Talk:List of articles every Wikipedia should have

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

Archives of this page

---

2004|2005|2006|2007|2008|2009|2010|2011|2012

Please add new topics to the bottom of this page

Philosophers and social scientists: C. S. Peirce, J.S. Mill, B. Russell

Charles Sanders Peirce founded pragmaticism (pragmatism) and (in statistics) randomized experiments. In logic, he was the architect of relational logic and quantification theory.

John Stuart Mill (c.f. Harriet Taylor) is a more important feminist than de Beauvoir, and an important liberal utilitarian.

Bertrand Russell was an important logician, analytic philosopher, and popular--literary writer, vastly more important than Noam Chomsky.

One could also consider Amartya K. Sen, Ken Arrow, or Paul Samuelson as social scientists to replace de Beauvoir (??), Chomsky (??), Freud, Nietzsche, or Sartre (?).

1. Beauvoir, Simone de
2. Chomsky, Noam
3. Freud, Sigmund'
4. Nietzsche, Friedrich
5. Sartre, Jean-Paul

As a philosopher, Sartre was even less important than Husserl or Heidegger.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 10:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, I am not an expert in this but the bold ones, "Freud" and "Nietzsche", I think need to stay. I can see "Noam Chomsky" being replaced with someone who won a nobel prize. --MarsRover 07:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

As for the names suggested as additions, they are not in the same level, Stuart Mill being less important than the other two, I don't think he can replace any name in the list. In the supressions list, the least important would be surely de Beauvior, the second one Chomsky; the other three are must-keep in any sense for me. Perhaps we can change just one name, so we keep the balance (not more logic than social), but if we remove the only woman, the list would lose gender balance. More opinions? --Barcelona (talk) 09:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Concerning Chomsky my opinion is that as a principle we shouldn't include living people. On the other hand as someone mentioned recently Russell is too close to Wittgenstein to have them both --Nk (talk) 16:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Sartre definitely needs to go -- not a first-rate thinker!

History

Herodotus or Thuscyidides could replace one or both of these writers:

1. Sima Qian
2. Zhu Xi

Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 10:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I cannot say whether this is a good move or not. But a common complaint about this list is it's biased toward western topics. I think in general if we should try to keep the same balance (e.g. replace Asian topic with Asian topic). --MarsRover 07:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

agree with MarsRover: think about an Western name to replace (I would prefer Heroduts, it's the first one) --Barcelona (talk) 09:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

True but I still find Zhu Xi redundant as we have Confucianism. We could think about something like en:Srivijaya because inside Asia itself we have some bias towards China and Japan. --Nk (talk) 16:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Btw, interesting BBC article says "Sima Qian" is the Chinese "Herodotus". So, don't see that as much of an improvement. --MarsRover 23:21, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I don`t agree with removing Sima Qian or Zhu Xi and adding Thuscyidides. Thucydides is known for his History of the Peloponnesian War, he is not universal scientist unlike Herodotus or Sima Qian. Herodotus could replace a modern western thinker, like Beauvoir, Simone de (we have en:Sartre, Jean-Paul and en:Feminism), en:Ludwig Wittgenstein or Chomsky, Noam. --Igrek (talk) 20:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me as a classicist that one cannot very well distinguish between the importance of Herodotus and Thucydides. They seem very obviously equally important. But, that said, Thucydides did more than Herodotus to shape historiography, which, under his influence, has become primarily the study of political history (including the history of war). Perhaps every Wikipedia should have an article on Ancient Greek historiography, thus including both Herodotus and Thucydides as well as other very important figures (e.g. Xenophon and Polybius). After all, one can argue that the Ancient Greek historians collectively created the tradition of (at least) Western historiography. --Cessator (talk) 22:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Srivijaya

en:Srivijaya could replace one of cities. We have 44 cities and 45 articles on history only (?). I propose replace Sydney, or Brussels (we have en:European Union) or Vienna. --Igrek (talk) 20:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

No, certainly not Brussels. It would be the same like replacing Washington because the United States is in. Not Sydney as the only city in Australia. Vienna maybe, but why not taking an Asian city, since Srivijaya is part of Asia.--Joopwiki (talk) 19:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Eurocentrism

Browsing w:WP:CSB I noticed a 2008 comment describing Eurocentrism on this page. A comment was also made on the discussion page here. The problem has not been addressed. This bias is particularly egregious if you consider that this document is intended for Wikipedias in mostly non-European languages. Perhaps the most egregious example is the inclusion of w:Paul the Apostle instead of adding someone from a non-Christian religion (e.g. w:Zoroaster. If celebrities from other continents are not to be found, then the list should reduce its reliance on biographies and focus on more universal concepts. Thanks, Groupuscule (talk) 09:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Initial list was far more eurocentric. Now it is more balanced. As for Zoroaster, there is Zoroastrism, which is enough. Meso-american religions are not represented. The pressure of English is subtler thing. Germans, of all people, do not have an article on Electromagnetism. Why? Because the term is unnatural for a German physicist. --93.72.154.102 11:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

So let's replace electromagnetism with Herodutus, as German language does not have equivalent term for eletromagnetism, and Herodutus is the father of Greek historiography.--RekishiEJ (talk) 20:34, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

but we are replacing a physics term by an historical figure, it should be a in-science movement--Barcelona (talk) 08:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Note that St. Paul is from another continent. :) --Nk (talk) 18:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Inventors, scientists and mathematicians: Brahmagupta, Emmy Noether

Brahmagupta introduced zero as a number. Emmy Noether is probably the most important woman in history of mathematics. Plus she represents modern algebra.

They could replace Michael Faraday who is redundant with James Maxwell in the field of electromagnetism;

and Fibonacci who is important for Europe as he brings Hindu-Arabic numeration, but not for the rest of the world.Lomicmenes (talk) 01:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Hilbert, Riemann, Cauchy, Boltzmann, Bohr, Gibbs, Hertz and many others are far ahead in the waiting list. --93.72.154.102 11:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

we could replace Faraday with another name--Barcelona (talk) 08:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Fibonacci also should be replaced. His main contribution is translating some books from Arabic to Latin - I would call this eurocentrism ad extremum. --Nk (talk) 18:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

You are right regarding Fibonacci. Fourier and Faraday seem inappropriate, too. David Hilbert should be top priority, he masterminded the modern conception of mathematics. --Chricho (talk) 17:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree about Fourier. First I was shocked Hilbert wasn't in the list, but considering there are already Gauss and Euler, Hilbert is just a third big master of mathematics of his time and the three of them are close in time and space. On the other side Brahmagupta would be alone between ancient greeks and arabs (1500 years). Alone in India too. And invented zero wasn't nothing for the modern mathematics. --Lomicmenes (talk) 11:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Fibonacci and Faraday should not be excluded, and some people regard Fibonacci the most talented Western mathematician in the Middle Ages. O.K., if you want to remove Fibonacci, then let's replace him by David Hilbert. By the way, electromagnetism should be replaced by speed of sound or particle physics (I prefer the latter as it is a vital field), and German language does not have corresponding word for electromagnetism.--RekishiEJ (talk) 17:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I suppose that the electromagnetism problem most likely is just another case of mixed interwiki links. I don't believe that one of the 4 fundamental interactions of physics doesn't have a name in German.

Currently de:Elektromagnetismus redirects to de:Elektrodynamik which in turns links to en:Classical electromagnetism. In the same time de:Elektrodynamik is discussing not just classical theory but also relativistic effects - it's possible that it has wider meaning than en:Electrodynamics (redirect to en:Classical electromagnetism). --Nk (talk) 13:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Classical electrodynamics (in German and English) include special relativity, Maxwell’s equations are Lorentz covariant, not Galilei invariant. Only in some special cases non relativistic approximations can be applied to electrodynamics. However, the article also covers quantum electrodynamics, thus the correct interwiki link is Electromagnetism. I changed that. --62.143.253.141 00:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with adding Noether, who is higher in priority than Hilbert or Hertz, comparable to Riemann, Bohr, and Cauchy; Gibbs and Boltzmann are also important. But the equivalence between symmetries and conservation laws is very deep and essential to 20th c. physics. Also, Avicenna does not really belong as a scientist -- he's much more of a philosopher. A better choice for a scientist would be Alhacen, who really was responsible in a certain decisive way for "reasoning from experiment."

Dream of the Red Chamber

"Journey to the West" or "en:Water Margin" could replace this one. Among Four Great Classical Novels in China, "Dream of the Red Chamber" is the newest one and least famous. -- ChongDae (talk) 04:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we should go for "Four Great Classical Novels" to cover it all.--Joopwiki (talk) 19:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

"Romance of the Three Kingdoms" would be a better candidate. But it overlaps history of Han Dynasty partly. "Four Great Classical Novels" is not a good candidate. It is a collective term and tt means 四大名著(four famous novels) or 四大奇書(four strange novels). -- ChongDae (talk) 08:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Math tweak

Should "Systems of linear equations" be replaced with either matrix or Linear algebra, both of which are more broad/valuable? 71.222.128.186 06:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Linear algebra would be my choice; it includes not only systems of equations and matrices, but vector spaces as well, and it points toward higher-level topices like Hilbert spaces. A. Mahoney (talk) 13:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

it makes sense --Barcelona (talk) 10:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed.--Joopwiki (talk) 19:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I see support, and no objections, so I'm going to go ahead and make the change now. A. Mahoney (talk) 13:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Burj Khalifa

Allthough Burj Khalifa is the tallest building in the world, it is not all that significant in my opinion. I suggest we replace it with Angkor Wat, which is not only said to be the world's largest single religious monument, but also of great significance to the Khmer Empire and the history of Southeast Asia (a region that is not well represented in this list). Helt (talk) 21:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Splendid proposal.--Joopwiki (talk) 19:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

A question of consensus

This might have been discussed previously, but the issue is still a bit unclear to me: When changing the content of the list, what degree of consensus is needed?

• Is it enough that noone opposes a suggestion?
• If support votes are needed, how many, and do they need to be cast by "experienced" contributers to this discussion page?

Some examples to illustrate my query:

In June, Nolanus took it upon himself to replace the article Umm Kulthum with Hector Berlioz, claiming it had been discussed on the talk page. As far as I can see there was no agreement in this discussion, but the change still stands.

There seems to be an agreement to replace Systems of linear equations with Linear algebra, still no change has been made. Who executes the changes, and how long after the agreement is reached should it be done?

My suggestion above to replace Burj Khalifa with Angkor Wat is only supported by a user with only one contribution. Can I still change it?

--Helt (talk) 10:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

However I have about 100.000 changes on the NL-wikipedia and even more on my NL botaccount.--nl:Gebruiker:Joopwiki 16:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Since this proposal sat for over a week with no discussion, it seems to be relatively uncontroversial. I certainly don't object myself, and people who do object, if any, have had a chance to weigh in. So I don't see a problem with the change. It's when someone changes the main list without discussing it here first, or within minutes of proposing a change here, that people tend to get upset. And this doesn't happen very often, because in general people play fair. Joopwiki is right that the number of contributions a person has on Meta probably doesn't correlate with what the person is doing in Wikipedia (in whatever language -- if you look me up in English you'll find very little, but in Latin I'm fairly active. A. Mahoney (talk) 17:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Joopwiki, I hope you didn't take this personally, you were just a convenient example in this case :) Mahoney, when you say "this proposal" I take it you mean Angkor Wat. The decision to insert Hector Berlioz was opposed, still the replacement was not reverted. I find that a bit odd, and that is the main reason I asked my questions. Helt (talk) 15:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

No hard feelings, if you write (or ride), you have always the chance of being hit. :-)--Joopwiki (talk) 13:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Add Henrik Ibsen

Why isn't en:Henrik Ibsen included on this list? He is widely regarded as the greatest playwright since Shakespeare (per Maurice Valency: The Flower and the Castle, Schocken, 1963.) and is also "the most widely performed dramatist in the world after Shakespeare."[1] He is the internationally most known Scandinavian in this category (no Scandinavian author or playwright is included). There is no doubt Ibsen is vastly more well-known than eg. Mahfouz, Naguib (a person I've never heard of), García Márquez, Gabriel. I suggest Mahfouz, Naguib is removed and Ibsen added to the list. PMohind (talk) 10:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Note that the Nobel Prize in Literature has been given to over hundred people and is notorious for being given to rather less well-known individuals. Merely being a recipient of that prize doesn't establish notability on par with Shakespeare. The prize to García Márquez was also poorly received by critics, because he is not considered a that great author, and the Mahfouz guy seems just obscure. Thousands of people have received Nobel Prizes. PMohind (talk) 10:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Ibsen is important; yes, he is a good candidate for addition to the list; but, please, wait until there's been some discussion before changing the list. Moreover, why remove Mahfouz simply because you've never heard of him? Perhaps Mark Twain should be removed instead, or some other author? Finally, some of us strongly prefer that changes happen earlier in the month, since this list drives the List of Wikipedias by sample of articles scoring. I'm going to revert the change for now. When there's general agreement about whether to add Ibsen, and which author should go out to make space for him, then the change can happen. A. Mahoney (talk) 13:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it can easily be demonstrated that Mark Twain is vastly more notable than Mahfouz. I don't consider him relatively obscure just because I've never heard of him, but primarily because his (rather short) English Wikipedia biography doesn't establish or indicate any notability beyond that of other less well-known Nobel Prize in Literature laureates. Various database searches seem to support this, for example Henrik Ibsen gives 1 480 000 results in Google Books compared to 72 000 for Mahfouz. I think Mahfouz is the least notable person currently included in the list, as indicated by Wikipedia biography and searches in various databases. PMohind (talk) 13:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, looking at the works of Mahfouz (eg. en:The Day the Leader was Killed), none of them seem to be iconic or very widely known (in the way Ibsen works such as en:Peer Gynt or en:A Doll's House (the world's most performed play) are), and very many of them are red links. PMohind (talk) 14:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

You should note that this list strives not to be too western-centric, so coverage in English-language Wikipedia isn't exactly the most relevant argument here... — Yerpo ^Eh? 09:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Are there any other Wikipedia editions that demonstrate Naguib Mahfouz to be more notable than Henrik Ibsen? At the very least, coverage in the English Wikipedia is a good indication of the subject's relative importance, i.e. the article doesn't contain anything that indicates or demonstrates that he is among the world's most iconic and well-known 31 authors, playwrights and poets, which necessarily has to be a very selective list. Also note that the list doesn't contain a single person from the Scandinavian-language realm, although Ibsen is generally ranked as the no. 2 playwright after Shakespeare. PMohind (talk) 14:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

In fact Andersen is in the list. But I'm completely OK to replace him with Ibsen. --Nk (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Andersen gives 963 000 results in Google Books, compared to Ibsen's 1 150 000 results, and compared to Naguib Mahfouz's 59 700. While Ibsen may be somewhat more notable than Andersen, are there any sources at all that demonstrate that Naguib Mahfouz belongs on this list of the 31 most well-known authors, playwrights and poets, or that Naguib Mahfouz is more well-known and iconic than either Ibsen or Andersen? PMohind (talk) 02:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I'm not sure that "most well-known" should be a criteria to include someone on the list, if that was the case then Stephen King and J. K. Rowling should be on it. And although Google is a good indicator, it cannot be taken as proof of a person's importance. That being said, I do agree that Ibsen is far more influential than Mahfouz, and that such a replacement makes sense. Helt (talk) 22:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

perhaps we should keep Mahfouz, add Ibsen and delete some other entry, even from another category --Barcelona (talk) 12:43, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions? If not, how about following the suggestion below and remove Behavior in favour of Ibsen? -- Helt (talk) 14:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. Ibsen is important by his own merit. He's a must. He is in the school curriculum, so the article is viewed. Addition to the list would improve our score, but nothing more. I'd rather keep Mahfouz for diversity if he were not a Nobel prize winner. All Nobel prize winners should be and are. --93.75.140.222 08:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

This is my results from Google Books:

• 'Henrik Ibsen' gives 1 160 000 results in Google Books (all language), in Russian (Ибсен Генрик) - 6440, in Arab language - 942 (هنريك إبسن)
• 'Naguib Mahfouz' gives 55 500 results in Google Books (all language), in Russian (Махфуз Нагиб) - 11 000, in Arab language - 153 000 (نجيب محفوظ)
• 'Hans Christian Andersen' gives 1 190 000 results in Google Books (all language), in Russian (Андерсен Ханс Кристиан) - 13 900, in Arab language - 796 (هانس كريستيان أندرسن)

In my opinion, Andersen is important for the list as the only children's writer (author of popular fairy tales), and Naguib Mahfouz as the only modern Arab writer. My suggestions for removing - Franz Kafka:

• 'Franz Kafka' gives 1 050 000 results in Google Books (all language), in Russian (Франц Кафка) - 15 400, in Arab language - 485 (فرانتس كافكا)

But I'm not sure that we must include Henrik Ibsen... --Igrek (talk) 19:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I propose to add Jules Verne, writer who pioneered the science fiction genre:

Jules Verne gives 1 590 000 results in Google Books (all language), in Russian (Жюль Верн) - 15 000, in Arab language - 226 000 (جول فيرن)

Jules Verne is 2-nd in top of en:Index Translationum also. --Igrek (talk) 07:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Computers and Internet section should include Computer science

In the "Computers and Internet" section,

"Computer science" should be added (with "Algorithm" and "Artificial intelligence" listed as subtopics of CS). Also, "Information technology" should be replaced with the broader term "Computing". ("Hard disk drive" can be removed to compensate). 121.45.213.224 20:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

"Computing" is an umbrella term. I am not sure specifically what that article would cover. "IT" is also an broad term but at least it is commonly used. Only change I agree with is replacing "IT" with "Computer science". --MarsRover 20:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Disagree, Computer science is an academic discipline while Information technology is a real thing. --93.75.140.222 08:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

As for Hard disk drive, the broader term en:Data storage device would be better, perhaps. --93.75.140.222 08:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Joseph Haydn

A classical giant, Joseph Haydn is considered the "Father of the Symphony" and composed numerous amounts of music during the Classical Era. He has certainly had a significant impact on music (being a friend of Mozart and teacher of Beethoven). However, who he should replace is up for debate.

Perhaps he might replace either Vysotsky or Piaf? A. Mahoney (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Vysotsky is not good choice because he is not in the list as a music-related person. --Nk (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh. Since he's listed with other performers, I assumed that was part of his importance; should he be moved to the political figures section? Is he that important as a resister/dissident? (I don't know much about him beyond what I've gleaned from updating the article on him in my home Wikipedia.) A. Mahoney (talk) 15:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Well I'm considering him a poet first of all but indeed he has many sides - an actor not the least. --Nk (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing, although that might make the list seem too crowded by classical composers/musicians. Macintoshkid (talk) 19:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Geography

In 2010 I come and complain about this list. Three years later I return and nothing has changed. Sigh.

For one, we have en:Rainforest but not the generic en:Forest. I think this should be changed, because forests are much more common than rainforests.

We're also missing en:Lake, a very basic and important concept. It could replace e. g. en:Vatican City, which is completely redundant to en:Catholic Church. -- Liliana • 18:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the proposed replacements. πr² (t • c) 15:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

agree with the first change, but the second is not obvious. Perhaps we should remove the Vatican, but not for being redundant to Catholic Church (it is not) --Barcelona (talk) 12:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Did the first. -- Liliana • 19:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Useful?

Please let me express my doubts on usefulness of this list. Most of its entries are, and invariably have to be, very arbitrary; different persons want to know different things, and the realm of knowledge is infinite.

We might argue about what topics are universally important and what are not, and seek to fit the list into the number of exactly a thousand articles (although even the distribution of material among articles depends on the language to use, and some words, especially very common ones, like "mind" or "man", have no direct translation to some languages that use other words to break down and present the concept, which words, in their turn, have no translation to English), and speak, and try to persuade, but the arguments to make always depend on the culture and language, and so, argumentation lacks its point unless the language and the culture are known; argumentation in favor of one topic to exclude another usually has to be vague.

I think that a group of Wikipedians who create a new Wikipedia know a lot better what their Wikipedia should have at its beginnings than we do here; and then expansion goes in a natural process as the new Wikipedia evolves: people who speak the language of the new Wikipedia demand knowledge and write articles on topics that interest them. So, I guess it's very amusing to discuss what titles should be included in the list and what titles they should replace, but such discussion has no use. Except, well, the result has interesting informations on its own; but better still, these informations could be presented in other places, like "List of the most influental Chinese people throughout the history of China" or "List of influental mathematicians". ;-) – 89.110.10.193 01:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Your doubt is noted, although I'm not sure what did you want to achieve by expressing it. As explained in the introduction, some language projects are quite stagnant, so obviously their communities aren't so sure on how to commence this "natural growth". This list is therefore intended as a suggestion (although its title may be worded a bit too harsh) which, according to statistics, many people across the world do use. Its entries, in general, are universally important, or nearly so (at least in classing encyclopedic sense), being of course also subject to compromise and tweaking - as every other Wikimedia page. They are also the subjects on which many sources exist, so it's generally easier to write about them, therefore stimulating growth by the virtue of red links to non-existing related articles. Everybody is of course free to write about anything they want, and local Wikipedias also have their local lists. Again, I'm not sure what you wanted to achieve by the above message, except maybe implying own superiority with snarky comments about you being amused by our activity (which is not exactly relevant). If you don't consider this list useful, you're free to ignore it, you know? — Yerpo ^Eh? 09:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

"Its entries, in general, are universally important": Well, the list is only as good as it is structured. In sections where it is structured, it is indeed a guideline: it is easy to use only the structure, and revise the details to achieve a good "classically encyclopaedic" result. The list is a continuous problem in the sections that are not structured and constitute nothing more than a sublist: one country, city, person, language, or river is just as good as every other one to make up an article, and it's useless to discuss candidatures. So, the basic structure had been laid out early (it is not as hard, but does indeed require a work), and since then, the discussions proceed mostly on: 1] candidatures, 2] some "basic concepts" (I'm having difficulties imagining a person who would look up in a newly created Wikipedia who is a man or a woman). Such discussions are interesting for themselves when they concern candidatures (especially people, and especially if the discutant makes real arguments about the person's life and achievements), and not quite so when they concern "basic concepts" (because the arguments for their importance are usually self-evident and directly follow from the structure of coverage), but they do not achieve any goal. Informations are interesting, their exchange is nice, but they get lost here.

So, to reiterate the conclusion: in fact the compromise is not needed, because real Wikipediae do not contain compromises, but real articles; all is needed is structure; it is the structure that may be "universally important", not the entries. An alternative is a list of articles that are, true, important, with the exception that they are not generically important in the academical sense, but "very likely" important if premised that a newly created Wikipedia follows a specific goal to be guessed... In 2007 someone posted a good example of such a list (very nice job, the niciest of all, I'd say). If these things are not of help, then nothing else is. That's my humble opinion, of course. – (the same user) 91.122.87.175 16:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

one country, city, person, language, or river is just as good as every other one to make up an article: For example, I don't think that being more influental than others is indeed the criterion; there are lots of criteria for different persons to make choices of those kinds. – 91.122.87.175 18:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Which example do you refer to? Perhaps it could represent an alternative on a different page? — Yerpo ^Eh? 18:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand the questions... By "lots of criteria" I mean that one rather gathers information and writes about what has appealed to him for whatever reason, or just was easy to access. You know, biographies or language articles can be more interesting for themselves than for their subject being very much influental for something, and such interest is too individual, it can't be predicted. - 92.100.182.224 02:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Useful is used. It is used by several medium size chapters. Generally, by people who like to compete. --93.75.140.222 08:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Behavior?

I doubt Behavior is expansible to great article. It remains a stub in many big Wikipedias. It may be basic topic of psychology but more specific one would be better, though I don't have concrete alternative... --180.19.218.244 05:05, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

How about remove Behavior, add Belarus? First, it is diffical to edit Behavior because too fewer informations talk about Behavior. Belarus is an important country and I think it will important and basic then Behavior--CaseyLeung (talk) 10:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Composers and musicians

• Remove en:Antonín Dvořák and en:Hector Berlioz
• Add en:Sergei Rachmaninoff

IkariSindzi (talk) 07:09, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Why? --MarsRover 07:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Controversial choice of Dvorak, however Berlioz is not that important IMVHO. However, what really bugs me is:

1. the presence (in bold!) of Richard Wagner, who being honest is a rather second-tier, flashy composer
2. a removal of Mendelssohn-Bartholdy, one of the most prominent figures of romantism in music, a master of choral romantic music, a founder of Bach
3. an ommission of Palestrina, a great example of a pre-classical music.

My proposal is:

• Remove Vysotsky and Wagner. Really, not that importance, especially Vysotsky.
• Add en:Felix Mendelssohn-Bartholdy and en:Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina
• Make Chopin bold.
• Compare Berlioz with pretenders. aegis maelstrom δ 18:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd agree removing Vysotsky, not Wagner, and discuss which inclusion would be optimal. Wagner is important not only for his music but because of his influence in po`pular culture and important people --Barcelona (talk) 18:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• I propose to add en:Ravi Shankar as the best-known contemporary Indian musician. I agree with removing Vysotsky or en:Antonín Dvořák. --Igrek (talk) 21:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• I would remove Vysotsky and Berlioz. Intersting additions would be en:Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina, en:Joseph Haydn and en:Leonard Bernstein. --Txebixev (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• Removing:

  Vysotsky - 5 suport (Barcelona, A. Mahoney, aegis maelstrom, Txebixev, Nk, Igrek), 0 oppose (see also #Joseph Haydn).  Done. --Igrek (talk) 17:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

  When did I supported the removing of Vysotsky?! --Nk (talk) 10:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

  Berlioz - 4 suport (IkariSindzi, aegis maelstrom, Txebixev, Igrek), 0 oppose).  Done. --Igrek (talk) 18:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Adding:

  Palestrina - 3 support (aegis maelstrom, Txebixev, Igrek), 0 oppose .  Done --Igrek (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

  Haydn - 4 suport (A. Mahoney, Macintoshkid, Txebixev, Igrek), 0 oppose).  Done. --Igrek (talk) 18:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

  • I'd question the importance of Palestrina. I dare say I have some good education, but I've never heard of this person. Personally I won't call that the best choice. --Andiorahn (talk) 03:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
    • The list had not any composers from en:Renaissance music and en:Medieval music. May be Palestrina is not best choice. But we had not other similar candidates. --Igrek (talk) 11:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

link to Wikidata, not to :en:Wikipedia?

At the moment, items in this list are identified by links to the pages in English Wikipedia that discuss them. For example, the list says "Homer" and the name is a link to en:Homer. It might be useful instead to link to the relevant Wikidata entity, d:Q6691 in this example, because that's now our definition of the concept, person, place, or whatever.

It's perhaps also useful to provide a link to an article, whether in English or in Simple or wherever else, or maybe even to a couple of articles, in case a reader of this list wants more detail. But what defines "Homer" for purposes of this list, I think, should be the Wikidata item rather than the page in English Wikipedia. A. Mahoney (talk) 14:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree, linking to Wikidata is far more "natural" in regard to the purpose of this list than English or any other Wikipedia. I'd say there is no need to provide further links, as they are all collected inside Wikidata objects (even if it might take a while for the UI there to become more user friendly). — Yerpo ^Eh? 07:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

agree with the proposal--Barcelona (talk) 09:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense. I agree. ...Aurora... (talk) 07:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. Does anyone know if there is a way to get the Wikidata label dynamically? Wouldn't it be useful to have the links like materialism, but that they are created something like: [[wikidata:Q7081|{{#property:label|id=q7081}}]]? Boivie (talk) 08:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it will be possible after phase 2 of Wikidata gets rolled out to Wikipedias (which will happen this week AFAIK), so maybe we can wait for a bit. But then it might create problems for small language projects who by definition won't have a lot of translations in Wikidata yet. — Yerpo ^Eh? 11:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I think we have to wait for Wikidata to get rolled out to non-Wikipedias (e.g., Meta) (Babel#Country_name_translation) PiRSquared17 (talk) 11:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure we need Wikidata support here to do this: all we need is to go through the list, look up the existing items in Wikidata by their titles in English WP, and get the Wikidata IDs that way. Then we change existing links of the form [[:en:Homer|Homer]] to [[:d:Q6691|Homer]], perhaps adding [[:en:Homer|English: Homer]] [[:la:Homerus|Latin: Homerus]], or whatever other versions it would be most useful to link to. (Realistically probably not Latin! I'd suggest Catalan, since that WP is very good on the 1000 Pages, and one or two widely-spoken languages.) This is very easy to do with a program; I've done something similar already (see this table for example). What we do need is to verify that the program that makes the List of Wikipedias by sample of articles will be able to adjust! A. Mahoney (talk) 12:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, after some thought I think it would be enough with [[:d:Q6691|Homer]]. From the page at Wikidata everyone can find links to the languages they understand. But the code for List of Wikipedias by sample of articles needs to be changed a lot, since it's heavily based on the article names from enwiki. I'll start working with that code, but it would be great if the change here is not made until after the next update of List of Wikipedias by sample of articles (beginning of May), since I'm not sure the code will be finished in time for that run. Boivie (talk) 13:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough: no hurry on this, after all. A. Mahoney (talk) 14:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

One drawback I noticed now that is implemented is the "wikidata.org" seems slower then "en.wp". Perhaps we can have both links? --MarsRover 21:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Benito Mussolini

I think it should be included in the call list. Hitler is listed. And Mussolini - the founder of fascism, is missing. Fascism had a great impact on the world history in the 20th century. To exclude suggest Rosa Luxemburg (Lenin and Stalin is enough) or Kwame Nkrumah, Carl Marx or Marxism. --Kolchak1923 (talk) 05:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

disagree. We have one of the three fascists dictators (Hitler, Mussolini and Franco), the best known of all three, if we include a second one, why not the third? --Barcelona (talk) 09:46, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Because Mussolini - the founder of fascism. --Kolchak1923 (talk) 20:20, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Disagree, I think like Barcelona. I also believe that this attempt to change seems to be more influenced by personal preferences than by articles's value, and this change has already been proposed and rejected at the time. --JaviP96 ^{talk me} 20:18, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Rejected it was not: many were in favor, but the discussion without the total sent to the archive. --Kolchak1923 (talk) 20:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

What is there to Barcelona? --Kolchak1923 (talk) 20:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it was rejected, it had 4 votes against and 3 votes votes in favor. --JaviP96 ^{talk me} 20:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

And here is it a vote? Voices of there 3 of 3! I think the main argument, not the number of votes. --Kolchak1923 (talk) 10:44, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────┘
If you think most important is the argument, not the number of votes, there were only two people (including you) who wanted to add Mussolini to this list. --JaviP96 ^{talk me} 21:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Mistake in number of science articles

I was counting the number of science articles in the current version and, according to my counts, there is 299 science articles (not 246). Besides, in the science´s section biology the number is 120 (not 119). --Xosé Antonio (talk) 18:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Those numbers have not been updated in a long time. Boivie (talk) 19:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Latin script or Latin alphabet

Which article should be in the list? Most wikipedias relate to d:Q9229, but there is also d:Q41670 with two or three interwiki that pretends to be the article from the list. --Zanka (talk) 20:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Q9229 is Turkish grand prix. I think you meant d:Q8229. PiRSquared17 (talk) 20:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course, thank you. --Zanka (talk) 00:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I think d:Q8229 (en:Latin alphabet, la:Abecedarium Latinum, de:Lateinisches Alphabet, etc.) rather than d:Q41670 = en:Latin script or d:Q681021 = en:Latin-derived alphabet is the most basic and thus the appropriate one for this list. It looks like the topic in English WP has been divided into sections to make shorter and more readable pages, which is fine of course; the link here, seems to me, should go to the first or most central one of the group. And it looks like other languages have not chosen to divide the subject into separate pages, perhaps another argument for choosing d:Q8229. A. Mahoney (talk) 12:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Look at it the other way around: Are you sure the undivided pages in most languages (as you rightly point out) ought to be connected with the en:Latin alphabet article in English, which is about system for writing ancient and classical Latin? Littledogboy (talk) 15:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)