Talk:List of articles every Wikipedia should have

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
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 | 2013

topic index

Please add new topics to the bottom of this page

Terrorism -> Crime[edit]

I would like to suggest "Crime" to be added to the list, under the Law section. In addition to one of the most pressing concerns of most people, no matter where you go, defense versus crime is a primary purpose (and expense) of modern government. Although there is no concensus on what exactly is *considered* a crime, as well as what is considered a reasonable response to it, that debate in and of itself is encyclopedic due to its wide-reaching effects on the world's cultures.

For what to remove - the only notable candidate seems to be Terrorism, which would be a major subset of all crime in general, and a natural topic for the "crime" article to lead into. Almafeta (talk) 03:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Since there seems to be no objections, I'll make the change early next month (after the stats are run). We can change it back in February if any a notable problems come up. Almafeta (talk) 18:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I´ve just read your suggestion and I think it´s to early to make the change. I´m not agree with the change. Of course, Crime is a wider concept that includes Terrorism but, in my opinion, Terrorism deserves to be in the list because is an important fact in many countries, with important effects in its daily life. In addition to this, I must say that it would be convenient to set some rules about changes. I think it isn´t enough with only one personal proposal, it might have a minimum of votes to proceed with the change. --Xosé Antonio (talk) 23:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Although no objection was posted, the change was reverted without discussion, so I withdraw this suggestion. Almafeta (talk) 04:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
There was one person that not agree with your change. In other hands, I think that if only a person do a proposal, that isn't a proposal with consensus. I agree with Xosé Antonio that this list should have a minimal control of changes. --Elisardojm (talk) 08:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I do believe that the proposal to add en:Crime is a good one, just perhaps not as a replacement for en:Terrorism. Perhaps en:Commonwealth of Independent States could be removed, as it is a largely symbolic organization? It's not a topic within the same subheading, but it still falls under "Social sciences", so the section balance would be preserved. — Yerpo Eh? 19:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


Total Eurocentrism. Shame on those who compiled this list! And yes, I am European and disgusted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 21:13, 12. januar 2014‎

Wow, that was the most constructive comment in a long while... — Yerpo Eh? 21:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
And is totally true. This list should be more universal instead of being "euro-centered". --Zerabat (talk) 23:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
As said many many many times before, you're welcome to suggest replacements in order to reduce bias as you perceive it. Vague comments like yours, however, are not helpful at all. — Yerpo Eh? 06:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, let's start:

  • For example, the ratio of "Artists and architects" category is: 13 from Europe (~72%), 3 from whole Americas (~17%) and 2 from Asia (~11%). There is not any exponent from Africa, and many sub-regions of the world were not contemplated. I will not deny that the artists selected were (and are) very important and have left a notorious legacy to humanity, but the selection criteria was made with a "eurocentered mind", I mean, considering and including more Europeans maybe due to not know other cultures.

Later I will continue...

--Zerabat (discusión) 19:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Looks like you didn't understand me. Stating the obvious (numbers and ratios) doesn't help, you should propose whom to remove from the list and whom to add. Then we can discuss. But note that geographical balance just for the sake of it isn't a better solution. — Yerpo Eh? 20:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I think we need to start putting such phrases as "Dead White Man", by the appropriate person. That should be the first step. I do not see what your case by case proposal goes to show, except a reluctance to discuss the issue being raised.Leutha (talk) 20:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Yerpo, I clearly understood what you said. Regarding the list, I think Bernhardt, Sarah is not as vital as others. Also (this is an important issue, please do not avoid it) it is western-biased. --Zerabat (discusión) 02:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
The list is also male-biased, and would be even more so if Sara Bernhardt was removed. One problem is that the world is pretty much western-biased. Historical people from Europe are (because of imperialism) often well known all over the world, while historical people from other parts of the world often are basically unknown outside their own countries. But if you find topics that you think should be in this list, and topics here that shouldn't be, and motivate why they should replace each other, I'm sure it would be taken under consideration. Please look in the archives for this discussion page about how replacement suggestions previously have been made. Boivie (talk) 14:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I think the whole concept of the page doesn't really cope with the way languages work in the world. What sense does it make for a handful of people to issue a Fatwa to all the people working on different languages as if they simply have to reproduce the same set of articles? This is not the wiki-way and perhaps is better suited to Larry Sanger's Citizendium which uses a more top down approach which would enable those of us who see themselves as having expertise in such a generalist way to work without the constraint of taking into account those of us who want a more egalitarian approach. For myself, I feel it might be more useful if different language Wikipedias set their own targets, and perhaps a reasonably simple way could be used (perhaps with Wikidata) to link the different conceptions that would then emerge.Leutha (talk) 10:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
If you don't want to use this list, you don't have to. It's just a tool. By the way, the users active here are from lots of different Wikipedias. Boivie (talk) 14:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Nobody is forcing anyone to create articles on this list. They're merely unofficial suggestions, and should be treated as such. PiRSquared17 (talk) 15:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
The metaphor of Fatwa was used precisely because it contains within it the notion of an influential opinion, rather than implying any coercion. I certainly agree that the term should is not as strong as has to or even must, but even so it is stonger than suggest. However, I do not think that such fine points of English grammar should distract us from the main point, which is the bias in the list. I am not sure whether the issue can be sorted out using the one in, one out method, and certainly feel that the advent of Wikidata could help us find a way of co-ordinating between different languages wich does not involve producing Eurocentric lists like this.Leutha (talk) 00:59, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Microsoft Windows under Operating System[edit]

63% of the world's computers run some windows OS, so it's a relatively high-demand article. Microsoft revolutionized personal computing and brought it to the masses, so I think either them or their OS deserves a spot on this list for standing out so much. NottNott (talk) 21:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

This kind of reasoning is problematic because arguably, Microsoft's role in the PC revolution is shared with Apple (opinions differ to what extent). That's two spots already. Then, if we include these two, other famous companies will start creeping in. So I say no, let's stick to general concepts, everything else is of secondary importance. — Yerpo Eh? 10:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


Why is there only one Black musician in the list?Leutha (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a specific proposal to replace one of the musicians with another? PiRSquared17 (talk) 15:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I am startring a discussian about why there is only one Black musician in the list?Leutha (talk) 00:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

If what you're stating is true, is it because the editors that have helped compiling this list haven't yet found more than one black musician that they thought were important enough for being included in this list. If you know of more please make a suggestion for a change in the list. Boivie (talk) 06:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Interesting point, systemic bias might arise because of lack of research skills amongst engaged editors or from bias as regards what they think important. Actually my concern here is rather with reviewing the methodology than contributing to a method which seems flawed.Leutha (talk) 13:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

So, basically you're only here to complain, and you're not willing to help? Or do you have any suggestions for a different methodology? Boivie (talk) 14:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I am not quite sure why you posed me these questions. Perhaps you might care to reread my posting above. One of the way Wikipedia works is that it is based on evidence rather than opinion. This is why the encyclopedia has made such leaps forward since adding references became the norm. The problem with the methodology here is that "importance" seems to boil down to opinion, and indeed opinions very much constructed out of various aesthetic and cultural values. I am certainly keen to explore ways of developing a different methodology, but perhaps this exploration could start with an explanation of why the current methodology has been adopted?Leutha (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Current methodology has been you must discuss any changes beforehand and reach consensus. As for what consensus means that appears to be have a few people agree with you and no one disagree with you. Usually this entails just changing one or two entries at a time. Of course, this would all be based on opinion. This list is not about whether someone is notable but what is the relative importance. So, this will always be based on opinion. (eg. who are the 21 most important musicians?).
Something you point out that I think is interesting. This list seems to at times go around in this pattern (1) why is this list so biased in this way.. lets add some entries to balance (2) what are these entries doing here that are not that notable.. let add the old entries back. We should have a reference for each entry that points to the discussion in the archive where it was debated. --MarsRover 19:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Funny, I once started to make such an index, but gave up soon because it needs to be done manually and it was too tedious. Should I publish as it is and we'll finish it together?
Sure, I will try to help. But lately my time for wikipedia work is shrinking. I was thinking that each time we have a discussion about any given entry we just add a reference to the discussion. Maybe even a bot could be able to do it. --MarsRover 08:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I put it at Talk:List of articles every Wikipedia should have/Archives/Topic index. As I said, I gave up soon. A bot may help for clear cases, but it will still have to be a largely manual task. — Yerpo Eh? 17:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
To Leutha: the question why the methodology is such as it is probably doesn't have a comprehensive answer. This list goes back to early days of Wikipedia itself and it probably just seemed a good idea at the time. It might help to go through the discussion archives and edit histories if you're actually interested. As to your proposal, it might help to explain what you're actually getting at instead of playing on other editors' emotions by calling us biased and incompetent. Your hints simply remind us of the idea to make quotas for each cultural area, which was proposed long ago and already decided against. In case you haven't noticed, the world is Western-biased. And Wikipedia has, by its verifiability rules, decided to "be a mirror, not the lamp". Example: Seoul Philharmonic Orchestra regularly plays Beethoven, Mahler and other classical European composers. How many Southeast-Asian composers are on regular program anywhere outside Southeast Asia? I dare say that with our "flawed" approach, we got pretty close to listing subjects which are the most sought after in all Wikipedias combined in the long run (i.e. excluding fads). So you'll have to do better than that if you want the community to take you seriously. — Yerpo Eh? 08:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, I feel your suggestion that I am "playing on other editors' emotions" is misplaced. As other editors have pointed out, the list as it is currently constructed will always be based on opinion. In this sense we can see the work on this list as a form of affective labour creating what Michael Betancourt calls "systemic unknowns", in this case a putatively measurable notion of "importance" by which the individual candidates can be theoretically be ordered. So, I would suggest that any experience of emotional upset you may experience arises from the nature of this list and your personal valorisation of it through the affective labour you have already given it. As regards your view of the world being western-biased, even if this holds water, it only goes to highlight the ommission of Black musicians. I think you will find that such musicians as Jimi Hendrix and Bob Marley are westen musicians. I found MarsRover's point very interesting, and sympathise with anyone who stands back from such labour intensive work, particularly when there is some doubt about whether it will be well received. Of course we have Wikipedia article traffic statistics, and I hope no-one will get upset if I point out that for April 2013 Bob Marley came in at 387th (402,367 hits) whilst Ludwig van Beethoven was a little bit lower down the list at 810th (281,283 hits). As for Gustav Mahler I am sorry to report I could not find him in the list no matter how hard I looked.

House of Mirrors, a common feature at the funfair

Whilst I take on board the comment about wikipedia being a mirror, I feel that this page is perhaps somewhat more like the "House of Mirrors". I don't want to be a killjoy, and I know how much fun people can get from drawing up lists of their favourites under all sorts of categories. But I feel that it would be a good idea if this was done somewhere else. If there is to be List of articles every Wikipedia should have then I feel it requires a lot more thought. I also hope that when I point out a lack of research skills amongst engaged editors, this is not a matter of calling people incompetent, but rather indicating that the questions which arise from having a page like this may involve serious reflection concerning how can enhance the collective pool of skills, ideally simplified through the development of new tools, so that we can address the shortcomings of the list.Leutha (talk) 20:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Well of course I am emotionally vested in a work that is partly my creation, at least a little bit. However, me being upset (if you insist on talking about me, although "annoyed" would be a better description) stems largely from the fact that you started criticizing our work, indirectly and without providing a clear alternative. Even if you didn't intend it, your hint dropping came across as smug, which continues with your last message. The present list was given a lot of thought - 10 years of it, to be precise. I'm not saying that it can't be improved, but I'd appreciate if you finally explained what you're getting at instead of poking. — Yerpo Eh? 16:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Have to agree with Yerpo. There isn't a lot of commenters in this list so I am willing to accept any suggestions about articles or methodology. But you haven't really offered any specific yet. Using popularity as a way to get importance will just mean this is the "list of the most popular articles". The original goal of this list was to promote articles that are obviously important but missing. Promoting already popular articles is a really unnecessary task. So, IMHO, if you were to tweak the methodology I would not go in that direction. I do believe it can be tweaked in other directions. Perhaps we have a rule, the topic must have had influence in more than one continent. Is Bob Marley important outside North America? Is Gustav Mahler important outside Europe? --MarsRover 20:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I am also not the only person to be "annoyed" by the bias in this list, as anyone who looks through the archives can verify. I agree that popularity has its shortcomings. However, it does have the advantage in that we can consider it in a more objective way, whereas I am not sure how we can approach "importance" in a clearer way. It is hard for me to come up with solutions unless you can tell me what you mean by this category. Otherwise we are dealing with what a mentioned above, a "systemic unknown". In fact, I would suggest that it is a sounder approach to start off with an analysis of the problem, rather than a putative solution, because otherwise we are likely to get into the sort of futile discussion, we can be worse than annoying.

Animated, color-coded map showing the various continents and regions. Depending on the convention and model, some continents may be consolidated or subdivided: for example, Eurasia is most often subdivided into Europe and Europe (red shades), while North and South America are sometimes recognized as one American continent (green shades).

Thanks to MarsRover for the suggestion of using what we might call the "continent approach". Assuming we set aside antarctica, when we compare the continental populations, it is a bit disturbing to discover that Australia, population 29,127,000, would have the same weight as Asia, population 4,164,252,000, a ratio of 1:143. Or comparing two hit scenarios, Europe and Australia add up to 767,326,000 whereas Africa and Asia add up to 5,186,486,000 a ratio of 1:6.76. However, as it is two hit measures this has to be more or less squared, giving a figure of around 1:45. Bearing in mind the demographics of the countries involved, this way would also be liable to bias, even if it gives us a clearer idea of how that bias arises. Unless we simplify things by reducing it to "important in Asia" (as 60% of the world's population live there), I think we need another approach. I wonder if we can agree on a shared notion that importance is related to human beings. Would that be a useful next step?Leutha (talk) 18:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree "importance is related to human beings" but not sure exactly what you mean. I wouldn't want to weight the article counts by population counts. Otherwise we'll just mainly have Chinese and Indian articles.
My suggestion, as a way to finally get rid of the constant complaint that the list is biased, would be that the topic must be important to more than one culture. (Instead of continents we could use a world map of cultures). The means a Western person only important in the West would not be in the list. An Asian person only important in Asia is not in the list. This could dramatically change the list of people which seems to be the articles most complained about. But beware this might mean Bob Marley and Jimi Hendrix are not getting in the list. But an argument could be made for someone like Youssou N'Dour if he is important enough in Europe. Also, in thinking this though it might caused Shakespeare and George Washington to be removed since not sure what other cultures view them as important.
Also, another way to tackle the problem is to say within each category the articles must be evenly divided between cultures. So, we can still have extremely important topics for a specific region. So, within Musicians the 21 articles must cover the 6 cultural regions. (3 or 4 Western musicians, 3 or 4 Asian musician, etc). --MarsRover 19:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that's quite an interesting idea. Bearing in mind that we are talking about suggestions for different languages we could go for away of linking languages to different cultures. Then each culture could have its own list of important pages, with a way of then generating a more global list on the basis of frequency of appearance in these different lists. This would mean that no-one would necessarily face the daunting task of wondering how popular Mahler is in Africa, unless they had elected to work on that culture. Secondly, for the list to work as a prompt, it could be made more meaningful, so that an African language such as Eʋegbe would have one list geared principally around African culture, and with a smaller global list emerging in addition. We should also bear in mind that the list is most useful to those languages with the least articles.Leutha (talk) 20:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify my suggestion is not to have a six lists per culture. But to have one list of 1000 articles that evenly covers the six cultures. The complaints about the existing list are almost without fail about the 120 biography articles which make up list. The remain 880 articles would probably be in all six lists if you went that direction. (eg. Electricity is important to every culture). But six completely different lists is a valid idea. I just would have it be a parallel project and not a replacement for this list. Sort of like the List of articles every Wikipedia should have/Expanded, you could have List of articles every Wikipedia should have/African, List of articles every Wikipedia should have/Western, etc. --MarsRover 07:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

That's a good point about the biography articles. I think perhaps that is where the contentious points arise. Presumably there is no reason to have 1000 articles except that it relates to the number of fingers most people have. Perhaps we could have List of articles every Wikipedia should have/Biographies which could them break down to the different cultures. Perhaps we could look at the state of play on some of the small wikis?Leutha (talk) 20:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

What is Black musician? Wikipedia does not have such an entry. I don't see any Black, Green or Lilac musicians on the list. -- 06:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Two missing articles in the Ukrainian chapter[edit]

Anything we link to these entries is relinked to a different entry. There is no notion in Ukrainian that is the exact equivalent of the English notion of Mind. Electromagnetism is a term that is used very rarely in Ukrainian. The meaning, though, is completely equivalent to the Classical electrodynamics. In the students curricula it is under the Electricity. -- 06:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

These two items have been discussed before in the archive. I think Electromagnetism has no corresponding term in German either. What do you suggest for better terms for the same concepts? --MarsRover 17:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
English chapter does not have an entry on en:Electromagnetic interaction. Is it a redirect to Electromagnetism. I feel the two are not the same, but my language is not English. I cannot control what wikidata does. They did not like the link to the Classical electrodynamics and made it Electromagnetic interaction. I worked on uk:Електромагнітна взаємодія a little. Then, they relinked it to another entry in wikidata and now Electromagnetism is not linked to anything in ukrwiki at all. -- 12:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
In the list, Electromagnetism is present as one of four fundamental interactions (together with Gravitation, Strong interaction, and Weak interaction). In Ukrainian and Russian, the corresponding terms (Електромагнетизм, Электромагнетизм) are related rather to the classical electrodynamics than to the electromagnetic interaction. So, the corresponding articles in the Ukrainian and Russian wikipedias should be Електромагнітна взаємодія and Электромагнитное взаимодействие (literally: electromagnetic interaction). I have linked the English article Electromagnetism in wikidata to Q849919 (Electromagnetic interaction), hope it is correct. --V1adis1av (talk) 20:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
It is correct from the point of view of physics but it is not correct for this list. Now this entry is missing in enwiki too, but it does not help either Ukrainian, Russian or German wikis. -- 14:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
There is the German word "Elektromagnetismus", but this does not include quantum electrodynamics. de:Elektromagnetismus is a redirect to Elektrodynamik which is linked to en:classical electromagnetism. And then there is de:Elektromagnetische Wechselwirkung ("electromagnetic interaction") which links to en:Electromagnetism but has a different scope...
This is a general problem of the list. Article structures differ between wikis, so you won't always find a 1:1 match even if the topic is covered. According to the list, the German wikipedia is missing an article "apple" - but the topic is covered. de:Kulturapfel, de:Äpfel, de:Liste von Apfelsorten, ... - the category apple as topic has over 250 pages. --mfb (talk) 21:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Actors and musicians[edit]

The category Actors, dancers and models seems to consist of four actors, who may have performed in other ways as well, but who were mainly actors, which makes the title somewhat misleading. What about Katharine Hepburn; the actress with most Academy Award wins ever, what about dancer/actress/singer Josephine Baker or dancer Martha Graham, who more or less created modern dance? Furthermore the Composers and musicians category consists of a lot of classical musicians, some popular music performers, and one jazz artist. Jazz and blues had such cultural significance not just in the way popular music was made but also in the fight for equality for african americans. It seems wrong to boil its importance down to just Louis Armstrong. Bessie Smith was the first great blues/jazz-singer and influenced Armstrong, Billie Holiday, Janis Joplin, Nina Simone, Christina Aguilera, and so many others, and Miles Davis revolutionized jazz-music in the mid-late 20th century. I do not think the list is "right", but I admit that it really is a challenge to find the "best" or "most important" people, and ofcourse it will be a bit of a "taste-game" - all I hope for is dialog.

From Mvsgh


Electromagnetism is placed in the list as one of four fundamental forces, together with Gravitation, Strong interaction and Weak interaction. However, it links to d:Q11406 (branch of science concerned with the forces that occur between electrically charged particles) instead of d:Q849919 (electromagnetic interaction: one of the four fundamental interactions of nature). I suppose that Electromagnetism should be linked to d:Q849919 rather than to d:Q11406. --V1adis1av (talk) 21:32, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree. It is weird that "Electromagnetism" does not even contain the English article Electromagnetism (which is in d:Q849919). -- 09:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
It looks like most Wikipedias have either d:Q11406 or d:Q849919, not both. Are there really two topics here? Should the two Wikidata items be merged? A. Mahoney (talk) 13:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Interested parties, note that I have responded to some of these ideas (wrt how they affect Wikidata) at d:Talk:Q849919. As far as the link on this wiki, isn't the more important topic that we want covered on every Wikipedia the more general story of how the forces have been scientifically investigated (for which d:Q11406 seems more appropriate) rather than a technical description of the forces themselves (which seems to be where d:Q849919 tends to go, to the extent that any difference at all exists between their articles)? - dcljr (talk) 04:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Version 1.4[edit]

How about to make a fixed version 1.4? This list seems to be stable a while and version 1.3 was created two years ago. -- ChongDae (talk) 05:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Please go ahead if you think that versions are useful. I'm not so sure anymore. — Yerpo Eh? 05:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Done. -- ChongDae (talk) 08:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Religious figures and theologians[edit]

Hi All! There are very few biographies in this group. We must remember that although in Europe religion is not so important nowadays, it has been always the most important thing in the history – and still is for the most of the world (America, Africa, South Asia). For example, we should certainly add John Paul II – considering especially the lack of contemporary people in this category. He is more important that formerly present here Mother Teresa. What do You think? Let's discuss that, because this is an evident defect of this list. Best greetings, Propositum (talk) 15:20, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Mother Teresa is at least a widely recognizable symbol of charity, even outside Catholic circles. John Paul II doesn't seem to have such a lasting reputation and is already being shadowed by the current superstar pope in public perception (at least that's my personal impression). Therefore, I do not feel that he deserves a place here. The problem is that most religious figures' importance is limited to their particular religion, while for example the importance of inventors or scientists is more universal. And we are trying to build a list that's as universal as possible. — Yerpo Eh? 19:30, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello! John Paul the Great is also widely recognizable. Of course, now we have another pope, so JP2 is in some sense in his shadow, but JP2 was even bigger superstar. And the impact of this person is not restricted only to one religion. He was the main leader of the whole christianity and worldwide religion in general. He was engaged so much in the ecumenical and interreligious dialogue. He was also a political leader who has made the communism collapse. He is considered as well the greatest Pole ever, more than Chopin, Copernicus and Curie, who are listed here. Thus he has become a saint in few years' time, one of the fastest record ever. Any anyway, it is quite obvious to set here some popes, as the greatest religious figures of the world, and JP2 is the main candidate for that. Best regards, Propositum (talk) 13:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

We should add much more biographies of this sort, such as:

  • saint Peter – as important as Paul
  • Francis of Assisi – greatest personality of the monastic life
  • Ignatius of Loyola – as important as Luther
  • Teresa of Ávila – the most outstanding woman
  • Faustina Kowalska – she prepared humankind to the end of world

What do You think? Propositum (talk) 10:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I oppose adding more Catholic figures, this would make the section unbalanced (Roman Catholicism is not the only religion). — Yerpo Eh? 13:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Yerpo here. CasteloBrancomsg 20:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
These are not only Catholic saints. Anyway, this is the main branch of Christianity, which is the biggest religion (and the only one in the Western Civilization). Moreover, we had better say that now this section is unbalanced towards Judaism, since it has only 1% of Christianity's believers. Propositum (talk) 09:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Christianity is not the only religion in the Western Civilization. Anyway, which articles are you proposing to replace for these five biographies? CasteloBrancomsg 14:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
We may replace six (+JP2) other biographies:
  1. Sarah Bernhardt
  2. Frank Lloyd Wright
  3. Geoffrey Chaucer
  4. Tim Berners-Lee
  5. James Prescott Joule
  6. James Clerk Maxwell
As one can see, these are mostly British people; I personally like this nation, but since this page is in English, it is visibly overrepresented here. Propositum (talk) 14:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Oppose, if their nationality is the only argument. Those people are historically paramount in their fields. — Yerpo Eh? 09:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Their nationality is not an argument at all. I have simply browsed all biographies and selected those which are decidedly less important. And after that I noticed that most of them are British. I repeat: I like UK very much; part of my family is even English. Propositum (talk) 11:34, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that their nationality being overrepresented is the only thing remotely resembling an argument in your proposal. — Yerpo Eh? 16:13, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Simply, they are visibly less important than the rest. Of course, they are important, but this list includes only the most crucial articles. For example, I am a historian of civilisation and, saying humbly, have vast encyclopedical knowledge, but I have never heard about them (while there are countless very important people not listed here that I know). Let's try any other criterion and the result will be probably similar. Propositum (talk) 07:03, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but an appeal to authority still doesn't constitute an argument. — Yerpo Eh? 12:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Part of my family is catholic and i never heard about Teresa of Ávila and Faustina Kowalska, either. So, as you can see, this kind of conversation won't work, we need objective arguments to take Joule and Maxwell out of this list. Once the list is limited, we can't include all that is important for each of us here. We have now ten biographies about religious figures or theologians. Your proposal is to add six more to this count, all of them from a christian-catholic point of view, which would clearly overrepresent this section. There is an article Catholic Church alrealy listed here, where they fit best. CasteloBrancomsg 16:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but this is not an argument. By the way, You shuold certainly check who was saint Faustina. Anyway, You would probably admit that ten is few for such an important topic. And Christian or Catholic biographies will not be overrepresented, as this is the mainstream of religion. They are obviously crucial from the scientific point of view, which an encyclopedia should follow. Propositum (talk) 08:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
PS: And also we should remember to include some women. Propositum (talk) 08:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
"Have never heard about them" is very subjective. I directly recognize three of the current list and the things they discovered/invented (probably not surprising for a physicist), but just two of your new suggestions. Without electromagnetism and the world wide web, the technology to make this list would not exist. The www certainly hade a huge influence on the world - even on those parts where internet access is rare. And thermodynamics is one of the fundamental parts of physics as well.
I don't see how the small number of Jesuits are as important as ~800 million protestants. Religious leaders get relevance by their influence on others. --mfb (talk) 22:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
As a historian and versatile humanist/social scientist I have very objective knowledge. Wikipedians have certainly bias towards the internet, but it doesn't mean that this recent development is so important, BTW it is not a work of only one person. Loyola influenced heavily all Catholics, who are the majority of Christians, while Luther is important only for 100 million Lutherans, or even for minority of them which is religious. Propositum (talk) 15:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Actually, i think this section is too big. There are five big religions, accounting ~90% of the world's population. The articles Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha, Krishna (or Trimurti) and Confucius could represent all of them. Once we included more than one figure per religion, this section became unbalanced. There is also a section "Religion", with 25 more articles, including at least one for each of the big religions (there is an article "Catholic Church" beside "Christianity"). CasteloBrancomsg 21:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Religion is the most important aspect of the social life so it is necessary to include many biographies on this topic. Christianity has 2,4 billion followers, while e.g. Buddhism only 0,4 billion, so it would be just to include here the lone Buddha and about ten Christian leaders, especially because the latter is the mainstream of the human civilisation. Propositum (talk) 06:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Your assessment of religion is quite exaggerated, in my opinion. — Yerpo Eh? 10:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
No, it is certainly realistic. Religion may be not the most important thing for You or Your friends, but it is so for the most of the humankind. Tnink globally, not particularly. Propositum (talk) 11:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
You'll have a hard time convincing me (or anybody else here) that religion is the most important thing for the majority of people labelled as members of a religion. It may be for You or Your friends, but a bit of perspective is in order here. For example, the Catholic Church claims a billion of followers solely on the basis that they are christened, even if they haven't been to church once in their later life. — Yerpo Eh? 15:53, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
It is Your personal opinion, but sociological facts say something completely different. About half of worldwide Catholics go to church each Sunday. It would be extremely hard to find anyone who has no more been in a temple after the baptism, as You have said. So it is only fiction, not scientific facts. Wikipiedia is a serious encyclopedia. Sorry, but there is no place for fantasy and POV here. Propositum (talk) 16:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

indent reset I'd appreciate if you stopped insulting me just because I don't agree with you. Sociological fact is (reference), for instance, that 17% of US Catholics never attend church worship (not so hard to find them after all, no?), and additional 41% only on a monthly or yearly basis. That leaves 41% regularly practicing Catholics for which we could say that religion is very important, although claiming that it's the most important thing in the life of every one of them is still a stretch. That means, extrapolating, less than 7% of human population to which your assessment of importance of Catholic figures would apply. And that, dear Propositum, is thinking globally. — Yerpo Eh? 17:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not insulting anyone; moreover, I'm avoiding it. It doesn't matter that someone doesn't agree with me; the thing that matters is that someone doesn't tell scientific truth. Well, statistical data is not for playing, but for following them. If someone doesn't attend church now it doesn't mean she/he hasn't been there at all during the whole life after Baptism, as You said. The Catholicism is the mainstream of the Christianity, which is the mainstream of the religion, which is the mainstream of the humankind. And BTW, US is only 6% of the Catholic Church, so that extrapolation was risky. Propositum (talk) 10:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you are insulting me directly, by accusing me of spreading "fantasy and POV", despite the fact that I'm the only one actually having any reference for my statements (even if it isn't perfect). All you did was express dissatisfaction with it, without coming up with a better one. So please start providing some credible arguments if you wish to continue this discussion.
PS: the distinction between "never attending church" and "never having been there at all after baptism" is superficial and irrelevant for the essence of my message - that religion is not so terribly important to quite a large proportion of people labelled as Catholics, contrary to your (unsupported, ergo POV) claims. Yes, religion is (still) important, that's why it's represented by all sorts of entries thoughout this list, from artists, thinkers and actual leaders to basic concepts and history. But it doesn't follow that one particular, non-universal religious denomination should be so overrepresented as you proposed. — Yerpo Eh? 19:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't like to dispute. If You feel insulted, that's a pity. We both agree that religion is important for many people. However, Catholicism is not only a denomination; Catholic means just universal. It wouldn't be overrepresented. Numbers do not mislead, if they are applied in the logical order. Catholics are the majority of Christians. And Christianity is the main religion of the world. Propositum (talk) 13:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
What you call "logical order" would more precisely be labelled non sequitur. Please start providing something more than your POV. Until then, we have nothing to discuss. — Yerpo Eh? 14:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Which part of my argumentation do You call non sequitur and POV? Explain that, please. I am a little surprised, I must admit. Propositum (talk) 11:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Propositum, it's very important to deal with this list very careful to not impose a POV (dominant or not) to the readers, because this list is used for allocating efforts in projects in many languages. It's pretty clear that not all that it's important for some group fits in here. For all those important articles not listed here we can always create a project in a particular Wikipedia (or even a multilanguage project, why not?) in order to improve the topic, e.g. Wiki Religion (see for instance Wiki Medicine which became a User Group). I don't agree to include more articles on Catholicism here, because there are many fields of knowledge to cover in an encyclopedia, and we simply shouldn't choose just one to list as "articles every Wikipedia should have". We expect every Wikipedia to be neutral (it's a pillar of our project) and general (not a thematic encyclopedia, dedicated to music, to a TV show, to sport teams, to religion, etc.). The articles you suggested here are indeed important, that's why they fit in Wikipedia (if they weren't, they could be deleted anytime), but they are all related to a same topic, aren't them? And you suggested articles from other topics to be replaced by them, do you see the impact of this change? Should we really diminish other sections in order to have more catholic biographies in this list? I don't think so. But as you said, Peter is as important as Paul, so if you want to replace one by the other, i'm fine to discuss it. CasteloBrancomsg 02:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
These are not only Catholic figures; they are generally Christian. Religion is the most important thing for more people than other fields of life which have nevertheless still more biographies in this list. Therefore, everything is in the right proportion. Notice also that in other categories most of items are from the Western Civilization, as it plays indeed the leading role in the world. And it is not Eurocentrism; it is only respect for facts. Propositum (talk) 07:23, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Propositum: your logic: Catholicism is the main branch of Christianity which is (by a margin) the most followed religion which is the most important thing for many people == Catholicism is the most important and should have tons of biographies is non-sequitur. And POV on top of that, because you never back up your statements with any reference, instead expecting us not to question your self-declared "vast encyclopedical knowledge" (which is arrogant, by the way).
You proposed to add 5 people who have no importance whatsoever outside Christianity (and, except Peter, are even not important to full one third of Christians or more). It's simply too narrow focus, however important you say Christianity is. Much more suitable for this list are entries like Leonardo da Vinci, who is universally regarded as one of the greatest artists in history, and has created mostly works with Catholic motifs, therefore he's also important to the largest, but non-universal religious denomination in question. As I said, there are lots of biographies and other articles like that scattered throughout this list, such as Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina, Hernán Cortés, St. Peter's Basilica, crusades, etc., etc. So it's definitely not true that Catholicism is underrepresented. — Yerpo Eh? 14:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
That's a real pity, but You are wrong. These are not significant arguments. Let's find better ones (or maybe don't waste time, because it would be hardly possible). And don't accuse people of things they haven't committed, because it doesn't prove their guilt; it is just Your own guilt. Propositum (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but such style of argumenting will not convince anyone. In this respect I agree, you're wasting your time. — Yerpo Eh? 17:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Catholic, Christian, whatever. It's only one religion. It doesn't matter if this is the ultimate most important thing on the world (even if this was true), it's only one topic. A general encyclopedia isn't the place to allocate everything about just one topic. It has to cover all topics of human knowledge. This is not the Christianpedia. Oppose Oppose to include more topics on that. CasteloBrancomsg 10:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


It should lock from editing this page because the list is fixed.--Cheers! (talk) 04:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The list can still change if there is consensus to change it, and I think we can handle any vandalism or undiscussed changes without locking. — Yerpo Eh? 08:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


Hello, I want to replace oat and rye by beans and butter. Contrary to beans and butter, oat and rye production and consumation is only limited to western hemispere. Oat and rye production have only few importance comparing to other cereals like maize, wheat and rice. Maybe en:Legumes are also important, they are general to beans and soja beans.--Sinuhe20 (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

"Bean" is an imprecise term, and it doesn't translate well. en:Legume is better for this purpose as it covers bean-producing plants. Butter is slightly redundant when we have en:Milk. — Yerpo Eh? 16:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Composers and musicians[edit]

There are too many composers listed, especially german speaking (and I'm saying that as a german). I'm a classical music fan, but I think more famous works are known from Michael Jackson and Madonna than from Mahler, Brahms or Haydn.--Sinuhe20 (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The inclusion on this list is supposed to reflect (historical) importance, not current popularity. Check the archives, these two have been discussed before (and I think that Michael Jackson was actually in the list until some years ago, then removed). — Yerpo Eh? 16:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Very few actors and many composers. Not Bad + six actors.--Andre S. (talk) 13:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

The list should be more focused (in mathematics)[edit]

Catch-all term like "algebra" is vital for wikipedias as a category, but not as an article. We could compare wikipedias of different languages better by articles of more focused, clearly defined topics. I propose a new list for mathematics:


  1. Mathematics


  1. Linear algebra
  2. Complex number
  3. Fermat's Last Theorem
  4. Abel–Ruffini theorem


  1. Area
  2. Angle
  3. Pythagorean theorem
  4. Coordinate system
  5. Symmetry
  6. Möbius strip
  7. Euler characteristicPolyhedron


  1. Limit
  2. Infinity
  3. Differential equation
  4. Logarithm
  5. Trigonometric functions
  6. Pi
  7. Taylor series


  1. Normal distribution
  2. Probability theory

(Logic / others)

  1. Boolean algebra
  2. Mathematical proof
  3. Set theory
  4. Function

The following is the list of changes:

Other candidates of consideration might be:

  1. Negative numbers
  2. Prime numbers
  3. Quadratic equation
  4. Fourier transform
  5. Fundamental theorem of calculus
  6. Second-order logic
  7. Gödel's incompleteness theorems
  8. Markov process
  9. Lambda calculus
  10. Graph theory

--Rollingfrenzy (talk) 09:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable in gerenal, but are you sure that highly technical topics like Fermat's Last Theorem and Abel–Ruffini theorem are suitable for a list like this? — Yerpo Eh? 18:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree with the overall reorganization, but not most of the topic substitutions. In particular, I think it's worth keeping the major divisions of mathematics, algebra, mathematical analysis, and geometry, as well as the elementary mathematical concepts arithmetic, equation, and number; and somehow I just can't part with trigonometry or statistics, either. (Full disclosure: I have a degree in statistics.) The items in bold are so marked in the List itself, meaning they are considered "top priority" articles, so their removal should not be undertaken lightly. This leaves me two substitutions to make: I could let number theory and numerical analysis go and add normal distribution (central to the study of probability and statistics) and parallel postulate (one of the most important statements in the history of mathematics). - dcljr (talk) 02:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
The word arithmetic is too ambiguous and does not have clearly corresponding word in some languages (in Japanese, we usually say "四則演算", literally "the mathematical operations of the four rules", since distinction between calculations, mathematical operations and arithmetics is not clear) while individual operation like addition has. In many languages, the article for "arithmetics" seems to be merely a collection of the description of the four basic arithmetics. Some of the major divisions may be worth keeping, but we should care about how the article should look like and examine whether we really need that content. I also think this list should provide a list of good sample points of wikipedia, rather than the complete coverage of the basic mathematics.
Parallel postulate. Hmm, it sounds worth considering ... (replacing Boolean algebra, maybe) --Rollingfrenzy (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Regarding arithmetic, Wikidata lists 117 Wikipedia languages having corresponding articles, including ja:算術. I can't say whether that's a good Japanese title for this concept or not, but it is one of 2 terms listed in one of my English–Japanese dictionaries under "mathematics". [g] Note that the Wikidata item is about the "elementary branch of mathematics", not just the four operations. If the existing Wikiepdia articles are so limited, they need expanding. As for "complete coverage of the basic mathematics", that is clearly not what this list is aiming for, nor is that even a realistic goal. I see it more as a collection of major topics that can serve to point out (as they are expanded and wikified) what other articles are worth writing. Also, most of them are the kinds of articles that would naturally split off into more specific, related articles as they develop. In other words, they serve as "seeds" that can help a small Wikipedia to grow. When viewed in this light, many of the topics I cite above as things I wouldn't want to lose could serve in this role nicely, whereas more narrowly-tailored articles about specific theorems, say, would not necessarily function the same way. - dcljr (talk) 03:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I think we should take balance of the divisions, the theorems, the (proof) systems, and the object of studies in mathematics. In this point of view, wikipedias should have some articles on some of the most famous theorems, IMHO. (Pythagorean theorem is rather a definition of Euclidean norms in modern mathematics.) I picked up FLT and Abel-Ruffini's because they are famous and easy to understand and describe while difficult to prove. (Maybe one of the two (Abel-Ruffini's?) should be replaced by a famous theorem which is easy to understand and prove, but I just couldn't illustrate a good example.)--Rollingfrenzy (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't Pythagorean theorem play that role already? - dcljr (talk) 03:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Structure change first[edit]

We can continue to talk about possible topic substitutions, but I don't see any disagreement about the basic idea of restructuring the mathematics portion of the list along the lines outlined above. Might I suggest the following scheme using the current set of topics?

  1. Mathematics
  2. Arithmetic
    1. Logarithm
    2. Number
    3. Number theory
  3. Algebra
    1. Complex number
    2. Equation
    3. Linear algebra
  4. Geometry
    1. Angle
    2. Area
    3. Coordinate system
    4. Pi
    5. Pythagorean theorem
    6. Symmetry
    7. Trigonometry
  5. Mathematical analysis
    1. Differential equation
    2. Numerical analysis
  6. Probability and statistics
    1. Statistics
  7. Logic and foundations
    1. Function (mathematics)
    2. Infinity
    3. Mathematical proof
    4. Set theory

Some of these things are kind of hard to place, so I welcome other suggestions. - dcljr (talk) 03:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

  • I agree the structure change--Wolfch (talk) 01:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I mostly agree with dcljr in first considering the structure. Concerning the possible changes, I think that the present list is not bad, but if it has to be more "focused" then perhaps I would replace Arithmetic, Number theory and Set theory by Zero, Derivative and Set (mathematics). With these changes, I would rename section 2: Numbers. --Txebixev (talk) 13:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Anatomy & Medicine[edit]

After discussion elsewhere the following (hopefully) uncontroversial changes were made by myself and Doc James (although on the wrong page).

  • Penicillin -> COPD
  • Antibacterial -> Antibiotic
  • Lungs -> Nerve

I'm creating this section for future discussion, as I find some of the choices within these fields a tad arbitrary, especially when it comes to anatomy. Doc James Would you like to weigh in here?

I'm going to appropriate the above argument from the mathematics section - a catch all article such as Anatomy isn't very useful, and would do well to be replaced by something more important - such as Thyroid. CFCF (talk) 16:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

First of all, please list all of the changes you two made, as this is kinda confusing and I'm not even sure if we're still at 1000 entries anymore. It is generally preferable to discuss before changing, but most of the changes I could agree with (and I know Doc James is an expert). Still, at least linking to that "discussion elsewhere" would be helpful... I do have an issue with a few changes, such as:
  • removing en:Cholera which is still one of the most important diseases in the developing world (we strive for balance here)
  • replacing en:Lungs with en:Nerve - I don't see how the latter is so much more important than the former. Perhaps Nerve could replace something else instead?
Also, en:Anatomy should stay in my opinion, as it is not just a catch all term, but one of the oldest scientific disciplines and so important both as a natural science topic and within science history. — Yerpo Eh? 07:29, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
While I will at large agree with Yerpo, and admit that the concessions we made are far from ideal, I will try to justify them. I believe some non-medical topics are overrepresented here, and that medicine/anatomy/biology topics are lacking in this list. I am not currently willing to take that debate, instead to justify the reordering within med/anat/bio topics:
  1. Cholera causes a form of gastroenteritis, so while a very important subject the term also includes similar diseases caused by other pathogens. Often the treatment is similar, and in lieu of having both we should choose gastroenteritis.
  2. Lungs are covered under respiratory system, and in such a limited list it is superfluous to include both. That said I'm willing to replace respiratory system with lungs.
  3. While I agree that anatomy is an important subject (not in the least because I primarily work on anatomy articles), with such a limited number of articles I find including the actual organs far more important.

CFCF (talk) 11:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)