Talk:List of articles every Wikipedia should have/Expanded

Actually doing this

It was mentioned a while ago that we should cut the cruft and then add more to get this to 10,000. I may actually do some work on that, inf anyone cares Purplebackpack89 04:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Purplebackpack89's changes

I have added many articles to this, and cleaned up some sections

Biographies--Political Leaders

The political leaders section had some leaders who were current when the list was started, such as Tony Blair and George W. Bush, that are not current. I removed them, and created a sub-section for current political leaders, as many Wikipedias have a section or provision for such. The way I worded it allows for 12 current political leaders:

1.-8.: The heads of government of the G8 nations (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, U.K., U.S.)
9. The leader of China
10. The leader of India
11. The U.N. Secretary General
12. The Pope

Obviously, when the heads of government change (as just happened in the U.K. and Japan), the people on the list will change

Mountains

For starters, the mountain range section wasn't numbered correctly...there were some lines that had two entries instead of one (actually, there are a lot of places where this occurs; this project is slop city). That yields two mountain ranges. I also tried to resolve the bias towards American and European mountains that are talked about in (American and European) literature and history, and against taller mountains in other places. I replaced Pikes Peak with Mount Whitney, which is much taller. I added the four of the Seven Summits that weren't already there (Aconcagua, Elbrus, Kosciusko and Vinson). And I added the very tall also-rans K2 and Mount Logan.

Cities

I extended the cities list from 60 to 100, adding some of the cities that were on the 1,000 list but didn't make it here; and many other cities besides. I tried to ameliorate the Western (Europe) bias; the only European cities I added that weren't on the 1000 were Dublin, Geneva and Prague. The only cities that were on this list that I axed were Vatican City (already in the countries list below); Monte Carlo (replaced with Nice) and Las Vegas (replaced with Honolulu). Here's some statistical breakdowns on the list of 100:

• U.S.:7 (one non-Contintal)
• Rest of North America: 5
• South America: 6
• Europe: 29
• Africa: 12
• Middle East (inc. 'Stans): 11
• South and East Asia (inc. Indonesia, Phillippines): 27
• Oceania: 3

Comparare with the % each continent has of the world's population

• North America (inc. all of the United States): 8.7 (slight overrepresentation)
• South America: 5.8 (wash)
• Europe: 10.8 (very overrepresentated)
• Africa: 14.2 (slight underrepresentation)
• Asia (inc. Middle East): 60.4 (very underrepresented)
• Oceania: 0.5 (very overrepresentated; but small sample size)

Half of the cities are in countries that have multiple cities on the list; the following countries have more than one city on the list of 100 (subscript number is rank in world population)

• United States-7 (Chicago, Honolulu, Houston, Los Angeles, New York, Philadelphia, Washington) ₃
• China-5 (Beijing, Chongqing, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Wuhan) ₁
• India-5 (Bangalore, Calcutta, Hyderabad, Mumbai, New Delhi) ₂
• Germany-3 (Berlin, Frankfurt, Munich) ₁₄
• Italy-3 (Florence, Rome, Venice) ₂₃
• Japan-3 (Kyoto, Osaka, Tokyo) ₁₀
• Australia-2 (Melbourne, Sydney) ₅₁
• Brazil-2 (Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paolo) ₅
• France-2 (Nice, Paris) ₂₀
• Indonesia-2 (Jakarta, Surabaya) ₄
• Mexico-2 (Guadalajara, Mexico City) ₁₁
• Pakistan-2 (Islamabad, Karachi) ₆
• Russia-2 (Moscow, St. Petersburg) ₉
• Saudi Arabia-2 (Mecca, Riyadh) ₄₆
• South Africa-2 (Cape Town, Johannesburg) ₂₆
• Spain-2 (Barcelona, Madrid) ₂₇
• United Kingdom-2 (Edinburgh, London) ₂₂
• Vietnam-2 (Hanoi, Ho Chi Minh City) ₁₃

The following 42 non-capital cities were included on the list (italic indicates former capital)

Abidjan, Almaty, Auckland, Bangalore, Barcelona, Casablanca, Calcutta, Chicago, Chongqing, Dubai, Edinburgh, Florence, Frankfurt, Geneva, Guadalajara, Ho Chi Minh City, Hong Kong, Honolulu, Houston, Hyderabad, Istanbul, Johannesburg, Karachi, Kyoto, Lagos, Los Angeles, Mecca, Melbourne, Mumbai, Munich, New York City, Nice, Osaka, Philadelphia, Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paolo, Surabaya, Sydney, Toronto, Venice, Wuhan

Purplebackpack89 17:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that the list of the 10 000 articles should include approximately 300 cities. What do you think about my variant (en:Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Geography)? Also, I think we should have a list of 3,000 articles, which should include approximately 100 cities. --Igrek 06:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

To Igrek: Interesting list, but it needs a little work on Asia outside of China and India (I may help you a little with that). The strength is that it is representative of countries by population; perhaps the weakness is it's representative of most countries' populations, leading to many obscure cities making the list. This population constraint may have led to there being no Swiss city on the list (You could axe Vatican to get it on; the latter is already listed under countries and the former is adjacent to Nice). You might want to deviate a little from your population in the case of Oceania, so you can have a city from a country other than Australia on the list. Purplebackpack89 22:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Errors in list

Here's some problems with this list:

Multiple entries:

• Dup found: Igor Stravinsky == Igor Stravinsky
• Dup found: Aristophanes == Aristophenes
• Dup found: Li Bai == Li Bai
• Dup found: Jean-Paul Sartre == Jean-Paul Sartre
• Dup found: Murasaki Shikibu == Murasaki Shikibu
• Dup found: Du Fu == Tu Fu
• Dup found: Laotse == Laozi
• Dup found: Maimonides == Maimonides
• Dup found: Martin Luther == Martin Luther
• Dup found: Ho Chi Min == Ho Chi Minh
• Dup found: Galileo Galilei == Galileo Galilei
• Dup found: Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz == Gottfried Leibniz
• Dup found: Jim Lehrer == Jim Lehrer
• Dup found: Hercules == Hercules
• Dup found: Odysseus == Odysseus
• Dup found: History of the European Union == History of the European Union
• Dup found: History of the United States == History of the United States
• Dup found: Hong Kong == Hong Kong
• Dup found: Singapore == Singapore
• Dup found: Poetry == Poetry
• Dup found: Shiva == Shiva
• Dup found: Vishnu == Vishnu
• Dup found: Experience == Experience
• Dup found: Cardiologist == Cardiology
• Dup found: Radiologist == Radiology
• Dup found: Radiologist == Radiology
• Dup found: Physician == Physician
• Dup found: Influenza == Flu
• Dup found: Dove == Pigeon
• Dup found: Cod == Codfish
• Dup found: Tunafish == Tuna
• Dup found: Apatosaurus == Brontosaurus
• Dup found: Brahman == Brahman
• Dup found: Guernsey == Guernsey
• Dup found: Pecan == Pecan tree
• Dup found: Alcohol == Alcohol
• Dup found: Electrocardiogram == Electrocardiogram
• Dup found: Magnetic resonance imaging == Magnetic resonance imaging
• Dup found: Gasoline == Gasoline
• Dup found: Panama Canal == Panama Canal
• Dup found: Suez Canal == Suez Canal
• Dup found: Artillery == Artillery
• Dup found: Submarine == Submarine
• Dup found: Integral calculus == Integral

--MarsRover 07:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I took the liberty of changing this to a bulleted list so I could strikethrough the ones I fixed. You might want to help me with some of the “double features”: lines that have two entries but should only have one. P.S.: are you getting a feeling that this list was based off of some guy’s personal preferences? I do, and I’ve been trying to clean them up Purplebackpack89 19:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I did fix one, but many others were already fixed but it wasnt marked in the list. I marked the ones i fixed or checked. I only found artillery and fixed it, almost all the others were already fixed. So its more about checking the rest than about doing any fixes.

• All are fixed.--Abiyoyo 17:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Idea for more cities

Instead of just largest cities in present time... how about largest cities in the past? Ex. In 100AD Luoyang was the 2nd largest city in the world. In 1500AD Vijayanagar was the 2nd largest city in the world. [1] --MarsRover 09:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

List of Wikipedias by sample of article (Expanded) for July 2010

I calculated the Expanded Score for the July 29, 2010 version of the list. Its interesting to see which articles are popular (and which aren't). Also, which articles are missing from popular wikis --MarsRover 06:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

So?

Hallo,

What can we do with this list or it is only for reading? As far as I understand we have here a list with 3751 articles and it should be expanded to 10 000. So, can we make some suggestions or can we directly add some new articles in the list? Can we also suggest some removal or can we directly remove articles? Is this a private list?--MrPanyGoff 12:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

So far this list is just for reading and as suggestions to other wikis. For now directly adding articles makes sense since we are below our limit of 10,000. I think you can remove articles too but you need to include a reason why in the comment. No, this list isn't "private". Feel free to edit it. -MarsRover 16:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Cities

I added 30 more cities, all of them are capitals. The list reached 130 articles. I think that, at least 80% of the capital cities should be added first (about 195). In my view the list with 10 000 most significant articles should include approximately 400 cities.--MrPanyGoff 18:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I extended the list with 20 more cities. Only one of my addition is not a capital - Glasgow.--MrPanyGoff 21:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, the list reached 200 cities. This time 4 capital cities out of 50 names added.--MrPanyGoff 00:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to make some updates to your list. It privileges capital cites and smaller European cities at the expense of much larger and important cities Purplebackpack89 21:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Musical groups

So far the musical groups are listed in the section People/Composers and musicians. This is a little bit confused. I think that they should be in some separated list in section Arts/Music/Musical groups. The articles about the musical bands are something different from the articles about musicians and they belong to the art section in the way the whole list is constructed. So in the part of the composers and musicians, only the most important individuals from the musical groups can be listed. What do you think about it?--MrPanyGoff 19:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Architecture/Specific structures and ensembles

I extended the list with „specific structures and ensembles“ in section Arts/Architecture. So far it contains 63 articles. In my view the list should reach 100 names, maybe 150.

Here's some statistics on the list of 63:

By regions

• Europe - 37
• Asia - 11
• North America (USA, Canada) - 5
• Africa - 4
• Latin America - 3
• Middle East - 2
• Australia & Oceania - 1

By period (generalized)

• ancient (before 1000) - 9
• old (1000-1899) - 41
• modern (1900-2010) - 13

Please, suggest some more significant buildings or architectural ensembles so that we can form the number 100 list.

--MrPanyGoff 22:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

As with the cities list, remember to keep a global perspective. 37 structures out of 100 or 150 is a little too many for Europe; Asia needs at least 35-40, and Africa at least 15 Purplebackpack89 22:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

As with the cities list, I never forget the global perspective though, in my view, some tendency toward proportional equalization that I see here is not a good idea. We are going to clarify the number of articles about Africa or whichever region is named. Instead of numbers, I would like to ask you to give some concrete names we to discuss. So, can you suggest just one more structure or ensemble in Africa? If yes give it. Anyway, I think that 15 for Africa and 30-40 for Asia (+ Middle East) is normal. Initially, this was the general idea of numbers.

Furthermore about the proportional equalization, I wonder what is going to happen when we start extending the painters' list. You know, this so small and "insignificant" Holland compared to huge Nigeria for instance... With no doubt 30 Nigerian artists to 1 painter from the Netherlands will be some good proportion, don't you think;)? --MrPanyGoff 12:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I added 9 more articles. All of them are about buildings in Asia and Africa. Now the list contains 72 names. --MrPanyGoff 14:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The list reached 90 articles. Statistic so far:

By regions

• Europe - 39
• Asia - 23 (8 in the Middle East)
• Africa - 11
• North America (USA, Canada) - 10
• Latin America - 6
• Australia & Oceania - 1

We need 10 more articles to reach the round number of 100. Still awaiting suggestions of buildings and ensembles mostly in Latin America, Asia and Africa.

--MrPanyGoff 21:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I added 4 Chinese sites. However, I guess China is still under-represented in this list. I will add more if you guys think it appropriate.

Split

I think this list should be split.Quangbao 06:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Corresponding list

There seems to be more work done on this list, and this one is slightly moribund, but is at over 5000. This set of projects is going to be very hard to handle, esp. with two divergent lists. i have no ideas how to make this all work better, but i will make sure the two lists are linked at some point in their ledes. I have been enjoying adding names to the one i have linked to, but may be the only one working on it.(Mercurywoodrose, not logged in)99.31.212.33 00:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be two separate lists. They will have much in common and it will make sense to compare them every now and then, but vital articles is for the EN-wikipedia only, stuff that might be vital for this language may not be that important globally and across different languages. The List of Articles every wikipedia should have is different, it should be as global as possible, and as soon as its done im sure it will be used to do comparisons between different wikipedias, to see how developed they are. Different languages might have different lists of vital articles, but all language versions redirect to the same list of articles each wiki should have. [2] directs some international attention here, and once this expanded 10000 list is done that will be its purpose as well. 79.230.23.254 02:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I think i agree with you, and i think this is why there are 2 lists. thanks for the clarification.Mercurywoodrose 02:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Music addition ideas

Musicians:

• Hector Berlioz - French composer
• Arnold Schoenberg - Austrian composer
• Béla Bartók - Hungarian composer
• Dmitri Shostakovich - Russian composer

Theatre:

• Peking opera - chinese theatre
• Kabuki - japanese theatre
• Wayang - indonesian shadow puppets

Music periods:

• Romantic music - Western music from 1828 (death of Schubert) to 1911 (death of Mahler)
• 20th-century classical music - Western music from 1912 (It's a Long Way to Tipperary, Memphis Blues, Pierrot Lunaire, Prokofiev's 1st & 2nd piano concertos, When Irish Eyes Are Smiling) to the present

-MarsRover 16:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Do it Purplebackpack89 06:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I already did it .. he he. The discussion page is a little too slow. I figure once we hit 10000 articles we can start debating. --MarsRover 06:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Criteria for list

We should discuss first before big deletes like this so editors do not get frustrated. How does someone tell when a someone is too minor? The main criteria for the list is "10x the details of the core list" so if this other list had 3 WW2 leaders this list would have 30 leaders, right? --MarsRover 16:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

There are still gaps so huge that the rule doesnt really hold. While the 1000-article-list doesnt have any website or web 2.0 company, i just added: # Website, Facebook, Twitter, Google, Youtube, Wikipedia, Ebay, Amazon. Maybe a few of these should go into the 1000-article-list? I mean, a significant percentage of people on the planet are affected by these things.

Just let the list grow to 10.000, and then people will continue to have ideas, just like i found some really significant stuff thats missing, and then decide to kick out something else. As soon as it hits the limit, people will start looking for the most insignificant topics and make arguments why they are insignificant, or at least less significant than the substitute. Also, there can be diminishing returns which affect different topics differently. Once you got all professionals in sports that are or have been real global household names and covered the most popular kinds of sports, additions get more and more obscure. These diminishing returns are weaker when adding more chemical elements, or more individual countries, because all of them are arguably more important than the 182th sports professional you add. Are there any non-minor people in sports when you already have 181 of them? While we have only 10 living heads of state in the list?

Of course big deletes need to be discussed, any deletion on the list should have some argument backing it up! Also, lets first get to 10000 before starting deletions. And then we can discuss swaps, i agree that judging if something is significant enough or not is difficult, it gets much easier when you compare two things. 79.230.23.254 02:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I forgot, final note: When you see a removal that is not in any way discussed here, why not just undo it immediately and invite the person that edited to a discussion here? Maybe deletions shouldnt happen at all before this reaches 10000, unless its really junk, but then you should be able to explain why you think its junk. and maybe add something else instead. 79.230.23.254 02:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Added 15 corporations

Hey, I thought there needed to be individual corporations on this list, so I added 15 of them in a variety of areas. All are multinational, those in italics are HQed outside the US:

• Oil-4 (Chevron, ExxonMobil, Petrobras, Royal Dutch Shell)
• Computers-3 (Apple, IBM, Microsoft)
• Banking-2 (Banks of America and China)
• Food-2 (McDonald's, Nestle)
• Phones-1 (AT&T)
• Heavy Industrial/Media-1 (General Electric)
• Personal Care-1 (Procter and Gamble)
• Retail-1 (Walmart)

Is 15 too many? Not enough? Are there some companies you'd like to see removed? Added? Purplebackpack89 05:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Sports/rec

Hey, I just finishing globalizing and adding to sports and recreation articles.

• Sports and rec articles on the 1000 Meta: 6 rec, 14 sports
• Sports and rec articles on this one: 22 rec, 128 sports

The sports section is almost full, as it contains almost 10x the number of entries the 1000 one does. It now has the general topics of Sport and Ball, 46 different sports disciplines, and subdisciplines and terms relating to those sports (for example, Marathon is a subdiscipline of Track and Field, Wushu is a subset of Martial arts). The list is now globalized, and contains sports popular in every corner of the globe. Almost all Olympic sports are on there, as are several former Olympic Sports, World Games sports, or sports that have wide international followings.

There is still room in recreation. The main thing I did there was expand the list of games to 15, which includes cards, dice, jacks, and marbles; the traditional games of Backgammon, Chess, Draughts/Checkers, Go, and Mancala; video games; plus the concept of board game and four specific ones representative : Pachisi (a traditional Indian game that's the basis for "cross and circle pursuit games like Ludo, Sorry, Trouble, and Aggrevation), Monopoly (world's best-selling game, and the only game with money on the list), Scrabble (word game) and Cluedo (detective/strategy/hidden card game). I think there's room for several more abstract topics relating to recreation, plus perhaps a couple of specific card or video games, and maybe add Tic-tac-toe and/or a trivia game like en:Trivial Pursuit. And maybe also add crossword and suduko to the list.

Any objections to what I have done? Any suggestions? Purplebackpack89 20:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Split this list

I suggest splitting this list into subpages, as made in en-wiki. The list is huge, and it is very inconvenient to edit such a big page. Any objections?--Abiyoyo 12:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• I've moved.--Abiyoyo 17:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
• Do it. It's a pain in the neck to edit if you don't Purplebackpack89 21:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Chabges to the list

I've made some changes to the list:

• formatting, optimising structure
• adding number of articles to section headers
• expanded some topics, that are not culturally-dependent, basing on en-wiki.

--Abiyoyo 17:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Synchronizing lists

The en-wiki and meta list may differ. That can be true for culture, sports, and all the other topics, that can be somehow biased towards english-language culture in en-wiki. On the other hand, the 90% of the lists content are and have to be the same. For now english list is better - it has much more elaborated structure and more articles in it. Although there are a few topics, in which the meta list is better. Now, before both lists are complete, it is reasonable to synchronize them in order both lists to have as much proper items, as possible. After the lists are complete, they should develop independently. But now, in the preliminary stage, they have to be synchronized. Several steps should be implemented:

1. Find duplicates in english list and correct them.
2. Optimize structure of both lists to be as much in common, as possible.
3. Find all the articles in meta list, that are not on en-wiki list, and add them into english list.
4. Copy the english list into meta (with some technical changes).
5. Delete the items in the meta-list, that are obviously english-culture biased (e.g. lots of american magazines).

It is possible, that such synchroniztion should be made several times before the lists are complete.--Abiyoyo 15:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

This sounds okay with me as long as we don't lose any of the current 'meta' articles. Hopefully just a cleaned-up superset would be nice. --MarsRover 17:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• Neutral to weak oppose current proposal, but support some of general concepts: I applaud your efforts both here and there, Abi. However, I think the 90% threshold may be too high. 60-70%, sure. 80%, maybe. The problem is that Meta and EN's missions are different enough from Meta that the lists shouldn't be a carbon copy. I also feel both lists need a stragetic cleanup. There are things in the Meta list that belong on the EN list. There are things on EN that belong on the Meta list. And I'm afraid, despite our efforts, there may be some cruft on one or more lists that doesn't belong on any list. I think both lists need a long, strategic look at what they've got, and what they need (perhaps considering what is on other languages' Vital lists). Could the two discussions be done together? Probably. Will it take awhile? Yes Purplebackpack89 21:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, that the lists finally have to be different. Moreover, I am personally much more interested in meta list, not english one. But the fact is that the EN list draws much more attention and user efforts. Generally it would be good to just wait while both lists grow independently. But the reality is that thr EN list grows much faster and this list is neglected. What I propose is not to wait, but to take english list as a point to start from (without loosing articles from meta list of course). Finally, we'll have different lists, but what for to double the preliminary work of gathering the main content? E.g. geography section in EN list is much more better. Why to wait while someone will do the same job here on meta, if it is already made in en-wiki and will need only some fine-tuning of balance?--Abiyoyo 22:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't intend to wait. We can start the work when this thread closes, even sooner. On the other hand, I want it done properly; perhaps assess each section one by one thoughtfully. I don't think we should blindly dump all EN articles here (as I stated above, the EN list is longer, yes, but it also may contain things not even needed on it, let alone here); I think we should consider what we need, and perhaps consider things Wikipedias other than English have. French has a well-thought-out vital list, for example. Purplebackpack89 22:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, we can discuss each section. BTW, woul you please give a link to a french list?--Abiyoyo 23:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

1. People. Lists are really different. Both are rather biased towards US citizens.
2. History. English is much better and quite unbiased.
3. Geography. English is much better and quite unbiased.
4. Arts. English is bigger, but less to moderate biased towards english-language music and literature.
5. Religion & philosophy. Allmost the same.
6. Everyday life. Really differ in sports, where meta list is better.
7. Sociey. Allmost the same.
8. Biology. Allmost the same.
9. Physical sciences. English is much better. This topic can not be really culturally biased.
10. Technology. Some parts are better in EN, some here.
11. Maths. Allmost the same.
12. Measurement. Allmost the same.

And I absolutely agree that both lists contain lots of junk and are far from being finished.--Abiyoyo 23:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• French list
• Spanish list
• German list
• Japanese list, which can also be found written in Roman/English characters

FYI, these are 1000 lists, not 10000 lists, but I still feel much can be learned from their approaches Purplebackpack89 00:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Quotas for this list

• I think, what we really need is quotas. It would be rather dufficult to compare notability of an actor vs. a concept in mathematics. If we have quotas, people should compare notability within a topic, not a whole list.--Abiyoyo 14:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The easiest way to create the quotas is look at the 1000 list and use the same proportions of each topic. --MarsRover 17:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking about. For the main topics the quotas should be counted as 1:10. But for the subtopics, the proportion should be 1:9 or 1:9.5, not 1:10, because there are some branches of knowledge, that were not notable enough for 1000 list, but are notable for this list. It's quite reasonable to give them 5-10 percent of this expanded list (e.g. anthropology). There's also a problem, that the structures of the lists are not the same, so some complicated calculations should be made.--Abiyoyo 23:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Or maybe the structure of the expanded list should be changed to comply with 1000 list?--Abiyoyo 23:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd go even higher than 5-10%...I'd maybe even go as high as 15-20%. For example, this list adds simple things like chair and toothpaste that aren't well covered in 1000 topics. I also think we may have to do it section by section. But I support the general, rough idea of quotas Purplebackpack89 02:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• I have made a preliminary table of quotas based on 1000 list. See Table. The method was the following:
  • For every section in the expanded list a correponding section in 1000 list was found
  • The 'coefficient of growth' was calculated based on decimal logarithmic function. I.e. 1 article in 1000 list 'grows' to 7 articles in the expanded list; 10 articles grow to 80; 100 grows to 900; 1,000 grows to 10,000.
  • The number of articles in 1000 list were multiplied by the found coefficient, making a rough preliminary quota suggestion.
  • The 'corrected quota ' column is reserved for quota correction, as mechanical multiplication gives sometimes strange result. It have to be corrected manually after discussion.

This is only a first step towards quota evaluation. They are rather unballanced. Now I suggest correcting the quotas in order to make the list ballanced.--Abiyoyo 12:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Quotas/Big Talk Part 1: People

The Meta 1000 list (which the German and Japanese Wikipedia borrow) has 204. The English Vital articles list has 123. The Spanish vital articles list has 270. The French and Chinese lists have 216 each. The English 10,000 has 2,143, but many of them are to non-notable and/or Americo-centric for this list. I think the proper amount for this list is a nice, round, 2,000; distributed in the way I suggest (actually, only 1,900 are distributed; there's 100 left over).

I am going to make a table with the various numbers each 1,000 list has; the number our 10,000 list currently has, and the number it should have (current total: 1620+25+10+20+50=1725+15+10+25+5+25+50+5=1860)

Topic	Meta 1,000	En lv. 3 VA	Fr 1000	Es 1000	En 10,000	Current	Suggested
Actors/Actresses	4	0	4	0	221 (inc Perf)	115	100
Artist/Architects	18	11	17	1	86	77	150
Authors/Poets	31	16	31	77 (inc Phil)	190	101	225
Composers/Musicians	21	11	22	12	194	125	150
Directors/Producers	9	0	11	0	57	67	60
Entrepreneurs	0	0	NA	3	35	22	35
Explorers	12	8	11	22	30	26	100
Performing artists	0	0	0	0	w/Act	39	35
Phil/Hist/PolySci/SocSci	26	15	24	w/Auth	96	92	200
Philosophers (part of above)	*	*	15	*	41	38	??
Historians (part of above)	*	*	*	*	10	10	??
Social scientists (part of above)	*	*	9	*	16	15	??
Psychologists (part of above)	*	*	*	*	29	29	??
Religious figures	10	11	৳	৳	124	37	125
Political/military leaders	39	22	46	104	449	98	300
Current political leaders (part of above)	*	*	8	21	*	12	??
Revolutionaries and activists	W/Pol	W/Pol	1	7	35	18	25
Sci/Invent/Math	34	30	22	22	189	198	225
Journalists	W/Auth	W/Auth	W/Auth	w/Auth	35	42	30
Sports figures	0	0	0	18	262	180	110
Myth/Legend	0	0	0	0	90	29	15
Fictional/cartoon	0	0	0	0	w/Myth	19	15

Right now, my total adds up to 1,900; you can allocate the remaining 100 (or haggle over the first 1,900) any way you wish. Note that most areas will add people; but a few will cut people (especially in the fictional characters realm). Remember, you still have 100 to play around with! Purplebackpack89 19:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• 2000 sounds OK. I would cut explorers (100 is to much for a rather narrow topic) to ≈30, actors to ≈50 (giving actors half of the ammount reserved for scientists is too populistic imho), sportsmen also to ≈50 for the same reason. Increase scientists to 300 and social scientists/philo to 350. In humanities personal is much more important, than in physical science. That will leave us 55 articles more - they can be distributed elsewhere.--Abiyoyo 20:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I notice you cut actors, but not other performers? Maybe actors to 60 (+10) and performers down to 25 (-10). Also, you wanna start making suggestions on who to cut? Purplebackpack89 00:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree on actors/performers numbers. Though i'm not ready to make any specific suggestions on which actors should be removed - i don't think i'm capable enough to do this.--Abiyoyo 11:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Actors

We seem to be deciding to cut actors to 60. I think the list should include 25 or so Americans, and the rest from around the world. Abiyoyo, the other person on this revamp, above says he's not qualified to make it to 60. Maybe I could get him to find lists of important foreign actors, and then maybe we can figure out what actors belong. I think the list will need several Bollywood actor/actress, several English actor/actress, several French actor/actress, and at least one actor/actress each from Eastern Europe, Japan and China Purplebackpack89 15:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Mass media - newspapers

The page currently suggests that every Wikipedia should have The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal. Two other named newspapers appear: The (London) Times and Le Monde (France). Three US newspapers as 'must-haves' seems overkill to me, albeit I'm sure it would be painful to choose just one. I wonder whether any named newspapers need be there, really. I confess I would be sad to see The Times go but then I'm born and raised in the UK, so I would, wouldn't I? --Bodnotbod 15:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

We've got the space, so why don't we delete the Washington Post and add six non-American, non-French and non-British rags for a total of ten? Purplebackpack89 02:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the Washington Post, isn't in the same level as the NYT or WSJ. With the four remaining Der Spiegel is the only other paper I think of as a major paper of record on an international level (though we might include the Times of India for example simply for its effect on its internal market). We should also have an article for "Wire service," though I'm not certain that that three main ones each merit their own article. And I think we should include The Economist; it's not a national newspaper of record, but it's pervasive and influential to a degree I'm not certain is true even of the WSJ.

As things stand in the proposal, we have a proposed quota of 40 mass media articles, and I think we can afford to nominate a few more individual publications or companies, including non-newspapers. Going beyond strictly print, I think we absolutely need to have Al-Jazeera, Xinhua, and the BBC. I will also nominate National Geographic, which is ubiquitous everywhere I've traveled, far more so than any other periodical I've seen, save possibly The Economist. --Quintucket 07:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Back to basics: a newspaper needs to be longstanding for it to be notable over all our wikis. Here the Times is unsurpassed (founded in 1785) and even the Washington Post is impressive (1875). Le Figaro, founded 1826, is an obvious candidate. One reason for having several U.S. newspapers is the general nature of their press as having no national newspapers. I have to say the Wall Street Journal does not leap to mind as one of three US newspapers; I would have thought San Francisco Chronicle (founded 1865 under a different name). Germany is a problem, because all their present-day leading newspapers were founded 1945 or later. This is understandable, of course, but means they do not have such a desirable historical scope. It's not enough, really, for a newspaper to have millions of readers if its historical influence is negligible. Top newspapers have influenced events, sometimes in a major way. How about Pravda? Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

What about more scientific journals such as Nature? newspapers are around now for 300-400 years? 60 years (and still ongoing seems to me as it could be relevant) So i wouldn't want to say that all the papers should be at least 100 years old or something, it should just be the most influential ones over time, with a currently still running one having a higher chance to achieve that same level in the future. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 16:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Physics and chemistry

I see that physics is below the adjusted quota. Some possible additions are: en:laser, en:free-electron laser, en:synchrotron, en:synchrotron radiation.

Analytical chemistry is missing techniques that are more popular than en:Absorption spectroscopy. For example, en:Gas chromatography–mass spectrometry. --Racepacket on Simple English 4 January 2012.

Sport personnel

This is a thoroughly unsatisfactory section at present. It is overwhelmingly biased towards sports popular in the United States, and biased also in favour of players from the later 20th century. Some very significant sports are absent, or almost so. Cricket? Soccer (Association football)? Rugby? Snooker?... The coverage of golf and tennis, on the other hand is overdone; has too many recent champions, and leaves out some who were crucial to the early development of the sport. I'm going to stick some names in! Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC)