Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Talk:List of articles every Wikipedia should have/Archives/2021

< Talk:List of articles every Wikipedia should have | Archives
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Reprarina in topic Swap: Remove Umm Kulthum, Add Édith Piaf

Going to make some changes

Latest comment: 3 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

Explanation: The goal of this list is to ensure small Wikipedias have a good mix of important content to start off with. Bolded items should best reflect the category of article they are in and not primarily be known for other reasons. It also should not be too West-centric.

Unless someone pings me with an objection in the next few days, I am going to make the following changes to this list:

Kindest Regards, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 06:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC) Edited: 06:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

  Oppose About the changes, Franklin D. Roosevelt is one of the most important president in the history of US. Shaka is an important king in Africa but it is not more important than others African kings of the period (Usman dan Fodio, Omar Saidou Tall...). Regarding Ayn Rand, she's an infuential essayist in the US but her theory (laissez-faire, importance of individual rights...) was better described by others philosophers or economists. And Sartre developped original theories (existentialism...) was a key figure of the philosophy of the 20th century. Best regards, --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 08:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
About bolding/unbolding changes, I think some propositions are very strange. For exemple, Guereva is an important figure but it's hard to considere him more important than Lenin. And it's the same with Money/Currency, Toy/Chess, Hinduism/Spanish, Christopher Columbus/Akira Kurosawa... Best regards, --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 08:13, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
I oppose the unargumented additions and removals. — Yerpo Eh? 10:12, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Disagree on most of the bolds/unbolds. Strongly disagree on the removal of Roosevelt/Sartre. Shaka would be a good add, and despite the suggestion that Fodio and Tall are equal in prominence (they're not, he's clearly the most prominent pre-modern age African leader, with only Musa I of Mali coming close). Either way we should have atleast one of the pre-modern age African leaders listed, he is arguably more important than Guevara who doesn't stack up to Fidel Castro and i'd even list Toussaint Louverture over both Guevera or Castro as his impact had more of a revolutionary impact on the world than small island Cuba. Guevara and Castro have to compete with Ho Chi Minh too in 20th century revolutionary prominence, so Guevara would be the weakest entry point for a pre-modern age African figure like Shaka. But we don't list African cultural figures like Fela Kuti or Chinua Achebe, and we don't cover ANY ancient pharaoh like Ramesses II, which would be a better add than Shaka anyway, but both would fit. (yes i know, Naguib Mahfouz is listed but considering we list Abu Nuwas, i'd prefer a swap of Mahfouz with Achebe).
Now Ayn Rand would only be vital as a writer, her philosophical achievements would be below many other social scientists. But we don't have ANY women writers, which is a BIG miss, Sappho, Murasaki Shikibu, Jane Austen, Mary Wollstonecraft, Agatha Christie, Virginia Woolf, Selma Lagerlöf, Emily Dickinson, George Eliot or Mary Shelley would all come before Rand and atleast one should be listed.
Here are my other suggestions that could be good additions in my opinion, to add to the spirit of this thread
1. Marlene Dietrich could be swapped for Anna Pavlova, since we already list two other actresses and Pavlova covers a more underrepresented field (dance) and Ballet has a longer European art history than German film (two American actresses would be too much, so i assume she's listed for her German work). Maria Callas would be the other choice for a older European artform like artistic singing/opera to be covered among popular singers, while increasing women. Or even adding Coco Chanel, for another undercovered area.
2. Wright brothers, Cai Lun, Nicéphore Niépce, Alexander Graham Bell, Auguste and Louis Lumière, Alessandro Volta all could have a place and also Hippocrates or Andreas Vesalius, since medicine is a vital field and we could do with another other than Pasteur. Fibonacci, Ptolemy and Francis Bacon would be good too.
3. Japan's a vital enough country to list a political leader like Hirohito (especially if we have De Gaulle) , Emperor Meiji or Oda Nobunaga
4. William the Conqueror should be listed
5. Henrik Ibsen/Brothers Grimm could be another add - Ibsen is more important than Hans Christian Andersen
6. one of the Beatles/Louis Armstrong/Elvis/Édith Piaf should be bold instead of Stravinsky, so atleast one non classical composer is bolded. One person from directors/screenwriters/actors should be bolded too, probably Chaplin or Kurosawa or Hitchcock.
7. Bruce Lee and Pelé represent culture figures that are non European/American and would be a good counter. Someone like Bruce Lee holds as much weight in Asia itself as Marilyn Monroe does America. Pele is alive and i get that we probably shouldn't list alive people, but he'd be our one South American culture figure and arguably soccer has just as much of a impact around the world as major form of arts like American film, of which we list 7 representatives.
8. Peter Paul Rubens should be swapped for Claude Monet, who had much more of a impact on modern art than Rubens, if we had to list a Flemish artist i'd prefer Jan van Eyck over Rubens for time period diversity.
9. I don't see why we should have Al-Ghazali over Ali and i don't see why we need too Buddhists and i would remove Nagarjuna for Maimonides.
10. Amelia Earhart could be a good add to add women to explorers and to cover aviators. Florence Nightingale would be a another good add. Emmeline Pankhurst wouldn't be out of place with MLK listed.
Anyway just thought i'd offer my thoughts as a outside observer, i disagree with most of these proposed edits and offered up some of my own people who could be decent picks on the list, thanks. GuzzyG (talk) 19:28, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
The number of biographies (204) is too high. In my opinion for example Matisse, Rubens, Velázquez, Warhol, Dvořák, Cartier, Dietrich, Spielberg, Berners-Lee, Joule, Chomsky, Che and Hegel can be removed. I can support adding Ramses, Sappho, Murasaki Shikibu (Genji is currently listed), Jane Austen, Hippocrates, Louis Pasteur or Claude Monet. I don't think that the list needs any dancer, opera singer or aviator. --Thi (talk) 14:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
@Thi: I would support al these remivals which yku suggested. But as for additions, for now I can support just Pastoue as number of biograpbies should be much lower. 12:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Reasoning behind removing Roosevelt. @Nicolas Eynaud and GuzzyG: Of the 39 political leaders, 4 are United States Presidents and 5 are WW2-era World Leaders. FDR sits at the intersection of both groups, and I'm sorry but the point of this list is not to find the most impactful leaders but to provide a variety of coverage. Replacing him with Shaka only makes logical sense as he is one of the most famous African leaders in history (Nelson Mandela is pretty lonely).
    Removal of Jean-Paul Sartre. To be honest, I don't care how it happens, but have way to many French philosophers on that list, and somehow do not have a single woman. If I suggested we axe Voltaire, people would've rioted. If I suggested we axe Descartes, the people would have rioted. If I suggested Rousseau or Beauvoir... same thing. The French don't have a monopoly on philosophy, and I picked the most well known woman philosopher I could think of.
    Boldings. Besides maybe Guevara, no one has articulated any actual reasoning behind disagreeing with my proposed boldings. I clearly state at the beginning that the list should reflect a diversity of content which adequately reflects the archetypes of each list not what is or is not the most "important" of the list. That's why I would prefer we have Che Guevara over Fidel Castro; we already have too many dictators on the list and not enough revolutionaries.
    I hope what I am saying makes more sense in context. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
No offense, MJL, but your reasoning on replacing Sartre makes no sense at all. Only four out of 26 listed "philosophers and social scientists" are French, one of them even a woman - and if I understand your commment right, you'd be ok with removing her to make place for Rand. — Yerpo Eh? 08:16, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
@Yerpo: You are right. I did not notice there was a woman French philosopher in the list. I'm striking my previous suggestions on the matter. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 15:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 pandemic

Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

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. 「ディノ奴千？！」☎ 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 --62.42.68.49 11:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
  Oppose Dawid2009 (talk) 09:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Cynnig i ddiddymu'r prosiect

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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 Meditation

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

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

Support
Oppose
Discuss

Additions and removals

Latest comment: 3 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

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)

Remove State (polity), Add Country

Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

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)

Support
Wolfch (talk) 11:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
  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)
Discuss
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)

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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)

Archiving

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

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 Chekov for Sappho

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

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

  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

  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)

Neutral
Discuss

Atacama Desert

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)

Support

Oppose

Creating a better list

Latest comment: 3 years ago57 comments11 people in discussion

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 removals

  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 additions

  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)

Discussion

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)
Arguments and comments by User Minoo

possible additions:


  1. :  Oppose enough male biographies (194 at the moment). Minoo (talk) 22:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  2. :  Oppose enough male biographies (194 at the moment). Minoo (talk) 22:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  3. :  Oppose There should be a minimum of relevance. There are oly 500 page views a day and about 300 page links (Ayn Rand, which is not yet included has about 4000 page views a day and about 3700 page links) in en wikipedia.Minoo (talk) 23:22, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  4. :  Oppose enough male biographies (194 at the moment). Minoo (talk) 22:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  5. :  Oppose enough male biographies (194 at the moment). Minoo (talk) 22:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  6. :  Oppose 26 articles about mathaematics incuded - why should this proportion be bigger? Minoo (talk) 23:22, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  7. :  Oppose this is an important topic, but I'm not sure if this is really one of the 1000 articles every Wikipedia should have Minoo (talk) 23:22, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  8. :  Oppose enough countries (46 at the moment). Minoo (talk) 23:22, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  9. :  Oppose enough countries (46 at the moment). Minoo (talk) 23:22, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  10. :  Oppose enough countries (46 at the moment). Minoo (talk) 23:22, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Arguments and comments by User Dawid2009
  1. Too many biographies with minor (international) and short impact on culture, for example we have combinetly almost 100/10% biographies related to music,art, literature, meanwhile only about 10 about religion. I could be biased but this is for me bit of en:Cultural schock, note in Polka Times' Marie Curies has worse rank than Pope John Paul IIin light of the most infulential Poles of all time, Pope is 2nd, Curie is 4th (just in case if someone misunderstood, I do not suggest addition of Pope John Paul II based on fact he has far better reputation in Poland than Marie Curie but maybe addition of Virgin Mary could be good, She is on John Paul's cat of arms, there are many things focussed on Mary but not on Jesus, just as en:Mary in Islam or en:Our Lady of Fatima, global impact, Our Lady of Fatima gets 400 views per day on Japanese Wiki - very much), Mother Theresa has high rank in en:The Greatest Indian (higher than Gandhi, great reputation) list 100 greates women of all time include more religious women than musician women where Virgin Mary is 12th based on She has also presence in Islam, Joan of Arc is 27th, based on lesser signifiane in Christianity, Mother Theresa is 20th based on lesser significance in Christianity Dawid2009 (talk) 21:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
  2. Too many big countries missed on this list which could be added or swapped with another country Dawid2009 (talk) 21:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
  3. We do not need any biographies connected to English Reformation which gets many hits for trivias. Wide articles like Protestantism, Reformation are more important. Henry VIII is more important than Elizabeth I but Elizabeth I even was not in 100 greatest women of all time Dawid2009 (talk) 21:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
  4. Too few articles related with mathematics at the moment. Dawid2009 (talk) 21:26, 22 June 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)

A new property on Wikidata for these articles?

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

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)

Replace insular Oceania with Australia and Oceania

Latest comment: 3 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion
  Resolved. done.

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 cycle

Latest comment: 3 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion

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. 192.76.8.91 10:41, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Support

  1.   Support Agree with 192.76.8.91. --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)
  4. Support removal --Thi (talk) 08:06, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

@192.76.8.91, Llywelyn2000, Theklan, Thi, Interstellarity, Dawid2009, Yerpo, Opqr : after more than two months of discussion, there is a majority of five supporters and no opposition to swap "Avalanche" for "water cycle". According to "Additions and removals" discussion below, I think we can do the change in the list after the next update of the list Wikipedias by sample of articles. Any opposition ? --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 14:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nicolas Eynaud:. Yes. BTW, ping Works only if you use "sign". So we did not see your message. Dawid2009 (talk) 11:37, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Swap done. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 19:44, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Move Hormone from the Chemistry section to the Biology section

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

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. 192.76.8.91 16:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Support

  1. nom
  2. Support. --Thi (talk) 18:09, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  3.   Support C933103 (talk) 18:16, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

  Resolved. done. C933103 (talk) 23:28, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Swap: Remove New Zealand, Add Philippines

Latest comment: 2 years ago12 comments9 people in discussion

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)

Support
  1. Phillippines, feel free to do it by WP:Bold. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:47, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  2.   Support New Zealand remains a regional power in Oceania but with a very limited influence. Then I think we can swap it with Philipines because : 1°) this country is a regional power situated in an area of tensions between China and USA ; 2°) this country has a larger population. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 09:53, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  3. Support addition. --Thi (talk) 08:11, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
  4.   Support New Zealand remains so forgettable that many world maps/infographics leave it off, whereas the Philippines is emerging as a regional power with a large economy. John M Wolfson (talk) 00:18, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
  5.   Support population, economy and even larger land so its a relative large member of international community. I regret seeing NZ out of the list but I think Philippines is more important.--Manlleus (talk) 15:30, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
  6.   Support PH way more important than NZ. --Santac (talk) 10:58, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Neutral
Discuss
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)

@Dawid2009, Yerpo, and Nicolas Eynaud: I have changed my nom to include the Philippines for the addition since it is clearly the better choice and New Zealand is redundant to Australia. Also, the reason why I put ??? is because I'm asking for your suggestions on what article should be added and wasn't sure what article should be added. Interstellarity (talk) 13:48, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

  Resolved. done. C933103 (talk) 23:27, 8 February 2022 (UTC)


Some proposals

Latest comment: 2 years ago59 comments12 people in discussion

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 Islam

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 Hygiene

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)
  5.   Oppose. It's a third attempt of removing Chekov in last two years. What's wrong with him? --Tucvbif (talk) 06:57, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Discuss

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

Swap Ovid for Protestantism

Support
  1.   Support Nom (Interstellarity)
  2.   Support Big and glari g omnission. Parent/wide topic is much 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 should be no problem to add more articles about religion/philisophy and we can ballanced it in 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 Church

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 Adult

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)
  4.   Oppose per GuzzyG--Tucvbif (talk) 07:11, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Discuss

Swap Tchaikovsky for Adolescence

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)
  5.   Oppose as well as previous, but this one is even worse: Adolescence if more word-relating or culture-related concept than real-life-relating. I don't also support of removing Tchaikovsky especially for replacement with a non-biography articles. --Tucvbif (talk) 07:21, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
  6.   Oppose no, absolutely not Reprarina (talk) 15:00, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Discuss

Swap Mahler for Information Age

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 arrow

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 health

Latest comment: 2 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion

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 movements

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

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 Ethanol

Latest comment: 2 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

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)
  2.   Oppose. --Tucvbif (talk) 07:28, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Umm Kulthum, Add Édith Piaf

Latest comment: 2 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion

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)
  4.   Oppose I guess they are both very important. But Wikipedia is the international encyclopedia, we should remember it.Reprarina (talk) 15:17, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

Industry vs manufacturing

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

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 industrial sector (Q8148). What you wrote is valid for industry (Q268592) but not for industrial sector (Q8148). I'm OK with keeping here industry (Q268592) or manufacturing (Q187939), but not industrial sector (Q8148) Delasse (talk) 12:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Replace eye with human eye

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

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

Discuss

Swap: Remove Vatican City, Add ???

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion

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 ???

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion

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. Suggestion

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

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 Chicago

Latest comment: 2 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

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 list

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

@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)
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_articles_every_Wikipedia_should_have/Archives/2021&oldid=24291375"
Return to "List of articles every Wikipedia should have/Archives/2021" page.