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

Please add new topics to the bottom of this page

Contents

[edit] Middle East

Having just written the article at one of newer editions of Wikipedia, I've noticed that in many editions the article becomes rather lexicographic. I mean, a large part of the article is about how the term is used, who has called Ethiopia or Lybia part of Middle East and how right he has been, etc. Since Wikipedia is not a vocabulary, I propose to change the (very English-centered btw) article en:Middle East by something more clearly existing (there are many proposals, I suppose). Amikeco 06:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] en:Portuguese Language

It is strange that among 18 languages the 6th most spoken it's not included? Japf 23:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Good point, some languages are there for historical reasons but I think we should replace en:German Language with Portuguese since for a modern language it not as popular (important). --MarsRover 07:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
No, it's not that strange. There is no one that speaks Latin as their mother language, but it is still included for historical reasons. Size is a criterion, certainly, but it is not the only one.
Andejons 07:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
And why Tamil and Turkish is in the list?Portuguese is spoken in many countries. --Santista1982 21:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
They are 19th and 21th in number of native speakers so they are not silly suggestions. My guess is there was a desire to avoid having most the languages be European languages (or even Romance languages). And try to have a broader selection. --MarsRover 03:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Purplebackpack's two cents:
The following languages should be on the list, in order of importance
  1. English
  2. (Mandarin) Chinese
  3. Hindi
  4. Arabic
  5. Spanish
  6. Latin
  7. Greek
  8. French
  9. Russian
  10. German (IMO, German stays; it is also more spoken than Turk, Tamil, or French as a primary language)
  11. Hebrew
Anything else you can take or leave Purplebackpack89 00:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I would like to keep Esperanto in the list, being a representative constructed language. -- Yekrats 16:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


Kind of a hard sell for me, since Esperanto is a "made-up-language", and the first language of very few. It has between 115,000 and 2 million speakers total (let's say 1.5 million for argument's sake), not even a tenth part of either German or Portuguese. Also, on the English wikipedia, Esperanto had less hits than Portuguese, and considerably less hits than German. Mars, Japf, Santista, maybe toss Esperanto for Portuguese? Toss something else besides Esperanto or German? What do you think? Purplebackpack89 19:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Andejons that there should be more than one criteria so I am not sure it as clear cut as tossing the fewest speakers for one of the most. We should with the short list try to touch as many topics as possible. Esperanto is there to touch on constructed langauges. There are so many European languages already that if editors completed the list I am sure with 99% certainty they would have covered Portuguese. But the same cannot be said for Esperanto or some of the foreign languages like Tamil. Anyway I wouldn't disagree with the suggested change, or replacing Turkish, or just leaving it the same. --MarsRover 21:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I think the list is not to mention all the largest things, but a hint to write the first interesting content of a new Wikipedia edition. If so, Esperanto is good on the list, since one can write in the article something less banal than number of speakers and countries where it's official.
If it depended on my will, I would cut down from the 1000 list as much „template articles“ as I could. Adding (often with a bot, or even by hand but without much thinking) articles with a large template full of numbers is the weird way how many smaller editions now start. While we know very well that those editions look at this list, we might influence those new Wikipedias with a good advice on writing Wikipedia. Amikeco 06:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion, Esperanto undoubtedly should stay in the list as as the most important representant of constructed languages, in the same way as Latin is there as a representant of important historic languages (although it is spoken by a small number of people today). --Petrus Adamus 17:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Replacing Pig

I think that the en:Pig entry should be replaced. This genus doesn't have much characteristics to distinguish it from the family en:Suidae, so if somebody will try to expand it in order to get it over 30.000 characters, it will invariably mean duplicating content from the Suidae article and probably also from en:Domestic pig as the english article does now. That's why I suggest replacing the en:Pig entry with either en:Suidae (as a more relevant grouping), en:Domestic pig (as the one pig species important enough to be here), or some other animal group alltogether (because we already have a lot of domestic animals in the list). Comments/suggestions? --Yerpo 08:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

the Suidae article is even smaller than the Pig article so that wouldn't be a good change. I think "Domestic Pig" makes sense since the animal is important for being domesticated. And it's match "Domestic Sheep" which is also in the list. --MarsRover 17:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Like I said, en:Pig is larger because it contains information that belongs to either en:Suidae or en:Domestic pig article. Suidae, on the other hand, has a lot of potential for growth because it's a very distinct and well researched group of mammals. en:Domestic pig is an option as well, if you feel that the abundance of domestic animals on the list is not a problem. --Yerpo 07:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok, since nobody objected to this change I went ahead and changed it to "Domestic pig". --MarsRover 06:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
It looked like Yerpo just objected... additionally, you forgot to add it to the list of removed articles above. Almafeta 17:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Yerpo, did you object? If anybody explicitly objects I will revert it back. I agree we do have a lot of domestic animals but IMHO they are more important because of farming, breeding, foodstuff, etc. If we have a domestic animal limit, we should poll which are the most important domestic animals (pick seven?) 1) cattle 2) horse 3) domestic sheep 4) domestic pig 5) chicken 6) cat 7) dog 8) camel. --MarsRover 19:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I didn't explicitly object, I just said that Suidae would be (IMO) a more suitable replacement. But I have nothing againts domestic pigs per se (plus, they're tasty :P). Out of those listed, camel would probably be the least problematic to remove. If we do it, I suggest replacing it with some other biology topic, such as Adenosine triphosphate (=the universal energy source in the living world) or en:Homeostasis (=one of defining characteristics of living beings). --Yerpo 06:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] General vs. specific

In general, there's a lot of math, science, and computer stuff on this list that's jargony and Joe Average has never heard of, but a lot of more common stuff that isn't. General observation Purplebackpack89 18:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

In general, the point of this project is to educate the Joe Average. A lot of common stuff Joe Average uses is inaccurate or has wildly different meanings, hence the confusion about some topics here (for example, see my reply to Guido's recent proposals and the speed/velocity debate). --Yerpo 16:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
This is not a project, this is meta. Guido den Broeder 18:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I was referring to the Wikimedia as a whole. That aside, I thought of another crucial biology topic that could be here instead of one of the domestic animals - en:Sleep. I think this one satistfies Purplebackpack89's observation as well. --Yerpo 08:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
The goal of the foundation is to freely spread knowledge. That is not limited to the Joe Averages of this world. Different projects may have more specific goals, e.g. to educate children. Guido den Broeder 11:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
That's true, but we are talking about a list that concerns Wikipedias in various languages. Perhaps we should open a separate debate if you wish to discuss its underlying concept. --Yerpo 16:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
The various Wikipedia projects may also have different goals. However, none of them limits their target to average readers, AFAIK. Furthermore, this list is about what we meta users think the WP's should have, not what the WP users think. Guido den Broeder 22:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Their goals differ only in them being directed to speakers of different languages. Their basic goal is indeed to be a general reference suitable for general audience - meaning average readers (even if articles may also contain specialized information or be about specialized topics). This applies even more to the list of 1000 basic topics we are creating here. Specialized projects, such as Wikispecies, are separate from Wikipedia. As for your other argument, this list is by no means exclusive to meta users. I, for example, am primarily a (Slovene) Wikipedia editor, and speak from that experience when suggesting or commenting changes to the list. So does probably everybody else. Most Wikipedias have a translated local version of the list (see links at the top of the page), with the link back here. It's true that many people probably don't know about it, but anyone that comes across the link can come here and voice his/her opinion. --Yerpo 09:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Please try and provide evidence of where Wikipediae state to target the 'average reader'. You will not find it. Guido den Broeder 11:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
This is my personal observation, based on references of Wikipedia being a general encyclopedia - such as in en:Wikipedia:Five pillars ("Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers"), and the article en:Wikipedia being included in the en:Category:General encyclopedias. Again, this doesn't mean Wikipedia cannot include specialized information, but it is nevertheless general reference, meaning it should be accessible to general audience. Why else would there be a bunch of articles on English WP tagged as "too technical for most readers to understand" or "too jargony" - see en:Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible? In any case, I don't understand what does this have to do with our list of 1000 basic topics. --Yerpo 12:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
'General and specialized' does not mean 'should at all times be accessible to average readers, might here and there include specialized info where it doesn't bother Yerpo too much', but rather 'general and specialized are both wanted'.
Now, this is not a list of basic topics either, but of key topics. Hence, for instance, Scientific Method would fit better than Science. Guido den Broeder 09:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, this is a list of basic topics. To quote from the intro: "This list is intended as a guideline for those projects so that they will contain a minimum amount of basic, useful information". Even so, science is a more "key" topic than scientific method. Your other insinuations, ignoring all the references I presented, aren't worthy of comment. --Yerpo 11:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Information is not topics, and you conveniently forget about the useful part, etc., etc. But since you won't stay civil, this is the end of this discussion. Guido den Broeder 13:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Hear, hear, look who's talking about civility, mr. doesn't-bother-Yerpo-too-much. You might as well have ended the discussion with your comment from the day before yesterday, at least you wouldn't have to conveniently forget that I wasn't near when the guidelines for accessibility were written on :en. --Yerpo 15:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Judo vs. Wrestling

Currently, judo is on the list; wrestling is not. Judo is essentially a type of wrestling; both sports involve grounding the opponent with various manuveurs. Judo is practiced mostly in Japan and is only a hundred years old, wrestling in its various forms has been practiced for millenia and is done all over the world. So replace judo (the specific) with wrestling (the general) Purplebackpack89

Judo is not a type of wrestling, and is practiced in many countries. The more general topic covering both would be hand-to-hand combat. Guido den Broeder 18:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Also known as martial arts, which is already there. I still believe wrestling (which is universal, from Ancient Greece to small-town Iowa to sumo in Japan) to be a more general and acceptable term than judo, for the reasons above. Purplebackpack89 18:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Judo presents more human knowledge, which happens to be what Wikipedia is about. Guido den Broeder 18:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
In what way does judo "present more human knowledge"? --Yerpo 09:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
In judo, you make use of your opponent's strength. That is an advancement in knowledge, while otoh many animals wrestle. Guido den Broeder 09:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
The use of the term "wrestling" for the animal (such as kangaroo) fighting is very obscure and we can easily ignore it for the purpose of this debate. --Yerpo 16:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I did not mention kangaroos (they kickbox), and in view of your attitude I don't really care what you choose to ignore. It's pretty clear by know that you consider this a role-playing game. I don't, so let's avoid each other from now on, shall we? Guido den Broeder 17:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't consider this a role-playing game either, I consider this a place to express views about ideas. Which I did. If you choose to take it personally, that's your liberty. I can only assure other people reading this that it wasn't meant personally. I meant to say that "wrestling" (as well as kickboxing, now that you mention it) has a meaning specific to human activity in the most common sense of the word (reflected in the english article about it). More precisely, they refer to human activities with rules that are based on reason, not instinct. If you want evidence, do a Google search on "animal wrestling" and see what kind of hits you get. There's also the Merriam-Webster definition, which again fails to mention animal wrestling. You can also check Wikipedia articles in other languages, and you'll see that elsewhere animals aren't mentioned either (at least articles in languages I have a basic grasp of). --Yerpo 07:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

<--OK, let me clarify. When I said "wrestling", I was referring to the human sport that has origins in ancient countries, has been played at the Ancient and Modern Olympic Games, and has variations all over the world, such as sumo wrestling. To add it, I propose removing judo, which is only 200 years old and is not widely practiced outside of Asia, and (on the most basic level) is a type of wrestling, since both involving getting your opponent to stay on the ground. The amount of knowledge used to wrestle is a side point; the main question, posed to both Guido and Yerpo, is, "is wrestling more important on the world stage and therefore more deserving of a 1000 article than Judo?" Purplebackpack89 06:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I support replacing "judo" with "wrestling" for the reasons given. --Yerpo 06:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. The question is not the importance on the world stage, but the knowledge that an article woud provide. By the way, judo is practiced at top level outside Asia, too. Check the world champions and olympic medal winners. Where I live, judo is big, and wrestling is small. America is not the world. Guido den Broeder 10:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I made the same mistake than you when I first heard of the term "wrestling", thinking about that American performance show that masquerades as sport - professional wrestling. Please, read the relevant articles. "Wrestling" is the broadest term, comparable in scope to "martial arts", which is in the list, and broader than "judo" which falls under martial arts. Therefore, it conveys broader (more "key" as you would put it) knowledge. --Yerpo 11:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Sigh. No, I did not make that mistake. Guido den Broeder 11:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, now that I think about it, it seems that it's me who made a mistake about what belongs where. Sorry about that. In that case, I think neither should be in the list, because if we include any of those, we raise an issue of all the other martial arts techniques - kung fu, karate, kendo, boxing, fencing, jujutsu, etc., etc. Who will decide which one's more important than the rest? --Yerpo 11:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
That is a good point, thanks for reconsidering. We currently have Karate and Judo listed. If we are to drop both, we have room for something else. That could, for instance, be Bow and Kata. Or something entirely different, of course. Any thoughts? Guido den Broeder 12:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
One way of doing it would be to put one "eastern" and one "western" martial-arts technique in the list, and try to figure out which two would be the most appropriate (in terms of popularity, knowledge, historical importance, etc.). But I'm afraid I don't know much about these topics, as I demonstrated before. Anybody else? --Yerpo 13:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

<--I agree, with the stipulation that they be general terms for sports that can, and are, played anywhere. Probably wrestling or boxing for the west and karate or taekwando for the east. Just my thoughts. It's worth noting that of those four, wrestling and boxing are ancient and modern Olympic standbys, taekwando has been in the Olympics for a few years now, Judo's been in since '64, and karate isn't in Purplebackpack89 17:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how entering two martial arts examples is 'one way of doing it', 'it' being listing no examples. Anyhow, a west/east division does not really exist. Martial arts spread mostly from port to port, where the air is rich, sailors have few weapons, and the poor can make an income by performing; this happened over long distances as well as short. Guido den Broeder 12:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
With "it" I meant "something else", more precisely, avoiding western bias that this list has been criticized for. At least in common usage, there's a widespread distinction between martial-arts techniques that originated in the far east, and those from the western world. Of course it ignores those that originated in the area between, but as far as I know, those aren't very influential anyway. Of course I might be wrong, and of course listing none is still an option. --Yerpo 12:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Where are the Nordic countries?

After removing Henrik Ibsen and the vikings, there are, as far as I can tell, three articles (Bergman, Amundsen, Linnaeus) in this list about anything from the nordic countries (Finland, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Denmark). Not a single article that says anything significant about nordic history, culture or geography (Except the Baltic Sea and the North Sea, none of which seems to be really all that important from a non-Eurocentric point of view). Also the baltic states seem to be forgotten. Are the nordic countries really so much less important than the rest of Europe?

  • Finland has played a great part in keeping Russia the Soviet Union away from the rest of Europe throughout the 20th century, without this being mentioned much in the history books (or on wikipedia).
  • Finland has a remarkable geography, with all its lakes.
  • The vikings were influential in most of Europe for a few hundred years[1]. Not any less historically important than the article about the Hundred Years' War, the American Civil War, the reformation, the Great Depression, the German nazis or Holocaust (there is already one on WWII). Norse language also had a great influence on the English language.
  • Norway has a remarkable coastline with all its fjords, none of which are mentioned on this list. The long "bodies of water"-section needs at least two or three fjords.
  • Norway is today an economically and politically powerful state, despite being one of the smallest nations in Europe. It is also ranked by the UN to be the worlds best country to live in. Scandinavian citizens are considered to have a higher standard of living than most of the world, including Northern America and the rest of Europe.
  • Norse mythology is as rich as any other kind of religion, and is, together with details from the norse language, even today used and explored by various people, for example musicians and writers.

In the "countries" sections, there are listed several European countries similar to the nordic countries in size and importance: Greece, Austria, Netherlands, Portugal, Ireland, New Zealand... But none of the nordic or baltic countries. It seems to be a random collection of countries.

A couple of proposals:

  • Remove Ireland, Austria, Netherlands and Switzerland. They share most of their history with other european countries that are already listed, and are therefore even less important articles than the nordic countries. Put Finland and some of the Scandinavian and /or baltic states into the countries section.
  • Remove some of the less remarkable /important bodies of water, like the Black Sea, the Baltic Sea, Niger River, North Sea, Danube (only important in an all-European world), Rhine (not even top 100 of worlds longest rivers!). Put in the worlds two biggest fjords. (The Scoresby Sund and the Sognefjord).
  • Put in Greenland, the world's biggest island.
  • Remove Nazi Germany to get room for the vikings. We already have WWII on the list, as well as Germany.

That will be all for now. ;-) --Tannkrem 20:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

  • I wouldn't remove Austria, because it plays an important role in the world's history (WWI, multinational country, big monarchie during the medieval age). I don't really have an opinion to the rest. Barras 21:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Scandinavia is somewhat lacking in the list but not by much. Maybe the en:Vikings can be re-added to the list. Removing en:Baltic Sea seem counterproductive. en:Switzerland is perhaps the weak link that can be removed. Also, I don't think we have any mythology in the list so I wouldn't start. --MarsRover 03:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I would support adding Vikings as well, perhaps instead of the Rhine. Fjords don't seem to me to belong here. I suppose Switzerland or Ireland could be replaced with one of the nordic countries, but not the others mentioned, since they are more important historically. --Yerpo 06:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Vikings instead of Ireland sounds fair (sorry Ireland, I love you, but the Vikings present a tad more key human knowledge). Earlier, I already suggested including the Kalevala. Guido den Broeder 09:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Switzerland should stay. It's a center of international diplomacy. Same with the Netherlands, not to mention they once had a vast colonial and trade empire. Purplebackpack89 06:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
You're right. Guido's version (Vikings instead of Ireland) seems the most reasonable. --Yerpo 06:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Agree, Ireland actaully has a smaller population then Finland, Norway or Denmark and about half of Sweden, and has definitly played a smaller role in history etc then at least Sweden. And the vikings made a difference not only in the Nordic countiries but in the founding of Russia and England, and of interest for the history of many more countries, including Irelnad.Wanpe 09:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
OK, I've removed Ireland and added Vikings under a new header: Civilizations. That may lead to other ideas, I expect. Guido den Broeder 10:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Africa

The Nordic countries are one thing, but what about the entire continent of Africa? Granted, there are not that many widely known themes from Africa to put on Wikipedia; after all, even Ghanaians probably know more about England than they do about say, Cameroon. Still, Africa's near total absence is a bit worrying. One proposal:

Replace en:Thirty Years' War with en:Mali Empire. The Protestant Reformation is already listed, which was an event intimately connected to the Thirty Years' War. This is the famed empire of Timbuktu, also not listed.
en:Griots, en:soukous, and en:Chinua Achebe are also topics of interest.
However, especially en:Fela Kuti and en:Voodou are good candidates. In the case of the latter, most Wikipedias (e.g., French, Spanish, German, Arabic) merge the en:Vodun of Africa and en:Voodou of Haiti into one article.
The Mali empire is a schrödenentry; it keeps appearing and disappearing in the list. Almafeta 14:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I support replacing Thirty Years' War (or something else) with Mali Empire. The empire had a major influence on the development of science, for one (the current en: article doesn't quite reflect that). Guido den Broeder 14:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
If we had to remove one, I'd suggest removing Backgammon. Almafeta 16:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Africa is covered fairly well compared to Nordic countries. I don't believe there is a "near total absence" when there are at least 28 articles:
  1. Umm Kulthum
  2. Ibn Battuta
  3. Mandela, Nelson
  4. Nkrumah, Kwame
  5. African Union
  6. Aswan Dam
  7. Giza pyramid complex
  8. Apartheid
  9. Africa
  10. Democratic Republic of the Congo
  11. Egypt
  12. Ethiopia
  13. Nigeria
  14. South Africa
  15. Sudan
  16. Tanzania
  17. Cairo
  18. Cape Town
  19. Kinshasa
  20. Lagos
  21. Nairobi
  22. Congo River
  23. Lake Tanganyika
  24. Lake Victoria
  25. Niger River
  26. Nile
  27. Mount Kilimanjaro
  28. Sahara
That said, I think there is a lack of articles about African empires so I agree with including "Mali Empire". --MarsRover 05:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_articles_every_Wikipedia_should_have"