Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Talk:List of articles every Wikipedia should have/Archives/2019

< Talk:List of articles every Wikipedia should have | Archives
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Whym in topic Mark this page for translation.

replace Flamenco with Esperanto

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

As I read the discussion. I can see that people are being annoyed that Esperanto get removed from the list. So I propose bringing Esperanto back and putting Flamenco away. Worra Mait Kosit (talk) 20:28, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

As a regional Andalusian dance not widely practiced outside of Spain, I agree that we can remove flamenco, even though I think it is an absolutely fabulous dance. With only three entries ("dance", "samba" and "flamenco"), dance is underrepresented on the list though, considering its world wide practice and popularity. I think we should replace flamenco with either salsa, belly dance, bharatanatyam or tango, all of which are more popular and more widely practiced than flamenco. What do others think? Martinogk (talk) 22:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
In spite of I'm Spanish, I'm not specially interested in Flamenco, but I'm not agree with the assert that is not widely practiced outside of Spain. In some far countries from Spain, like Japan and many latin american countries, included United States, there is a crescent interest in flamenco with people learning it and opening locals where flamenco is danced. Also, UNESCO has recognized that Flamenco is a form of popular artistic expression representing a long-standing tradition that appears on the UNESCO’s list of Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity. --Xosé Antonio (talk) 20:35, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Agree w/ Xosé Antonio's reasoning, even though I, too, do not follow this particular art form. Acwilson9 Acwilson9 (talk) 01:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
I am not sure how much UNESCO's classification matters here. I agree with replacing it with a more popular dance like the ones suggested. 201.27.100.86 15:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

20th Century revolutionaries

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Che Guevara attracts attention, but Fidel Castro is surely a more important historical figure. For similar reasons I prefer Trotsky over Rosa Luxemburg.T0mpr1c3 (talk) 12:26, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I hope this is not a list of personal preferences? I agree we should keep both Fidel and Che - Fidel for the historical importance (Bay of Pigs, Cuba crisis etc) and Che, well... for the Wiki-popularity. Furthermore I politely ask to keep both Rosa Lux as well as Trotsky, on behalf of the Eastern Europe states who were affected by these figures directly. Rosa was a Polish revolutionary woman, fighting for the rights of the working class, and unfortunately she got brutally murdered and thrown in the river in Berlin by a German socialist militant dictator. While Trotsky was quite a murderous git himself, he used to be Stalin's henchman (much like Lenin) and led the "Trotsky slaughterers" - a squad effing opponents until Trotsky himself fell out of Soso's favour and had to flee. Leonid wasn't exactly as warm and endearing as the Hollywood Frida-Hayek movie portrays him as. Both were significant historical figures and miss Rosa is a special source of pride for the Polish people. Best regards. AntekVeganova (talk) 01:49, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
On the list of political leaders, it is important to not only have heads of state, but also important popular movement figures such as Che Guevara and Rosa Luxemburg. The only other three on the list are Martin Luther King, Joan of Arc and Mohandas Gandhi. Martinogk (talk) 01:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

About "Military"

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

There are two concepts here that are dealt with in different ways by different language versions of Wikipedia: "Armed forces" and "Military". Some versions have separate articles for these concepts, while others have a single article that spans both.

While there may be certain nuances of meaning between these two terms in certain languages, in many other languages they may not be substantial enough to merit separate articles. It makes no sense to "force" Wikipedias that have an article under item Q772547 to create a second, likely redundant, article under item Q8473 to be able to complete the List of articles every Wikipedia should have.

I therefore suggest replacing "Military" with some related concept that avoids such problems, e.g. Army.--Leptictidium (talk) 11:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with replacing "Military" with "Army". The purpose of this list shouldn't be force a standard structure across various languages. If something is commonly expressed multiple ways we should just avoid those topics and select a more specific subset of the topic. I think not doing that is just wasting people's time creating shadow topics or having someone delete their work as duplicative. --MarsRover 20:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
+1. --Nk (talk) 14:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Global Perspective: Geography

Latest comment: 5 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

It is nice to see how this list is becoming more and more global in nature, which is both natural and important for a global project like Wikipedia, but we are not quite there yet.

Cities

The list of cities is truly global in perspective, which is very nice and impressive to see. I would suggest a few minor tweaks though:

While both Bogota and Nairobi are natural members of a list of the most important cities in the world, I think it is more important to include their respective countries, which are among the largest and most important on their continents.

The only truly global city that is missing from the list is Canton/Guangzhou, which is not only one of the biggest cities of the world with over 20 million people in its metropolitan area, but also the cultural and historical center of southern China, with several hundred million people. To make room for Canton, I would remove Vatican City. Both Rome and the Catholic Church are on the list, which is good, and I do not think we need the Vatican City as well.

As a very minor item, one could also consider moving the city-state of Singapore from the list of countries to the list of cities. While the city and the country are the same, as a city Singapore is of truly global importance, but as a country it is rather small and less important than for example neighboring Malaysia.

Countries

To make the list of countries more global in nature, I would add

  1. The Phillippines, with over 100 million people it is the largest country not currently on the list
  2. Colombia, with 49 million people, one of the major countries in South America
  3. Kenya, with 47 million people, one of the major countries in Africa
  4. Syria, with 18 million people, and historically a very important country.
  5. Morocco, with 34 million people, a culturally and historically important country in both Africa and in the Arab world
  6. Yemen, with 27 million people, also historically very important
  7. Guatemala, with 16 million people, which is both historically and currently the most important country in Central America.

What seven items do we then remove? In addition to (i) Bogota and (ii) Nairobi, mentioned above, I suggest removing (iii) Austria with 9 million, (iv) Switzerland with 8 million and (v) New Zealand with 5 million people. Regarding Austria, I rather keep Vienna on the list, for its historical and cultural importance. With two more to go, it is hard to find other candidate countries to remove. Instead, I suggest removing (vi) the North Sea. There are other Seas that are equally or more important, such as the East China Sea, the South China Sea, the en:Sea of Japan, the Red Sea, the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Mexico, but I find it more desirable to include more countries than more seas. It is also questionable if we need to have (vii) Ocean on the list since we already have Sea. It is linguistically a little tricky though, as these have slightly different meaning in English (Sea can mean either part of an ocean or the collection of all oceans), while most languages have a word that are commonly used for all three concepts, such as mar in Spanish, hav in Norweigian, and Meer in German, even though some also use an ocean equivalent word as a less used specialty term.

Islands

While the list includes the longest rivers, the tallest mountain, the biggest lakes, all the oceans and the most extensive dessert, the biggest island is missing. I suggest adding Greenland, while removing the Arctic ocean.

Looking forward to learn what others think. Martinogk (talk) 02:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments

I have looked through the archives since 2010, and there has been proposals to add/remove some of the entries listed above:

Cities

Countries

Other

I hope these archival discussion can help us today. Based on the historical comments, I think there must have been some Divine intervention that has kept "Vatican City" on the list. Martinogk (talk) 02:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Most of the proposals are reasonable (I'm not 100% convinced about some of the newly proposed countries). I would consider replacing Ocean/Sea with en:World Ocean - anyway most of the content of the 2 articles is about the general concept. --Nk (talk) 14:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
In general I agree with the suggested changes, but with some nuances:
  • In the list of countries, Myanmar, Malaysia and Peru should also be included. Peru is more important than Guatemala, both in size and history. As a Central American country, Cuba is included, which is smaller than Guatemala although I do not know if it is of more interest. As there is limited space to include countries, I would choose one or the other.
  • In cities I would remove Washington DC. The only relevant reason to include that city is that it is the capital of United States, but is it enough? If being the capital of an important country is enough to be included in the list, then Brasília should also be included, which is larger. Honestly, I do not think that reason is enough, and neither by size nor importance do I see reasons to maintain it.
  • I see no reason to change Singapore from "countries" to "cities" only because as a country it is small. In general it is considered a country (even if it is a city-state), which also has a special relevance in Asia. I would keep it as such.
  • I see no reason to include Greenland. Although we include it as an island, the Wikipedias will treat it as a country.
  • I see no reason to eliminate Ocean. Although sea and ocean may be similar, I believe that all languages ​​have a different term for both concepts, so in all languages ​​there is therefore a difference in the concept. If there was a language in which it was not, we could study the case, but otherwise I see no reason to eliminate any.
Therefore, of the 7 countries that you propose, I would remove Guatemala and I would include the 3 that I have indicated, with which we would have 9 countries to add.
In addition to the indicated cities and countries for remove, I would also remove Washington DC, so we have 6 spaces. In seas I would add article Seven Seas (very poor article in English for a very important historical denomination) and remove the seas from that list (Black Sea, Caspian Sea and Mediterranean Sea) and also the North Sea. In this way we have 3 more spaces, with a total of 9 spaces for the indicated countries. The doubt could be with the Mediterranean Sea, which is an important sea, but I think it would be covered by the article of Seven Seas. --Tximitx (talk) 22:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Mediterranean Sea is one of the most important civilizational area (Roman Empire, Carthage, Greece, Egypt...), an economic center (from Antiquity to nowadays) and a major geopolitical issue (Suez channel, maritime roads, border between North and South countries, border between several big religions, US/NATO/Russian presence...). AMHO, its presence is then expected in the list and I disagree with its removal. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 11:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Nicholas about the Mediterranean. Seven Seas, on the other hand, is a vague and historically shifting concept, much overlapping with World Ocean, so not very relevant. — Yerpo Eh? 07:13, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments 2

Comments about the different proposals :

  •   Support Replace Bogota with Colombia : I think it's a good idea. Even if Bogoto is a major city, Colombia is one of the most important regional in South America and, to me, the country is more important than its capital.
  •   Support Replace Nairobi with Kenya : for the same reasons (Kenya is one of the regional power in East Africa).
  •   Oppose Remove Austria but {{support} Remove Viena : AMHO, Austria is the heir Austria-Hungary which was a major power in Europe during centuries and an important cultural center. AMHO, keeping Austria will allow to remove Viena (which is the center of Austrian culture) and to justify easily the absence of Austria-Hungary.
  •   Oppose Remove Swiss : Swiss is of course not a very populated area but the country has an important politic and economic influence.
  •   Support Remove Vatican City : AMHO, the proposal is right : Vatican is included in Catholic Church.
  •   Support Remove New Zealand : AMHO, the country is not a regional power in Oceania (it's Australia) and its cultural and economic influence is limited.
  •   Support Include Song Dynasty which is missing despite its importance in Chinese History.
  •   Support Include Yemen and Syria as there are historical region.
  •   Support Remove Black Sea, Caspian Sea and North Sea : there are important geopolitical and economic theatres but we can consider others elements (as major countries) are more important.
  •   Support Then include Phillippines (a demographic and regional power), Morocco (a regional power with an important cultural and historical influences) and Peru (major cultural importance in South America).
  •   Oppose Remove Arctic Ocean as it is one of the major ocean and an important region (future crude oil production area ? geopolitical issue between USA and Russia...). To me, Greeland seems to be included in Arctic Ocean (at least in the current list).
  •   Oppose Remove Mediterranean Sea (as explained).
  •   Oppose Include Seven Seas in the list : the concept was important during Middle Ages but, AMHO, it is just now an historical curiosity. Its presence in the list is then not expected.

--Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 07:49, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

  Comment Austria is not the heir Austria-Hungary. This empire was dissolved in several states, Austria being one of them, but not the heir. That it is preferred to keep Austria instead of Vienna is something else (which I do not share), but not because he was the heir Austria-Hungary, since it is not. --Tximitx (talk) 10:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Vaccine

Latest comment: 5 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

I am surprised to see that this list does not include the vaccine as one of the most important articles, that it should even be in bold. The vaccine is considered the most important invention of modern medicine and the medicine that has saved the most lives.

Instead, I propose to withdraw the "headache", which seems to me a minor element to include it in the list of the most important.

As for the articles in bold, I think the "vaccine" is important enough to include it in this way, eliminating the "virus" from the list in bold. --Tximitx (talk) 12:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Tximitx for this important suggestion. I agree that "vaccine" should be added, and that it can be bolded instead of "virus". What to remove is a little bit more of a headache. Considering the importance of medicine/health, the section is rather short. Can we remove something from a different section? How about "Machine gun", "Erwin Schrödinger", "Le Corbusier", "Michael Faraday", "Commonwealth of Independent States" or "Lipid"? Other suggestions? Martinogk (talk) 22:25, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
I have no objection to deleting an article from another section. Of those proposed, "Commonwealth of Independent States" I don't consider it as relevant enough. There are even more important political and commercial blocs that aren't on the list. --Tximitx (talk) 22:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I fully agree on the importance of this topic. But, as usual, a dilemma can't be avoided - should we include vaccine (Q134808) or vaccination (Q192995) as a broader topic? — Yerpo Eh? 08:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Although "vaccination" is important, from the encyclopedic point of view, what is important is the vaccine. Without it, vaccination would not exist. Therefore, I maintain that "vaccine" should be included as the relevant article. --Tximitx (talk) 12:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Good question Yerpo. I agree with Tximitx that "Vaccine" is the better choice. It also fits with other entries, as we have "Food" instead of "Eating", "Agriculture" instead of "Farming", "Bicycle" instead of "Cycling", "Milk" instead of "Milking", "Song" instead of "Singing", "Antibiotic" instead of "???", etc. Martinogk (talk) 19:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm a novice here and I don't know how to proceed with the change of the articles in the list. Do I have to make the change? Is someone responsible? Are they done every so often and we have to wait? I appreciate the clarifications. --Tximitx (talk) 17:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Anyone can do it. I would wait a week to give others more opportunity to comment. As for timing, there is a wish not to change the list just before the ranking is updated. Martinogk (talk) 23:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
All right. I will wait until the ranking is updated to make the change. --Tximitx (talk) 13:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Literature

Latest comment: 5 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

Hello, without bothering anyone, I wonder if the literature section has ever been discussed. The added articles are good, but I think it would be more enriching if there were representation of other cultures, because most of the added works are Asian. What do you think?. --Rodelar (talk) 15:33, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Good observation Rodelar. All eight works of literature are from Asia, including the Iliad. Except for Dream of the Red Chamber, all of them are also ancient literature, while Roman literature as well as modern literature from the last 800 years are covered under the authors in the biography section. I think there are two issues:
  1. It is hard to make room for both the authors and their major work. Is it then better to include Dante or Devine Comedy? Tolstoy or War and Peace? Shikibu or Tale of Genji? Cervantes or Don Quixote? Shakespeare or Hamlet? Cao Xueqin or Dream of the Red Chamber? Virgil or Aeneid? García Márquez or One hundred years of solitude? etc... Should we replace some of the authors with their books or vice versa?
  2. For a more global perspective on ancient literature, what could be added? Kebra Nagast? Beowulf? Popul Vuh? the Icelandic Sagas? Martinogk (talk) 20:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Martinogk, about the observations indicated, I think we have to differentiate each case. For example, Cervantes is a writer recognized especially for his work Don Quixote, but as a writer he is not a relevant writer, since he does not have other works that are especially relevant. I am spanish, and I can affirm that there are many spanish writers and other spanish-speaking countries that are much more important. But, of course, there is no doubt that his work Don Quixote is the most important work of literature in spanish and one of the most important and recognized in the world. In this case, the work surpasses the author, so I think it is more relevant to include his work in the list instead of the author. As shown, the article in es.wiki of Don Quixote is twice the size of Cervantes.
Different is the case of, for example, Shakespeare or Jules Verne, whose set of works are practically classics of universal literature. In this case I think it's better to include the authors.
After these explanations, about the indicated authors I would make the following changes:
  • I would keep the authors Tolstoy, Shakespeare, Virgil and García Márquez, because I think they stand out more for their complete work than for a specific title.
  • I would include the works Don Quixote, Devine Comedy, Tale of Genji and Dream of the Red Chamber, replacing their authors, because they are works of universal literature that stand out over their authors (in my opinion).
In authors I would include Jules Verne, which I consider an important reference. In substitution, can eliminate the article of "machine gun", which I think is not a particularly remarkable invention.
On ancient literature, some titles: Beowulf, the Icelandic Sagas, Cantar de Mio Cid, Nibelungenlied or The Travels of Marco Polo. The importance of the works or what articles to eliminate, I leave it at the discretion of others. --Tximitx (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Tximitx: Thank you for your very thoughtful comments. I like your thinking about author/work. Martinogk (talk) 23:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Tximitx in including Don Quixote, Devine Comedy, Tale of Genji and Dream of the Red Chamber as works in lieu of authors. Also, the inclusion of Jules Verne instead of machine gun. Among the ancient literature, I find significant the Icelandic Sagas, Popul Vuh and The Travels of Marco Polo. --Rodelar (talk) 23:57, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
About Marco Polo, I hadn't realized that he was already included as an explorer. In this case, I don't know if it is better to include the person or the book. I don't find necessary is to include both. --Tximitx (talk) 21:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Agree with Tximitx to include Don Quixote and Devine Comedy instead of their authors, as is already the case for Tale of Genji and Dream of the Red Chamber. Thanks for pointing out that Marco Polo is already on the list, which I find sufficient and more natural to include than The Travels of Marco Polo. For ancient literature, I agree with Rodelar's selection of Popul Vuh and the Icelandic Sagas, the latter being more extensive and culturally reflective than Beowulf or Nibelungenlied, the other ancient Germanic literature mentioned. What can we remove to make room for these two? The only instance of having both a literary work and its author on the list is the Iliad and Homer, and I suggest we keep the former and remove the latter as it is not certain that Homer existed and who actually wrote the Iliad. Two other potential options for removal are phoneme and syllable. Martinogk (talk) 12:10, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Martinogk in everything expressed. Also in keep Iliad and remove Homer. Between phoneme and syllable, the phoneme is important, since it is the representation of the sound that the words would have. However, the syllable is the division of the word according to the phonemes. Therefore, it would keep phoneme and remove syllable.
By the way, Homer is in bold, and I don't think that Iliad should be (yes Don Quixote and Divine Comedy by Cervantes and Dante). What is put in bold by Homer? Maybe Novel? Another biography? Bearing in mind that several writers are removed in bold from Biography, I suggest including Gabriel García Márquez, who is considered one of the best writers in history. It may also be that my preference is influenced because my native language is Spanish. --Tximitx (talk) 12:52, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Biography section

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Yerpo: You are both a long-time and a very thoughtful participant in these list discussions. What is the thinking behind having a separate biography section rather than including authors in the language and literature section, scientists in the science section, musicians in the music section, explorers in the geography section, etc? Was this a conscious decision or it just happened that way? Martinogk (talk) 12:29, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

The biography section was there from the first day this list was being created. I tried spreading the biographies 10 years ago. But it was reverted two months later. I can't find anything on the talk page about why it was reverted. Boivie (talk) 10:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
The best answer I have is also something along the line of "that's how it's always been done". Sorry. — Yerpo Eh? 20:11, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Maybe we should make another try to split out the biography section, if the current users of this page think it's a good idea? Boivie (talk) 09:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't consider it a good idea. I don't think mixing biographies with other articles is better than the current way. --Tximitx (talk) 12:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Elephant

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

The item elephant presents problems in some languages, specifically in those that, like Spanish, use exclusively the scientific classification of species to create articles. In this case elephant refers to a group of species that doesn't have a scientific classification as a group (they are several different species). The family they belong to (Elephantidae) also includes mammoths, but there is no scientific group for elephants alone. I don't doubt the importance of the elephants, but the selected items shouldn't impose a structure in the languages on the articles to be included. In this case I suggest as an alternative to include marine mammal, which are more important than elephants. Within this item would be whales, dolphins and porpoises, which would be keep. --Tximitx (talk) 13:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

+1. --Maqivi (talk) 19:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
We made a dubious change from Whale to Cetacea a while back because there wasn't a Swedish word for whale. IMHO, a core article's purpose is to link to other articles and a biological classification doesn't really do that. For example, the "Whale" concept links to "Whaling", "Save the Whales", "Moby Dick", "Jonah and the Whale". I think this change is a similar situation. Would you link "Elephantidae" to what Hannibal rode through the Alps. So, don't really agree on this. But you do have precedence on your side so am neutral on this. --MarsRover 04:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree in part with your opinion, but I'm not proposing to change "Elephant" to "Elephantidae". I'm proposing remove "Elephant" and add "marine mammals", which is also important and allows link other items. The reason is that the scientific classification doesn't consider the elephants as a specie, and we cann't force a wiki to use another classification. That's why I ask for a change from one item to another, which I don't think means a relevant change. --Tximitx (talk) 12:29, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Tximitx, for this list having a therm confussing is not the best. MarsRover, no, I would not link Elephantidae to what Hannibal rode through the Alps, but Loxodonta (African elephant), that is a specie, and elephant is not. Millars (talk) 22:55, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
And now we have both Marine mammal and Cetacea wich creates quite important overlap. Isn't it better to replace Cetacea with a different group, for example Chiroptera (Q28425)? --Nk (talk) 18:25, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Continents and Water

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I observe that in continents North America and South America appear as two continents instead of Americas as a single continent, but this meaning is only used in English and a few related languages ​​such as German. However, for most languages, Americas is a single continent, and the North/South division is political, and not geographical. In fact, the normal thing in almost all languages ​​is to use North/Central/South America as a political division of a single continent, not including Central America as part of North America. It is enough to see the articles linked in Wikidata to North America to realize that there is no uniform criterion and in most cases they don't refer to the subcontinent. Some only include United States and Canada; others add to Mexico, and only a few add Central America. International organizations such as UN, IOC, etc., also recognize Americas as a single continent, this being the most globally accepted meaning. I don't find a reason to maintain the sense of the english language that is a minority and that in most languages ​​is a political concept and not a geographical. I propose to eliminate items from North and South America as continents and to include only Americas as a single continent, since this is the most universally accepted meaning.

In the free space, I realize that there is not an element as important as Water, essential for life. I propose to include it also with bold. I don't know in which section to include it, since as a chemical element it is not an important element, but it is in other scientific disciplines. I think the best place to include it is in Science, within Nature. --Tximitx (talk) 16:38, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: water is not a chemical element, but a compound. It is in the list under Beverages. This is indeed slightly odd, so I would support moving it from Beverages to Chemistry (under chemical compound). — Yerpo Eh? 09:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
I hadn't seen that Water is under Beverages. However, I don't consider that under Chemistry is the most suitable place (although better than under Beverages). The reason is that although water is a chemical compound, within chemistry is a compound of little importance and with few applications. Much more important is in Biology, Nature, or Earth Science. AMHO I think the most appropriate place would be to move it to Science, under Nature.
In the case of the continents, if the items North and South America are eliminated for the Americas, there would be a free space with bold. As I have indicated before, I see no reason to keep both items as separate continents, since it is a concept that, except in the English language, is a minority. Any suggestions to add? --Tximitx (talk) 10:30, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
"within chemistry is a compound of little importance and with few applications" - that's a joke, right? Because it's definitely far from truth. Its only logical place is under compounds. — Yerpo Eh? 10:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
I cannot say anything about most languages, but both in Russian (distantly related to English) and Hebrew (not related whatsoever) North and South Americas are considered separate entities defined as continents. Moreover, they are different not only politically but first and foremost geomorphologically, with Isthmus of Panama forming relatively recently. --Deinocheirus (talk) 15:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Replace Anime with Video Game

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Hello, first-time contributor to any Wikipedia talk page at all here.

When reading this list, "anime" stuck out to me as an entrant. We already have "animation". There should be sufficient information on anime within the animation article, right? It seems just a little too specific for this list. Checking the archives shows a bit more talk about anime's worthiness, too. I suggest replacing it with "video game"(Q7889), a topic that by contrast seems too broad for its containing article, "game". There's incredible variation within video games, and, unlike most other kinds of game, the video game is often considered an emerging art medium. I think these qualities distinguish video games enough from games as a whole to warrant their separate place on the list. Granted, they're somewhat Western, but then again so is anime.

Thanks, I'd love to hear your thoughts. --Megaskizzen (talk) 03:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Although I haven't read the English Wikipedia articles on animation, anime, game and video game yet, Megaskizzen's argument makes sense since for a very small Wikipedia Wikipedians should create an article on video game before one on anime (although anime is quite influential on the world currently).--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:42, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree with this proposal. Not sure if my opinion counts, since I am an unregistered user, but it is very reasonable. Anime is much closer to animation than video game is to toy. 177.68.136.138 14:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Seems to be a well-supported proposal then. Should I make the change? --Megaskizzen (talk) 12:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Edit made. My apologies if I've approved the proposal too soon. --Megaskizzen (talk) 04:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Change Science and Nature to be top-priority entries

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

It is puzzling to me why Science and Nature, which are root-level articles under Science section (Science is even included in Vital articles/Level/1), are not included as one of the top-priority entries. I suggest just to add these two, but if it is required to remove two entries from top priority, I would name (1) Photosynthesis, (2) Mineral, though both are difficult choices.--ネイ (talk) 13:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Agreed that science and nature should be top-priority entries, since for very small Wikipedias science and nature should be created before botany or species. However, photosynthesis can be removed from top priority since IMO it should not be deliberately created before suicide.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:18, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  Done Changed Science and Nature to be top-priority and removed Photosynthesis from top-priority.--ネイ (talk) 17:32, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

The entire topic of crimes and laws

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Someone mentioned adding rape before, but I now see that there are no crimes or criminal activities at all; no murder, no rape, no theft (or the concept of property, for that matter), not even the concept of crime itself, or the related religious concept of sin. In fact, the section on Law is quite bare bones, having only law and constitution. I have no proposition on how to change this, but since this is a talk page I figured I would talk about it. Maybe such ideas could perhaps be more important than having so many specific rivers/languages/countries/leaders? 177.68.136.138 13:32, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Replace pages for specific African Great Lakes with African Great Lakes, and more

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I propose we remove both pages for specific African Great Lakes, add an African Great Lakes page, and use the extra slot for some other proposed page, such as property or crime or video game. I would suggest property (video game can replace anime, as seen above). This would maintain the lakes in some capacity, be more comprehensive (since that page would cover more than two lakes), and be in keeping with the procedure adopted for the North American Great Lakes. It would also free up a slot for an important concept such as property, or someone else's proposal. 177.68.136.138 14:45, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Alphabetically order all lists

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This is currently done inconsistently. I think it should be done consistently unless there is a more obvious rationale, such as:

  • Chronological order, for historical events
  • Distance from the Sun, for planets

201.27.100.86 15:22, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I brought up a similar topic on the extended list, that we should make these lists conform to the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style for lists. That would require ordering the list, which I think should be done anyway, but the manual also mentions that numbered lists should only be used for a reason. I don't know of any reason to refer to the list items by number, so I think we should convert to bulleted lists as well as order the lists. --Megaskizzen (talk) 12:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Change Algebra to be top-priority entry and remove Moses from top-priority entry

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I would like to propose (1) Change Algebra to be top-priority entry, and (2) Remove Moses from top-priority entry. These can be treated as separate proposals.

  • Algebra - it is odd that Geometry is a top-priority while Algebra is not. These two entires appear to have similar level of importance.
  • Moses - it is a bit unbalanced under "Religious figures and theologians" where there is one top-priority entry for buddhism, one for islam but two for christianity. Choosing between Jesus and Moses, it should be quite obvious that Jesus is of higher priority.

--ネイ (talk) 17:53, 11 July 2019 (UTC)Fixed typo--ネイ (talk) 18:22, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I believe Moses is left high-priority for Judaism, not Christianity.
--Megaskizzen (talk) 12:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Made the change for Algebra given there are no objections at all; for Moses, I am treating Megaskizzen's comments as an alternative opinion and taking down the proposal.--ネイ (talk) 02:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Crime instead Abortion

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Include Crime instead Abortion.--SEA99 (talk) 05:30, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

  Oppose Crime is a legal matter and abortion a social right. Not the same category. --Toku (talk) 18:39, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
I mean crime as social issue.--SEA99 (talk) 07:10, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
There are 22 topics about Crime in extended list, but no one here.--SEA99 (talk) 06:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Russian Empire instead Apartheid

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Include Russian Empire instead Apartheid.--SEA99 (talk) 06:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

  Oppose Russian Empire can be included in Russia --Toku (talk) 18:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
British and Ottoman empires also can be included...--SEA99 (talk) 06:47, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Empire of Japan instead Meiji Restoration

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Include Empire of Japan instead Meiji Restoration.--SEA99 (talk) 06:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

  Oppose Empire of Japan can be included in Japon. --Toku (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Add some basic terms from psychology

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I would add some of the terms like: Personality, Motivation, Attention, Mood, Temperament. I think that at least the first two are more important than Love and Mind. Matinee71 (talk) 22:12, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Mark this page for translation.

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Many Wikipedia already have a translated version of this list, why don't we just take advantage of the translation builtin to meta, instead of relying on volunteers to manually update each wiki? — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Viztor (talk) 08:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Even better, translated items can be taken from Wikidata. Commons has a sophisticated system of Wikidata-derived multilingual content, e.g. in c:Module:Creator. Something similar would be nice. whym (talk) 13:11, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_articles_every_Wikipedia_should_have/Archives/2019&oldid=21426613"
Return to "List of articles every Wikipedia should have/Archives/2019" page.