Talk:List of articles every Wikipedia should have

Archives

---

• 2004
• 2005
• 2006
• 2007
• 2008
• 2009
• 2010
• 2011
• 2012
• 2013
• 2014
• 2015
• 2016
• 2017
• 2018
• 2019
• 2020
• 2021
• 2022
• 2023
• 2024
• Topic index

Please add new topics to the bottom of this page

---

Guidelines being agreed upon:

1. A change of the list needs more support than opposition
2. Proposals should be provided with a reason
3. a change needs at least 5 supporters on the discussion page
4. swapping like for like (category switch only with reason)
5. single swaps (no mass changes)

Add Tourism, remove Rugby

Unlike other sports on the list, the Rugby (Rugby football in English Wikipedia, just Rugby in many other ones) article talks about a certain general concept that combines several similar sports into one (Rugby union, Rugby league, which in turn are divided into smaller ones). It’s difficult to write an article about this, and for example, in my language community, few people use “rugby football” as a term and as a concept and in the same time call rugby union just rugby. Relatively few Wikipedias have an article on Rugby football, and virtually no Wikipedias where it has received status.

It seems to me that tourism in the topic of recreation is a more suitable article.

For clarity, it’s worth comparing how many language sections already have an article about the subject.

• Rugby football: 122
• Backgammon: 92
• Go: 110
• Video game: 129
• Gambling: 104
• Swimming: 116
• Judo: 126
• Martial arts: 107
• Athletics: 127

versus Tourism: 146

I am convinced that tourism in the topic of recreation is undoubtedly one of the most important articles.--Reprarina (talk) 00:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Support

1.  Support as nom. The category in which sports is included is called "Recreation". I have no idea why tourism is not one of the most important items in the Recreation category. Nothing bad will happen if there are fewer sports topics. Certain sports are characterized by the fact that they are of great importance for some countries. The list prioritizes the most international things. Tourism is an international topic, and one of the most important. Reprarina (talk)
2.  Support Probably one of the many anglo-centric articles in the list. Among all the ball games icluded Rugby or Cricket are the least internationally known and important. Changing one of them (Rugby prefered for the reasons stated above) to a broader topic, that is internationally important is a good idea.--Flaverius (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
3.  Support per nom and Flaverius LightProof1995 (talk) 09:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
4.  Support the act of tourism per see is one of recreation, at least most of the times (health tourism would be an exception). Tourism does have economic repercussions but that's a consequence of the act of recreation. Eitherway, as I've always said the "swap like for like" rule is nonsensical. The Blue Rider 04:57, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutre Since tourism is a very important subject and also belongs to the category of recreation, the problem of category swapping does not arise. I'm in favor of adding tourism, but I can't judge the removal of rugby. In terms of the number of language versions you provided as the basis for this proposal, rugby has 122 articles, more than any other item. This is not a valid basis; other items have fewer articles, right?--Opqr (talk) 13:35, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose Not convinced by a swap between two different categories, especially with such comparisons. --Toku (talk) 07:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
2.  Oppose Per Toku. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 14:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
3.  Oppose Invalid proposal (swap in the same category). If I remember well, rugby is a sport and tourism an economic activity. Best regards, --Algovia (talk) 17:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
4.  Oppose Tourism belongs to Business and economics category and Rugby to Recreations. I don't think a swap between these two different categories is necessary. --Tegest Vonis (talk) 14:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
5.  Oppose I agree that the sport list is not balanced (centered on ball games), but tourism belongs to another category. As described above there should be a reason why you want to swap between categories. Best Minoo (talk) 21:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
6.  Oppose I agree that the article "Tourism" does not belong to the category "Arts and recreation". Subsequently, I don't think useful to analyze the other arguments. --Novaria85 (talk) 20:13, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
   • There is a discussion about that in the section below. Any response to that? --whym (talk) 08:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

I disagree with the opposers Tourism would go under Economics. It is travel for leisure, so wouldn't it go under Recreation? If so, there wouldn't be a category swap. Best regards, LightProof1995 (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the articles connected at d:Q49389 seem to be written more about tourism as a recreational activity, than an industry. For the industry, we have d:Q9323634. Will anyone want to change their vote in light of that? whym (talk) 02:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Add South China Sea, Remove Lake Tanganyika

No need to list this African Great Lake when we have Lake Victoria listed, which is the largest one. The South China Sea is important polticially for everyone that does trade in the region, which is everyone!

Support

1.  Support As nom LightProof1995 (talk) 16:30, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
2.  Support South China Sea has been an important maritime area for world trade since (at least) the Middle Ages. Today, it is an area of ​​major geopolitical tensions. Lake Tanganyika doesn't seem to be so important. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 22:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutre This is not a bad idea because the South China Sea is indeed a major element of global geopolitics (and of the "Asian Mediterranean"). But the weakness of the arguments (supposed bias to be corrected) does not convince me. --Algovia (talk) 20:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
   1. - Agreed. I’ve removed the sentence on bias LightProof1995 (talk) 01:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Now I am wondering if I should've made a swap of Lake Tanganyika for Lake Titicaca, and Baltic Sea for South China Sea. Thoughts? LightProof1995 (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Add Ali, Remove Umar

Ali is the second-most important person in Islam, not Umar. Ali is the reason for the Sunni-Shia split, and was one of the foremost scribes of the Quran. I also considerd Abu Bakr, but I believe Ali is the better choice due to his importance to both Sunnis and Shias.

Support

1.  Support As nom LightProof1995 (talk) 16:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutre (for now). Ali is indeed important in the history of islam, but Sunni-Shia split can be presented in the articles devoted to Sunism and Shiism. Umar is responsible for the writing of the Quran and the Arab expansion outside the peninsula. This is not nothing. --Algovia (talk) 20:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
   1. — Agreed. It seems it is pro-Shia sources that say Ali is the main Quran scribe. Umar seems just as important. I think he’s fine to be left on the list LightProof1995 (talk) 01:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Add Stonehenge, Remove St. Peter's Basilica

We already list Vatican City and the Catholic Church... we also list two structures in NYC, two in Rome, and two in China, but none in London, or even the British Isles.

Therefore, I propose we swap out St. Peter's Basilica with Stonehenge. I feel the importance of St. Peter's Basilica is linked more to its relation with the Catholic Church and Vatican, than its architecture. Stonehenge is an iconic and ancient structure of the British Isles, about as old as the Pyramids of Giza, which are listed.

Support

1.  Support As nom LightProof1995 (talk) 07:10, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose Why base the change request on geographical criteria? In this case, why a monument located in the British Isles? Why not another region? Finally, what is the proposal: Add Stonehenge, Remove St. Peter's Basilica as indicated in the title or Add Newgrange, Remove St. Peter's Basilica as said in the discussion? Best regards, --Toku (talk) 05:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

   Great questions! So, I’m a geography nerd I suppose. I’m into maps! So that’s just personal taste. My thinking was actually almost entirely geographic—- at first I thought “NYC and London are both considered A++ as Gawc Economic cities. However out of the 12 structures listed, we have two in NYC, and two in Rome, but none in London, or even the British Isles!” I then felt I’d choose Stonehenge or Newgrange for the list of all structures on the British Isles. However, my proposal is for Stonehenge, as it says in the title. In the discussion I end it by stating Newgrange receives less English Wikipedia views than Stonehenge, so the proposal is for Stonehenge. LightProof1995 (talk) 07:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

2.  Oppose As I have already said, I am against the compensatory approach in the spirit of "there is Catholicism in this section, so there is no need something related to Catholicism to be in another section." On the contrary, different sections should be related to each other.--Reprarina (talk) 17:25, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

   Excellent point. This is something we just disagree on, and that’s okay. If we think of it the way you suggest, then we would simply ask “Is Stonehenge more important than St. Peter’s Basilica?” and I believe the answer is yes. LightProof1995 (talk) 19:06, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

3.  Oppose The arguments in favor of the swap look to be very weak. The monuments included in the list shouldn't be included depending on geographical factors. --Algovia (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Another option is Newgrange, in Ireland, which is even older than Stonehenge. However, it isn't as well-known, receiving around 15,000 views vs the 125,000 views of Stonehenge. (St. Peter's Basilica gets ~82,000). LightProof1995 (talk) 07:10, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Newgrange is not included even in the expanded list. The number of views in the English Wikipedia for a multilingual project is a very bad indicator. Here, on the contrary, we are trying hard to get away from Anglocentrism. Which is not working out very well so far, especially in the extended list. Stonehenge, although not built by English-speaking people, is likely to be perceived by them as more important than it is, since it is located in English-speaking territory and is included in all sorts of predominantly English-speaking school curricula, etc. Reprarina (talk) 03:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, you’re right. I see why this got opposals right away, lol. I’m leaving it up because I still think it’s cooler than St Peters Basilica, which I mean come on… Cristo Redentor is better as both a Christian monument, and geographically awesome as it takes a structure out of Rome, which has the Colosseum, and puts it in South America, which has none. But, if we’re doing South America, I’d say we swap in Machu Picchu instead. Or perhaps you have another suggestion that’s also not Anglo-centric ? LightProof1995 (talk) 03:20, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Add Protestantism, Remove Trimurti

I don't think the concept of Trimurti belongs here, because I don't think it is that critical a concept to Hinduism:

1. It only appears twice on the entire English Wikipedia's entry on Hinduism: once in a caption, and once in a reference's notes. So not even in the main text of the article.

2. It doesn't appear at all on Hindi Wikipedia's article on Hinduism.

3. It is listed under "Specific religions", where everything else listed is a religion or its denomination. For Hinduism , the major denominations are Vaishnavism, Shaivism, and Shaktism. Two of these denominations consider one of the gods of the Trimurti to be the supreme one, but the third considers a goddess to be the supreme ruler of all. So, the concept of Trimurti doesn't even align with the major Hindu denominations.

I think Protestantism belongs instead. Christianity is the world's largest religion. The second-largest, Islam, has its two main denominations listed: Sunni and Shia Islam. So, it makes sense Christianity should also have is two largest denominations listed. (To elaborate, ~36% of Christians are Protestants, while 10% of Muslims are Shia. There are around 1 billion Protestants in the world, and around 200 million Shia Muslims.)

Support

1.  Support As nom LightProof1995 (talk) 07:47, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
2.  Support Okay, I've come to the conclusion that adding Protestantism wouldn't be too much of a Christianization of this list and that Protestantism is important enough to be in the list. It seems to me that Protestantism is important at least because it played a large role in the formation of the state with the most powerful economy in the world. Perhaps without Trimurti the list would be a bit lacking in Hindu presentation, but the article Trimurti is clearly not the article about Hinduism that should be on the list, since even in the languages of India people are not very keen to write about the concept.--Reprarina (talk) 11:06, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
3.  Support Indeed, Trimurti doesn't seem more important than Protestantism. --Algovia (talk) 19:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
4.  Support Per proposal. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose albeit weakly. I feel like Protestantism is already represented to some extent by Martin Luther in the list. I agree that Trimurti seems to have a relatively weak justification and could well be replaced, though. I would prefer Animism or something like that that would be not under "Specific religions", to replace it. --whym (talk) 10:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

• I think the Trimurti can probably be excluded. In the Hindi language (and most other languages in India) this article is a micro-stub. Perhaps the importance of this concept in Hinduism was exaggerated when the list was created. I am not sure if Protestantism and Shia Islam are important enough for this list, as I think the Bible and the Quran are a bit more important. I am also totally not sure that the Bible and the Quran are less important than The Tale of Genji, for example. On the other hand, Hinduism is still a very large religion, is it enough for it to have only the article Hinduism? --Reprarina (talk) 13:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC) P.S. Trimurti has 105 language sections, Brahma has 110, Vishnu has 119, Shiva has 130.--Reprarina (talk) 14:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. I agree the Bible could be swapped in, but I think it should be for Iliad, since Homer is listed. I don't think a proposal to swap out Shia Islam for the Quran would pass. I feel while Hinduism is a major religion, there isn't a particular second article related to it that stands out that I would propose we swap in. LightProof1995 (talk) 05:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

By this logic, both theories of relativity can be excluded because Einstein is on the list. I am categorically against excluding both the Iliad and Homer. The Iliad is one of the most important poems in history. Homer is one of the most important poets in history. Reprarina (talk) 09:32, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

You’ve stated your disagreement with reducing redundancy in the list before. I’m suggesting a swap with the Bible, which also is related to other articles on the list. You’d rather replace Tale of Genji with the Bible? Feel free to make a proposal, but nothing you are saying is against my proposal here, unless you’re suggesting we swap Trimurti out for Bible, but I don’t think such a proposal will pass, since they are in separate sections. LightProof1995 (talk) 16:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I still oppose Dentistry in the list

My attempt to replace dentistry with surgery was not successful. However, I urge you to think. To be honest, I don't understand by what criteria dentistry is included in this list. It is not the most important section of medicine, it is a subsection of a broader section - surgery, the article about which also has more language sections. It is not the most specific section of medicine (compare with psychiatry). Why is dentistry the only medical discipline included in the list?

In my opinion, there are at least several alternatives to dentistry:

• Surgery (as a broader concept, of which dentistry is a part)
• Psychiatry (as a somewhat specific section of medicine)
• Health care (a very broad concept and very important)
• Nursing (an underestimated part of the health care system)
• Cardiology (very important; according to World Health Organization, the world’s biggest killer is ischaemic heart disease, responsible for 13% of the world’s total deaths)
• finally, Tooth (not from medicine, but I do not understand the logic of having dentistry without having a tooth, and having an eye without having ophthalmology)

Does anyone have arguments for preserving specifically dentistry?--Reprarina (talk) 20:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Nowadays, all proposals are met with a legion of opposes, don't take it personal; and I do agree that Dentistry shouldn't be included. The Blue Rider 10:38, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Add Phosphorus, remove Analytical chemistry

The list contains too many specialized sections of chemistry, which is not typical for other sections, where the lists of different areas of one science are not so branched. Analytical chemistry is a very specialized section, and I do not think that it should be present in such a general list as 1000 most important articles. I propose adding phosphorus due to the fact that this element is one of the most important in all known forms of life, being part of DNA and ATP. The question of finding life in the Universe is associated with the question of finding phosphorus.

Due to the fact that phosphorus is very actively used in agriculture, there is a threat of depletion of its reserves. A phosphorus crisis could cause catastrophic changes for humanity.--Reprarina (talk) 13:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. Reprarina (talk) 13:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose "The list contains too many specialized sections of chemistry, which is not typical for other sections" : it's also the case for physics. Moreover, these different sections are important in the organization of chemistry itself: a chemist is more often specialized in chemical engineering, electrochemistry or physical chemistry than in nitrogen or phosphorus chemistry. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 19:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
2.  Oppose Per Nicolas Eynaud. --Algovia (talk) 20:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

I think we could keep one of Inorganic chemistry, or Physical chemistry. They're practically synonyms. If we did the swap you suggest here, do you think one of those could be swapped out with another element? Which one? LightProof1995 (talk) 20:47, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

According to English wikipedia : Physical chemistry is the study of macroscopic and microscopic phenomena in chemical systems in terms of the principles, practices, and concepts of physics such as motion, energy, force, time, thermodynamics, quantum chemistry, statistical mechanics, analytical dynamics and chemical equilibria ; inorganic chemistry deals with synthesis and behavior of inorganic and organometallic compounds. They are two completely different branches of chemistry. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 10:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

That's true. I was making an observation that "physical" is synonymous with "material" or "inanimate", and therefore is synonymous with "inorganic", but they are different fields. There is also overlap between "organic chemistry" and "inorganic chemistry", as they tend to be used together. That's why I'm wondering which Reprarina would choose to remove, if either, and for what element, if the proposed swap passed. LightProof1995 (talk) 21:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Add Yoga, remove Trimurti

How about bringing Yoga back to the list, excluding Trimurti? Yoga is significantly ahead of Trimurti in terms of the number of language sections. Also, it has been noted that the Trimurti article is not actively edited even in the languages of India.--Reprarina (talk) 00:49, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --Reprarina (talk)

Oppose

1.  Oppose We're here to write an encyclopedia, not to count which article is ahead in the different wikipedias. Moreover, Yoga was once part of the list until its removal in 2023. So, without new points, I don't see why it could be reintegrate. --Toku (talk) 07:00, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

   Of course, I often use the argument about the number of language sections, but this is only an indicator of whether the subject is perceived as important in the world. Because people often look at the popularity of a subject in the English-speaking environment, and from this they draw a conclusion about its significance or insignificance. The number of language sections is a good way to see whether a certain subject or person is significant in the world's perception, including speakers of small languages. In this case, we are talking about Indian concepts, and Trimurti, it seems, is not a very important concept even in the perception of speakers of Indian languages. Yoga was excluded when comparing it with reincarnation, but not with Trimurti. Reprarina (talk) 10:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

   What is Protestantism’s number of language sections ? LightProof1995 (talk) 09:11, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

2.  Oppose As I voted "support" to the swap between Protestantism and Trimurti. --Algovia (talk) 19:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
3.  Oppose Replacing Trimurti with Protestantism makes more sense to me. --Deinocheirus (talk) 20:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Adding a tag to the "List of articles every Wikipedia should have" page

Greetings!

The Language and Product Localisation team has added the <page-collection/> tag to the content page. The tag allows the list on this page to be discoverable on the Content Translation mobile workflow and will not alter the contents of your page; it can also be removed at any time.

Furthermore, adding this tag will help our team to validate or invalidate a hypothesis we are working on that if we surfaced translation suggestions sourced from WikiProjects and other community-driven initiatives, within the Content Translation mobile workflow, more editors would discover and translate articles focused on topical gaps.

Below is a screen recording showing how articles listed on a page with this tag are surfaced as translation suggestions in the Content Translation Tool. For more details about the test project, please visit this page.

Screen record of how to select a specific collection and "all collections"

Please let us know on this talk page if you have any questions or concerns.

Thank you!

On behalf of the Language and Product Localization team UOzurumba (WMF) (talk) 19:53, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Due to a technical issue, this work has been postponed to next week. Sorry for the inconvenience. SBisson (WMF) (talk) 21:46, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Seems like a great addition, thanks. The Blue Rider 10:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Too many international organizations

We currently list 12 international organizations, along with 4 subsidiaries of the United Nations. The concept of international organizations, as it is understood today, is relatively recent and only emerged in the 19th century. Of the ones we list, two date back to the 19th century, while the rest are from the 20th century. This means we are using 16 slots, which reflects a very recentist bias! For comparison, we list only 5 concepts related to war and the military. The Blue Rider 04:09, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Remove Commonwealth of Nations, add Siege

I was torn between the African Union and the Commonwealth of Nations but ultimately chose the latter due to concerns about losing Africa’s representation. The Commonwealth of Nations holds little real value beyond serving as a means for the UK to maintain a connection to its former colonies. It’s largely symbolic, with its primary function being to recognize the monarch as the head of a couple of countries, many of which are small island nations.

Siege, on the other hand, is a common and significant tactic in warfare. Numerous famous sieges have occurred throughout history, such as the Siege of Leningrad, the Siege of Carthage, and the Sieges of Ceuta, among many others. In fact, if you name a major city in the Old World, there’s a good chance it was besieged at some point in its history. The Blue Rider 04:09, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Support

1.  Support as nominator. The Blue Rider 04:09, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
2.  Support per nom. Siege is an integral component of warfare. While it can be considered a military tactic, it's more than that, as it's also a combat method. The "Military Strategy" article isn't always the larger or more viewed one across Wikipedias than "Siege". For English and French Wikipedias, "Siege" is larger and more viewed than "Military Strategy". "Commonwealth of Nations" is so anglo-centric, it's basically a duplicate of "British Empire" LightProof1995 (talk) 20:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose to a swap between two different categories. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 19:48, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

   Nicolas Eynaud both articles are part of the Social Sciences category... The Blue Rider 20:57, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

2.  Oppose In my opinion, siege is a topic for the expanded list. Not that important for being in the general list.--Reprarina (talk) 23:10, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
3.  Oppose Per Nicolas Eynaud and per Reprarina. The swap is between two different categories and it is too specific for the list ("tactics" or "strategy" are not included in this, although these are broader than "siege"). --Toku (talk) 06:38, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
4.  Oppose I agree that there are too many international organizations, but that doesn’t make them too important in “Siege.”--Opqr (talk) 13:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Discuss

Remove "swap like for like" rule

Here is a breakdown on the advantages and disadvantages of the "swap like for like rule":

Advantages:

• Helps maintain balanced quotas across categories (though were the current quotas even agreed upon?);
• Easier to compare the vitality of each proposal within its category.

Disadvantage

• Hinders efforts to reduce bloated categories.
• Prevents unilateral additions or removals of articles without an equivalent swap.
• Rejects potentially beneficial proposals solely due to category constraints.
• Forces proposals to focus on finding direct replacements within the same category rather than evaluating their individual merits as a whole.
• Discourages continuous updates to reflect shifts in importance across fields and disciplines.
• Introduces unnecessary complexity, potentially discouraging contributors from suggesting valuable changes.

Support

•  Support as nominator. The Blue Rider 21:26, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
•  Support The list should be balanced, but as it stands this rule is being abused. The proposal above to "remove rugby and add tourism" is a perfect example. Even after it was shown that tourism is in the recreation category and not industry, not a single vote against the proposal on the grounds of "no exchanges between different categories" was withdrawn. This shows that opponents were using "no exchanges between different categories" as an excuse to vote against it. Did you notice?　Furthermore, if you apply the rule that "exchanges between different categories are prohibited," you should do so based on the largest category, i.e., "biography" or "geography." For example, some people may object to exchanges between "countries" and "cities," which are subcategories within the field of geography, based on the rules, but exchanges within the larger category should be allowed.--Opqr (talk) 13:11, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
•  Support per others, however I agree with Reprarina that even if this rule is abolished, swaps between categories should still be expected to be stated with a reason. I see no reason otherwise to hold onto these quotas that clearly are random and not agreed upon through consensus. LightProof1995 (talk) 20:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose Rule needed to keep the list balanced. --Toku (talk) 06:35, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
2.  Oppose Rule does not actually prohibit to switch categories, but it allows it only if there is a reason. So it's not a hard and fast rule. I'm not sure if each category has the right number of articles (for example, I don't really know why there are 18 articles about artists and architects and 21 articles about musicians and composers), but it feels okay so far.
3.  Oppose Per Toku. I don't think the list needs a continuous update. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 09:58, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
4.  Oppose I think the advantages are more important than the disadvantages. I also think more advantage can be found like helping small projects to organise the redaction of articles, encouraging the participacion of new users, limiting proposals in the same areas and keeping diversity in the fondamental parts of the encyclopedia. --Algovia (talk) 20:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Song dynasty, remove Ming dynasty

Not the Ming Dynasty, but the Song Dynasty is the period in Chinese history when such extremely important things as banknotes and gunpowder were invented. The economy of the Song dynasty (960–1279) has been characterized as the most prosperous in the world at the time.--Reprarina (talk) 08:45, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom.--Reprarina (talk) 08:45, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose In the current list, we have the Tang, the Han, the Ming and the Qing Dynasties. All of them have a common point : they ruled over a unified China during more than two centuries. It's not the case of the Song Dynasty who ruled mainly Southern China as the North was dominated by the Jin and the the Tanguts of Western Xia. This excludes the Qing, Sui, Song and Yuan dynasties, but I think it's more important to keep thie internal logic of the list even if the Song Dynasty is indeed very interesting. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 17:21, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
   • We have contemprorary China (People's Republic of China) on our list, which does not rule over a unified China - there are two other states where Chinese people make up the majority of the population, Taiwan and Singapore. Reprarina (talk) 02:19, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

   The political fragmentation of the Chinese geographical area during Song period is not really comparable to that of today's China. Demonstrating the opposite requires at the very least a much more developed argument. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 17:58, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• 
  China during Song era (c. 1200)
• 
  Division at the end of the main part of the Civil War (c. 1949) : Taiwan is a green area.
• 
  Current division (and territorial claim of the PRC).

1.  Oppose In favor of maintaining the current logic of the list. --Toku (talk) 12:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
2.  Oppose I agree that the Song Dynasty played an important historical role in many ways, but between the Song and the Ming Dynasty, the Ming Dynasty is more important in terms of the power of the dynasty itself and its significance in world history (Zheng He's great voyages were a great achievement during the Ming period).--Opqr (talk) 13:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussion