proposals. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss
[edit]

Hominidae and Homininae are terms in the phylogenetic tree containing great apes and humans. Most other terms in the tree surrounding these are Level 4 or Level 5. Interbreeding between archaic and modern humans is a much-studied topic. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 11:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. As nom Mathwriter2718 (talk) 11:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Interstellarity (talk) 12:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Yeah, let's definitely add this. Interesting topic, attracts lots of research, and centers several other articles. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Add Ford Mustang

[edit]

I'm not super confident about this one succeeding, since it's not one of the best-selling cars of all time, and we already have a Ford car listed (Ford Model T  5), but it's arguably the most iconic and best selling sports car of all time, and is also a iconic brand, especially in the United States. Not to mention, it gets more views on average than both the Volkswagen Beetle  5 and the Toyota Corolla  5 [1] (sidenote: the Corolla is not yet a VA at the time of writing, but it will be soon).

Support
  1. As nominator. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 02:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Interstellarity (talk) 12:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discuss

Add Quaternion

[edit]

A number system that extends the complex numbers. Used in mathematics, physics, and computer science. 64 interwikis.

Support
  1. As nominator. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support for level 5, quaternions are fairly important. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 12:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Interstellarity (talk) 12:25, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Absolutely, glad to see the math proposals coming in. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Add Dwelling, Mobile home, and Caravan (trailer)

[edit]

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

Support
  1. Interstellarity (talk) 21:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Hasn't someone suggested Shelter (building)? Big Blue Cray(fish) Twins (talk) 15:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion

Add Atlantic hurricane

[edit]

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

Support
  1. Interstellarity (talk) 19:52, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. We have the room and we've now added Typhoon. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Shelter (building)

[edit]

Maybe Residential buildings and housing units in Technology. It's clearly a need for all organisms. Interstellarity (talk) 00:42, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Interstellarity (talk) 00:42, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 12:05, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Basic concept. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 18:31, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Remove Burn center  5

[edit]
Support
  1. as nom. starship.paint (RUN) 14:02, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Does not seem like a very common or important type of medical facility. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Interstellarity (talk) 12:29, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We have the room. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oops, missed that this was a removal. Stub-class & low interwikis can suggest an article isn't vital, but they could also mean Wikipedia has just overlooked it until now. We have the room and I imagine burn hospitals have a lot of unique factors the article could expand on: protocols, equipment, training, history, etc. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

Add Nuptial tubercles

[edit]

It attempts to explain the horn/spike/sandpaper-y growths, mostly on the heads of male fish in the breeding season. I consider it a vital part of fish anatomy, and I was surprised this article didn't exist! So, I created it by machine-translation from its Spanish counterpart and expected it to be picked up by experts who would run with it. This didn't happen. I have no formal scientific or academic education beyond mandatory schooling, and I am out of my depth. So, I hope that others consider it to be as vital as I do, and propel the article content to where it needs to be! Big Blue Cray(fish) Twins (talk) 13:51, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. As nominator. Big Blue Cray(fish) Twins (talk) 13:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Interstellarity (talk) 12:30, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Cool topic! I'd never heard of it before. From List of fish families, I gather there are some 525. This is only a feature in 15 families, which makes this feel rather niche. I don't think listing it here will attract experts; a note on a Wikiproject may do so. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. I'm honestly neutral on this one; it's interesting and we still have room, but it's also very specific. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Swap Peer-to-peer file sharing  5 for Peer-to-peer

[edit]

I feel like the general concept should be listed than just "file sharing" cause there are many other usage of P2P that isn't just file sharing.

Support
  1. 49p (talk) 15:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Makkool (talk) 17:01, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Interstellarity (talk) 12:31, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Swap Napster  5 for The Pirate Bay

[edit]
FAILED
Failed proposal (3-5). 60% necessary for listing. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:33, 23 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.

Sailing the seas has a longer legacy than Napster. One lasts 20 years and ongoing, and the other only lasted 3 years. The Pirate Bay is "one of the most visited torrent websites in the world" and "sparked controversies and discussion about legal aspects of file sharing, copyright, and civil liberties".

Support
  1. 49p (talk) 15:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per nominator. The Blue Rider 15:58, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per nom. Kevinishere15 (talk) 01:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Neither should be there. Both covered by the more basic concept above (Peer to peer file sharing) Big Blue Cray(fish) Twins (talk) 21:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not every more basic concept is always more important than its subconcepts or examples. The Blue Rider 00:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. per above Makkool (talk) 17:01, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Remove both. Interstellarity (talk) 12:32, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Napster and the legal battle surrounding it were of pivotal importance to the development of music sharing and distribution on the Internet, and foreshadowed the development of copyright conflicts to come. Neutral on adding TPB, which was influential, but by far the first service of its kind and has been in decline for years. Iostn (talk) 21:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Both should be there. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 04:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Curved spacetime

[edit]

The page curved spacetime was recently split from Spacetime, a level 4 vital article. I believe that the topic of curved spacetime is vital enough and could fit under spacetime in the hierarchy. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. As Nominator GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 13:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Interstellarity (talk) 12:33, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sure, I could see this in Lv5 Physics. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discuss

Add Electrode

[edit]

Parent topics of Cathode  5 and Anode  5. Place under Electrical conductor  5.

Support
  1. As nominator. feminist🩸 (talk) 04:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 13:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Interstellarity (talk) 12:34, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sure, physics has room and I like some overlap at Level 5 to stimulate merging / splitting. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Add Rust (programming language)

[edit]

Under Scripting languages. Among the more popular programming languages in recent "scripting history", with 48 interwikis. One could argue that this is a similarly/more widely recognized language than a couple currently listed as VA by programmers. B3251(talk) 06:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. As nom. B3251(talk) 22:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Interstellarity (talk) 12:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Iostn (talk) 21:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Arguably those other languages shouldn’t be there either. Not a fan of adding this language since it doesn’t have history of being used for large amounts of time in serious software. Maybe in the future but not now. -1ctinus📝🗨 03:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agree with 1ctinus; I personally think a lot needs to be cut from Computers and Software in Tech, not just the programming languages. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion

Add Mobile home and Group home

[edit]

Maybe in Residential buildings and housing units, these types of homes are common in society. Interstellarity (talk) 20:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Interstellarity (talk) 20:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 13:21, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Logging  5

[edit]
PASSED
Added 4–0. Makkool (talk) 16:01, 16 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.

Important industry worldwide. List under Agriculture.

Support
  1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 06:57, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 13:21, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Iostn (talk) 21:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 16:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
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.

Add Prediction and Forecasting

[edit]

A Prediction is a commonly created form of intangible property; and Forecasting is the process of creating it. There is some overlap with Estimation  5 but a key difference is that predictions are concerned with future events or data, whereas estimations can be for both existing and future data.

Prediction can be placed under Mathematics#Statistics and probability; Forecasting can be placed under Technology#General.

Support
  1. As nominator. feminist🩸 (talk) 03:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. per nom. starship.paint (RUN) 14:22, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Critical in stats and meteorology. -1ctinus📝🗨 03:35, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support both, but disagree with the categories. Skimming the articles, seems like Prediction belongs somewhere closer to Philosophy and Forecasting belongs with Science Basics. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Add Lissachatina fulica  5

[edit]
PASSED
Added 4–0. Makkool (talk) 19:08, 21 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.

Also known as Giant African land snail. A popular pet animal, and also a major invasive species in some parts of the world.

Support
  1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 17:24, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Articles in 32 languages. This species is very common: USA, China, Brazil, Italy, Nigeria, Papua New Guinea.... starship.paint (RUN) 13:20, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. We definitely have room for this. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:13, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sure. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Microcomputer

[edit]

A class of computers that includes Home computers.

Support
  1. Interstellarity (talk) 12:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Makkool (talk) 06:12, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Covers the Commodore 64  5, Raspberry Pi  5, ZX Spectrum  5 and Apple II  5, among others Iostn (talk) 21:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sure GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 06:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Portable computer

[edit]

A class of computers that includes Laptop  5s.

Support
  1. Interstellarity (talk) 12:56, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Makkool (talk) 06:12, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. I'm not that much of a fan of having very abstract articles in our vital list, when there is a highly similar concrete article with higher pageviews. Laptop is VIT5, which is enough for me. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:56, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion

Add Cell polarity

[edit]

Vital concept for determining cellular identity, organelle arrangement, migration direction, etc etc

Support

  1. GraziePrego (talk) 01:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. per nom -1ctinus📝🗨 02:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Definitely. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Add Cell migration

[edit]

Vital concept that determines how a cell works as part of a multicellular organism. All immune cells are constantly doing this, cells do it during early organism development, it's vital for everything a cell does.

Support

  1. GraziePrego (talk) 02:01, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 16:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Definitely. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Add Inca road system

[edit]

Since we have Roman roads  5. This was the most extensive infrastructure project built in the Americas before European colonization and arguably remained so for centuries.

Support

  1. As nominator Tabu Makiadi (talk) 18:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Add Phone connector (audio)

[edit]

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-C  5, so what stopping this?

Support
  1. Add into somewhere in the sub-categories of Computer port (hardware)  5? 49p (talk) 20:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Remove Engineering optimization  5 and Engineering studies  5

[edit]

Minor concepts in Engineering. The latter is actually a humanities field that's part of Science and technology studies, and we don't list it

Support
  1. As nominator. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 17:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per nom. Makkool (talk) 17:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I believe STS is a vital topic however. Our article describes it as interdisciplinary, so it could fit under Technology still. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:53, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Add Data center

[edit]

Important infrastructure in today's world.

Support
  1. As nominator. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 01:39, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. for sure Aurangzebra (talk) 23:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Add Infant mortality and Birth defect

[edit]

Noted in a discussion above the pages for Infant mortality and Birth defect are not listed. I am posting to correct this as I believe they are a pretty serious omission.GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 02:23, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. as nom.GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 02:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support infant mortality per nom, there is already an active proposal for birth defect which obtained consensus to add two months ago but has not been added yet. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: I closed that proposal. Birth defect is now listed. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Add 'em both. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Yes, absolutely key topic. Might be a level 4 one. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Add Keratitis

[edit]

Important medical topic, one million people are blinded every year by the fungal version alone, and that version isn't even the most common one. In my opinion, this could potentially make VA4. 33 interwikis.

Support
  1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Makkool (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 16:21, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. We have the room. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discuss

Adding Common drugs and reorganizing some

[edit]

The World Health Organization lists several "Essential Medicines" in their document here. Many are not included in the list. Furthermore, several common drugs are also not included. I have gone through and found several that are on their list but not on ours, as well as one that is not on their list (hydrocodone, Gabapentin, alcohols (medicine), and medicinal cannabis) but that I think is important to include.GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 17:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Some Drugs from the UN Essential Medicines list not included that absolutely should be:

[edit]

Bupropion

[edit]
Support
  1. as nomGeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 17:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Important type of antidepressant. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:02, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Makkool (talk) 18:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Definitely. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Comment

Clomipramine

[edit]
Support
  1. as nomGeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 17:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. There is room. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Makkool (talk) 18:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Definitely. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Comment

Carbamazepine

[edit]
Already being discussed in a different section on the talk page. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:03, 22 October 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.

Support
  1. as nomGeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 17:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Comment
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.

Amitriptyline

[edit]
Support
  1. as nomGeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 17:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. More than seven million prescriptions in the United States. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:10, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Makkool (talk) 18:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Definitely. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Comment

Fluphenazine

[edit]
Support
  1. as nomGeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 17:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per discussion below. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Makkool (talk) 18:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Definitely. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Comment
@GeogSage: Can you please explain why this one should be listed? I can't really tell from reading the article why it is more important than other medicines we could list. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, so I went through the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines and spot checked a few medicines. I believe everything on this list should be included on Vital, and wanted to get the ball rolling. I started with medicines that were psychiatric because that seemed to be thinner. Ultimately, I would like to go through the list systematically and add all the UN essential medicines, but this is a start as it could get overwhelming otherwise. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 19:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drugs not included that I think should be:

[edit]

Hydrocodone

[edit]
Support
  1. as nomGeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 17:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. We have room for this, and it can always be removed if we stop having room. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Makkool (talk) 18:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Definitely. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Comment

Gabapentin

[edit]
Support
  1. as nomGeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 17:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The tenth most commonly prescribed medication in the United States, with over forty million prescriptions. Definitely vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:16, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Makkool (talk) 18:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Definitely. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Comment

Clonazepam

[edit]
Support
  1. as nomGeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 17:16, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. More than eleven million prescriptions in the United States. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Makkool (talk) 18:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Definitely. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Comment

Alcohols (medicine)

[edit]
Support
  1. as nomGeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 17:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Obviously. Ethanol  4 is VA4. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:21, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Makkool (talk) 18:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Definitely. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Comment

Medical cannabis

[edit]
Support
  1. as nomGeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 17:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Definitely vital. Cannabis  4 is VA4. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Makkool (talk) 18:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Definitely. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Comment

Furthermore, I think that some of the "recreational drugs" should be recategorized. If the drug has a recognized medicinal use, then it should not be there. Failing to do so adds unnecessary stigma to people who are taking the medicine for a medical reason. These include:

[edit]

Move Methamphetamine out of "Recreational"

[edit]

Methamphetamine has legitimate medical uses, even in the United States under the name brand "Desoxyn." This should not be controversial, as while this prescription medicine is widely abused, many people can it at a pharmacy.

Support
  1. as nomGeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 17:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Makkool (talk) 18:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Comment

Move Alcohol (drug) out of "Recreational"

[edit]

Alcohol is used for medicinal purposes and as a component of many over the counter meds. We can leave Alcohol intoxication in its place.

Support
  1. as nomGeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 17:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. That article does not mention any of the medical uses, instead being an article focused solely on the recreational and societal uses. Also, we are adding the article about its medical uses to the list. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per above Makkool (talk) 18:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
  1. @QuicoleJR:, I may be misunderstanding the article, but on Alcohol (drug)#Uses it lists "Medical" and "Self-medication." This seemed like a good reason to move it from "recreational" as there are legitimate medical uses. Cough syrup has alcohol in it for example.

Move Cannabis (drug) out of "Recreational"

[edit]

This is much more controversial obviously, but in many states in the United States, people ARE getting prescriptions for medical cannabis.

Support
  1. as nomGeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 17:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Weak oppose. I understand the reasoning, but we are adding Medical cannabis to the list, so I don't think this is needed. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:25, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per above Makkool (talk) 18:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

We may want to make a section for drugs that were used historically, but are now replaced with something better. If such a category is created, Opium and Heroin can go into it. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 17:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add Lymphatic filariasis

[edit]

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

Support
  1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:43, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per above GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 16:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Definitely. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discuss

Add Los Alamos National Laboratory

[edit]

Los Alamos National Laboratory has made some very significant contributions to the 20th and 21st centuries, specifically regarding the development of nuclear weapons, but also in other areas of research.

Support
  1. As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 17:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. per non -1ctinus📝🗨 03:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and Sandia National Laboratories should be added as well. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 04:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discuss

GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 17:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances

[edit]

PFAS is a well-known pollutant and carcinogen. Given its importance in Chemsitry and environmental science, I believe it should be a vital article. -1ctinus📝🗨 19:53, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. as nom -1ctinus📝🗨 00:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Good find, especially since this topic is topical. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 11:12, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Add Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier

[edit]

U.S. Aircraft carriers are a major technological and geopolitical topic. The Gerald R. Ford-class is the newest entering service, and is the centerpiece of the U.S. Navy.

Support
  1. As nomGeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 06:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. weak support per nom. Possibly a joke to be made here. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her)
  3. Relevant as the first example with electromagnetic catapult.⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 03:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Adding the newest one because it is the newest one seems a bit recentist. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1. We could add more of them, I think the Ford-class represents the cutting edge of technology and engineering that the worlds powers will seek to emulate though. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 02:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I guarantee that in 50 years it won't be the cutting edge of technology. Would we then swap it out for the latest new design? QuicoleJR (talk) 18:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Honestly, I think we need to put more warship classes in general when it comes to military hardware, and the section likely needs to be looked at very carefully. I'm not sure why, but I think there is a bias against ship classes, possibly due to a lack of interest among editors. There is a huge number of aircraft though, and these are disproportionately American aircraft.
      For example, from the United States we have the Northrop B-2 Spirit  5, McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle  5, Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II  5, Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor  5, General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon  5, and McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet  5, Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II  5, Boeing B-52 Stratofortress  5, Boeing B-29 Superfortress  5, (and theEnola Gay  5), Lockheed C-130 Hercules  5, Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird  5, North American P-51 Mustang  5, Rockwell B-1 Lancer  5. That is most of the U.S. militaries current fixed wing aircraft, and several that are no longer in use. From Europe, we have the Eurofighter Typhoon  5, Panavia Tornado  5, and Dassault Rafale  5. Europe has MANY more highly influential aircraft then that. From the Soviet Union/Russia, we have Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21  5, which is abysmal as the USSR was the direct reason most of the American aircraft were even designed. With all that said, we don't have ANY specific classes of warship. The U.S. navy Arleigh Burke-class destroyer not being included is quite odd, as are the carriers, submarines, battleship classes and specific notable ships. The German battleship Bismarck, Japanese Yamato-class battleship, and Iowa-class battleship not being included is shocking. Warship classes are just as vital as specific types of aircraft, the carriers that launch the F-18 and F-35 should be at least as vital as the planes, especially given the carriers central roll in the U.S. Navy, tremendous investment, and diplomatic implications. I may make a larger post after some consideration to remove/add some planes and more broadly add some classes of ship later. Please let me know what you think, I'm just looking into this more deeply and am a bit shocked at the state of the Military technology section. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 19:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree that it makes sense to list some ship types, but this is an odd one to start with instead of something more historically impactful. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Fair. I had honestly assumed more ship types were already included and am just now really noticing the scope of the discrepancy. I did not think this would be the first one, I thought it was an omission from a list I expected to be as inclusive as the fighter/bomber/cargo aircraft. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 21:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per QuicoleJR Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discuss

@OlifanofmrTennant What's the joke? I've been sitting and thinking for an embarassing amount of time so I thought I'd just ask. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 02:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add Aeronautics

[edit]

The science of aircraft design.

Support
  1. Interstellarity (talk) 00:53, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. For sure, we could use more applied science topics. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Water taxi and Air taxi

[edit]

Two forms of taxis.

Support
  1. Interstellarity (talk) 02:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. I don’t see the essentiality of these services. -1ctinus📝🗨 03:30, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion

Adding several classes of and specific Warships

[edit]

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

Add Arleigh Burke-class destroyer

[edit]

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

Support
  1. As nomGeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 22:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. It's the archetypical example of the modern guided missile destroyer in every facet. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 06:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Ticonderoga-class cruiser

[edit]

United States Navy cruiser currently currently in service.

Support
  1. As nomGeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 22:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
  1. 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. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 06:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

Add Slava-class cruiser

[edit]

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

Support
  1. As nomGeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 22:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Unremarkable service record. Only built in extremely small numbers. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 06:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion

Add Ohio-class submarine

[edit]

United States Navy ballistic Missile Submarines currently in service.

Support
  1. As nomGeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 22:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Necessary for understanding the U.S. nuclear triad. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 06:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Virginia-class submarine

[edit]

United States Navy Fast Attack Submarine currently in service.

Support
  1. As nomGeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 22:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

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. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 06:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add Vanguard-class submarine

[edit]

British Royal Navy Ballistic Missile Submarine currently in service.

Support
  1. As nomGeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 22:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. For the same reasons as Ohio. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 06:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add U-boat

[edit]

Broad group of classes of German/NAZI submarines used during WWI and WWII.

Support
  1. As nomGeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 22:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Hard to fully explain WWII without it. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 06:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per nom. -1ctinus📝🗨 18:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Borei-class submarine

[edit]

New class of Russian submarines replacing Soviet legacy fleet.

Support
  1. As nomGeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 22:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Yes, same reasoning as Ohio. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 06:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Akula-class submarine

[edit]

Soviet nuclear attack submarine currently in service with Russia.

Support
  1. As nomGeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 22:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Yes, significantly influenced the course of submarine development. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 06:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Nimitz-class aircraft carrier

[edit]

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

Support
  1. As nomGeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 22:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The definitional example of the modern supercarrier. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 06:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier

[edit]

British Royal Navy Aircraft Carriers.

Support
  1. As nomGeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 22:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
  1. 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. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 06:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

Add Kuznetsov-class aircraft carrier

[edit]

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

Support
  1. As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 17:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Only built in small numbers, service record consists primarily of catching fire and being repaired, or being sold off to China (which is actively developing a nuclear-powered carrier to replace them as of November 2024).⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 03:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion

@Makkool, did you mean to support this?

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

Add Iowa-class battleship

[edit]

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

Support
  1. As nomGeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 22:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Vitally important to WWII history. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 06:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Yamato-class battleship

[edit]

WWII battleships that served in the Imperial Japanese Navy. Largest battleships ever constructed.

Support
  1. As nomGeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 22:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Important for their influence on US naval policy that shaped the course of the war. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 06:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Bismarck-class battleship

[edit]

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

Support
  1. As nomGeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 22:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Only two ever built, Bismarck was destroyed on her first sortie, while Tirpitz accomplished nothing other than constantly being damaged and going in for repairs before being herself destroyed. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 03:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion

Add USS Arizona

[edit]

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

Support
  1. As nomGeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 22:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Vitally important to WWII history. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 06:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add CSS Virginia

[edit]

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

Support
  1. As nomGeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 22:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Vital to understanding the age of ironclads. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 06:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add USS Monitor

[edit]

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

Support
  1. As nomGeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 22:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Vital to understanding the age of ironclads. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 06:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add USS Constitution

[edit]

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

Support
  1. As nomGeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 22:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Important classically preserved example of shipbuilding of the day. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 06:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Remove and Add several types of Military Aircraft.

[edit]

Our military technology section has 19 pages for "specific aircraft." Of these, 14 are U.S. built planes (Including the Enola Gay), 3 are European built planes, 1 is South American (Brazilian), and 1 is Russian/USSR. This seems a bit unbalanced in my opinion, and most of the US aircraft are contemporary planes still in use. To resolve this, I'm going to nominate several U.S. planes for removal (which hurts because I love U.S. planes) and nominate several other aircraft to be added. I'm going to post on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history to see if they have any interest in contributing.

Remove Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II  5

[edit]

I'll rip this Band-Aid off and say while the A-10 is cool, it isn't really vital to the understanding of military aircraft.

Support
  1. As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 01:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. It's quite literally the best example for understanding the modern employment of close air support. It's absolutely vital to understanding U.S. military doctrine from the Gulf War onward. Show me another aircraft that is as synonymous with its mission as the A-10 is with Brrrrt.⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 03:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The A-10 is by far the most prolific example of a close air support throughout history. The only aircraft to even come close was perhaps the Junkers Ju 87, but the CAS role has evolved since WWII to the point that they're not even similar. - ZLEA T\C 04:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion

Remove Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor  5

[edit]

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

Support
  1. As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 01:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. It was the first operational stealth fighter (as the F-117 was not a fighter), the first operational fifth-generation fighter, and still remains the predominant aircraft of its type. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 03:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. If the first operational stealth and fifth-generation fighter is not a vital topic, I don't know what is. - ZLEA T\C 04:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion

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

We should list those then. That's not an argument in favor of removing the F-22 on its merits, and neither is the fact that the U.S. was significantly more successful than most other nations at developing aircraft that structurally shaped combat aviation worldwide. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 06:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair. Do you want to nominate them? I'm mostly concerned with balancing things a bit, and there are many great examples of Soviet aircraft that saw widespread use in multiple wars. For example, the Iran-Iraq wars, and the wars between Israel and their neighbors. If you know of any particular aircraft that are non-American you think should be added, that would be great, as well as any non-contemporary aircraft. My background has resulted in a bit more then average understanding of aircraft in a roundabout way, but my opinions on the matter are a bit biased towards contemporary and U.S. aircraft, which is the bias I'm trying to account for here. I think we likely need to include some of the Century series of planes, as well as WWI aircraft from all sides. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 17:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is balancing national ties a such a large concern at WP:VA that removing American topics is seen as the best way forward? I know very little about the process here, but arbitrarily removing American aircraft simply because there aren't many non-American vital aviation topics seems like the wrong approach. You should probably be asking why the American aircraft were listed as vital in the first place, then assessing whether other aircraft, if any, would better suit the original reasoning. - ZLEA T\C 18:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the concern for balancing is missing the point. This list is not intended to be unbiased at a national level; the list itself is specifically tailored to the English Wikipedia and as a result is going to naturally have greater representation of content from english-speaking nations. The determining factor for whether something should be on this list is whether that thing is vital to the understanding of the topic, not the degree of national representation the rest of the list has. And in the case of military aviation, it's simply the case that the U.S. is going to be overrepresented by that metric, having been the driving force behind the development of the most influential aircraft of the past 70 years, followed by the USSR to a somewhat lesser extent, with other nations significantly further behind or not at all included because most nations don't possess the degree of combat aviation design capability and the history of investment into that field that the U.S. has. That's OK.
Specific examples: So to your examples, I'd support (weakly) the Super Sabre's inclusion both as a stereotypical example of early supersonic jets, but would rather see the F-86 Sabre included there, as it was significantly more important for understanding the air war component of the Korean War to a greater degree than the F-100 was for understanding the air war in Vietnam. I'd definitely support the Vickers F.B.5 as the first fighter, that's pretty straightforward. I don't see the argument for the J-20 -- it wasn't the first stealth aircraft, went into service less than a decade ago and has no significant combat or non-combat service record to speak of (unlike the F-22, which has an extensive non-combat service record conducting air intercepts and homeland defense) and isn't being marketed for export (unlike the F-35, whose export availability is a tangible force in international relations). It's not really vital to understanding anything. I can make similar arguments for most of the European fighters as well. I'm not as familiar with the century series and WWI/WWII aircraft as I am with modern jet aviation though, which is why I focus my attentions on that batch. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 18:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The argument for the J-20 is stronger then the F-22, it is the first non-American, non-western stealth aircraft. This has tremendous impact to the overall power balance of the world, as the U.S. dominance in stealth aviation is no longer a monopoly. There have been more built already then the F-22, and while shooting down balloons was an interesting event, I don't think that counts as an extensive record. The F-22 is a plane that was introduced, demonstrated a lot of technology, and is on the way to retirement without ever being employed in the role it was designed for. U.S. and Soviet aircraft both existed in response to each other. The USSR distributed their planes widely, and generally produced them in massive volumes when compared to western production. Planes like the MiG-25, MiG-19, and Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-23 have thousands built, with service records in multiple countries that involved significant air to air combat. The F-22 is really an interesting aircraft, but in 100 years, unless something dramatic happens, the plane will have had a mostly uneventful service life and mostly served as a technology demonstration for the stuff used on the F-35 and future subsequent projects. I anticipated this response for the F-22 and A-10 as they have very large online fan bases, so I'm not surprised at the resistance. That said, leaving the F-22 and A-10 really invites a large number of aircraft, as there are quite a few unique aircraft that have seen much wider use, by many more countries, and with many more units produced then them. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 23:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that the J-20 has had "tremendous impact to the overall power balance of the world" -- I certainly have not seen any reliable sources making such a bold and dramatic claim, particularly for an aircraft that's objectively worse than the F-22 at stealth. If a lack of a pure combat record (ignoring the immense deterrence value left out of that equation) is disqualifying then the J-20 is equally disqualified. What the F-22 has that the J-20 lacks is an extensive non-combat record; hundreds of aerial intercepts, including shootdowns of unmanned intelligence gathering aircraft. The fact that it had a mostly uneventful service life does not detract from its level of importance in understanding the depth of influence it had on stealth aviation development and U.S. air superiority doctrine; the J-20 can say no such thing. Characterizing this as being motivated by "online fan bases" is not helpful and misses the point of what this list is supposed to be doing -- capturing those entries whose understanding is vital towards an element of a STEM topic or a historical era. The F-22 does this. The A-10 does this. The J-20 does not. The MiG-25 does not. The MiG-23 does not (and in every way, the inclusion of the F-14 would be more helpful to one's understanding of the topic area). Again, if there are other aircraft that are in use by other countries, make an argument for including them. None of that should be a reason for excluding the F-22, which is vitally important for understanding as the first fifth-generation fighter, the first active stealth fighter, and decades after its introduction still outperforms other competitors both kinematically and in low-observable capabilities. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 23:44, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The scientific understanding and application of stealth technology leaving the U.S. monopoly is certainly significant. As far as technology goes, the F-22 is really only slightly more important then the Northrop YF-23 in that the F-22 was and is employed to some extent globally, while the other never entered widescale production. We don't include the LGM-30 Minuteman, even though it had a massive impact in terms of influence and deterrence. The Chinese military is the 2nd largest globally, and Soviet aviation and design philosophy has motivated U.S. aviation and served as the foundations of multiple countries air forces. In terms of understanding technology, these represent separate branches of human aviation. With limited slots, emphasis on U.S. planes leaves a lot out of that picture. U.S. air superiority doctrine is certainly important to understand, but we have a huge emphasis on U.S. doctrine/technology which paints an incomplete picture of human warfare. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 00:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I fundamentally disagree with the relevance of any of that, for the reasons that I've already mentioned. We should be judging the inclusion of the F-22 on it's own merits.⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 01:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remove McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet  5

[edit]

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

Support
  1. As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 01:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
  1. There's less of an argument for including the F/A-18 than the F-16. It's still a significantly influential fighter platform, but the Super Hornet was more influential.⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 03:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

Remove General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon  5

[edit]

Similar to the F-18, the F-16 is a cool plane but I don't think it is vital compared to countless other similar fighter aircraft in other countries.

Support
  1. As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 01:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. "Countless other similar fighter aircraft in other countries" do not have the service record nor widespread usage of the F-16. It was/is the predominant 4th generation land-based fighter of NATO and the West in general. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 03:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The F-16 is by far the most common fixed-wing aircraft in military service around the world. Perhaps second only to the Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21, the F-16 has one of the most colorful service histories of any fighter aircraft in history. - ZLEA T\C 04:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion

Add Messerschmitt Me 262

[edit]

The Messerschmitt Me 262 was a WWII Nazi aircraft. It is notable as the first fighter aircraft that used jet engines.

Support
  1. As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 01:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Only by virtue of being the first jet fighter. It had almost no actual impact on the war itself, and Allied powers had already developed their own plans for jet aircraft in parallel. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 03:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. As the world's first operational jet fighter, this one is an obvious choice. - ZLEA T\C 04:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Mitsubishi A6M Zero

[edit]

The Zero was a WWII Japanese aircraft. In understanding the war in the Pacific, I believe the Zero is extremely important. During the early war, the U.S. struggled with the Zero.

Support
  1. As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 01:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Most important fighter in the Pacific. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 03:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Perhaps the most well known fighter of all the Axis powers of WWII. - ZLEA T\C 04:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Add Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-19

[edit]

The MiG-19 was the first USSR fighter aircraft capable of supersonic flight. It was widely distributed to countries across the world, and has seen widespread usage in multiple wars.

Support
  1. As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 01:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Of all the MiG fighters to see production, this would probably be my last pick. It does not have nearly the reputation of its predecessor, the Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-15. - ZLEA T\C 04:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. While widely distributed, it had a poor service record. It's mainly notable for the Gary Powers incident and for being destroyed in large numbers in Vietnam and the Six Day War.⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 03:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

@ User:ZLEA, do you want to nominate the MiG-15? The main issue I have is the list is WILDLY American centric. I know the U.S. is a leader in Aviation, but I think USSR tech needs to be represented.

Add Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-25

[edit]

The MiG-25 is a USSR fighter and one of the fastest military aircraft to enter service. The plane has significance to understanding cold war dynamics, specifically, the U.S. F-15 was developed in response to this plane due to the concerns it caused.

Support
  1. As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 01:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Makkool (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. The MiG-25 itself had very little influence over the field of combat aviation generally; misconceptions about the MiG-25 played a minor role in U.S. defense policy for a few years until we figured it out. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 03:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Not sure about this one. Most of this aircraft's reputation came from misconceptions which were quickly dispelled after one fell into western hands. I would probably choose the Mikoyan MiG-29 over this one, but I won't oppose this. - ZLEA T\C 04:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 01:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add Javelin

[edit]

Javelins and Harpoons have been used for tens of thousands or years. Javelin throw the sport event is already in at level 4. Significant weapons for hunting, warfare, sport, fishing and whaling. Spear is in at level 4, so expanding on it at level 5 would be reasonable. Although it wasn't successful, there was some support to add spear to level 3 as well. We have other sub weapon types which seem less significant, that could feasibly be swapped out if necessary, like Ji (polearm) and Partisan (weapon) for example seem less important.

Support
  1. As nom.  Carlwev  20:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. per nom GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 02:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Add Harpoon

[edit]

As above.

Support
  1. As nom.  Carlwev  20:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 02:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 18:33, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Adding a few military Helicopters

[edit]

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]

Sikorsky R-4

[edit]

The Fist mass produced military helicopter.

Support
  1. As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 23:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Mil Mi-24

[edit]

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

Support
  1. As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 23:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The definitional Warsaw Pact attack helicopter family of the Cold War and extensively used in conflicts around the world. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 02:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Mil Mi-26

[edit]

The largest military helicopter to go into serial production. Used by the USSR/Russia and several other countries.

Support
  1. As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 23:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
  1. 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. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 02:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

Boeing AH-64 Apache

[edit]

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

Support
  1. As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 23:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The definitional NATO cold war attack helicopter throughout the Cold War, the Iraq War, and the GWOT.⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 02:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk

[edit]

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

Support
  1. As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 23:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Either this or the UH-1 Huey family. Both extremely influential utility helicopters. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 02:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion

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

Add Incunable

[edit]

Since we added Manuscript  5 and Codex  5, 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).

Support
  1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 18:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discuss

Add Digital object identifier

[edit]

Important concept in data location and retrieval.

Support
  1. As nominator. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 21:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Add Several types of military tanks

[edit]

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.

Add M4 Sherman

[edit]

US WWII tank.

Support
  1. As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Extremely important to WWII.⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 04:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discuss

Add Tiger I

[edit]

Nazi WWII tank.

Support
  1. As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
  1. 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.⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 04:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

Add T-72

[edit]

Soviet Cold War tank

Support
  1. As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
  1. 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.⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 04:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

Add M1 Abrams

[edit]

Current U.S. Main battle tank.

Support
  1. As nom. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Extremely important to late-Cold War and post-Cold War history of several nations, not just the U.S.⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 04:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discuss

GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Swap three Power storage articles

[edit]

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.

Remove Nickel-iron battery

[edit]

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.

Support
  1. As nom, —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discuss

Remove Nickel-metal hydride battery

[edit]

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.

Support
  1. As nom, —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discuss

Remove solar fuel

[edit]

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.

Support
  1. As nom, —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discuss

Add thermal energy storage

[edit]

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).

Support
  1. As nom, —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discuss

Add compressed-air energy storage

[edit]

154 daily views. Together with vanadium redox batteries, one of the (semi)mature technologies for mid-duration electricity storage.

Support
  1. As nom, —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discuss

Add power-to-X

[edit]

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).

Support
  1. As nom, —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discuss

Add Material

[edit]

A bassic concept in chemestry, it can even be in level 4. It has more than 60 interwikis and more than 300 daily views. Also we listed Materials science  4 so this one should also be. It can be listed here or here.

Support
  1. As nom. Brunoblocks274 (talk) 18:27, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 18:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Discuss
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/STEM&oldid=1259489401"