Talk:List of articles every Wikipedia should have

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

Cynnig i ddiddymu'r prosiectEdit

Po fwyaf rwy'n gweld sut mae'r "cystadleuaeth" yma'n gweithio, po fwyaf rwy'n credu dylai cael ei ddiddymu. Rwyf wedi ehangu saith erthygl o ddiffiniad y prosiect o "egin" i "erthygl hir" yn ystod y cyfnod 5 Ebrill - 5 Mai, mae eraill wedi cyfrannu'n helaeth hefyd. Er hynny mae'r Gymraeg wedi codi un safle'n uwch yn y gynghrair ers 5 Ebrill, ac mae ein cyfartaledd beit yr erthygl wedi ei ostwng o ychydig dros 3,000 i ychydig dros 2,000. Mis yn ôl roedd pob un erthygl yno, bellach rydym yn brin o un. Yn ystod y ddeufis diwethaf mae chwe erthygl wedi eu diddymu a chwe erthygl newydd wedi cymryd eu lle. Mae'r prosiect yn honni ei fod yn "gymorth" i wiciau mewn ieithoedd llai eu defnydd, ond y gwir yw, o wylio tudalen sgwrs y prosiect, mae "pwysigrwydd" erthyglau yn cael ei farnu yn bennaf, gan bobl Saesneg eu hiaith, nid gan siaradwyr ieithoedd llai eu defnydd. Rwy'n cytuno bod angen erthyglau gwell am sawl un sy'n cael eu crybwyll gan y prosiect ar y Wici Cymraeg, ond o ddilyn ei awgrymiadau "nhw" byddwn wrthi hyd Sul y Pys yn dilyn eu newidiadau parhaus o be sy'n bwysig, yn hytrach na chreu erthyglau sy'n bwysig i ni! Pam bod erthygl hirfaith am Umm Kulthum yn cael ei hystyried yn bwysicach nag un am Rhiannon Tomos, neu erthygl hir am Charles Dickens yn bwysicach nag un hirfaith am Kate Roberts neu Daniel Owen ar y safle Cymraeg o herwydd bod Sais neu Americanwr wedi gwneud dyfarniad? Nid prosiect am wella wiciau ieithoedd llai eu defnydd mo hyn ond prosiect i'w coloneiddio. AlwynapHuw (talk) 04:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Hebrew, Add MeditationEdit

Hebrew isn't influential like other languages are. Meditation is influential in many cultures. Interstellarity (talk) 00:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose Hebrew being the only dead language revived on a mass scale makes it a vital language to cover and does make it stand out. GuzzyG (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I think Hebrew was influential more than other languages.--Toku (talk) 12:53, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose we should not swap a language with a spiritual practice. There are already 3 spiritual practices listed. Minoo (talk) 21:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19 pandemicEdit

Due to its huge worldwide impact, I suggest adding COVID-19 pandemic and removing smallpox as this disease is eradicated from 1980. --Xosé Antonio (talk) 21:20, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

  Oppose Smallpox was a very important disease from Antiquity to current era and there were more deadly epidemics than covid-19 in 1918-1920, in 1957-1958 or in 1968-1970. Smallpox is also regularly mentionned in biological warfare. Then, I think it's not a good idea to include a very recent disease. --Toku (talk) 09:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
  Oppose COVID-19's impact is because we're living through it now; it's very likely that in a decade it will be way less important. For comparison, the 1918 pandemic isn't listed here, even though that pandemic infected 500 million people worldwide and killed potentially 100 million of them (at a time when the global population was "only" 1.8 billion people); COVID-19 is likely to infect and kill far fewer people before it's contained. Even the Black Death, which killed between a third and a half of Europe, isn't listed here. ディノ千?!☎ Dinoguy1000 16:52, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm not an expert in medicine and diseases, but the importance of a disease is given not only by the number of casualties, but other aspects. I think it's an important subject for many reasons, it is the first pandemic disease broadcasted in live to the whole world, the negative impact on economy, work and trade is still unknown, it is profoundly changing the way of working and teaching, etc. Maybe smallpox deserves not to be removed, but there are another diseases in the list that could be. What about headache? --Xosé Antonio (talk) 20:33, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
  Oppose - I would rather add Black Death first before adding this one since that was the deadliest pandemic in history. We don't know how history will remember this pandemic. Come back in 25 years and I might change my mind. I might support adding Black Death though. Interstellarity (talk) 21:10, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
  Oppose Per Interstellarity -- 11:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
  Oppose Dawid2009 (talk) 09:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Additions and removalsEdit

This page doesn't seem to have a formal procedure on additions and removals. On enwiki's vital articles list, they have a formal procedure. For example, how do we know if we have consensus to add or remove something? Should we have a consensus on what to bold and what not to bold? Some things to think out. There could be a slower response to this one since this isn't as actively watched as enwiki's vital articles. Interstellarity (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@Interstellarity: Your open discussion at Talk:List of articles every Wikipedia should have#Creating a better list is probably the most helpful and best way to improve this list. However, to we have consensus from "vrious diffrent users" for "ballanced list with global perspective" I think we could introduce rule that one user can give just "five proposals for removal per week" and "five proposals for addition per week" (votings, could be doing ad infinitum) . Most active Wikipedians in that project should be welcomable for users who do not visit that page so often. This project certainly should not be dominated by handful of regulars user. This is for sure better to analyse twenty swap proposals from twenty various users than twenty from one person which can be combative (for example twenty swap proposals in biography, menwhile someone disagree the current quota is good), not? Dawid2009 (talk) 10:09, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
As for that procedure on Enhlish Wikipedia (I am active Wikipedian on Eglish Wikipedia too). This is formal voting proces which have been work well. Honestly I like that process but on the other hand later or ealier in practice there are four disdvantages 1 this procedure in practice does not work when list is very not stable and have many mistakes which could be improved by WP:Bold (for example list of 50 000 articles on ENwiki, list of 10 000 articles on metwiki and even list of 1000 articles on metawiki as well IMHO). Firstly we should wait when metalist will be bit more stable. 2When there are very few participants in the project, there are no objections how long discussion should be openen before making closure, 30 days is usually too short time in practice to gain estailished consensus 3 On English Wikipedia this procedure does not go on pair with key Wikipedia's rule WP:involved, most discussions are closed by nominators/supporters even though in every other place on Wikipedia this is doing by uninvolved person. 4 Disadvantage of the point 2 and disadvantage of the point 3 sometimes cause that there are beurocracy games there. Bot can archive ongoing discussion which was not closed by any user ([1]). Or WP:Involved user can close the discussion during the same time when make last decidive vote in the proposal (like here [2], [3], [4]), not giving time for opposers to keep oppose vote. This is my opinion about process on ENwiki. Like I said it work very well but probably the biggest disadvantage of that procedure is ignoring WP:involved rule because of when the rule WP:Involved is ignored, most active users have more influence for discussion than users who do not have so many time to check discussion regularry and do not bother to close the discussion. Dawid2009 (talk) 10:09, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
You make very good points about a lot of good things. The enwiki's vital article list is more structured when it comes to deciding if an article should be added or removed. This place doesn't have specific rules regarding when an article should be added or removed. I think it is worth discussing how to best approach this and how do we know when we have a consensus. Interstellarity (talk) 16:24, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Pinging @Dawid2009:. Interstellarity (talk) 18:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
@Interstellarity: maybe try make voting proess in similar way what EN:WP:VA had years ago and try courage other users to everyone make 5 addition proposal per week and 5 removal proposals pr week. Here are diffs which shows how process on VA were working years ago: [5], [6]. I have putted some !votes under nominations below, let see what will be later. FWISH Metalis have been often critised for more western bias than Enwiki's list. ENwiki not only reached formal procedure but had also much longer and consequence consensus for discussion. For example last 4000 edits on that talk page were made during last 13 years but talk page for WP:VA on ENwiki had about 4000 edits in last 3-4 years. Dawid2009 (talk) 06:34, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
@Dawid2009: Personally, I'm open to anything. I think the ideas you come up with are very good. Interstellarity (talk) 11:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Maybe we could agree to the following:

  • diversity in all dimensions is purpose of the list
  • a change of the list needs more support than opposition
  • a change needs at least 5 supporters on the discussion page
  • swapping like for like (category switch only with reason)
  • single swaps (no mass changes)
  • no living persons biographies
  • proposals should be provided with a reason
    Minoo (talk) 22:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

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

  1.   Support Nom (Interstellarity)
  2.   Support Dawid2009 (talk) 12:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
  Oppose Shia Islam is important,but St. Peter's Basilica is also important.--Opqr (talk) 12:55, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
  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)
  Oppose We should not swap building to religion Minoo (talk) 21:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Swap Chekov for Louis Pasteur HygieneEdit

  1.   Support Nom (Interstellarity)
  2.   Support Dawid2009 (talk) 12:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
  Oppose Louis Pasteur on the list.--Opqr (talk) 13:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  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)
  Oppose Chekov is an important writer. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 20:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Swap Ovid for ProtestantismEdit

  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)
  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)
  Oppose Ovid is an important classical writer. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 20:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
  Oppose cat change, enough religion in list Minoo (talk) 22:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Swap Marlene Dietrich for Eastern Orthodox ChurchEdit

  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
  Support--Opqr (talk) 12:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  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)
  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)
  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)

Swap Dvořák for AdultEdit

  1.   Support Nom (Interstellarity)
  2.   Support 'Support removal Dawid2009 (talk) 12:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
  Oppose Adult is a bland article. Like Box, not my definition of "vital". GuzzyG (talk) 13:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  Oppose Per GuzzyG. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 20:24, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
  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)

Swap Tchaikovsky for AdolescenceEdit

  Oppose Tchaikovsky is important. Adolescence is not so important.--Opqr (talk) 12:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  Oppose Per Opqr. GuzzyG (talk) 13:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  Oppose Per Opqr too. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 20:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
  Oppose no reason given Minoo (talk) 22:10, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Swap Mahler for Information AgeEdit

  1.   Support Nom (Interstellarity)
  2.   Support Dawid2009 (talk) 12:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
  Oppose "Information age" would be too close to "Information technology" which is included in the list. whym (talk) 06:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  Oppose Per Whym. GuzzyG (talk) 13:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  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)
  Oppose no reason mentioned Minoo (talk) 21:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Swap Rubens for Bow and arrowEdit

  1.   Support Nom (Interstellarity)
  2.   Support Dawid2009 (talk) 12:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
  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)
  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)
  Oppose the Flintstones Minoo (talk) 22:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

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)

  1.   Support Nom (Interstellarity)
  2.   Support Dawid2009 (talk) 12:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
  Oppose Dawid2009 (talk) 09:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  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)
  Oppose Per GuzzyG. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 20:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  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)

Remove State (polity), Add CountryEdit

The defintion of en:state (polity) is ambiguious. It can be a state (Ex. Texas) of Federated state. it can also be a country (Ex. Slovakia). I suggest to use a less-ambiguious article en:country.--Wolfch (talk) 12:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Wolfch (talk) 11:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  Oppose "State" is an important politic, economical and philosophical concept. I think it's necessary to keep it in the list. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 20:22, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
  Oppose Per Nicolas Eynaud too.--Opqr (talk) 12:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
  Oppose State is a political concept. Country is just the collective name of England, Japan, India and Russia.Minoo (talk) 22:22, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
How about the ambiguity issue of en:state (polity)?
The en:country is also a political entity. There is "Countries" section tilee in the List of articles every Wikipedia should have#Geography. However, the "country" itself is not in the list --Wolfch (talk) 08:30, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
@Nicolas Eynaud:, do you mean en:state (polity) is an important politic, economical and philosophical concept about en:country?--Wolfch (talk) 03:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Industry industry (Q8148)Edit

Industry in this list is connected to Q8148, which in enwiki is only a redirect to manufacturing (Q187939). Eniki manufacturing again is connected eg not to dewiki Industrie industry (Q8148) , but to Verarbeitendes Gewerbe (Q187939). This redirect business between references on this list is not helpful. Kipala (talk) 07:37, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

This seems to be fixed now. Minoo (talk) 22:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


This talk page is long (150+ kB) and it seems like a time-based automatic archiving system would help. User:ArchiverBot is a bot to automate that. Most of the talk page sections here are about the current state of the list that keeps changing, so it doesn't make much sense to keep sections from years ago 'alive' here. I would suggest something similar to the setup of Talk:Global AbuseFilter, with an inactivity threshold of 90 days. If that is too fast, the threshold can be longer, 180 days or 365 days. Any thoughts? whym (talk) 10:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I set up auto archiving for 6 months to clear out this talk page. Interstellarity (talk) 14:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
I did some archiving. Minoo (talk) 22:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

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)


  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)

  Oppose enough religion included in the list Minoo (talk) 22:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Creating a better listEdit

I would like to get some input from users regarding which articles should be removed and added to the list. It seems like my nominations on this page gained opposition. I would like to know which articles would be the best candidates for removal and which ones would be a good for addition. I've created a list where you can come up with articles that could and could not be fit for the list. I think the sections that need the most work are the people section and the countries section. We can create a list that every culture is represented. I would also like everyone to sign next to your suggestion so I know who made the suggestion. These are not formal nominations, just suggestions. Once we get a good list of suggestions, we can decide which ones will be added and which ones will be removed. Interstellarity (talk) 23:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Please do not post your proposals in duplicate. Minoo (talk) 22:48, 5 May 2021 (UTC)(UTC)

Possible removalsEdit

  1. Antonin Dvorak. --Interstellarity (talk) 23:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC) ( + 1 Support)
  2. Vatican City. --Interstellarity (talk) 23:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  3. Singapore. --Interstellarity (talk) 23:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  4. New Zealand. --Interstellarity (talk) 23:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  5. Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina. --Opqr (talk) 13:57, 23 March 2021 (UTC) ( + 1 Support )
  6. Giacomo Puccini. --Opqr (talk) 13:57, 23 March 2021 (UTC) ( + 1 Support )
  7. Jacques Cartier. --Opqr (talk) 13:57, 23 March 2021 (UTC) ( + 1 Support )
  8. Louis XIV. --Interstellarity (talk) 11:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
  9. Marxism. --Interstellarity (talk) 11:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Possible additionsEdit

  1. Michael Jackson. --Interstellarity (talk) 23:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC) Added
  2. Bob Marley. --Interstellarity (talk) 23:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC) ( + 2 Oppose)
  3. Fela Kuti. --Interstellarity (talk) 23:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC) ( + 2 Oppose)
  4. Teresa Teng. --Interstellarity (talk) 23:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC) ( + 2 Oppose )
  5. Ravi Shankar. --Interstellarity (talk) 23:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC) ( + 2 Oppose )
  6. Henry VIII. --Interstellarity (talk) 11:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC) ( + 2 Oppose )
  7. Polygon. --Interstellarity (talk) 12:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC) ( + 1 Support ) ( + 1 Oppose)
  8. Genocide. --Interstellarity (talk) 23:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC) ( + 2 Oppose )
  9. Philippines. Interstellarity (talk) 13:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC) ( + 1 Support ) ( + 1 Oppose )
  10. Myanmar. Interstellarity (talk) 13:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC) ( + 1 Support ) ( + 1 Oppose )
  11. Colombia. Interstellarity (talk) 13:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC) ( + 1 Support )
  12. Swimming Dawid2009 (talk) 10:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  13. Quran Dawid2009 (talk) 10:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  14. Bible Dawid2009 (talk) 10:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  15. English literature Dawid2009 (talk) 10:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)


I support the addition of Michael Jackson and Teresa Teng, as well as the removal of Antonín Dvořák. --Awvazquez (talk) 16:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
OK with the removal of Vatican City, Singapore and New Zealand and OK with the addition of Marley. Others propositions seem to be very famous people during their life but their influence on the following years doesn't look so important or is still hard to establish as they died "recently".--Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 06:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Singapore is not an important country, but a very important city.By the way, Hong Kong is on the list.--Opqr (talk) 14:15, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
I would only support swapping the same topic like a singer for a singer, a geographic area for a geographic area, etc. Not only is it easier to compare importance but the list doesn't becomes just biographies. --MarsRover 05:12, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree with the addition of Michael Jackson to the list. I would also add Ernest Hemingway. --Salvabl (talk) 22:06, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree that we should only be swapping like for like. I also disagree with Cartier being removed. Very notable figure at least in my part of the world. Heck there is even a vignette about him that comes on TV all the time here. -Djsasso (talk) 14:14, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Removing Louis XIV and Marxism don't look like a good idea to me.--Toku (talk) 15:27, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
@Toku: Considering that we list Communism, which is a broader topic than Marxism, it seems redundant to have it listed. I would support a swap removing Marxism and adding Genocide. Interstellarity (talk) 23:28, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
How can I get more people to comment on this thread since this page is not watched as much? Interstellarity (talk) 12:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Definite no on Louis XIV/Henry VIII swap (inconsequential from the global perspective), no on swapping Marxism with Genocide (what?), OK with removing someone from biographies and adding it in their stead. Although some of the changes are uncontroversial (for example, removing Vatican City and Singapore), I am not sure more biographies is what these lists need. Keeping it around 200 is fine, if all of these countries are removed, they should be replaced with other countries, I would suggest ones missing by population. stjn[ru] 11:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
@Stjn: Henry VIII was definitely not inconsequential. If it weren't for him, Catholicism would still exist in England. I would be OK with Henry VIII added alongside Louis XIV. Could you elaborate on why swapping Marxism with Genocide would not be a good idea? Are you against both the removal and the addition or one of them? I think it would be redundant to list Marxism when we already list Communism. Genocide seems to be an important topic around the world considering that all parts of the world have experienced it. Also, I've added some possible countries we could add. Interstellarity (talk) 13:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Although that was consequential for England, I doubt it matters much for the whole world. Louis XIV is, at least, the longest reigning monarch; if we were adding all founders of different religious groups, then we’re already lacking Guru Nanak, for example. As for Genocide/Marxism swap, I just think it’s another controversially worded swap, I support having Genocide article in the list.
As for why Marxism and Communism do not cover each other, it’s because Marxism is (maybe wrongly) put in ideologies when it’s more of an economic theory. As the current set of topics stands (with Capitalism from economics added to this list), I think it is balanced, maybe something else needs to be found to make place for Genocide article (suggestion: Golf?). stjn[ru] 16:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Geoffrey Chaucer is not listed among seven English writers on Wikipedia:Vital articles despite fact recently there were efforts to put him there, he is not also on ,Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Core biographies despite fact the list contains +200 biographies. For small Wikipedia I think this is example of article which can be put among 10 000 topic and cvered by English literature on 1000 list Dawid2009 (talk) 10:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Talk:List of articles every Wikipedia should have#Additions and removals - here is to place where we are trying solve how consensus for addition and removals could ongoing on that metapage. Everyone is welcomable to share observation/thoughts and comment it. Dawid2009 (talk) 06:46, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Can someone close this discussion and evaluate the consensus for this page, please? Thanks, Interstellarity (talk) 13:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
@DaGizza and Cobblet: What You two think about it? How consensus can evaluate? I think User:Interstellarity elaborate very good points to improve list for better. Though I do not think this is section where we do rigid entry-by entry massive remvals (someone misunderstood) but the only way where we can check what is underrepresented and what overrepresented and what majority think. Cobblet at the talk of EN wiki's VA You said: very few people undersand the concept of picking 1000 topics that as a whole are most effectively able to summarize the body of knowledge we as a community would like to transmit to our readers, without making any assumptions as to who those readers are or why they come to Wikipedia. (...) I don't ever seeing us having room to list both Algeria and Morocco, unless we were to remove, say, all the biographies from the list., I like style which you do think, what do you think about current diversity of the list? How do you comment fact meta found place for either of Austria and Vienna, 200 biographies but not many other topics? Plenty of articles were added without discussion and this list never was stable, never considered very seriously (very much criticised) and what we should do with that? On English Wikipedia we had hard time to fi ballance beetwen sport people and scientists among 10 000 articles as sportpeople were simply adding withhout discussion in the past. I think now we will have hard time to fix ballance beetwen scientist and sports people at 10 000 articles of Meta list and, in light of ballance beetwen religion (all topics not just biographies) and literature at 1000 topics, at the latter were adding by driven way, without discussion years ago? not? DaGizza, Cobblet what do You two as experienced editors from ENwiki's list think? Dawid2009 (talk) 21:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
@Interstellarity: Why you so strongly feel that ENwiki's list and meta list should have woman musican among 1000 topics instead 10 000 but no religious comment at all? What do you think about my arguments putted under collapse where I show how religious women are higher ranked in terms "greatest women of all time"? What do you tink that Lata Mangeshkar is 10th on the "The Greatest Indian", meanwhile Mother Theresa 5th? I think that is not fair to have no religious women at all because of that sugggest that religion is purely man activity what makes no sense as spirituality/religion/mythology are of course broadly two gendered activities. Dawid2009 (talk) 05:24, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Swap Chekov for SapphoEdit

Chekov should be deleted because there are already 4 Russian authors around 1800-1900 listed. Greece is represented only with one author. Sappho is already inculded in the list of Vital articles. Therefore Sappho (Greece 600 B.C) should be included in the list of Minoo (talk) 01:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)


  Support I'm tentatively in favor of adding a woman writer, and an ancient one, though as we know so little about her life it may be hard to write an extensive article. A. Mahoney (talk) 13:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)


  Oppose Not sure Sappho is the most important author of Ancient Greece and find bibliography about her to write an article will be complicated. Moreover, Chekov is an important author in modern litterature. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 16:02, 8 May 2021 (UTC)


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)


Oppose   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)

Atacama DesertEdit

Hello everyone, I am Jmaster Estrella 2 and I have come to add the Atacama Desert, located in the north of Chile, since it is the most arid desert in the world and I think it is not representative that it is not on this list. Curiously I am from that country, but I think this place is of great importance for Wikipedia. --Jmaster Estrella 2 (Solo un furro que ayuda a la Wikipedia)  

Hello, it's necessary to suggest a swap with an article of the current list. Tradition asks to propose a swap with an article of the same category (to me, if accepted, Atacama Desert should be in Geography category) but it's not an obligation. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 09:07, 14 May 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)



  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)


Replace insular Oceania with Australia and OceaniaEdit

Somebody decided to change the name of the interwiki "Oceania" to "insular Oceania" without much discussion and then broke the links to many linguistic WPs. The real topic that we want on our list of 1000 is now represented by "Australia and Oceania" and the latter should take the place of the former. --Oscar Zariski (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Or perhaps the interwiki name change should simply have been reverted until the necessary consensus emerges. As it is, the problem has been compounded by replicating the change on this List without any discussion whatsoever, less than 24 hours after @Oscar Zariski: even brought up the proposal. I think @XRTIER: was right to revert the change and I support his decision to do so. If Q538 is to be replaced with Q55643, it should only be done with sufficient consensus to do so and after reviewing all other possibilities, such as undoing the interwiki name change.--Leptictidium (talk) 06:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough. I suppose, then, that reverting the wikidata change does not have to wait for the discussion either? --Oscar Zariski (talk) 08:47, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Of course: when a controversial change is made without the necessary consensus, it is perfectly legitimate to revert to the previous stable version until such a consensus emerges. The burden of proof rests with the person who wants to make the controversial change.--Leptictidium (talk) 08:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

The people who made the change are persistent and I'm not in the mood to argue. Do you agree to change the object to Oceania (Q55643) in the list, which would keep the topic? — Yerpo Eh? 15:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Keep Oceania (Q55643). -Theklan (talk) 07:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Theklan, Oceania (Q55643) must be the article in the list. If you take a look at the list of 1000 articles, this article is in the section Continents and major regions formed by eight articles. Except for the article Middle East, the other seven are the continents on Earth: Europe, Asia, Africa, North and South America, Antarctica and Oceania. There is no consensus among geographers about Oceania, some of them claim for Australia, but others extend the continent to Australia and the Pacific Islands, that is, Oceania. Anyway, if it is chosen Insular Oceania as the article of the list, it is left Australia out of the major regions on Earth, what is absurd. --Xosé Antonio (talk) 12:09, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
I`ve changed my mind after reviewing the changes in the history of Insular Oceania (Q538) and Oceania (Q55643). On 1st July, Delasse changed the interwiki name of Q538 from "oceania" to "insular oceania" and, after that, someone changed the interwiki name of Q55643 from "australia and oceania" to "oceania". That was what confused me due to a quick read and immediate action without reflection, and I changed some links from Q568 to Q55643. I do apologize for cooperate to increase the confusion. I strongly agree with Leptictidium and I think the interwiki name change must be undone and the description in different languages must be rewritten. --Xosé Antonio (talk) 19:30, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Keep Oceania (Q55643).Per Xosé Antonio.In this list,The definition of Oceania should include Australia.--Opqr (talk) 11:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Swap Avalanche for Water cycleEdit

Avalanche seems like a rather niche topic compared to some of the other articles in the earth sciences section, it certainly doesn't seem to be as essential as concepts like weather, climate or geology. I think that in a hypothetical beginner encyclopaedia of 1000 articles avalanches could be covered in the article on mountains or snow. The water cycle is a topic that is covered widely covered in schools, is important in understanding weather, many water based geographical features and is essential for supporting life in many ecosystems. Looking at the page views on the English encyclopaedia the article on the water cycle gets over double the page views of the article on avalanches. 10:41, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


  1.   Support Agree with --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 15:43, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
  2.   Support Essential. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 10:26, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
  3.   Support strongly! -Theklan (talk) 14:24, 21 September 2021 (UTC)



Move Hormone from the Chemistry section to the Biology sectionEdit

I think it's rather confusing that DNA, Enzyme and Protein are all considered to be biology articles, but Hormone is considered to be a Chemistry article. I propose moving this article to the biology list for consistency. Really these are all biochemistry articles that could fit into either group, but unless there's appetite to create a separate biochemistry section I think that moving the last one to the biology section is the best solution. 16:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


  1. Support. --Thi (talk) 18:09, 9 September 2021 (UTC)



A new property on Wikidata for these articles?Edit

In order that this list can be automatically reproduced on any language Wikipedia, can we make a request for a new WD property / item? Wikidata Lists by Magnus would then generate the whole list in seconds, in any language, with number of bytes etc. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 10:30, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Ah! Just found this: Q5460604! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 13:01, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

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)



  •   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)


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)

  • Oppose Try Vienna first as redundand to Austria. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  •   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)

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)

  •   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)
  •   Oppose per Opqr -Theklan (talk) 14:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Swap: Remove New Zealand, Add ???Edit

I think New Zealand 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)


Phillippines, feel free to do it by WP:Bold. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:47, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Why are Phillippines more important? WP:Bold doesn't apply to actions based on unsubstantiated opinions. — Yerpo Eh? 07:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Have much greater population. Philipines do not fit to compny of articles which are listed on epanded list, New Zealand pretty fits and would not be omnission ar short space of 1000 articles. With regard to New Zealand we do not have space to list all important countries but Philipines are one of the biggest countries in Asia (Philipines would be second the biggest country in Europe by population and have more population than whole continent: "Oceania"). Dawid2009 (talk) 21:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Return to "List of articles every Wikipedia should have" page.