Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/STEM/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Remove List of environmental issues

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.

---

Covered by Environmental issues.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 01:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Yes. We should likely make an extended list of vital article criteria that discourages most lists while leaving room for some exceptions. The unofficial rule seems to be that we don't want lists articles included, that should be more or less formalized with an example of exceptions. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Support, with an article for the same concept, definitely not the kind of list we need to make an exception for. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Makkool (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Add Disposable product

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.

---

Above User:Mathwriter2718 nominated disposable cup, which had support from User:Kevinishere15. I opposed suggesting this as a better nom with User:Zar2gar1 joining in this thought. -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:37, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:37, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Since I supported disposable cup. Kevinishere15 (talk) 01:32, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Strong support, can tie into a lot of other things (environmental, economic, manufacturing, etc.) The article itself could use a lot of work. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:58, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Strong support this, caution adding all the versions of disposable products. While Disposable cup might be fine, but pages like Paper towel  5, Toilet paper  5, Paper napkin, Disposable towel. Disposable tableware, Disposable camera etc. could add up fast. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:42, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
5. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 10:33, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
6. This is better than Disposable cup. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 17:14, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Adding several classes of and specific Warships (set 3 of 3)

Add Ticonderoga-class cruiser

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.

---

United States Navy cruiser currently currently in service.

Support

1. As nomGeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Very weak oppose, if only to bring the proposal closer to a finish, while keeping an eye on the Tech quota. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Changing to oppose Makkool (talk) 15:46, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

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 Virginia-class submarine

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.

---

United States Navy Fast Attack Submarine currently in service.

Support

1. As nomGeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Very weak oppose, if only to bring the proposal closer to a finish, while keeping an eye on the Tech quota. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Changing to oppose Makkool (talk) 15:46, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

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 Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier

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.

---

British Royal Navy Aircraft Carriers.

Support

1. As nomGeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Very weak oppose, if only to bring the proposal closer to a finish, while keeping an eye on the Tech quota. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Changing to oppose Makkool (talk) 15:46, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

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 Several types of military tanks (set 2 of 2)

Add Tiger I

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

---

Nazi WWII tank.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Very weak oppose, if only to bring the proposal closer to a finish, while keeping an eye on the Tech quota. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Changing to oppose Makkool (talk) 15:46, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

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 T-72

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.

---

Soviet Cold War tank

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Very weak oppose, if only to bring the proposal closer to a finish, while keeping an eye on the Tech quota. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Changing to oppose Makkool (talk) 15:46, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

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.

Trim some niche Math Foundations topics

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.

---

So I'd prefer to free up the talk page a bit more, but since math proposals have been more active, let me suggest some cuts. These ones are all from the Foundations of Math section, and I'm pretty sure I added all of these during the BOLD era at VA. After seeing more of where the other sections are at, I think we can definitely drop these as too niche or esoteric:

Remove Axiom schema

While actually not a complex concept, this is getting into some trickier subtleties in mathematical logic. For now, more elementary logic & set theory takes up enough space.

Support

1. As nom. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Makkool (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Remove Arithmetical hierarchy and Analytical hierarchy

These both open up pretty notable correspondences to other concepts, including in theoretical computer science. But they're also extremely dense topics; I did study them some once but honestly can't even explain them well.

Support

1. As nom. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Makkool (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Remove Pointed set

Most of our set theory articles are genuinely pretty fundamental, but while this one has interesting aspects, I think it's largely an encoding trick. Probably not that vital in the grand scheme of things.

Support

1. As nom. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Makkool (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Remove Comma category

This is probably the least intuitive and most advanced of the items listed directly under Category (mathematics). Let's trim it, at least for now.

Support

1. As nom. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Makkool (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Remove Kan extension, Pullback (category theory), and Pushout (category theory)

All three of this under the Limit (category theory) heading are getting more advanced. We probably don't have the room or want this much depth at VA5.

Support

1. As nom. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Makkool (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Remove Monad (category theory)

In one sense, they're maybe not that complicated and have practical applications, but these are getting into the even more esoteric reaches of category theory. We probably don't have the room or want this much depth at VA5.

Support

1. As nom. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Per nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Makkool (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Proposal signature

Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Add Ernst Zermelo

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.

---

Ernst Zermelo proposed (a precursor of) Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory  5, including the Axiom of choice  4. Thus he did more to shape Set theory  4 than anyone else except Georg Cantor  4. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:38, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Support

1. Make nom's vote explicit. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Support for myself too, under People -> Mathematicians, where we still have room anyways. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
3. SUpport for people section. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:22, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

@Lophotrochozoa: Hi there and welcome to VA5. Just to give you a heads-up, voting on biographies of all types usually happens on the People talk page. You don't have to move this proposal though, we'll all know to place him there if this passes. If it doesn't wind up getting much input, it's not a boycott but people may just skip the proposal to avoid thinking about procedural hoops. In that case, your best bet probably is to cut-and-paste this proposal with all existing comments over to the People sub-page. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

I meant to start the discussion at the People subpage but forgot that this is the wrong place. Can we move it? Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

You don't have to, especially if people vote on it and since it's pretty clear where it will go anyways. You can if you really want to, but it's the sort of mix-up that doesn't cause any problems as long as it's uncommon. Most of the longer discussions on where to put things happen when a topic could fit in several buckets. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 01:39, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Add Phone connector (audio)  5

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

---

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)
2. 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)
3. Kevinishere15 (talk) 19:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
4. Interstellarity (talk) 01:39, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

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

Swap three Power storage articles

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

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 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)
2. per nom. starship.paint (talk / cont) 02:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
3. Makkool (talk) 11:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
4. Weak support, let's go ahead and push this across the finish line. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

• 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)

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

Remove Nickel-metal hydride battery

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.

---

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)
2. per nom. starship.paint (talk / cont) 02:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
3. Makkool (talk) 11:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
4. Weak support, let's go ahead and push this across the finish line. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

• 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)

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

Remove solar fuel

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.

Support

1. As nom, —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
2. Strong support, especially with the more fundamental power-to-X suggestion. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
3. Per nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:59, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
4. per above. starship.paint (talk / cont) 02:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Add thermal energy storage

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.

---

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)
2. Sure, also complements Cogeneration (which we do list). -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
3. per above. starship.paint (talk / cont) 02:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
4. Interstellarity (talk) 01:39, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

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

Add compressed-air energy storage

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.

---

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)
2. Sure, can also integrate with pressurized service lines. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
3. per above. starship.paint (talk / cont) 02:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
4. Interstellarity (talk) 01:39, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

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

Add power-to-X

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.

---

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)
2. Support, especially since it subsumes the solar fuel article. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 15:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
3. per above. starship.paint (talk / cont) 02:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
4. Interstellarity (talk) 01:39, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

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

Remove one of these US airports (John F. Kennedy International Airport, Los Angeles International Airport, or O'Hare International Airport)

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.

---

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)

Support

1. Remove O'Hare. Interstellarity (talk) 02:03, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
2. If we need to remove one, I think it should be O'Hare Makkool (talk) 10:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
3. Second O'Hare per Makkool, I'm actually neutral on which, but I like the idea of cutting one so I won't complicate things. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
4. Remove O'Hare per nom. starship.paint (talk / cont) 02:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
5. remove all of them. If only one, whichever you lot decide is the least vital I'd support. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:59, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I have been a proponent of adding Memphis International Airport (home of the Fedex Superhub) for its Cargo airport importance and don't think we have too many Airports. As a hub to two of the major airlines and a high volume airport, I think this is vital. Could support as a swap for Memphis.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

   Further, this was the world's busiest airport for 35 years. I am a bit remiss about its possible removal.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:36, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

   1. @Makkool, Zar2gar1, and Interstellarity: any thoughts of swapping in the world's second busiest Cargo airport.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

      I won't take a stance on this yet, but I'd be open to swapping O'Hare with Memphis. I would see what others think before taking my position. Interstellarity (talk) 18:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

      I'd support that swap Makkool (talk) 19:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

      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)

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

Remove Telephone number (mathematics)  5

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

---

Zero interwikis suggest this number theory concept is too niche.

Support

1. As nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 01:49, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
2. 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)

Oppose

1. 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)
2. Oppose. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:56, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

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 Zipper storage bag

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 refer to this whole general class as Ziploc around the house, but this is the generic term. It is more than a subset of Plastic bag  5. It is a variant of types of Bag  5. P.s. I am a bit surprised neither sandwich bag nor storage bag exists even as a redirect.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
2. sure. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
3. per nom. starship.paint (talk / cont) 02:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
4. Support at everyday life. Interstellarity (talk) 01:39, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

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

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 Aluminium foil

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 can't believe it takes 3 i's to spell this elsewhere. It only takes 2 eyes to see how important this is in my refrigerator.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
2. Definitely vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
3. per nom. starship.paint (talk / cont) 02:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
4. At everyday life. Interstellarity (talk) 01:39, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

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

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 Tupperware or Tupperware Brands

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 probably need a bit a discussion to figure out which one belongs, but the product is pretty essential.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Simply on my "no name brands" principle; I'm neutral if Tub (container) is an option though, and also neutral on the other household items. Just keep an eye out on the Tech quota. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 14:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

   User:Zar2gar1 should I move these to everyday life on the society subpage?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

   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)

2. I oppose adding the brands. I am more positive on adding something like Tub (container). Mathwriter2718 (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

• @Zar2gar1 and Mathwriter2718:, Now that I think about Rubbermaid and other brands, I see your point. Is Tub (container) a better candidate than Food storage container?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  @TonyTheTiger I'm not sure. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 15:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  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 storage  5 here in Tech, but related things like Pickling  4 are in Everyday Life -> Food & Drink. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Add 2 for Astronomy -> Observation

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 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)

Support

1. Support as nom -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 14:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
2. Per nom Makkool (talk) 10:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
3. Don't see what's wrong with it. -- ZergTwo (talk) 02:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Sure. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Add everyday containers (set 2 of 2)

Add Bucket

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. I mildly support. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 23:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
2. Support Kevinishere15 (talk) 02:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
3. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
4. Interstellarity (talk) 01:39, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

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

Neutral

neutral for now, but I'm not sure how I feel about adding items primarily just for their ordinariness. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Add Pipette

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. I mildly support. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 23:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
2. Support Kevinishere15 (talk) 02:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
3. Weak support but let's go ahead and push this across the finish line. This one could arguably go in Chemistry or Science Basics too. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Per above. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 07:04, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

neutral for now, but I'm not sure how I feel about adding items primarily just for their ordinariness. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Add Hyaline cartilage

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

---

We list Cartilage  4--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. as nom. -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
2. Sure, why not? -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
3. Makkool (talk) 09:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
4. Interstellarity (talk) 01:39, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

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

Add Sewerage and Street gutter

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.

---

More infrastructure given Drainage  4 and Flood management  4 at Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Technology#Hydraulic_infrastructure and Plumbing  4 at Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Technology#Hydraulics_and_pneumatics are listed-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. as nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
2. Support sewerage  Carlwev  16:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
3. Definitely, I think sanitation topics are probably under-represented. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
4. Per above. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 07:06, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Swap Vine (service) with Fandom (website)

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.

---

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.

Support

1. As nom. Sahaib (talk) 12:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose adding, support removal but that's already moving along up above. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Oppose adding, not among most vital websites of the Internet Makkool (talk) 21:25, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

• Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/STEM#Remove_Vine_(service)_5 is still active above.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Remove several civilian aircraft

We list a lot of specific types of planes, both military and civilian. They are disproportionately represented compared to other vehicles, so I think they can be trimmed. If a company had more then 2 aircraft, I nominated the ones I thought were the least vital.

Remove Airbus A320 family  5

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

---

Airbus A300  5 and Airbus A380  5 are adequate. This is also more or less a list article, which we seem to be trying to avoid.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose, for now at least, maybe the strongest one for me. We may need to cut planes further, but it's apparently the most-produced airliner family ever. Also the first to introduce Fly-by-wire  5 controls. I wouldn't consider the article that listy either; I think it just has that title to reflect all of the variants. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:58, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Changing to oppose Makkool (talk) 15:46, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
3. per nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:15, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

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

Remove Airbus A330

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.

---

Airbus A300  5 and Airbus A380  5 are adequate.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Sure, doesn't seem quite as groundbreaking as the earlier Airbuses (besides achieving full interoperability with all 3 Western engine-makers) or exceptionally successful. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:58, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Makkool (talk) 15:46, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
4. per nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:15, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

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

Remove Airbus A350

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.

---

Airbus A300  5 and Airbus A380  5 are adequate.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Sure, largely reads like Airbus whipping something together to compete with the Boeing 787 (not that the Dreamliner has been a success). -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:58, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Makkool (talk) 15:46, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
4. per nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:15, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

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

Remove Boeing 737  5

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

---

Boeing 707  5, Boeings first jetliner, and Boeing 747  5 are adequate.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. J947 ‡ ^edits 04:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Changing to oppose Makkool (talk) 15:46, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Weak oppose, mainly out of incrementalism for now. If we decide we can only list one airplane in this class, I would pick the A320 hands-down. But the 737 is definitely also notable for many reasons (including a couple not so good ones). -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:36, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Remove Boeing 767

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.

---

Boeing 707  5, Boeings first jetliner, and Boeing 747  5 are adequate.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Strong support, reads largely like Boeing whipping something together to match the Airbus A300. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 02:58, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Makkool (talk) 15:46, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
4. per nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:15, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

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

Remove Boeing 777  5

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

---

Boeing 707  5, Boeings first jetliner, and Boeing 747  5 are adequate.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak oppose for now, I don't want to create a bias towards Boeing models, but as the article states, it's the best-selling wide-body ever. Also notable for being the first to heavily use Computer-aided design  5 to automate much of the engineering cycle. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:36, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Makkool (talk) 21:27, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Remove Boeing 787 Dreamliner

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.

---

Boeing 707  5, Boeings first jetliner, and Boeing 747  5 are adequate.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Very weak support for now, partly just for recency and partly to keep us from listing too many Boeing models. It does seem to be a genuinely innovative design, just undermined by Boeing's 21st-century operational problems (which arguably makes it historically interesting too). -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:36, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Makkool (talk) 21:27, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
4. per nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:15, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

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

Remove Douglas DC-6

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.

---

Douglas DC-3  5 is adequate.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Sure, doesn't seem particularly innovative, just a later generation with piston engines. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:36, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Makkool (talk) 21:27, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
4. per nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:15, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

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

Remove Douglas DC-8

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.

---

Douglas DC-3  5 is adequate.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Sure, some interesting details about development and testing, but largely just reads like Douglas playing catch-up with the Boeing 707. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:36, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Makkool (talk) 21:27, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
4. per nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:15, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

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

Remove McDonnell Douglas DC-9  5

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

---

Douglas DC-3  5 is adequate.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak oppose for now, largely for the sake of incrementalism. This reads as Douglas actually stealing a march on Boeing for once, plus this also sort of subsumes the McDonnell Douglas MD-80. It shows some innovative design features (and business strategy) too. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:36, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Makkool (talk) 21:27, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Remove McDonnell Douglas DC-10

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.

---

Douglas DC-3  5 is adequate.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Strong support, unless we feel really compelled to include a trijet and/or a sales & safety dud, this we can probably cut. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:36, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Makkool (talk) 21:27, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
4. per nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:15, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Proposal signature

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Add Biological membrane or swap with Membrane  5

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

---

I actually meant to nominate Biological membrane, but got Membrane  5 promoted accidentally.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:46, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:46, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Support straight add. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:55, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Support simple add, no need to swap since Biology is still under quota. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Support add Makkool (talk) 18:43, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

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