Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/STEM/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Add some "Navigation and timekeeping" articles

We are missing a lot of key articles related to navigation and timekeeping. I have a few here I've noticed, but there are many more. Most of these are extremely basic and elementary to navigation.

Add Wayfinding

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

---

From the lede, "wayfinding (or way-finding) encompasses all of the ways in which people (and animals) orient themselves in physical space and navigate from place to place. "

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Weak support. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak oppose for now, we're drifting further over quota, and while I normally try to give stubs a handicap, this appears to be either an organizational placeholder or definition that can probably be merged elsewhere. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
2. I do'nt see how the definition is distinct from Navigation  3. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 01:30, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

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

Add Land navigation

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.

---

Pretty self explanatory, navigating on land on foot or in a vehicle.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
2. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:08, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
3. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose for now, we're drifting further over quota, plus it seems to be largely a placeholder article (c.f. Orienteering  5 and land subsection of Navigation  3. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Per Zar2gar1. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:26, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

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

Add Trail blazing  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.

---

The process of making new trails.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Weak support. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
3. This is a rather substantial topic and it's evident that it's fairly common, so I'll support. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 05:59, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
4. Support under outdoor recreation. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 16:09, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose for now, we're drifting further over quota; weak support with other Outdoorsmanship topics though (under Recreation?) -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

   Since I'm going to list it on outdoor recreation, I count that as a support vote. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 14:45, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

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

Add Piloting  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.

---

Navigating in air or water using fixed points of reference.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Support, applied sciences like this are still really lacking but we're drifting further over quota. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
3. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
4. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 15:36, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

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

Add Radio navigation

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.

---

Using radio waves to determine where you are and aid in navigation.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 16:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak oppose for now, might support in the future but we're drifting further over quota. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
2. -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:26, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

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

Add Course (navigation)

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

---

the cardinal direction in which the craft is to be steered.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
2. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
3. Crucial concept. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:32, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose for now, we're drifting further over quota and this is getting closer to WP:DICTIONARY territory. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Per Zar2gar1. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 15:30, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

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

Add Bearing (navigation)

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

---

the horizontal angle between the direction of an object and north or another object.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose for now, we're drifting further over quota and this is getting closer to WP:DICTIONARY territory. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Per Zar2gar1. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 15:30, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

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

Add Heading (navigation)

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

---

The heading of a vessel or aircraft is the compass direction in which the craft's bow or nose is pointed.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Weak support. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose for now, we're drifting further over quota and this is getting closer to WP:DICTIONARY territory. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Per Zar2gar1. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 15:30, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

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

Add Pace count beads

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

---

From the lede, "Pace count beads or ranger beads are a manual counting tool used to keep track of distance traveled through a pace count. It is used in military land navigation or orienteering. A typical example for military use is keeping track of distance traveled during a foot patrol." These are essentially an Abacus  4 but for counting your paces. They are great for orienteering, and widely used in the U.S. military.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak oppose for now, we're drifting further over quota. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Per Zar2gar1. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 15:30, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:49, 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.

Trim military technology

Weapons are a huge part of our culture, for better or worse, however this section could probably be trimmed when compared to some of our other sections. As starting to struggle with quotas at this level, I think we need to trim some of the more specific articles from this section. I list the articles from least to most viewed, you can see the chart here

Remove Ammunition box

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 understand ammo boxes are useful for other purposes and are common on the battlefield, but I'm not sure it is a vital concept in itself. This is the least viewed article I'm nominating.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:32, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Support, I may have added this during the WP:BRD era. With a full section to compare against, I agree we should cut it. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Low view count Makkool (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Does not seem vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:46, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

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

Remove Multiple-barrel firearm

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 include Rotary cannon  5 which gets consistently more views. I think we can cut one, and think the least viewed can go.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:32, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Weak support, I may have added this during the WP:BRD era. Would prefer we remove by figuring out a merger with rotary cannon, but I agree we should cut it now. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Per above Makkool (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Weak support. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 19:50, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

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

Remove Burst mode (weapons)

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 include Select fire  5, I think we can remove burst mode.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:32, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Weak support, I may have added this during the WP:BRD era. Would prefer we remove by figuring out a merger with select fire, but I agree we should cut it now. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Per above Makkool (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Per above. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 21:00, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

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

Remove Active Denial System

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

---

From the lede "The Active Denial System (ADS) is a non-lethal directed-energy weapon developed by the U.S. military, designed for area denial, perimeter security and crowd control. Informally, the weapon is also called the heat ray since it works by heating the surface of targets, such as the skin of targeted human beings. Raytheon had marketed a reduced-range version of this technology. The ADS was deployed in 2010 with the United States military in the Afghanistan War, but was withdrawn without seeing combat." I don't think this particular weapon system is vital.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:32, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Support, I may have added this during the WP:BRD era. With a full section to compare against, I agree we should cut it for now. If directed-energy weapons or crowd control start becoming more prevalent, we can revisit adding something similar. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Per above Makkool (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 00:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

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

Remove Man-portable air-defense system  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 include Surface-to-air missile  5, I think we can remove MANPADs. This is the most viewed article I'm nominating here.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:32, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak oppose for now, partly for incrementalism, partly for the asymmetric warfare angle. Arguably forms a trinity with Anti-tank guided missile  5 and Rocket-propelled grenade  5. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Per above Makkool (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Change my vote to oppose as nom per Zar2gar1. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:32, 29 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 Terrace (building)

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.

---

As vital as Balcony  5, Porch  5 and Patio  5, IMO.

Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
2. If we can move architectural elements from Technology. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 19:25, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose here, but Support if moved to Architecture. I had to think about it more, and while there is engineering behind this, the article doesn't mention it and focuses on architectural aspects. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Agreeing with the comment above. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 19:16, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

Since I'm going to add it to Architecture, all votes count as support. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 13:40, 27 June 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 Informatics  5

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

---

This topic is a bit of a more novel discipline, but I think it should be included. In my experience it is a more commonly used term in Europe, and in the United States generally refers to things like Bioinformatics, which studies computer use in healthcare. Essentially, to quote the lede, it is the study of computational systems, and can be sometimes used as a synonym for Computer Science. There is a large organization dedicated to it called Informatics Europe, and several sub-disciplines like geoinformatics (how I am familiar with it). I think that it should be included at least at level 5, but would nominate it for level 4 if it passes. According to this link, there are several informatics programs at American universities, and the department of computer science at Oxford lists it among their research activities here. Google Scholar returns several highly cited results when you search for "Informatics," as you can see here. While not as widespread in the US, I believe a discipline with many subdisciplines, used at multiple academic departments, with a large body of literature should be included.

Support

1. As nom.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)}
2. Definitely, though not sure exactly the best place for it. Would make sense in either Science -> Basics or Math -> Theoretical comp sci. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
3. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 19:32, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 14:08, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discuss

Proposal signature

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:46, 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 some professions and disciplines

Add Geographer  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.

---

Geography  2 is a level 2 vital article, and we have several geographers listed at level 4. I think the profession for people who practice the discipline is vital based on the criteria. The term covers a broad scope, is essential to other pages, and is internationally practiced.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Sure, the other scientific specialists are a clear precedent. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Pretty obvious. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
4. ALittleClass (talk) 08:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Netural

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 Geologist  5

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

---

Like above, Geology  2 is a level 2 vital article. We have geologists listed at level 4. I think the profession is vital. The term covers a broad scope, is essential to other pages, and is internationally practiced.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Sure, the other scientific specialists are a clear precedent. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Pretty obvious. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
4. OK. YFB ¿ 18:13, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Netural

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 Cartographer

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.

---

Cartography  4 is a level 4 vital article, and we list several cartographers. I think the profession of map maker is vital. The term covers a broad scope, is essential to other pages, and is internationally practiced.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Sure, the other scientific specialists are a clear precedent. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Pretty obvious. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I don't think it needs a sepaate article. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 10:54, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Netural

Discuss

@GeogSage: Cartographer redirects to Cartography. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:19, 16 May 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 Photogrammetry  5

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

---

This is a rather important field related to Remote sensing  4 and I think it is vital. The term covers a broad scope, is essential to other pages, and is internationally practiced.

Support

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Sure, the other scientific techniques are a clear precedent. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 12:24, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
4. Yep. YFB ¿ 18:15, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Netural

Discuss

@GeogSage: Where should we list it? Lophotrochozoa (talk) 12:24, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Proposal signature

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:26, 12 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 Index (statistics)  5 with 1000 (number)

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.

---

Indexes in statistics are important. The page isn't in the best of shape but that is all the more reason to add it. We list numbers -1, 0  3, One half, 1  4, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 100, 1000 (number) and a couple others. I understand some of the reasoning here, but 1000 is a bit excessive. We capture base 10 adequately, and I'd imagine numbers like 12, and 360 would make more sense to help capture base 12 systems. I think 1000 is excessive. As we are over quota, we should discuss swaps instead of straight adds.

Swap Index (statistics)  5 with 1000 (number)

1. As nom. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:05, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Support, the Probability & Stats section is still relatively light. I've never particularly liked over-listing simple constants and functions either; they may be well-known but mathematically, most aren't actually more important or interesting than any other random number. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:13, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Remove 1000 (number) with no swap

1. Failing swap, I still think 1000 is excessive and should be replaced with something else.
2. Support adding, looks like the removal is already taken care of. YFB ¿ 18:17, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Oppose all

1. oppose remove via swap. It should be considered along with other number nominations.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:45, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

   I included this in that nomination below. If that passes first, I think this would become a proposal for a straight add of Index (statistics). GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:48, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

   The other discussion has decideed to remove 1000. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:13, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Discuss other articles to add/remove

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.