Talk:List of articles every Wikipedia should have

Add topic
Active discussions
See the list of removed entries for articles that were listed in the past or are still under consideration.

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)

Some proposalsEdit

I'm going to propose the swaps that GuzzyG suggested in an earlier post. I think all of these swaps are worth considering. Interstellarity (talk) 17:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@Interstellarity: I think number of biograpbies is already far too high on this list. Personally I would support removall of all biographies which Thi and GuzzyG have suggested except Hans Christian Andersen. The only biography which I would support very fastly add (for now, and among proposal which they gave) is Louis Pasteur due to obvious reason. I would keep H C Abdersen. In my view Fairy Tale should have one representative based disussion where someone nominated Fairy Tale for removal on English Wikipedia. H C Andersen is by far more vital than Grimm Brothers as he is the most translated author from 19th century (yes, he is THE one), the most popular European writer in China (yes, probably more than Shakespeare. While readers rather not search about Fairy Tales on the Wikipedia then there so many reliable sources for that fact on the Internet. There are even sources H C Andersen is the most popular forgein writer there) and represent Scandinavia area better than Grimm Brothers Germany. Dawid2009 (talk) 12:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
@Dawid2009: I have changed a few proposals so that most of the biographies are removed. Let me know what you think of them. I would like to ask you your thoughts on removing some of the countries on the list. Do you think any need to bhe removed? If so, which ones? Interstellarity (talk) 12:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
@Interstellarity:. I agree number of countries is bit too high on this list too. Among 1000 divewrse space this is not very neccesary to list so many countries. 40-45 seems be about right. Firs three countries which I would remove would be Vatican City, Singapore and New Zealand but this is just me. I would prefer this topic be discussed among more people to not do it subjectively. I also keep votes in changes nominations by You. I am ambivalent about adult/adolescence so I did not put vote them. Later or earlier personally I would remove all those biographies but I did not put vote at Tschaikovsky as there are also still other biographies which I would remove before Tschaikovsky but it jst me. Cheers. Dawid2009 (talk) 12:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Swap St. Peter's Basilica for Shia IslamEdit

Support
  1.   Support Nom (Interstellarity)
  2.   Support Dawid2009 (talk) 12:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
  3. Support removal Expanded list is for buildings. --Thi (talk) 07:46, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
  1.   Oppose Shia Islam is important, but St. Peter's Basilica is also important.--Opqr (talk) 12:55, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose I don't think we should have in the list the subdivision of important religions except for the two biggest ones : catholicism and Sunni Islam. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 19:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
  3.   Oppose We should not swap building to religion Minoo (talk) 21:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  4. Oppose addition This list suits better for general topics. --Thi (talk) 07:46, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Discuss

Swap Chekov for Louis Pasteur HygieneEdit

Support
  1.   Support Nom (Interstellarity)
  2.   Support Dawid2009 (talk) 12:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
  3. Support addition of Hygiene. Important topic. --Thi (talk) 07:48, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
  1.   Oppose Louis Pasteur on the list.--Opqr (talk) 13:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose 200 is a good biography number, i didn't mean to swap weak biographies with non-biographies, just a more diverse base of biogaphies. Chekov is a important writer. GuzzyG (talk) 13:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  3.   Oppose Chekov is an important writer. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 20:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
  4. Oppose removal Chekov is good enough for surrent list. --Thi (talk) 07:48, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Discuss

@Dawid2009 and Opqr: I changed my proposal for something different. Interstellarity (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Swap Ovid for ProtestantismEdit

Support
  1.   Support Nom (Interstellarity)
  2.   Support Glaring big omnission. At least 100 times more important than Lutheranism or Luther who is on the list. Also note: User Opqr who is Japanese-centric supported addition of smaller branch of Christianity: Orthdox Church. There is no problem wit addition of more religion and philosophy articles if we decide make it in ballanced/diverse/nutral way. Dawid2009 (talk) 12:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 07:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
  1.   Oppose This goes to indepth on Christianity to the detriment of other religions. I'd take New Religious movements over this. GuzzyG (talk) 13:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose Ovid is an important classical writer. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 20:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
  3.   Oppose cat change, enough religion in list Minoo (talk) 22:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Neutral
Discuss

Swap Marlene Dietrich for Eastern Orthodox ChurchEdit

Support
  1.   Support Nom (Interstellarity)
  2.   Support Dawid2009 (talk) 12:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC) Edit: This article is not too big indeph focus on Christianity or Western bias. Opqr rightly supported it despite being Japanese as religion is clearly underrepresented among 1000 articles. Orthdox Church should be swapped for whatever its gets better statistics (Interwiki, Google Scholar, etc.) than most articles on the list, articles about Christianity and other Abrahamic religons gets far more pageviews than dozen writers on the lists or artists, compossers
  3.   Support--Opqr (talk) 12:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 07:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

#   Support Hard to say it should be one of the 1000 most important article in Humanity History. C933103 (talk) 18:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC) withdraw vote. C933103 (talk) 14:49, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose
  1.   Oppose This goes to indepth on Christianity to the detriment of other religions. I'd take New Religious movements over this. We have so little women on this list as it is? She's a easy target, but with so many men why go for the little amount of women. are we going to list every Christian sect when this is a world list and the world is not fully Christian? What makes "Eastern Orthodox Church" more important to write a article in Amharic for than Chinese Buddhism? One of the many reasons listing regional religions that are offshoots off a major one is bad for this "world" list. GuzzyG (talk) 13:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose Per GuzzyG + after the suppression of Spielberg, I don't it's a good idea to reduce again the number of articles regarding cinema in the list. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 20:28, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
  3.   Oppose Artists are not enough represented in this list, GuzzyG did not suggest to remove Marlene Dietrich for Eastern Orthodox ChurchMinoo (talk) 21:53, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Discuss
  Resolved. done. C933103 (talk) 23:27, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
I disagree : 5 "support" and 3 "oppose" doesn't look like a consensus. The rules decided last year to accept a change were : consensus + at least 5 "support". --Toku (talk) 13:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
When is majority of supporters, then proposal is passed the lsit is not stabile, terrible. Such strick rule would work at least if this lis was stabile and does not need so many changes. There is no doubt religion is underrepresented if we can have say overlap beetwen The Genji and Shibiku but not say the Bible and Quran. Out of words. Dawid2009 (talk) 07:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Swap Dvořák for AdultEdit

Support
  1.   Support Nom (Interstellarity)
  2.   Support 'Support removal Dawid2009 (talk) 12:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
  3.   Support Important stage of life. --Thi (talk) 07:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
  1.   Oppose Adult is a bland article. Like Box, not my definition of "vital". GuzzyG (talk) 13:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose Per GuzzyG. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 20:24, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
  3.   Oppose I do not see why this should be one of the most imoprtant articles in wikipedia Minoo (talk) 21:55, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Discuss

Swap Tchaikovsky for AdolescenceEdit

Support
  1. Support Nom (Interstellarity)
  2. Support Adolescence is important stage of life and research topic in social sciences. --Thi (talk) 07:55, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
  1.   Oppose Tchaikovsky is important. Adolescence is not so important.--Opqr (talk) 12:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose Per Opqr. GuzzyG (talk) 13:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  3.   Oppose Per Opqr too. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 20:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
  4.   Oppose no reason given Minoo (talk) 22:10, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Discuss

Swap Mahler for Information AgeEdit

Support
  1.   Support Nom (Interstellarity)
  2.   Support Dawid2009 (talk) 12:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
  3. Support removal Mahler is not as central figure in culture as other listed composers. --Thi (talk) 07:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
  1.   Oppose "Information age" would be too close to "Information technology" which is included in the list. whym (talk) 06:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose Per Whym. GuzzyG (talk) 13:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  3.   Oppose To me, "Information age" is very close to "Information technology" but the notion is not so clear. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 20:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
  4.   Oppose no reason mentioned Minoo (talk) 21:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  5. Oppose addition --Thi (talk) 07:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Neutral
Discuss

Swap Rubens for Bow and arrowEdit

Support
  1.   Support Nom (Interstellarity)
  2.   Support Dawid2009 (talk) 12:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
  3. Support removal --Thi (talk) 07:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
  1.   Oppose Bow and arrow is a bland article, more what used to be a everyday object. Armour would atleast be different GuzzyG (talk) 13:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose To me, "Bow and arrow" is a very generic article, Rubens is an important painter ans this change will reduce the part of arts in the list. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 20:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
  3.   Oppose the Flintstones Minoo (talk) 22:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  4. Oppose addition --Thi (talk) 07:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Discuss

Swap Tim Berners-Lee for Mental healthEdit

We should probably remove a lot of bios from the list. This article might be a good alternative. Interstellarity (talk) 15:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Support
  1.   Support Nom (Interstellarity)
  2.   Support Dawid2009 (talk) 12:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
  1.   Oppose Dawid2009 (talk) 09:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose He invented the World Wide Web, one of the most vital inventions ever; which has completely changed the modern world. I would strongly dispute we should lower the list of biographies. It would be vital for every modern encyclopedia to list the inventor of the web. GuzzyG (talk) 13:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  3.   Oppose Per GuzzyG. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 20:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Support removal, oppose addition
  1.   Support deletion of Tim Berners-Lee (living persons should not be included in the list, too many biographies), but   Oppose to Mental Health Minoo (talk) 22:20, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  2.   Support Swapping Freud with Mental health would be possible. --Thi (talk) 08:02, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
    @Thi: This proposal is not nominatio to remove Freud. Dawid2009 (talk) 07:39, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Discuss

Swap: Remove Vatican City, Add New religious movementsEdit

I think we should cover New religious movements on this list. Interstellarity (talk) 14:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Support
  1. nom
  2.   Support --Thi (talk) 08:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
  1.   Oppose OK with removing Vatican City but not with this article. Indeed, the concept of "New religions" looks unclear and, to me, is not so important in the modern society. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 19:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose enough religion included in the list Minoo (talk) 22:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Discuss

Adding Black Death, removing EthanolEdit

I would suggest adding Black Death, as the deadliest pandemic in history and the one which reshaped Eurasia and ended the Middle Ages. I think that we should remove Ethanol (we could change Addiction for Alcoholism, as Ethanol is under Health but most of the articles talk about chemistry, where we do have an article about alcohol). -Theklan (talk) 13:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Support
  1. nom
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 08:05, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
  3. Support C933103 (talk) 15:27, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

  1.   Oppose Black Death is not the deadliest pandemic in history and Ethanol is important for health and chemistry purposes. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 16:04, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
    @Nicolas Eynayd: Which is the deadliest pandemic in history then? -Theklan (talk) 14:27, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Umm Kulthum, Add Édith PiafEdit

Why was the most known non-american female artist of the 20th century removed from this list with a ridiculous excuse like "we don't have many Arab composers on here"? And why Umm Kulthum(Ümmü Gülsüm), which isn't that famous outside of middle east replaced with her. Édith Piaf would be better option for list. Hezars (talk) 13:31, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Support

  1. nom
  2. Support removal --Thi (talk) 08:06, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
  3. Support removal There are plenty more vital women than those two in varioius fields, Kulthum and Piaf are not needed here due to minor (international) cultural impact. Dawid2009 (talk) 13:55, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
  4. Support swap Nobody knows who is Umm Kulthum but maybe Édith Piaf if you ask non-religious or non-musician random people.--Manlleus (talk) 15:36, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

  1.   Oppose - I think we should include at least one composer who is not Western. Piaf is a Western composer. Interstellarity (talk) 18:39, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  2. Oppose addition --Thi (talk) 08:06, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
  3. Oppose addition Dawid2009 (talk) 13:55, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Industry vs manufacturingEdit

Privet, @Delasse:. I don't necessarily disagree with this change, but I do believe it should have been discussed beforehand to seek consensus.--Leptictidium (talk) 09:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

@Leptictidium ok, let us discuss this. One more argument: in English wikipedia en:Industry is now a disambiguation page. Delasse (talk) 14:11, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
According to "Britannica", Manufacturing is a part of Industry, which is defined as "group of productive enterprises or organizations that produce or supply goods, services, or sources of income. In economics, industries are generally classified as primary, secondary, tertiary, and quaternary; secondary industries are further classified as heavy and light". Manufacturing, or secondary industry, is only one of the four parts which industry is divided in. By taking Manufacturing as an item on the list of 1000, sectors today more important than secondary are left out of the list, such as tertiary and, above all, quaternary, related to the economy and technology respectively. In my opinion, Industry should be the item on the list because it covers a greater range than Manufacturing. If in English wikipedia, Industry is a redirect page, that problem should be solved, but not by changing the whole for a part. --Xosé Antonio (talk) 11:35, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
@Xosé Antonio I think you confuse industry (Q268592) and industry (Q8148). What you wrote is valid for industry (Q268592) but not for industry (Q8148). I'm OK with keeping here industry (Q268592) or manufacturing (Q187939), but not industry (Q8148) Delasse (talk) 12:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Replace eye with human eyeEdit

The collection of articles under the Anatomy heading appear to be implicitly organized for human anatomy. I propose to replace Q7364 eye with Q430024 human eye. --Oscar Zariski (talk) 21:25, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

  •   Oppose I support generic term "eyes" rather than human specific one. -- ChongDae (talk)
  •   Oppose as per ChongDae.--Leptictidium (talk) 11:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I support that most of the anatomy items should be general, and not human specific. -Theklan (talk) 15:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose --Thi (talk) 08:07, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Swap: Remove Vatican City, Add ???Edit

I think Vatican City should be removed because it is probably not one of the most important countries. However, I'm not sure what it should be swapped with. Interstellarity (talk) 12:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Support
  1. nom.
  2. Support removal Catholic church is listed. --Thi (talk) 08:08, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Try Vienna first as redundand to Austria. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose Vatican City is one the most important cities AND countries in the World, as it is also the Holy See. -Theklan (talk) 14:21, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
  3.   Oppose "???" is not an article. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 12:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
  4.   Oppose Importance of countries cannot be measured by the number of armour divisions they can deploy. Influence of Vatican on Catholic world is enormous. --Deinocheirus (talk) 00:25, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Discuss

Swap: Remove Singapore, Add ???Edit

I think Singapore should be removed because it is probably not one of the most important countries. However, I'm not sure what it should be swapped with. Interstellarity (talk) 12:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Support
  1. nom
Oppose
  1.   Oppose Singapore is not an important country, but a very important city.Singapore is the economic center of Southeast Asia,World's leading global city.I strongly oppose the deletion.--Opqr (talk) 10:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose per Opqr -Theklan (talk) 14:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
  3.   Oppose Singapore is important as a city-state. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 12:41, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
  4.   Oppose Economically important. --Thi (talk) 08:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
  5.   Oppose Vital to the global economy, one of the last remaining city-states. John M Wolfson (talk) 00:28, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Discuss

Sport. SuggestionEdit

We now have a list like this:

  • Athletics
  • Baseball
  • Basketball
  • Cricket
  • Association football
  • Golf
  • Rugby
  • Tennis

But if we look at the article en:Sport#Popularity, we will see there:

Rank Sport Estimated Global Following Primary Sphere of Influence
1 Association football (Soccer) 4 billion Globally
2 Cricket 2.5 billion UK and Commonwealth
3 Hockey (Ice and Field) 2 billion Europe, North America, Africa, Asia and Australia
4 Tennis 1 billion Globally
5 Volleyball 900 million Western Europe and North America
6 Table tennis 875 million Globally
7 Basketball 825 million Globally
8 Baseball 500 million United States, Caribbean and Japan
9 Rugby Union 475 million UK and Commonwealth
10 Golf 450 million Western Europe, East Asia and North America

I think the second list is more correct. --Peter Porai-Koshits (talk) 20:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

In the suggestion below, Athletics is removed and Volleyball, Table tennis, Cricket are added. If all the modifications are done, the article amount will be 1002, not 1000.--Wolfch (talk) 04:56, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
You confused Cricket with Hokey because of riket is already on the list.
  Oppose The suggestion is based on one reference with mistakes. For example, the author forgets rugby is also a popular game in France, Argentine, Japan... which are not "UK and other Commonwealth countries". And there is a big problem with article amount if the suggestion is adopted. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 12:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
  Oppose Athletics is vital. --Thi (talk) 12:31, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
  Support Swap Backgammon with Volleyball. Backgammon is redundand to board game. I have ambivalent thoughts about hockey (do we have one article which cover all variants of the hockey?). Athletics should stay, I would also add swimming ahead of Table Tennis as examples of individual sport. Dawid2009 (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Washington, D.C., add ChicagoEdit

I don't believe that "mere seats of government" like DC, Brasilia, the Hague, or (most illustrative of my point) Bonn during the West German years, belong on this list. Also, we don't need two cities on the American East Coast. Although I might very well be biased, Chicago has a larger population and economy than Washington, D.C., and increases geographic diversity of the list by covering the American interior. It is also the capital of American architecture and urban planning, being the canonical birthplace of the skyscraper and the centerpiece of Burnham's planning and the City Beautiful movement, which I think would duly replace L'enfant's plan. John M Wolfson (talk) 00:27, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nom. John M Wolfson (talk) 00:27, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
  2. Support removal too many Cities. Per WP:noquorum we can do that WP:Bold if list id not stable. Dawid2009 (talk) 11:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
  3. Support removal New York is best choice. --Thi (talk) 12:29, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
    New York City is already on the list, no need to remove anything to add it. --Deinocheirus (talk) 14:37, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose addition Dawid2009 (talk) 11:26, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose Washington, D.C. is the most politically important city in the world. D.C. is less populated than Chicago, but it is unthinkable to exclude D.C. in world politics.--Opqr (talk) 11:45, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
  3.   Oppose Washington, D. C. is far more important politically than almost any other city in the world economically or culturally. --Deinocheirus (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  4. Oppose addition New York is better example of urban architecture. --Thi (talk) 12:29, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
    New York City is already on the list, no need to add it. --Deinocheirus (talk) 14:37, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Discuss

Articles which are on English Wikipedia Vital articles list but not on Meta's 1000 listEdit

@John M Wolfson and DaGizza: What do you think to generate all articles which are on English Wikipedia list of 1000 articles but not here, on meta? This list on meta is terrible, I always was aware of that. Is more western biased than English, what do you think to list those articles elsewhere and analyse which ones could be added/replaced based on argumen that English Wikipedia include that? Dawid2009 (talk) 13:52, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Although similar, the lists have different purposes. The vital articles is a list of English language articles. This is a list of topics that can be written about in all languages. If you think this list is terrible, please add suggestions to improve it. But a copy of the Vital articles would be terrible for languages who don't have a direct translation of the English language concepts. Boivie (talk) 15:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

A series of swap proposalEdit

I think it would be more raional if the following entires in the list are swapped as stated as follow: C933103 (talk) 04:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

Summary response to @Toku:'s comments below: Yes, it is indeed intention to swap out a number of countries/cities/biography articles from the list, as I agree with others observation that the list currently have too much of them. And compared to past swapping record, such inter-category swap have been done before, isn't anything new. C933103 (talk) 13:56, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Also note that, many of the proposed swaps, despite crossing topics, are not without relationship.C933103 (talk) 00:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Change for the sake of change is not always helpful. In my opinion, your proposals often confuse the ideas of fundamental articles and articles about basic techniques. But discussion can solve that. Best regards, --Toku (talk) 07:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
What I am thinking about is, if a user enter a new, small wikipedia of their home language, spoken only in the villages around themselves, and see it only get a thousand or so articles, what sort of articles can make the reader think, "Ah, this is meaningful and that it is a useful website.", ? And that's the idea behind the proposal. There are also some ideology aspects like the proposal for including article on freedom, or free content, which might not be the most important 1000 entries, but those are articles that can help explain to readers that what Wikipedia exactly is, just like the "Encyclopedia" article currently on the list now. (Wikipedia should avoid self reference, but when picking articles on what to write first before other articles, I think it can be up to individual preference [There are no way to write Wikipedia articles without individual preference on what topic to cover anyway].) And since most new/small Wikipedia tends to be from different underdeveloped countries, or really small communities in more developed countries, I think it is important that the articles being listed are general enough, and wouldn't make reader question "Why is this article being selected to write on instead of all the other possible things?". C933103 (talk) 14:02, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I worked on the list a few years ago, especially on the countries (Africa, Nigeria, Tanzania, RDC). I think a significant number of countries is a good thing. Indeed, they make it possible to quickly map the planet and make it possible to introduce elements of geography, history and culture (geography/history/culture map) or even politics, economics and science. I will therefore oppose a reduction in the number of countries. On the other hand, there are many cities (44 I think). Many are there because they are large centers but their history is recent and, apart from their demographic weight, they have, in my opinion, little interest in a basic list. I am therefore in favor of studying a reduction in the number of cities. --Algovia (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

swap Zhu Xi for Legalism (Chinese philosophy)Edit

Withdrawn

Zhu Xi is not insignificant, as he is the person who defined the study of Confucianism in Song dynasty of China and his influence subsequently extended to Ming dynasty. However, he was just building based on Confucianism, which in my opinion make the entry less important to Chinese history than another prominent school of thought left out by the list, aka Legalism, which have profound influence on how different Chinese dynasties govern their population, especially in the Qin dynasty. C933103 (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Support

  1.   Support as nom. C933103 (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

  1.   Oppose I agree the Legalism Chinese philosophy school was important and I hope it is part of 10,000 most important articles. But the influence of Confucianism seems to be greater. --Toku (talk) 13:06, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
    But like Zhu Xi isn't even the second most significant Confucianism academic. He have high influence on Confucianism study during Song dynasty with a bit influence remaining in Ming dynasty and beyond, but that's about it. The second most important person in Confucianism would be Mencius, but even then I don't think he is more important than the other school of thought in Chinese philosophical history. C933103 (talk) 13:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose to a change between two articles coming from two different categories. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
    Both are of the subject of Chinese philosophy. C933103 (talk) 09:03, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
    Chinese philosophy is not a category of the list... --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 19:20, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
    Are we limiting "swapping like for like" to only those categories listed in the list, even if the relevant part of proposal below passed? C933103 (talk) 19:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

swap Marxism for Free marketEdit

Withdrawn.

Currently, the list contain articles including Socialism, Communism, and Marxism. While I agree each of them have huge influence on humanity in the past century and half, I think there are some overlaps between them that doesn't need to take up 3 spots, especially that Marxism is a specific subset of Communism idea. Hence, I think the Marxism entry should be replaced to allow the addition of the entry Free market. C933103 (talk) 22:28, 5 February 2022 (UTC)


Support

  1.   Support as nom. C933103 (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

I am not sure about this swap but I agree about the initial statement : Socialism, Comunism and Marxism could be reduced at Socialism and Comunism in the list. But I prefer a more general concept as "Free Market" can be integrated in "Capitalism". --Toku (talk) 13:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Free Market is a concept more general than capitalism. C933103 (talk) 23:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
It is but, currently, it is not really the case. So, capitalism looks like more important. Moreover, it is an important notion in history. For example, it is not easy to describe the Cold War era without using the concept of capitalism. It is the same for the crisis of 1929, the colonialism... --Toku (talk) 10:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
How? Cold war was Liberal Democracy vs Communism. The w:en:Causes of the Great Depression was either attributed to demand or to monetary policy of the government. And Colonialism is a consequence of Imperialism, not sure why you would link that to "Capitalism". Your argument further highlighted the irrelevancy of the concept of Capitalism as a topic in the course of human history. Perhaps even Mercantilism is more relevant. C933103 (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
If I remember correctly from my youth, the camp of the liberal democracies had a certain tendency towards capitalism... --Toku (talk) 07:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
"And Colonialism is a consequence of Imperialism" : I think this is a mistake as the second existed well before the first one. For example: Akkad Empire, Ur Empire, Persian Empire... And there are examples of colonialism without imperialism too : Denmark, Curlandia... Throughout history, the two notions are often linked but they remain distinct. --Toku (talk) 07:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

swap Commonwealth of Nations for Mariana TrenchEdit

Withdrawn.

In my opinion, despite Commonwealth of Nations being a currently existing entity, its prominence and its impact have been very limited. I think it would be more useful to have Mariana Trench, where the deepest point on earth locate, and also the only of the four extremes on earth that haven't made its way onto the list yet, as part of the 1000-article list, than such relatively inconsequential international alliance. C933103 (talk) 22:32, 5 February 2022 (UTC) withdrawn. C933103 (talk) 00:11, 13 February 2022 (UTC)


Support

Oppose

  1.   Oppose This proposition of swap regards two articles from different categorias. I don't think it's a good idea because it will change the equilibrium of the current list. Moreover, I am not sure "Mariana Trench" is so important to figure in the list. Best regards, --Toku (talk) 13:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose Except the fact Mariana Trench is the deepest point of the oceans, there are few things to write about it. The Commonwealth is an important international organisation. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 16:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

swap Capitalism, Japanese Yen for Bank, InvestmentEdit

Proposal Closed for not comply with new guideline

Capitalism is often used by people to describe and criticize the current economic system around the world, however, this would be an more in-depth concept and cannot be facilitated without understanding the activity of banking, which would be described in the article of bank, and that's something missing from the current article list. Japanese Yen being the world's third reserve currency enjoy an important status in the world we are in now, however I don't think it is possible to explain the importance of Japanese Yen being a reserve currency without first describing the act of investment. C933103 (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2022 (UTC)


Support

  1.   Support as nom. C933103 (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

  1.   Oppose This proposition of swap regards two articles from different categorias. I don't think it's a good idea because it will change the equilibrium of the current list. Moreover, "Capitalism" is currently the dominant economic system and "Japanese" is one of the spoken language in the current world. Best regards, --Toku (talk) 13:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
    The proposal call for switching out Japanese Yen, not Japanese language. Also, as the article Capitalism explain, "No country's economic system is completely or purely capitalist", thus I think it is incorrect to claim "Capitalism is currently the dominant economic system". C933103 (talk) 13:54, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
    Indeed, you are right about this point. I think "Japanese Yen" is not very interesting in the current fondamental list. But the proposal remains unclear to me: is "Japanese Yen" to be swaped with "Bank" or "Investment" ? --Toku (talk) 11:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
    It is a double swap proposal, pending the approval/rejection of the previously proposed rule, as both Bank and Investment are very important topic, that I picked Japanese Yen and Capitalism to swap out, in order to keep the list at 1000 entries. C933103 (talk) 00:51, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose I think Capitalism should be in the 200 most important articles of the 1000 articles every wikipedia should have so I can't understand why it's proposed here. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 17:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  3.   Oppose We can't remove capitalism. It is the currently dominant economic system in the world. It is also at the origin of many social, political and cultural phenomena since the 18th century. --Algovia (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
    I find this claim hard to believe. C933103 (talk) 02:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

swap Tin for AlloyEdit

Yes, Tin is an important element that have many industrial use in modern society, but most of those uses are in the form of Alloy. The concept of Aloy, in my opinion, is boarder and more significant than just Tin itself. C933103 (talk) 23:11, 5 February 2022 (UTC)


Support

  1.   Support as nom. C933103 (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

  1.   Oppose Tin is becoming every day a more and more important metal. So, I think its presence is necessary in the list. Best regards, --Toku (talk) 13:14, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose Tin is one of the most important metal in history and in modern world.--Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 17:14, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  3.   Oppose Pewter has been used since ancient times, usually in the form of an alloy. However, despite the rarity of pure pewter objects, he had an important role in establishing the first trade routes. It is also used today for many applications. So I'm more for keeping it on the list. --Algovia (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
  4.   Oppose Disagree with the proposal. --Orchendor (talk) 14:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

Nevertheless, "Alloy" could be interesting in the list. If we consider metallurgy is mainly a chemical discipline, we could swap "Base" and "Alloy". But, it could cause a problem as "Metal" is in Physics category... --Toku (talk) 13:14, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

swap Vatican City for Holy SeeEdit

The reason why Vatican City is important is not because of the tiny patch of land it's located on. But rather, it is because of the Holy See which have jurisdiction over not just the city, but more importantly, on the entire Catholic Church. Thus I think it would make more sense to have an article on the Holy See on the list instead of the geographical Vatican City. C933103 (talk) 23:28, 5 February 2022 (UTC)


Support

  1.   Support as nom. C933103 (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

  1.   Oppose Holly See is too close to Catholicism. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 17:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
    Vatican City is not? C933103 (talk) 00:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
    In the same way, we should swap the expression La Sublime Porte and Ottoman Empire. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 18:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
    More comparable would probably be w:en:Caliphate. C933103 (talk) 00:15, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose My idea is the other way around, and I think the Vatican City, one of the sovereign states, is more important than the Holy See, which is just a religious concept.--Opqr (talk) 12:45, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
  3.   Oppose I think "Vatican" is more important thah "Holy See". --Toku (talk) 15:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

In my language, "Vatican City" and "Holy See" are synonyms. --Toku (talk) 13:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Vatican City is the physical city while Holy See is the authority reigning over the city and the Catholic Church. C933103 (talk) 14:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

swap Ming Dynasty for East India CompanyEdit

Opposed.

Ming Dynasty, among all the Chinese dynasties on the list, is in my opinion relatively insignificant. Its regime is mostly restricted to Han area and its influence outside the country is not that big, except maybe Zheng He which already had his own article on the list.

In contrast, (the British) East India Company symbolized a new way for European colonialist to conquer and extract resources from rest of the world, and have also influenced other European countries in establishing various East India Company and West India Company, greatly changing the course of history across a wide part of the world. Hence, in my opinion, East India Company is an article that have much higher significance than Ming Dynasty. C933103 (talk) 23:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)


Support

Oppose

  1.   Oppose Ming Empire was one of the most important State of its era while East India Company can be integrated in "Colonialism" and "British Empire". Moreover, the Company was quite a part of the British government. So, I don't think it has such an importance to be swaped with "Ming Dynasty". --Toku (talk) 13:17, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
    The unique type of business governance model in area they control is not coverable by the like of "British Empire" C933103 (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose Ming Empire was the most powerful empire of its era. It's also important in Chinese history. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 17:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  3.   Oppose The Ming Empire ruled China from 1368 to 1644. They probably had the most powerful navy and army of the period. They also carried out major works (Grand Canal, Great Wall, Imperial City...).--Algovia (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
  4.   Oppose Currently, there are four items on the list in the Chinese dynasty: Han, Tang, Ming, and Qing. Given the length of China's history and its importance, this number of items is reasonable and there is no need to remove the Ming dynasty.--Opqr (talk) 12:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
    Ah I missed the Qing entry. I think Han and Tang are already sufficiently representative of Chinese articles, and Chinese history have no needs for 4 articles representing 4 different dynasties (5 if you count Qin Shi Huang as representing Qin dynasty). Out of a total of 100, for all subjects I guess I will make another replacement proposal later concerning the Qing dynasty. If a third article for Chinese history is desired, I would propose the Warring state period instead, the foundation of many Chinese believes and philosophy with impact lasting till now. C933103 (talk) 09:02, 18 February 2022 (UTC) edit for clarification and additional explanation. C933103 (talk) 13:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

There is a point I don't understand in the proposal. If we see below, "Zheng He" article is also proposed to be swaped (with "Silk Road" if I remember well) but it is mentionned here to support the swap "Ming Dynasty". So, is the swap of both "Zheng He" and "Ming Dynasty" considered or is it just one of them ? This is not clear. Best regards, --Toku (talk) 10:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

They are two separate proposals. That I consider Zheng He's expedition being most remarkable/notable thing from Ming dynasty and that Ming Dynasty itself have little else to influence the world, and then the topic of Zheng He himself is also something cover under the Silk Road topic. C933103 (talk) 00:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

swap Washington D.C. for Fertile CrescentEdit

Opposed

Compares to other cities on the article list, the significance of Washington D.C. just by being the capital of the most important country on earth fell short, especially when it in itself wasn't this large. Conversely, the Fertile Crescent area, being the root of Western civilization as we know nowadays, should in my opinion receive more attention. C933103 (talk) 23:48, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Support

  1.   Support as nom. C933103 (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

  1.   Oppose This proposition of swap regards two articles from different categorias. I don't think it's a good idea because it will change the equilibrium of the current list. Moreover, "Fertile Crescent" can be integrated in "Mesopotamy" and "Ancien Egypt". Best regards, --Toku (talk) 13:18, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
    Both are geographic area, how are they different categories? C933103 (talk) 23:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
    Both are more historical than geographical. --Toku (talk) 15:30, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose to a change between two articles coming from different categories. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 17:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
    How are they different categories, both are geographical locations. C933103 (talk) 14:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  3.   Oppose The concept of Fertile Crescent can be completely replaced by the two items currently on the list, Mesopotamia and Ancient Egypt, and there is no need to add new items.--Opqr (talk) 12:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

swap Infrared, Ultraviolet for Prion, ConcreteEdit

Proposal Closed for not comply with new guideline

Infrared, and Ultraviolet, are both important topic. But they are all part of light, even when they are not visible. And their unique characteristic is helpful to a lot of applications, but I think there are more important scientific/engineering topics that needs to be covered. For example, Concrete as an material is widely used in construction everywhere across the world nowadays, from buildings to roads to dams to everything, and Prion is the only type of disease-causing mechanism besides other pathogen currently in the list that still haven't make it onto the list yet, despite one type of Prion disease aka the Alzheimer's disease have already been listed as an important topic and that I agree with the importance of such disease. Thus, I believe such swap should be made. C933103 (talk) 00:29, 6 February 2022 (UTC)


Support

  1.   Support as nom. C933103 (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

  1.   Oppose This proposition of swap regards two articles from different categorias. I don't think it's a good idea because it will change the equilibrium of the current list. Moreover, IR and UV are important in a lot of current technologies. --Toku (talk) 13:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose to changes between articles coming from three (!) different categories. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 18:10, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  3.   Oppose In agreement with previous reviews. --Algovia (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

But I agree "Concrete" should be added in the list. maybe thanks to a swap with an article from "Technology" section ? --Toku (talk) 13:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

swap Afghanistan, Algeria, Iraq for soil, fertilizer, crop rotationEdit

Proposal Closed for not comply with new guideline

It is hard to pick what articles should replace what others, but in my opinion, soil, fertilizer, and crop rotation have much more impact on human civilization in general, boosting productivity and enabling the further development of human civilization, compared to the three mentioned countries which for their most period of history only have limited regional influence beyond their national boundary. C933103 (talk) 00:55, 6 February 2022 (UTC)


Support

  1.   Support as nom. C933103 (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

  1.   Oppose This proposition of swap regards two articles from different categorias. I don't think it's a good idea because it will change the equilibrium of the current list. Moreover, these countries have some importance in the current world. --Toku (talk) 13:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose to triple changes: the proposal is quite impossible to discuss. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 18:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  3.   Oppose In agreement with previous reviews and opposed to a decrease in the number of countries. --Algovia (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

To me, "Fertilizer" and "Crop rotation" are very close concepts in Agricultura. Then, I am not it will be stable modification of the list as one of these articles will be a interesting candidate for a future swap. --Toku (talk) 11:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

They are part of agriculture, but with agriculture being so important to human civilization, I can definitely see more articles being put under agriculture category. This replacement suggestion have the explicit goal of reducing the share of countries in the list while raising the share of agricultural article in the list. C933103 (talk) 00:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

swap Madrid for Mekong RiverEdit

Madrid is an important city, but when compares to Mekong River, which is essential to the civilization and food production in Southeast Asia from ancient prehistory time to even the modern time in 21st century, and have also become some source of international disputes, I think Mekong River is more significant than Madrid to be on the list of articles for Wikipedias to have. C933103 (talk) 01:23, 6 February 2022 (UTC)


Support

  1.   Support as nom. C933103 (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

  1.   Oppose This proposition of swap regards two articles from different categorias. I don't think it's a good idea because it will change the equilibrium of the current list. --Toku (talk) 13:41, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose to a change between two articles coming from two different categories. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  3.   Oppose Not against a reduction in the number of cities, but Madrid has been an important center for almost five centuries for the arts, religion, science and European politics. --Algovia (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
  4.   Oppose Mekong River is important, but Madrid is also important.--Opqr (talk) 12:57, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

swap Monotheism, Polytheism for Shia Islam, BatEdit

Proposal Closed for not comply with new guideline

I think Monotheism and Polytheism are simply are rough classification whether there are one gods or multiple gods, and the basis of such concept should be covered by a grand article for religion and other articles for individual religions, hence I don't see these two being needed for the most important 1000 articles.

On the other hand, Shia Islam as a long time competitor as Sunni Islam, and both of them have their own sphere of influence across a wide area of civilization, I think it seems strange that only one of them are listed on this list, hence I think Shia Islam should be added to the list together with Sunni Islam.

Meanwhile, with less relation, amid the current ongoing pandemic, it give us a review on uniqueness of the animal Bat. As a rare flying mammal, and also origin of many deadly pathogen to humanity across the world and across the history, I think it deserve an article on the list. C933103 (talk) 01:44, 6 February 2022 (UTC)


Support

  1.   Support Per nom. Polytheism and Monotheism are covered by other articles on the list. We can not have "buildings from Vatican", "Vatican", and "Catholicism" put together ahead of say Shia Islam, Orthdox Church and I am saying that as Catholic. Dawid2009 (talk) 07:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
    We don't have "Buildings from Vatican" and no one required that... --Toku (talk) 15:33, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
    So what is St. Peter's Basilica? Dawid2009 (talk) 09:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
  2.   Support as nom. C933103 (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

  1.   Oppose This proposition of swap regards two articles from different categorias. I don't think it's a good idea because it will change the equilibrium of the current list. And double swap is not usually considered as a good way to introduce new articles in the list. --Toku (talk) 13:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose A double swap, different categories and Shia Islam was removed few years ago... --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 18:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  3.   Oppose Polytheism and monotheism are really two fundamental articles, especially the first. Indeed, they are portal articles that allow to direct towards the different polytheistic religions. For monotheism, it also makes it possible to explain the appearance of this phenomenon which was, at the start, nothing obvious. --Algovia (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

swap Lemon for CitrusEdit

Swapped with enough support

Citrus, which also includes oranges, grapefruit, limes, and such, in addition to lemon, is much more significant than just lemon in itself. C933103 (talk) 02:21, 6 February 2022 (UTC)


Support

  1.   Support Per C933103. --Toku (talk) 13:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  2.   Support OK. --Algovia (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
  3.   Support I think it is more appropriate to include the entire citrus, including lemons, in the list rather than a single lemon.--Opqr (talk) 12:27, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
  4.   Support as nom. C933103 (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
  5.   Support Agree with the proposal. --Orchendor (talk) 14:45, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

swap Reggae music for DramaEdit

Drama, including thearetical drama, TV Drama and radio drama, seems to occupy a much more significant role and much longer impact as well as much wider geographical influence on entertainment of humanity, than the specific music genre type of Reggae. C933103 (talk) 02:24, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Support

  1.   Support Drama are a central part of modern television (and the internet too). Reggae is also important because this current had a great influence. But I think it has now dissolved and evolved into something else. --Algovia (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
  2.   Support Per C933103 and Algovia. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
  3.   Support as nom. C933103 (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
  4.   Support Agree with the proposal. --Orchendor (talk) 14:46, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

  1.   Oppose In my opinion, in the absence of "Cinema", it is to see the point of adding "Drama" to the list. And regarding "Reggae", Bob Marley is still an artistic with major influence in the world. So I think this musical genre still has its place in the list. --Toku (talk) 07:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
    If Reggae music is notable for Bob Marley then wouldn't it make more sense to just have an article on Bob Marley in the list? C933103 (talk) 01:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose I don't really understand the difference between drama and theater. "Theatre"theatre (Q11635) is already on this list, how is the drama different? By the way, in the item of "drama" in Japanese, it is written that "drama is a Theatre".--Opqr (talk) 12:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
    d:Q11635 only cover live performance, while d:Q25372 also include various other forms of drama performance, including TV drama and Radio drama. C933103 (talk) 15:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

Does anyone know why cinema is not in the list? Probably it is replaced by "Film". But in this case, does anyone know why "Film" and not the more general article "Cinema"? --Toku (talk) 08:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

"Cinema" is not even an article on English Wikipedia, just an disambiguation page. Of course English Wikipedia is but just one of the many Wikipedias, but Simple English Wikipedia also redirected "Cinema" to the narrowly defined "Movie theater". Thus, I don't believe "Cinema" is more board a concept than "Drama". C933103 (talk) 01:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

swap Rio de Janeiro for Indigenous peoples of the Americas, and New Zealand Poland for Austronesian peoplesEdit

Withdrawn.

Rio de Janeiro is a significant city, and New ZealandPoland is also a geographically rather important country. However, they only have limited influence outside their national boundary and they do not have very much historical impact from the viewpoint of entire civilization of humanity. By contrast, the Indigenous peoples of the Americas and Austronesian peoples each represent their own unique culture and history, marking their own unique tracks in the evolution of Human civilization, that I think are much more significant for the purpose of top 1000 articles in a Wikipedia. C933103 (talk) 02:43, 6 February 2022 (UTC)


Support

Oppose

  1.   Oppose This proposition of swap regards two articles from different categorias. I don't think it's a good idea because it will change the equilibrium of the current list. Moreover, double swap is not usually considerad as a right way to introduce new articles in this list. --Toku (talk) 13:27, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose to changes between articles coming from two different categories. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 18:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  3.   Oppose Rio de Janeiro is probably the most important urban center in South America. --Algovia (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
    Not Sao Paulo? C933103 (talk) 02:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
  4.   Oppose Currently, this list does not contain any items in "Ethnicity". It is replaced by similar concepts such as "nation" and "language". I think that's the right thing to do. The concept of "ethnicity" should not be brought into this list.--Opqr (talk) 13:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
    Except there is no representative nation or representative language for native people of American or Oceanian C933103 (talk) 08:57, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
    We have "Aztec", "Mayan Civilization" and "Inca" which represent the three main regions of Amerindians people in America. Today, the descendents of these civilizacions are numerically still the most important Amerindians populations (25 millions in Mexic, 25 millions in Peru/Bolivia/Ecuador and mora than 10 millions in Central America). Native Amerindians tribes in USA are very famous but they just represent 5 millions of inhabitants. It's also possible to speak about Amerindian peoples in "Cortés, Hernán", "North America", "South America" and the different countries of America included in the list ("USA", "Canada", "Mexic", "Brasil"...). --Toku (talk) 14:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

I think, regarding the results of "Swap: Remove New Zealand, Add Philippines" section of this page that "New Zealand" could be swap with "Philippines". So, this proposal is now not possible. --Toku (talk) 13:27, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Updated the list and replaced article proposed for replacement.C933103 (talk) 19:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Still not convinced, Poland is the one of the important countries in European Union e is important for European and world history. --Toku (talk) 07:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
The list currently include 46 countries out of the entire world's 200 for this essential article list of 1000. Eight of the listed countries are in EU, in addition to UK, Switzerland, Vatican City, Ukraine, and the non-European country of Canada, which all share similar values and have not too distinct historical-cultural background. Indeed Europe have an outsized influence on the world, but does that warrant this much outsized representation? And there are also four more historically-politically-culturally-economically closely related Mediterranean countries, aka Turkey, Israel, Egypt, and Algeria on the list. C933103 (talk) 04:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Most middle powers are concentrated in this region. But we also note the presence in the list of comparable countries located in America, Asia and Africa. It is not for us to judge: we can only observe. --Toku (talk) 08:04, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Regarding the Mediterranean Sea, this is not surprising. It was one of the "centers of the world" from Antiquity to the Industrial Revolution. And, even today, it is a major economic artery. --Toku (talk) 08:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
But was Poland ever such power? C933103 (talk) 00:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Poland was unified at the end of the 10th century. It then experienced two peaks: one during the Middle Ages, the other towards the Renaissance. Then, a long decline where it remained an important power in Eastern Europe until the 18th century. During the 19th century, it was one of the "questions" that agitated continental diplomacy. Finally, in the 20th century, it was once again a regional power (partly subject to the USSR but also sufficiently autonomous to avoid direct repression by the Soviet army in the 1980s). Its importance could be compared to that of Korea or Thailand in Asia. It is not the main power of the continent because it is surrounded by more powerful neighbors. But it remains a notable country.--Toku (talk) 07:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Right I guess I would cross this part out. C933103 (talk) 13:47, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

swap Marx, Karl for PropertyEdit

Withdrawn.

Marx, Kral is, according to my understanding, uniquely notable just for his work on Marxism, which is part of the Communism and Socialism. There would be many overlaps and not really that important in describing the personal life of Karl Marx behind his creation of Marxism which in turns became Communism.

On the other hand, more detailed describing the concept of Property can help reader better understand the classifying criteria of Marxism and Communism, in addition to lying the groundwork for describing the concept of Intellectual property being a type of property, and only then would allow the explanation of the concept of "Free" in Wikipedia in relation to such intellectual property right. C933103 (talk) 02:55, 6 February 2022 (UTC)


Support

  1.   Support as nom. C933103 (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

  1.   Oppose This proposition of swap regards two articles from different categorias. I don't think it's a good idea because it will change the equilibrium of the current list. Moreover, Karl Marx remains one of the most important philosof in human history. --Toku (talk) 13:28, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose The logic behind some proposals is curious : remove Karl Marx and Marxism to add Free trade and Property is quite understandle. But why remove Capitalism ? --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 19:37, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  3.   Oppose In agreement with previous comments. --Algovia (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
  4.   Oppose I even think that Karl Marx is more important than Friedrich Nietzsche.--Reprarina (talk) 19:52, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

swap Anarchism for LibertarianismEdit

Withdrawn.

As an political ideology, Anarchism is apparently much more fringe of an idea compared to Libertarianism. And thus I think it would be more important to have an article for Libertarianism than an article for Anarchism on the list. C933103 (talk) 02:59, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Withdrawn.C933103 (talk) 14:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

  1.   Oppose I disagree. Anarchism is a more general concept and, in history, it has a more important influence than Libertarianism. --Toku (talk) 13:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
    What are the influence of Anarchism, compared to Libertarianism which help shaped our modern world? C933103 (talk) 14:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
    Except maybe in some US States, Libertarianism doesn't seem to have great influence. There are organisations which describe themselves as anarchist in lots of countries but it doesn't seem to be the case for Libertarianism. --Toku (talk) 11:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
    Political parties like Germany's FDP are Libertarian and they are now part of the ruling coalition. Parties like Japan's Ishin or UK's Libdem didn't claim to be a Libertarian party but are also heavily influenced by it. Which anarchism movement have gained such level of power and voter support?C933103 (talk) 07:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
    In Germany, the libertarian party is the "Partei der Vernunft" (550 members in 2015 according to the party itself). The "Freie Demokratische Partei" (FDP) is liberal. Liberalism and libertarianism are not exactly the same thing. The first is very influential (and already in the list); the second is marginal. --Toku (talk) 09:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
    I am aware of differences between Liberalism and Libertarianism and that is why I propose adding Libertarianism onto the list. C933103 (talk) 02:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose Per Toku. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 20:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  3.   Oppose In agreement with previous comments. --Algovia (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

swap Breast for TasteEdit

Breast, being an organ of reproductive system of mammals including human, have its significant role. However, compares to some other missing content on the list, for example taste, which is one of the five main sensory system in human body as well as most other animal, I think breast is less important.

The sensory system part of the anatomy section currently listed three out of five sense, also missing are tactile, however the list have the article Skin which should also cover the tactile sensory system. on the other hand, the list have no article regarding mouth or tongue either.

The list also feature quite a large number of articles regarding different foods, but what's the meaning of foods without taste? Hence I think taste would a more important article needed to be added to the list. C933103 (talk) 03:06, 6 February 2022 (UTC)


Support

  1.   Support Agree with C933103. The addition of Taste seems logical. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 07:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
  2.   Support as nom. C933103 (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
  3.   Support Agree with the proposal. --Orchendor (talk) 14:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
  4.   Support Per nom. --Toku (talk) 11:20, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

swap Hard Disk Drive for Table saltEdit

Proposal Closed for not comply with new guideline

Due to popularity of more portable device and innovation in storage technology, HDD have reduced its importance as a data storage device, and in many consumer computational devices, they are now being replaced by the like of NAND Flash Memory or SSD storages, hence HDD might no longer justify being 1 of the 1000 most important article on the list.

On the other hand, Table salt have always been an important additive in food, providing necessary sodium to people in their diet, and they have also been an important tool for trade and revenue generation for historical powers that have obtained their right to product sodium chloride. However, more common nowadays is the over-consumption of sodium via Table salt, which would result in quite a number of chronic disease affecting the health of many people around the world, and thus I think it is a subject important enough to be one of the most significant 1000 for wikipedias. C933103 (talk) 03:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC)


Support

  1.   Support This mineral, which is mainly composed of sodium chloride, is indispensable for life activities and plays a major role in the history, economy and culture of the world. However, I think it's better to replace the salt with food-related items than to remove the hard disk from this list.--Opqr (talk) 11:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
  2.   Support as nom. C933103 (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

  1.   Oppose This proposition of swap regards two articles from different categorias. I don't think it's a good idea because it will change the equilibrium of the current list. Moreover, double swap is not usually considerad as a right way to introduce new articles in this list. --Toku (talk) 13:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
    Swapping "HDD" for "Table salt" would not be a double swap C933103 (talk) 14:06, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose to a change between two articles coming from two different categories. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 20:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  3.   Oppose In agreement with previous comments. --Algovia (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

But we could swap "Table swap" and "Base" ? They are in the same category and I think "Base" can be integrated in "Acid". --Toku (talk) 13:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Base is chemically important just as acid. C933103 (talk) 14:06, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
I can only nod. But is it so important as to be included in the list of fundamental articles? --Toku (talk) 08:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
I can only say the list have much more less significant articles. Like the biography section. But many of the entry in the biography sections are too obscure that I have never heard about them and thus cannot properly say who should be excluded, and can only work on people that I at least have heard about before. C933103 (talk) 02:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

The salt itself, not the table salt, should be added to the 1000 item list.--Opqr (talk) 13:16, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

The chemical salt is already on the 1000 list. C933103 (talk) 14:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Apparently I made a mistake. Is it correct that you want to register with table salt (Q11254)? If so, I agree. In the Japanese version, this item is just "salt", not "table salt", so it seems to be wrong.This mineral, which is mainly composed of sodium chloride, is indispensable for life activities and plays a major role in the history, economy and culture of the world.--Opqr (talk) 11:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes. C933103 (talk) 03:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

swap Machine gun for Chemical weaponEdit

Withdrawn.

Machine gun appears to be a too specific type of weapon to be the basic 1000 among all the different types of weapons, especially when the article firearms is also in the list. I think it would be better to have an article for chemical weapon, which characteristic is quite different from other weapon on the list, and its usage also have huge negative and lasting impact on people around the site of usage, thus probably being one of the more needed article on Wikipedia, compares to the specific type of firearm of machine gun. C933103 (talk) 03:32, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Withdrawn C933103 (talk) 02:16, 17 February 2022 (UTC)


Support

Oppose

  1.   Oppose Machine gun is still an important weapon in modern warfare. --Toku (talk) 13:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose On one hand, chemical warfare is and old and important part of war. But on the other, MG is the symbol of industrial warfare, a major change in war. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  3.   Oppose In agreement with previous comments. --Algovia (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

swap Turkish language for Malay languageEdit

As indicated by relevant Wikidata entry, Turkish is now mainly spoken by ~90 million people (L1+L2 combined) around Turkey mainly of Turkish descend.

Given such data, it seems the language's notability is less than Malay, being an language of commerce in Southeast Asia, with L1+L2 speakers combined approaching 300 million users, used in countries including Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei, Singapore, and such C933103 (talk) 03:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)


Support

  1. Support Dawid2009 (talk) 07:43, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
  2.   Support as nom. C933103 (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
  3.   Support Agree with the proposal. --Orchendor (talk) 14:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Support addition, but strongly oppose removal. I'd rather swap it with Greek or Hebrew as they're only wide spoken in their origin countries just as turkish, but they're also a looot less talked (8 M hebrew, 11-12 M greek) than Turkish is. Maybe greek importancy resides at its historical importancy? I don't know, but at the moment Turkish is certainly more important Nadie4000010 (talk) 07:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Neutral

  1.   Neutre Not really convinced but also not against... --Toku (talk) 14:10, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

Turkish language is the main representative of the Turkic languages. - Coagulans (talk) 07:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

swap Canada for FreedomEdit

Withdrawn.

Canada is a country with not much geopolitical influence owning to its relatively isolated position surrounded by the much more powerful United States of America. On the other hand, "Freedom" is a common concept among human beings, and I think it would be beneficial for it to have higher priority among those who create new Wikipedia edition to explain this concept to their local population in their own language. C933103 (talk) 03:49, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Withdrawn C933103 (talk) 02:16, 17 February 2022 (UTC)


Support

Oppose

  1.   Oppose This proposition of swap regards two articles from different categorias. I don't think it's a good idea because it will change the equilibrium of the current list. Best regards, --Toku (talk) 13:04, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose Even if we consider adding such an abstract term as Freedom to the list, Canada is a G7 economy and 2nd largest country in the world, so pretty important in both geographic and geopolitical senses. The Geography list includes a bunch of less consequential countries. --Deinocheirus (talk) 19:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  3.   Oppose Per Deinocheirus. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 20:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  4.   Oppose In agreement with previous comments. --Algovia (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

I think the absence of "Freedom" in the list is surprising. But maybe, the concept is integrated inside "Human rights" ? Best regards, — The preceding unsigned comment was added by an unspecified user

swap Submarine for Map NavigationEdit

Submarine is not really a common mean of transportation. On the other hand, wherever one is traveling to, map navigation is a necessity to any such person, thus is most likely a much more common and important topic, and creation and presentation of map as evolve over time also deeply reflected the technological advance of humanity across the time.

Submarines' main use nowadays are still weapon, but in the weapon article list, it probably need a lot more articles before submarine become priority. C933103 (talk) 04:06, 6 February 2022 (UTC)


Support

  1.   Support as nom. C933103 (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

  1.   Oppose Submarines are important weapons in modern world, especially regarding naval and nuclear warfares. Moreover, I think, "navigation" could be integrated in "Ship" and "Plane". Best regards, --Toku (talk) 13:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
    We don't even have "missile" on the list. C933103 (talk) 14:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
    Yes, but "missile" and "ballistic missil" are present in the 10000 articles list. It seems to be currently sufficient. --Toku (talk) 11:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
    Should "Submarine" be relisted under "weapon" instead of "transportation", if your argument to list it is that submarine is an important weapon? C933103 (talk) 02:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
    Also, the recent war have cleared proved that missile is a much more important weapon than submarine nowadays. C933103 (talk) 02:28, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose Per Toku. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 15:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
  3.   Oppose In agreement with previous comments. --Algovia (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

swap Pakistan for CaucasusEdit

Proposal failed

From the history of past 30 years, we can deduce that Caucasus is much more likely to have significant events that cause the world's attention than Pakistan, and thus I think Caucasus should be prioritized in establishing an article over Pakistan. C933103 (talk) 04:12, 6 February 2022 (UTC)


Support

  1.   Support as nom. C933103 (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

  1.   Oppose This proposition of swap regards two articles from different categorias. I don't think it's a good idea because it will change the equilibrium of the current list. Moreover, Pakistan is one the most inhabited country of the world and an important military (including nuclear) power. Best regards, --Toku (talk) 13:01, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose Per Toku. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 15:10, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
  3.   Oppose In agreement with previous comments. --Algovia (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
  4.   Oppose Pakistan is one of the great powers of South Asia and has a larger population than the three Caucasus countries combined.--Opqr (talk) 13:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
    The three Caucasian countries are not the entire Caucasus C933103 (talk) 19:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
  5.   Oppose Disagree with the proposal. --Orchendor (talk) 14:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

swap Golf for South China Sea PokerEdit

Alternative proposal raised

Among the sports in the current list, Golf is one of the item with fewer participants, as can be seen by its exclusion from the Olympics nowadays. As an replacement, I propose adding South China Sea to the list of article, which is a body of water between China, Malaysia, Vietnam, and Philippines, and have been having high military tension in recent years, drawing attention from countries both near and further away. C933103 (talk) 04:20, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Compared to Golf, I think Poker as a type of game and a type of playing card have a much more international audience and much wider reaches, and also have quite a number of external uses, like in magic or in presenting mathematical problems and such. C933103 (talk) 22:08, 6 February 2022 (UTC)


Support

  1.   Support as nom. C933103 (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

  1.   Oppose I don't think this proposal is a good idea because Golf is an Olympic Game. It is also a sport knowing an important growth in all continents, especially in Asia. --Toku (talk) 13:00, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
    Being an Olympic game mean it's important in attracting audience and does not represent it have high participation among citizens across countries. And that it's "knowing an important growth", in my opinion, is still far from the long established role of poker, across the world especially in Asia. C933103 (talk) 15:50, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose Per Toku. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 16:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  3.   Oppose In agreement with previous comments. --Algovia (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

swap Saint Petersburg for Quaternary extinctionEdit

Withdrawn.

Saint Petersburg is a quite important city, but is it important enough to have this in place of other more important topics for starting a new Wikipedia, for example on the ongoing mass extinction events? C933103 (talk) 04:37, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Withdrawn. C933103 (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

  1.   Oppose This proposition of swap regards two articles from different categorias. I don't think it's a good idea because it will change the equilibrium of the current list. Best regards, --Toku (talk) 12:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose Quaternary mass extinctions are not as important as listing 1000 items.--Opqr (talk) 12:08, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
  3.   Oppose Per Toku and Opqr. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

swap Mahler, Gustav for Osamu TezukaEdit

Compared to the moderately noteworthy composer Mahler, Gustav, I think Osamu Tezuka who can be said as creating and shaping the modern Japanese manga industry is a more important artist to be included for encyclopedic purpose. C933103 (talk) 05:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Support

  1.   Support In accordance with the proposal. --Algovia (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
  2.   Support as nom. C933103 (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

  1.   Oppose Not convinced by the importance of Osamu Tezuka outside of Japan. --Toku (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose Per Toku and Opqr.--Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 19:17, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

Osamu Tezuka is regarded in Japan as a great man who pioneered one art field called manga. But is this achievement affecting the world? Isn't it important only in Japan? I cannot judge the importance of Osamu Tezuka outside Japan.--Opqr (talk) 12:24, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Opqr: It depend on which target numver for biographies we should have. We do not have target number for people yet. Here we have + 210 people, on English Wikipedia there is only about 115 and there are no people like James Watt. Dawid2009 (talk) 07:45, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
His works, and the field created by his works, have great impact and large audience across national boundary. His impact on the world's entertainment is certainly greater than some of the many musicians in the list. So, with the principle of keeping the number of people in the list same, I think this swap is appropriate. But if the number of people on the list is to be reduced as I have proposed and as the other user have mentioned, then his importance will need to be re-evaluated in the future. C933103 (talk) 13:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

swap Atheism for SecularityEdit

Withdrawn.

Atheism is important against religion, but I think more important is the secularization of the society which dissociate the entire society from religion, no matter one have personal religious believes or not.C933103 (talk) 21:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)


Support

Oppose

  1.   Oppose This proposition of swap regards two articles from different categorias. I don't think it's a good idea because it will change the equilibrium of the current list. --Toku (talk) 13:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

swap Eastern Orthodox Church for SecularismEdit

I think Eastern Orthodox Church is not too significantly notable as an article to warrant inclusion in the top 1000 articles, and would rather have an article on secularism, which is the form of life of many people that are not less than religious-adhering population in the world, when there are already so many religious articles in the list.C933103 (talk) 19:43, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Support

  1.   Support as nom. C933103 (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

  1.   Oppose "Eastern Orthodox Church" is not a current article of the list. So, this swap is not possible. Best regards, --Toku (talk) 07:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose First, add Eastern Church in the list. Then, propose to swap Atheism and Secularism. Then, change your mind and cancel this proposal to remove Eastern Church to add Secularism. At first, I thought it was à joke. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 06:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
  3.   Oppose Per Toku.--Opqr (talk) 13:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

swap Neptune, Uranus for Hunting, MiningEdit

Proposal Closed for not comply with new guideline

While Neptune and Uranus are important planets in out solar system, they are not visible to out naked eyes and are only discovered by observers through telescopes, and their relatively faraway position also make them relatively inconsequential to humanity as we live on the earth. I think to an encyclopedia documenting knowledge of humanity, it would be more important to include stages and types of economic activities that enabled and still enabling the survival and development of human civilization into the list, aka hunting and mining.C933103 (talk) 22:48, 6 February 2022 (UTC)


Support

  1.   Support as nom. C933103 (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

  1.   Oppose This proposition of swap regards two articles from different categorias. I don't think it's a good idea because it will change the equilibrium of the current list. Moreover, double swap is not considered as a right way to introduce new articles in the list. Best regards, --Toku (talk) 12:54, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose Double changes, different categories, personnal opinion of what is an encyclopedia... --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 06:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
  3.   Oppose In agreement with previous comments. --Algovia (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
  4.   Oppose Agree with Toku. --Orchendor (talk) 12:22, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

swap WTO for TradeEdit

Alternative proposal raised

World Trade Organization is an important organization but I don't think it's anywhere as important as the act of trade itself. C933103 (talk) 23:12, 6 February 2022 (UTC)


Support

  1.   Support as nom. C933103 (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

  1.   Oppose This proposition of swap regards two articles from different categorias. I don't think it's a good idea because it will change the equilibrium of the current list. But I agree "Trade" could be considered as a potential fondamental article. --Toku (talk) 12:54, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose Trade is important but WTO too. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 07:44, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
  3.   Oppose In agreement with previous comments. --Algovia (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

swap Zheng He for Silk RoadEdit

I think it is much more important to document Silk Road, the system of trade network established between Asia, Arabia, India, and Europe, over the course of two millennia and more, than the single person who lead Chinese ship down the route. C933103 (talk) 23:28, 6 February 2022 (UTC)


Support

  1.   Support as nom. C933103 (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

  1.   Oppose This proposition of swap regards two articles from different categorias. I don't think it's a good idea because it will change the equilibrium of the current list.--Toku (talk) 10:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose to a change between two articles coming from two different categories. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 07:22, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
  3.   Oppose Of the explorers, Zheng He is the only East Asian on the 1000 list. The voyage is also a great one for listing.--Opqr (talk) 12:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
    The maritime part of Silk Road covers his voyage. C933103 (talk) 13:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

The proposal is very unclear to me. Indeed, keeping "Zheng He" in the list is considered as a point to swap "Ming Dynasty" and "East Indian Company" (see above). So, shall we keep "Zheng He" if "Ming Dynasty" is swaped ? --Toku (talk) 10:49, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

swap ASEAN for South China SeaEdit

Proposal Closed for not comply with new guideline

ASEAN as an organization for country groups lack influential power and have limited impact on development of its member countries. In exchange, I would like to replace it with South China Sea, which is a body of water surrounded by many ASEAN countries as well as China, and in addition to that also serve as a key trade route from rest of Eurasia to Northeast Asia, in addition to it being subjected to many international conflicts and disputes in recent years, and have received global interest and attention.C933103 (talk) 23:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)


Support

  1.   Support as nom. C933103 (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

  1.   Oppose This proposition of swap regards two articles from different categorias. I don't think it's a good idea because it will change the equilibrium of the current list. Best regards, --Toku (talk) 12:55, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose Per Toku. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

I think we should be able to find a swap with another article on bodies of water, right? This is one of the categories with the most questionable articles. Examples: "Baltic Sea", "Lake Tanganyika", "Caspian Sea", 'Caribean Sea". --Toku (talk) 08:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

swap Karate, Judo for Swimming, SpiceEdit

Accepted.

Among all the different types of martial arts in the world, I think it is difficult to say Karate and Judo is the most significant martial arts in the world. Adding onto that martial art isn't that much popular of a sport in the world, I don't think it's worthwhile for three different martial art articles to be covered in the list. Instead, I would suggest swapping one of them Karate with "Swimming", the most fundamental and most popular water sports in the world.

And as for another spot, I would suggest adding "Spice", the key ingredient added to food to give them flavouring, which also triggered global spice trade and have profond impact on human civilization. C933103 (talk) 02:21, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Reworded the proposal to remove the less popular parts, as according to discussion, to increase the chance of successful partial swap. C933103 (talk) 14:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC)


Support

  1.   Support only replacing Karate with Swimming: the later is much more notable as a recreational topic. As for the argument in the "Oppose" section, I believe it is essentially the same category in this case. --Deinocheirus (talk) 19:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  2.   Support only à swap between Karate and Natation (but oppose to the removal of Judo). Per Deinocheirus regarding the reasons. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 07:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
  3.   Support See discussions in this section. --Toku (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  4.   Support In agreement with previous comments. --Algovia (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

#   Oppose This proposition of swap regards two articles from different categorias. I don't think it's a good idea because it will change the equilibrium of the current list. Moreover, double swap is usually not considered as a right way to introduce new articles in the list. Best regards, --Toku (talk) 12:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

  1.   Oppose to a swap Judo/Spices. But support Karate/Natation swap. Per discussion regarding the reasons. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 07:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

Maybe a swap "Karate" for "Swimming" ? "Swimming" is a Olympic game. --Toku (talk) 12:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

So, to clarify the discussion a little, we split the proposal in two (or cancel Judo/Spices which does not arouse great enthusiasm) and we leave Karate/Swimming to the votes? --Toku (talk) 08:42, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
I would be OK with this solution. Deinocheirus (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Conclusion

Today, if we suppose C933103 is in favour of the swap ― @C933103: ― the proposition of swap between "Karate" and "Swimming" is clearly accepted by 5 "Support" against no opposition. I think we can wait a few more days to be sure. Let's say one week ? And then we do the swap of March 1st ? --Toku (talk) 14:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes sure, I think it have been said that it's bad to have switch by the end of month?
Also, do we need to have rules that how long must discussions be open before being closed? C933103 (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

swap Grape for Seafood FishingEdit

Withdrawn

I think Grape is a less important food source, than seafood food acquired from fishing, to many people, especially those who live along coast. C933103 (talk) 17:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)


Support

  1.   Support as nom. C933103 (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
  2.   Support Agree with the proposal. --Orchendor (talk) 14:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

  Oppose For "Seafood", we have already "Fish", "Mollusca", "Marine mammals"... --Toku (talk) 13:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I have already changed the replacement target to the industry of "Fishing" in response to the comment. C933103 (talk) 15:53, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

But I agree "Grape" could be removed as there is "Wine" in the list. --Toku (talk) 13:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

swap Berners-Lee, Tim for TelecommunicationsEdit

I think it is more important for Wikipedias to have an article on Telecommunications, the field that involve various means of remote communications, including everything from telegraph to telegram to telephone to internet to satellite communication, than Berners-Lee, Tim, the inventor of the very important but singular HTML standard for the use on the web.C933103 (talk) 23:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)


Support

  1.   Support In agreement with comments (for Berers-Lee/Telecommunications). --Algovia (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
  2.   Support as nom. C933103 (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

  • Counter proposal: swap Communication with Telecommunications (leaving Berners-Lee intact for now). "Telecommunications" seems like a more established concept that we can meaningfully describe. "Communication" seems more like something about which different disciplines talk past each other. (Not trying to discredit en:Communication studies, but it still seems like an emerging discipline than an established one.) whym (talk) 13:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
    counter-counter proposal: still swap Berners-Lee, Tim for Telecommunications, but then move "Communication" to social science category. C933103 (talk) 14:01, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
    (Just to follow up my previous comment, mostly for clarification purposes.) I wouldn't want both Communication and Telecommunications to be included, because of the high degree of overlap in what would be written in the two articles. Having one of the two is good, but not both. (Hence my counter proposal above.) Moving Communication to a different category would somewhat lessen the problem, but won't fundamentally solve it, I think. whym (talk) 08:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
    The current "Communication" article on enwp focus on social and interpersonal ways of communication, while "Telecommunications" is almost strictly technical. Those technical means of telecommunications are essentially absent from the "Communication" article on enwp either, so I don't think there are big overlaps. C933103 (talk) 11:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
    That's a fair point. I concede that technical aspects are more central to one article and human-centered aspects in the other, at least in English Wikipedia currently. However, I still see closeness and continuity between the two concepts and that still bothers me. Other languages, especially smaller Wikipedia editions, may not (want to) mirror the distinction made in the English versions exactly, and may want to have one larger article. whym (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
    Actual examples shows otherwise.... For example, based on my limited understanding on the language, Min Nan Wikipedia article on Communication say something along the line of "Communication is an act of one subject or group covey meaning to another subject or group through notions that both sides can understand", while The Wikipedia's article on Telecommunication say something along the line of "Telecommunication is a technology to send information through elecromagnetic system". The two articles have minimal overlaps.... In fact even their article names are unrelated, unlike how English Wikipedia which use English language use same root word for both. The Wikidata entry for both also indicated clearly the different in nature of the two subject. C933103 (talk) 02:42, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
    Regarding Min Nan Wikipedia article on Communication,[1] isn't that a translation of English Wikipedia's first sentence at the time? Two linked words ('signs' and 'semiotic') seem to match. whym (talk) 12:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
    This is what smaller Wikipedia tend to do when establishing articles. So is for example Vietnamese Wikipedia or Simple English Wikipedia. That still reflect "Communication" and "Telecommunication" are pretty distinct concepts. C933103 (talk) 15:26, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
I think it is a good idea. Best regards, --Toku (talk) 13:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@C933103: So, now, what is the situation regarding this proposal ? --Toku (talk) 08:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@Toku: All the cross-category proposal in this list will be put on hold for now albeit people can still read and vote on it, until the proposed guideline being officially accepted or rejected. Then, proposal that are deemed qualified according to whatever guideline being passed will proceed, others will be reformatted and resubmitted according to new guidelines. If inter-category swap is to be ruled out under the new guideline, then I would have to first propose changes in categorization/category quota before proceeding with most of my suggestions. C933103 (talk) 10:03, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

swap Baghdad for BabylonEdit

Opposed.

I found the historical city of Babylon carries a more significant role to the modern human civilization than the modern city of Baghdad. Hence I suggest the Baghdad article be swapped for Babylon. C933103 (talk) 23:39, 7 February 2022 (UTC)


Support

Oppose

  1.   Oppose Babylon is currently integrated in "Mesopotamia" article. And Baghdad was the main cultural and scientific center of the world during Islam Golden Age. Therefore, I don't think this swap is a good idea. Best regards, --Toku (talk) 07:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose In agreement with previous comments. --Algovia (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
  3.   Oppose Both Babylon and Baghdad were once important cities. However, Baghdad is the capital of Iraq and is more important than Babylon as it remains important today.--Opqr (talk) 13:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
  4.   Oppose Per Toku and Opqr.--Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 19:15, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

swap Sudan for VillageEdit

Withdrawn.

Among the number of African countries on the list, especially when compared to its neighboring Egypt and Ethiopia, Sudan doesn't appears to be particularly significant country that warrant its inclusion in top 1000 articles in the list. Instead, I would recommend including the article village, which represent the place where 45% of the world's population still living in villages [2], and it deserve an article describing their form of living, especially when compared to the 40+ articles about different cities around the world.C933103 (talk) 01:18, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Support

  1.   Support as nom. C933103 (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

  1.   Oppose This proposition of swap regards two articles from different categorias. I don't think it's a good idea because it will change the equilibrium of the current list. --Toku (talk) 12:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose to a change between two articles coming from two different categories. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 07:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
  3.   Oppose Sudan corresponds to ancient Nubia. It is an important space in Africa. --Algovia (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
    Compared to Egypt or Ethiopia? C933103 (talk) 13:04, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
    Egypt, Nubia (today Sudan) and Aksum (today Ethiopia) form an important subregion of Africa. While Egypt and Ethipia are more famous, Sudan/Nubia is not a marginal place between two centers of civilization. For example, Nubia ruled Egypt around 750 BCE and stopped Muslim conquests to the South from 652 to 1504. --Algovia (talk) 15:42, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

swap Luxemburg, Rosa for Black DeathEdit

Proposal Closed for not comply with new guideline

I am very certain Black Death have greater significance to Europe and to the world than Luxemburg, Rosa. C933103 (talk) 03:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Support

  1.   Support It's not the deadliest epidemic in the world (contrary to what many people think) but it has had almost unparalleled consequences. --Algovia (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
  2.   Support as nom. C933103 (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

  1.   Oppose This proposition of swap regards two articles from different categorias. I don't think it's a good idea because it will change the equilibrium of the current list. --Toku (talk) 13:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

swap Olympic Games for HomeEdit

Proposal Closed for not comply with new guideline

Olympic Games, as it current stand, have see a number of scandal in different forms and different games across the past decade, and also the consequential reduction in attractiveness as well as viewership, and with the expanding entertainment landscape and development of professional league in different form, as well as rising importance of developing countries audience that the Olympic lack coverage in these markets, I think the Olympic Games are no longer so important that it can be the sport competition event to stay on the list. Hence. I recommend removing the entry, and adding another entry into the list, which is home, aka the type of facility inhabited by most people across the world, which I don't think it's necessary to explain how important it is.C933103 (talk) 15:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Support

  1.   Support as nom. C933103 (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

  1.   Oppose This proposal wants to swap two articles from different categories. And there is already "House" in the current list. Best regards, --Toku (talk) 07:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose "the Olympic Games are no longer so important" : then why China (in 2008 and 2022) or Russia (in 2014) or UK (in 2012) or France (for 2024) or many others spent or spend billions of dollars to organize it ? Maybe because Olympic Games remain the most important sport event ? --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 03:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
  3.   Oppose In agreement with previous comments. --Algovia (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
  4.   Oppose As long as "house" is already included in the list, I don't think it is necessary to include "home" in the list.--Opqr (talk) 12:37, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
    As an apartment resident, I don't understand how house can replace home. C933103 (talk) 07:47, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

swap Operating system for CookingEdit

Proposal Closed for not comply with new guideline

More and more computer applications being made available to people have become cross-platform program, or even web-based program that doesn't need to change according to the use of different OS. Hence, even with OS being the most foundation software in computer, I think their importance in the general world have decreased that no longer warrant inclusion in the top 1000 articles. In contrast, I think what is more worthwhile to include would be Cooking, the act, art and technology that prepare foods for human consumption, potentially helping the development of human civilization. C933103 (talk) 02:41, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Support

  1.   Support as nom. C933103 (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

  1.   Oppose Too much propositions about food or agriculture. OS are part of software and computer history and there are still important. And when I read cooking potentially helped the development of human civilization, I ask myself why Prehistory lasted so long : men didn't know how to cook animals they hunted ? --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 03:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose The operating system is a major element in the development of modern computers. It remains today. It should therefore, in my opinion, remain in the list. --Toku (talk) 07:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  3.   Oppose In agreement with previous comments. --Algovia (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

swap Netherlands for GreeceEdit

Withdrawn.

Both in term of influence on Europe and influence on the world, Greece seems to be bigger and more profound than Netherlands, no matter historically or currently.C933103 (talk) 04:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC) Withdrawn C933103 (talk) 07:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

  1.   Oppose The Netherlands is an cultural, intellectual and economoic centre of Europe since Middle Ages. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 06:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose There is already "Ancient Greece" in the list. After the Roman conquest of the region, Greece remained a intellectual centre until the Invasions. Then, it was mainly a province of Byzantine and Ottoman Empire until its independance. Then, I think this proposal is wrong. --Toku (talk) 07:34, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

There is already "Ancient Greece" in the list. There is a mistake in the proposal, isn't it ?--Toku (talk) 07:34, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Ah yes I missed it.C933103 (talk) 07:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Other possible additions without replacement target for the time beingEdit

  • Secularism - Significant topic but swap proposal opposed on various different considerations.
  • Freedom - Recognized as important in discussion but cannot beat replacement target
  • Spice - Important not just as an ingredient of meals, but also as an historical driver for long distance international trade and war.
  • 1970s energy crisis/oil shock - Forever changed the world's energy consumption and economic growth outlook since then. Also have profound political and diplomatic impact.
  • September 11 attacks - Yet another world changing event in more recent history, turned world attention toward terrorism, make people feeling less safe in the world they live in, and created more hassles and invasive surveillance by governments
  • Copyright - A type of intellectual property, such article would be required to explain how Wikipedia are free
  • Free content - What Wikipedia provides.
  • Balkans - A historically unstable region in term of politics.
  • Big History - While not a super popular topic, the framework of such article can help editors further develop their wiki content from this.
  • Proxima Centauri - The nearest star, and nearest solar system, to us other than the Sun.
  • Parasports - Sports participated by people with disability.

C933103 (talk) 03:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Swap Venezuela for ColombiaEdit

I don't understand why Venezuela is on this list. It does not have a large economy, a large population, it is not a super power, it has no soft power, and it is not even a tourist power like Cuba, which is also on the list. Maybe Venezuela under Chavez could be important because of the wave of socialism he unleashed in Latin America and for being the third largest economy in South America, but today the only issue related to Venezuela that can be considered important is the migratory crisis and the issue with the US.

Colombia on the other hand is the third largest economy in South America (both in nominal GDP and PPP), has the second largest population and according to the BrandFinance report of 2021, has the fourth largest soft power in Latin America only behind the traditional Latin American powers (Brazil, Argentina, Mexico), and it also has the fourth biggest latin american army. It is part of the CIVETS, the six most important emerging markets, of the OECD, and is considered a consolidated middle power. If we have to have more Latin American countries on the list, I think it makes more sense to have Colombia than Venezuela. Nadie4000010 (talk) 23:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Support

  1.   Support, per above, tough Venezuela has also fairly good hard power. SpaceEconomist192 19:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
  2.   Support [nom] Nadie4000010 (talk) 06:51, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

  1.   Oppose Venezuela is a notable country because of its crude oil reserves, its political revolution and its history. --Algovia (talk) 15:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
    Algovia, Colombia produces more oil than Venezuela but okay. Also, Venezuela gained his independence from Gran Colombia. So I don't think Venezuela political instability is sufficient for it to be listed instead of Colombia. SpaceEconomist192 19:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose Per Algovia. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 20:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Discuss

Comment: Lets swap Bogota for Colombia. Bogota is city in the Colombia. Dawid2009 (talk) 08:35, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes it makes more sense, good catch. SpaceEconomist192 19:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC) 13:12, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
How about reducing wuota of cities? Is really Vienna more vital than whole Peru what cover Lima? Dawid2009 (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm on board we should remove some cities, there's way too many. SpaceEconomist192 19:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC) 09:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Even if I don't like a swap between two articles from different categories, I can support a swap Bogota/Colombia. --Algovia (talk) 15:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: Reduce the number of biography in the list to 100Edit

Failed to reach consensus on how to determine a target number

{{{1}}}

Swap Oat for Table saltEdit

Swapped

Currently, there are seven grains in this list: Barley, Maize, Oat, Rice, Rye, Sorghum bicolor, Wheat. Grains are important, but there are too many seven in this list. On the other hand, although table salt (Q11254) is a historically and economically important substance, it is not included in this list. Therefore, you should replace the salt with one of the grains.

Of the grains, wheat, rice and maize are very important and cannot be removed. Barley and Sorghum bicolor are also high in production and should not be removed. Although rye is low in production, it is a staple food of Eastern European countries and is very culturally important. Oats, on the other hand, were important as feed for horses, but production has plummeted. Oats are not a staple food and are not culturally important. 

I think you should replace the salt with oats.--Opqr (talk) 14:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Support

  1.   Support per nom C933103 (talk) 15:36, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
  2.   Support Per Opqr. --Toku (talk) 10:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
  3.   Support Per nom. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 22:07, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
  4.   Support Vote in favor as a proposer.--Opqr (talk) 10:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
  5.   Support Indeed, table salt was very important in history as trade roads were built upon its production and its sales. Today, it remains important for health issues. --Algovia (talk) 14:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Swap: Remove Sufism, Add Shia IslamEdit

Swapped

Shia Islam being one of the two main sect of Islam is much more important topic to explore than Sufism. It is also needed to give view of the Islamic world's long-lasting conflict between Sunni and Shia Muslim. C933103 (talk) 13:38, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Support

  1.   Support [nom]C933103 (talk) 13:39, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
  2.   Support Sufism is important as it has inspired some branches of Shia and Sunni Islam. But to me, Shia Islam is more important in history. --Toku (talk) 14:31, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
  3.   Support Sufism is very important and I think it shouldn't be removed, but when comparing Shia Islam and Sufism, Shia Islam are more important.--Opqr (talk) 10:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
  4.   Support Agree. --Algovia (talk) 14:59, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
  5.   Support per nom --Nadie4000010 (talk) 18:25, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutre

  1.   Neutre Sufism is important in Islam as it inspired lots of schools of thought. It's also useful to explain and describe all the heterodox branches of Islam (Alevism, Alawites, Druzes...). But that's right Shia Islam is also important. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 10:57, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

Swap: Remove Backgammon, Add PokerEdit

Backgammon have much less worldwide popularity (both in geographical distribution and number of people who play it) than poker. Also, the list now have 3 board games against 0 card games, this swap will help balance the list. C933103 (talk) 13:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Support

  1.   Support [nom] C933103 (talk) 13:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

  1.   Oppose "Backgammon" is still a popular game and it's the only pure board game of the list as "Go" and "Chess" are more strategy game. Moreover, backgammon is a very old game. --Toku (talk) 14:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose Per Toku. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 22:08, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
  3.   Oppose Backgammon is one of the oldest game still popular in our society. --Algovia (talk) 14:59, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
    I have not seen anyone played backgammon in the 21st century in all the countries I have visited... But pokers are played everywhere. C933103 (talk) 17:13, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

Swap: Remove Berners-Lee, Tim, Add Friedman, MiltonEdit

Withdrawn.

As one of the most influential economist and statistician in the modern era, I find it surprising that he is not on the current list of 200 people we have, especially with how many social scientists and statisticians we list. To make place for this addition, I would suggest removing Berners-Lee, Tim, an entry that many different users already expressed them feeling its inclusion in the list of 1000 articles that every wikipedia should have is out of place. C933103 (talk) 15:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Support

  1.   Support [nom] C933103 (talk) 15:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
  2.   Support Per nom. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 22:07, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

  1.   Oppose I don't think Tim Berners-Lee is that important, but Milton Friedman isn't as important as it is on this list either.--Opqr (talk) 10:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose Agree with Opqr. In addition, I say Schumpeter (or maybe Hayek ?) looks to be more important in economy than Friedman.--Toku (talk) 10:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
  3.   Oppose --Thi (talk) 22:05, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

Swap: Remove Zhu Xi, Add Han FeiEdit

Han Fei have more influence on Chinese history and philosophy than Zhu Xi, and Han Fei's school of thought also represent a more distinct idea than Zhu Xi's Confucianism, which already have multiple other articles in the list. C933103 (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Support

  1.   Support [nom] C933103 (talk) 21:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Suggestion: Single criteria for countriesEdit

The following criteria which should be meets by the country are:

  1. Every country with en:Regional power, regardless of small population.
  2. Every country which had ever been considered as Middle power AND has at least 20 mln population today.

On that basis, the following countries are removed:

  1. Afghanistan
  2. Cuba
  3. Demographic Republic of Congo
  4. Sudan
  5. Tanzania
  6. Vatican City
  7. Venezuela
  8. Austria
  9. Netherlands
  10. Portugal
  11. Switzerland

And the following countries are added:

  1. Angola
  2. Colombia
  3. Malyasia
  4. Morocco

#New Zealand (perhaps no regional power, middle power with smaller population, see: [3],[4])

  1. North Korea
  2. Peru
  3. Sri Lanka
  4. Taiwan

Due to that, after removing 11 countries and adding 9 ones, we are under quota (not 1000/1000), we can eventually make slight correction. For example resign from addition one of these 9 countries and resign from removal three of those 11 countries. Just mere suggestion, any ideas are welcome! :) Dawid2009 (talk) 08:49, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Support

  •   Support but only the first criteria, I think the second clause need to be reformulated. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by SadAttorney613 (talk)

Oppose

  •   Oppose Against multiple swap as we voted last month. And the proposition is very bad, especially removing Afghanistan (which has some importance in Asia...), Cuba (which has some importance in history), Sudan (a regional power in the North of Africa), Tanzania (a regional power in the East of Africa), Venezuela (a country with some importance in America for its politic revolution and its crude oil reserves), Austria (a very old country with an important culture), Netherlands (a very surprising proposition), Portugal (idem Netherlands) and Switzerland (idem Netherlands and Portugal). --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 10:45, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Sudan and Tanzania aren't regional powers nor middle powers. Is Afghanistan's "some importance in Asia" the enough for it to be on the list? I do admit that these criteria neglects historical factors, but are those sufficient to hold countries like Austria and Portugal (and I'm portuguese)? I think there should be concrete guidelines for which articles are added, because right now this list is extremely subjective and we need more objectivity on it. SpaceEconomist192 19:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC) 11:09, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
On English Wikipedia we reached to the consensus that countries like Mongolia, Portugal, Greece are not needed if we have separate section for articles related with history, culture and such (a ka Magellan, Portuguese language, Mongol Empire, Ancient Greece, European Colonisation of Americas (could cover Cuba, Netherlands and Portugal) etc.) and we have agreed each other on English Wikipedia to list few more countries from South East Asia if we have many cities from Europe and SO SO plenty Europeans. Here people apparently agreed each other that diversity is NOT purpose of that list (see: [5]) but I am not sure what does it mean. Dawid2009 (talk) 12:09, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Ferdinand Magellan was at the service of the Spanish Crown, but yes I agree if the history, culture and such are covered then it's probably not worthy to have Greece, Mongolia and Portugal (unless Portugal makes a breakthrough with en:CPLP) listed. Cuba might have had some historical importance during the Cold War period, but I don't think it's enough for it to be listed. SpaceEconomist192 19:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC) 13:33, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
I won't say defining criterias count as mass swap. C933103 (talk) 14:25, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose What count as "Regional power" or "Middle power" is very, very, subjective. For example, in your list of removal, Netherlands and Austria and Portugal and Sudan and DR Congo and Tanzania, are what I would consider as at least middle power in at least some parts of their history. C933103 (talk) 14:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
The Netherlands, Austria and Portugal are listed as middle powers. The modern state of Sudan has been in civil war even before it's creation in 1956, until 2005 with a 11 years cooldown between 1972-1983, the country was never a middle power. See this comparison of the GDP nominal between some Northeast Africa countries [6]. They also only have a mere $4.1 billion on exports, that's not a middle power number. Regarding DR Congo, more than half of it's exports are to China, while almost 25% are to Zambia, any country that has their economy this dependent cannot be considered a middle power. I also fail to see how Tanzania is a middle power. Just because these countries have an enormous demographical potencial and consequential economical and militarily, doesn't mean they are regional or middle powers, sure in 50 years a lot of African countries will become middle or even great powers, but right now it's WP:TOOSOON. Not to mention that this is not about what two trifling internet users think which countries are or are not middle powers, the article was built on the opinion of academics and scholars who know much more than we do about International Relations and Geopolitics. SpaceEconomist192 19:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC) 19:09, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
All these conditions you listed for different countries just prove my point that the classification is subjective. C933103 (talk) 02:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
I never claimed they were not subjective, all social sciences are, but at least they follow a methodology. SpaceEconomist192 19:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC) 07:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not convinced by now. --Toku (talk) 11:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I agree with some suggestions, but disagree with most others. First, I strongly oppose the removal of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the addition of Angola. The Democratic Republic of the Congo was unable to reach its full potential due to continued political turmoil, but with a population of 92 million, it is one of Africa's largest powers. It is by far the largest of its neighbors in Central Africa, and due to its large population, the Democratic Republic of the Congo is the political center of the region. Angola, on the other hand, has a population of only 31 million and is no more important than the Democratic Republic of the Congo, even with the economic power of oil. I also oppose the removal of Switzerland, the Vatican and the Netherlands. Switzerland is truly one of the centers of the world economy and occupies a large political and economic position. The Vatican City has a small land area, but has strong political and economic power against the backdrop of the Catholic sphere. The Netherlands is a medium-sized nation, but its cultural and economic influence is not small.--Opqr (talk) 13:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
I do not oppose the removal of Tanzania and Sudan. Because I feel that African countries are on the list rather than national power.--Opqr (talk) 13:14, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Angola is the second regional power in the region, not DR Congo. It has the best military in Southern Africa only competing with South Africa, see Namibian War of Independence. Also, Angola economy surpasses DR Congo's both on exports and imports, its GDP nominal is the double of DR Congo's. Not to mention that Angola is part of OPEC. SpaceEconomist192 19:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC) 13:39, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
DR Congo is Central Africa not Southern Africa? C933103 (talk) 15:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

@Opqr: Would you choose Romania over Switzerland or Portugal by the same measure what you are choosing Democratic Republic of Congo over Angola? Dawid2009 (talk) 10:41, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Depends upon who ask, see Southern Africa. Even assuming Central and Southern Africa in a whole, Angola and South Africa would still be the two biggest forces. SpaceEconomist192 19:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC) 16:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
That question is meaningless. Romania's population is less than 20 million, its economic power is weak, and it is insufficient to be on this list in terms of both the size and economic power of the country. With a population of 92 million, the Democratic Republic of the Congo has the 16th largest population in the world and is by far the largest in Central Africa. Also, the GDP of Tanzania and Angola are about the same. What is the reason for removing Tanzania from this list and adding Angola? I don't think either Tanzania or Angola meet the criteria for this list.--Opqr (talk) 11:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The evaluation of the power of a country is a very hard thing to do. I do't think it's possible to find a simple criteria to determine which countries should be integrated in the list. --Algovia (talk) 15:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

  • I like the idea of having a concrete criteria, but how do you define how much population is the right amount for it to be on the list? I think the 20 millions was just taken from a magic hat, if you increased it by 5, Sri Lanka and Taiwan would be off the list and if you decreased also by 5 the Netherlands would be added and undoubtedly the Netherlands is a more important player in the international community both presently and historically than Sri Lanka and Taiwan (it even as nuclear weapons as part of the NATO nuclear weapons sharing program).
I also think that you should make an exception for New Zealand as I explained in my other post.
So with that into consideration I think that the population criteria should be substituted with being part of the G-20/G-33 or something similar. SpaceEconomist192 19:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC) 09:43, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
I tend to disagree, I think we should try to make quite easy "not complicated criteria" or eventually resign from any "criteria by stats" and reach to consensus that subjectivism is better than objective criteria. If we would include more than two/three fators (I suggested at least three: 1population 2power 3another criteria for regional power and another for middle), then criteria could be confusing and too complicated. Personally I think it would be good to have Sri Lanka instead so plenty countries from Europe. Sri Lanka was ranked ahead of Netherlands at the only "ranking of historical countries" which I found o the Internet, see: [7]. Or that we wan to continue "Eurocentrism"? Dawid2009 (talk) 21:49, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
G 20 and G 33 sound like simple criteria but I believe they are rather flawed, perhaps more focussed o politics and does not fit into determination which countries are the most worthy to describe. In "power measure" I find interesing that it gives bit "geographical diversity", and universal, while perhaps is very slightly biased against historical perspective then historical perspective can be covered in other articls (a ka Mozart, Vasco da Gama, Second World War etc.), what we are discussing here. At least some of these countries could be removed and some of these added IMHO. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:02, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
I think we should use power measures, AKA economic and military power and since demographics is intrinsically linked with those two I don't think it's worthy having a separated criterion just for it. I would also take that list of the U.S. News with a grain of salt, they put Lithuania, which as part of the Commonwealth with Poland at 66th place while the USA is at 28th. Eurocentric or most countries who had an overseas colonial empire were European, so it's not surprising that they had and still have a big influence in the world. If not power measures, which factors are you using to include Sri Lanka, the U.S. News ranking? We can't add countries just for the sake of diversity.
Take this into consideration. Percentage of represented countries in Asia and Europe on Meta-Wiki: Asia - 35.4% (17) and Europe - 29.5% (13). SpaceEconomist192 19:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC) 09:25, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
@SadAttorney613: Percentage of represented countries in Asia and Europe on Meta-Wiki: Asia - 35.4% (17) and Europe - 29.5% (13) Asia cover 59% World's populaion, meanwhile Europe only 9 of World popualtion. 40% of World population speaks indoeuropean languages but also thank to huge population in India. There is argument we should replace countries like Netherlands or at least Cuba for en:European Colonisation of the Americas.

If consensus is impossible to reach we can eventually swap cities for proposed countries Dawid2009 (talk) 10:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Swap Japanese Yen for TradeEdit

Swapped

Japanese Yen have its role in international trade, but I don't think it is essential enough to be listed when "Trade" isn't. C933103 (talk) 02:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Support

  1.   Support [nom] C933103 (talk) 02:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
  2.   Support It's a shame to remove the Japanese yen, but trade is more important when comparing trade to the Japanese yen.--Opqr (talk) 10:51, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
  3.   Support Per nom. --Toku (talk) 10:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
  4.   Support, per nom. SpaceEconomist192 19:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
  5.   Support, per nom. --Algovia (talk) 15:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
  6.   Support Per C933103. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 17:33, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

  1.   Oppose removal, the Japanese Yen is a G10 currency, there's probably a better article that can be removed other than the Yen. I just realized now that the Yen is the only currency listed, besides the USA Dollar and the Euro, the two most important currencies, so I fail to see why the Yen is the only one from the G10 to be listed. SpaceEconomist192 19:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC) 11:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

Swap Kolkata for BangaloreEdit

The list now have 3 Northern Indian cities but South India have no cities on the list, which seems unbalanced. Hence I suggest swapping in a South India city. C933103 (talk) 02:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Support

  1.   Support [nom] C933103 (talk) 02:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

  1.   Oppose I disagree. Calcutta is more important than Bangalore. It's the cultural and economical capital of Bengal even if Eastern Bengal is now Bangladesh. --Toku (talk) 11:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
    There are already Dhaka for Bangladesh. Counting also cities of other countries in northern part of Indian subcontinents, the unbalance is even more obvious. C933103 (talk) 05:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose Kolkata metropolitan area is the home of 15 million people, being the third biggest city in India. Is one of the cultural capitals of the country, and the financial center of east India with a big industry and trade, being also the city with third biggest economy in India, ranking 71st in the wntire world. Bangalore is the fourth most important city in India, and if we're having three then I think is pretty obvious that those should be the three most important. Nadie4000010 (talk) 07:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
    Being "Third of a country" isn't a convincing argument to keep a city on the list when the list only include ~40 cities from around the world. C933103 (talk) 23:50, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
  3.   Oppose Per Nadie4000010. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 20:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

Swap Amazon River for Amazon RainforestEdit

New proposal established amid disapproval against swap target

{{{1}}}

swap Lake Baikal for South China SeaEdit

South China Sea have significant energy reserve, is key ocean area connecting East Asia to South/West Asia and Europe/Africa, and is also militarily significant not just to the dozen of Southeast Asian and Chinese countries surrounding it, but also to Japan and Korea due to it being their main logistic route to rest of Eurasia, to Australia due to history of invaders threatening from Asia through the occupation of South China Sea, to France which connect its mainland to French South Pacific territories, and to the United States and India for maintaining connection and cooperation through the region. Hence, it have gathered tons of attention over the past century and is expected to continue in near and mid term future, all of these significance that Lake Baikal didn't even come close in featuring. Hence I think South China Sea is a more appropriate entity to be listed on the list of 1000 most essential articles for every articles, than Lake Baikal. C933103 (talk) 03:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Support

  1.   Support [nom] C933103 (talk) 03:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

  1.   Oppose Agree with the addition of "South China Sea" but not with the removal of "Lake Baikal". I think "Lake Tanganyika" or "Great Lakes" are less important (?). --Toku (talk) 11:00, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
I think we should just swap Lake Tanganyika and Lake Victoria with African Great Lakes, just like we do with the Great Lakes, making 2 articles into 1, plus it would also include Lake Malawi. SpaceEconomist192 19:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC) 11:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

  1. I don't think the South China Sea is as important as it is on this list, but Lake Baikal is even less important. Physical geography has a high percentage of the least important items on this list.--Opqr (talk) 11:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
It's probably not one of the most important lakes presently nor historically, but it's worth noting that's the world's largest freshwater lake by volume. SpaceEconomist192 19:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC) 12:19, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Swap Arabic alphabet, d:Q8196, for Arabic Writing System, d:Q1828555Edit

Arabic alphabet is currently listed as an essential article in the list under writing system section, but the Arabic writing system cover much more than just the alphabet of characters being used. For example the ligature, its right to left writing direction, its different writing directions and artistic style with cultural values, as well as Abjad nature of the writing system. Hence, I think Q1828555 can better represent the concept than Q8196, and propose a swap to be made accordingly. C933103 (talk) 03:13, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Support

  1.   Support [nom] C933103 (talk) 03:14, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
  2.   Support Per nom. --Toku (talk) 10:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

  1.   Strong oppose Remember that this list is "List of articles every Wikipedia should have"? In other words, we should prioritize the concepts that are simpler and adopted in many language versions. Currently, d:Q8196 is created in 138 languages, while d:Q1828555 is only in 27 languages. I think d: Q8196 is a more general concept and more appropriate for this list.--Opqr (talk) 11:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
    "should have", not "already have". Also, a number of articles linked into Q8196 now, like Japanese Wikipedia entry, is actually describing Arabic text instead of just the alphabet, that those should be retargeted to proper wikidata entry, while some other articles on the list, like the Classical Chinese Wikipedia, have briefly covered characteristic of Arabic writing system yet while attaching a long table of Arabic character into the character to represent the characters instead of the writing system as a whole, thus left without any example of a full Arabic writing on the page. I would say part of the cause to such distorted representation to Arabic characters while they also want to talk a bit about other aspects of Arabic writing system is probably a result of long term inclusion of Q8196 in this list, where many Wikipedia take note of and started article from, and thus the list should be fixed to allow various Wikipedia to fix their local article on it correspondingly (Did the article already cover content more than just the alphabet? If yes, change the title and relink to the proper wikidata entry. If no, then time to start a new article about it. If it partially covered some characteristic of the writing system under the page for the alphabet, then time for either split or rewrite.) C933103 (talk) 13:28, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose Per Opqr. --Algovia (talk) 15:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
  3.   Oppose Per Opqr. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 17:32, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

Replace Marine mammals with BatEdit

Currently, the list have two entries for marine mammals. One for the informal categorization of marine mammals, and another for Q160 which cover main marine mammals including whales and dolphins and such.

As the article for Marine mammals on English Wikipedia mention, the classification of "marine mammals" is informal and they don't necessarily relate to each others more than their relations with other mammals, and are only grouped as such by their main living condition in maritime environment. Given such description, I think having Q160 for whales and dolphin, is already enough to represent maritime mammals.

In contrast, bats being probably the most significant airborne mammals, is not listed, thus flying mammals have no representation in the list. To have a fair representation of mammals living in different environments, bats should be added to the list instead.

In addition, the current ongoing pandemic, as well as a number of other epidemic in the past few decades, like Nipah virus and such, are also originating from bats, reflecting its significance as a disease carrier, and is also another reason why I think bats should be listed in the list. C933103 (talk) 03:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Support

  1.   Support [nom] C933103 (talk) 03:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
  2.   Support Per nom. --Toku (talk) 11:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
  3.   Support Per nom. --Algovia (talk) 15:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose