Talk:List of articles every Wikipedia should have

Archives

---

• 2004
• 2005
• 2006
• 2007
• 2008
• 2009
• 2010
• 2011
• 2012
• 2013
• 2014
• 2015
• 2016
• 2017
• 2018
• 2019
• 2020
• 2021
• 2022
• 2023
• 2024
• Topic index

Please add new topics to the bottom of this page

---

Guidelines being agreed upon:

1. A change of the list needs more support than opposition
2. Proposals should be provided with a reason
3. a change needs at least 5 supporters on the discussion page
4. swapping like for like (category switch only with reason)
5. single swaps (no mass changes)

Notable women missed, see HPI by Pantheon.World

Dear wikimedians, out of +200 people the only women we list are: (please correct me if I something missed) Beauvoir, Simone de; Elizabeth I; Joan of Arc; Frida Kahlo; Kulthum, Umm; Dietrich, Marlene; Monroe, Marilyn; Austen, Jane. So we list just 8 women among 200 all biographies. This inspired me to show for you th top 30 the most memorable according to HPI which was made by pantheon.world. Some which we list (for example Dietrich is not among top 30 most memorable by HPI because of this alghoritm is quite conservative against recenrism), if we have so few women in comprasion to men, then I beleve some of them or many of them (depend what quota for biographies we would choose) could be candidate for the list.

https://pantheon.world/explore/rankings?show=people&years=-3501,2023&gender=F

1. en:Mary, mother of Jesus - 91.17 HPI index as of 2022
2. en:Marie Curie - 90.71 HPI as of 2022
3. en:Elizabeth II - 90.46 HPI as of 2022
4. en:Cleopatra - 89.95 HPI as of 2022
5. en:Joan of Arc - 89.59 HPI as of 2022
6. en:Elizabeth I of England - 87.64 HPI as of 2022
7. en:Frida Kahlo - 86.54 HPI as of 2022
8. en:Hurrem Sultan - 85.98 HPI as of 2022
9. en:Queen Victoria - 85.80 HPI as of 2022
10. en:Nefertiti - 85.45 HPI as of 2022
11. en:Marie Antoinette - 85.12 HPI as of 2022
12. en:Marilyn Monroe - 85.04 HPI as of 2022
13. en:Grace Kelly - 84.60 HPI as of 2022
14. en:Maria Theresa - 84.31 HPI as of 2022
15. en:Angela Merkel - 83.94 HPI as of 2022
16. en:Agatha Christie - 83.91 HPI as of 2022
17. en:Catherine the Great - 83.49 HPI as of 2022
18. en:Anne Frank - 83.42 HPI as of 2022
19. en:Empress Elisabeth of Austria 83.26 HPI as of 2022
20. en:Margaret Thatcher 83.20 HPI as of 2022
21. en:Mary I of England 82.97 HPI as of 2022
22. en:Hillary Clinton 82.95 HPI as of 2022
23. en:Florence Nightingale 82.36 HPI as of 2022
24. en:Kösem Sultan 82.27 HPI as of 2022
25. en:Coco Chanel 82.18 HPI as of 2022
26. en:Hypatia 81.91 HPI as of 2022
27. en:Anne Boleyn 81.86 HPI as of 2022
28. en:Édith Piaf 81.76 HPI as of 2022
29. en:Saint Barbara 81.68 HPI as of 2022
30. en:Aretha Franklin 81.57 HPI as of 2022

Apart from the top 30, there is one woman which could be interesing candidate but s not listed: Sun Tzu. The "most memorable according to HPI" woman from east worl is ranked here as 46-th with 80.47 HPI index, it is weak i comprasion to west women but very strong resjult if we for example take into account that Wikipedia is blocked in China and Chinese Wu Zeiten (which according to some sources [1] is wealthiest woman ever) is ranked 121-th.

How many women we could have? I believe we could have at least 15. According to PAntheon.World the most notable missed woman is Mary, Mother of Jesus as you clearly see.

I had also o my mind to create list of listed men with weakest HPI but will try start analyse it bit later when I receive bit more time. Best and warmest regards Dawid2009 (talk) 05:49, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Sun Tzu is male. When using data, please consider carefully whether the data is reliable.--Opqr (talk) 23:30, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Of these 30, Nightingale is the only new person we need to add to the list. However, Nightingale is neither a scientist nor a politician, so I don't know where to put her on the list.--Opqr (talk) 23:49, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

We also already have en:Rosa Luxemburg and en:Marie Curie. I see in the list several figures of a comparable scale to those already in the list, but they are objectively few. Most of the female political figures are known thanks to their association with even more famous men (Nefertiti, Anne Boleyn, Roxelana, Marie Antoinette, Empress Sisi, Grace Kelly, Hillary Clinton) or are rather ordinary politicians whose gender is their only difference from literally hundreds of others (Merkel, Elizabeth II, Mary Tudor). We also don't have ordinary saints in the list (note that there are no apostles or evangelists, neither Solomon or David), so there is no need to include Mary or St. Barbara. Hypatia is most known by her violent death, as opposed to the scientists on the current list who are included due to their important contributions to the sciences. So maybe we can talk Margaret Thatcher - but note that neither Reagan nor Gorbachev made the cut, and she isn't more prominent than them. Maybe we can talk Catherine the Great or Maria Theresa - but note that Friedrich the Great didn't make the cut, and the scale is once again the same. Maybe we can talk Agatha Christie - but without Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Edgar Poe or Georges Simenon on the list it would be very hard to argue for her inclusion. I agree with Opqr that Florence Nightingale's contribution is unique, and I can also see some potential for Coco Chanel, but this is all. And don't forget that adding somebody to the list means excluding somebody else, so you have to come with a good reason why any of the candidates is better than somebody already on the list. --Deinocheirus (talk) 14:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Modern figures like Hillary Clinton and Angela Merkel should not be included here. It would be better, then, to include someone whose elevated encyclpedic value has stood the test of time. One such person could be Mary Wollstonecraft, who can be considered a forerunner of Simone de Beauvoir in a certain sense, or perhaps even more foundational. Reprarina (talk) 01:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I certainly think Cleopatra is more vital than Kwame Nkrumah and Umar (Aren't either Abu Bakr or Ali both a no-brainer over Umar? I am not Muslim, so I am not sure). I also think Catherine the Great is a potentially better choice than Peter the Great -- she has over double the page views on English Wikipedia than him. There are probably more swaps that could be made; I agree 8/200 is not accurate of women's contributions to history and society. LightProof1995 (talk) 01:54, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I strongly oppose to replace Peter for Catherine. It's not an equal replacement. Maybe Stalin can be a better candidate if replacing Russian polotical leader for another Russian political leader is the only option. Tucvbif (talk) 17:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree Stalin would be a better choice, however Stalin is already listed. LightProof1995 (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Peter the Great changed Russia much more seriously than Catherine the Great. Reprarina (talk) 20:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I've changed "far better" to "potentially better". I think the swap is worth considering. Peter changed Russia in a foundational way, setting up the groundwork and military, while Catherine continued his work, focusing on the sciences and arts. Wouldn't it be better to have one dictator-militaristic Russian leader, and one cultural one, instead of two dictator-militaristic ones? LightProof1995 (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Catherine the Great was quite militaristic. Her era is associated with Partitions of Poland, with Greek Plan and such fugures as Grigory Potemkin, Fyodor Ushakov and Alexander Suvorov, while the writer Alexander Radishchev was repressed. Reprarina (talk) 07:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

What do yo mean when say «dictator», especially related to monarchy? Catherine came took her power not in peaceful and legitime way, many historians believe that she killed her husband. She turned peasonts literally to slaves. She established demarcation line for jews, dissolved authonomy of Zaporizhzhia, suppressed many riots.

Peter, for comparition, provide reforms in fashion and etiquette, grammar and education, calendar, industry, church e.t.c. He popularize potato, tobacco, cofe. He, at the end, emproved relationship with Western Europe. Tucvbif (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I agree we should keep Peter. I think Catherine deserves to be listed alongside Peter. LightProof1995 (talk) 19:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay so earlier I stated I felt in an ideal world, this list would eventually match the "Vital-3" list at English Wikipedia. I'd now like to retract that statement. Perhaps all of you already know this and if so I am very sorry I am just now understanding as a newbie, but perhaps there is more value in asserting the two lists would necessarily be different as an ideal goal. For example, maybe the consensus is to list Catherine at Wikipedia Vital-3, and list Peter here, but not list both leaders side-by-side on either list.

If so, I think it could make discussion easier. For example, Vital-3 lists the following articles:

Neolithic Revolution, Green Revolution, and History of agriculture, along with 9 more "History of..." articles. Here we list none of those articles, but we do have Irrigation and Plough, which are not listed at English Vital-3. Such a great difference between the lists maybe points to differences being necessary. For example, maybe there is consensus Irrigation and Plough should be listed here instead of History of agriculture, because we want countries focusing on growing crops instead of learning about the history of them. But at Vital-3, there is obviously more emphasis on history and agricultural history. If we say we want the lists to eventually match, that is probably ignoring the fact the value in that they are two different lists.

So, I will no longer be focused on getting Catherine up here, since she is listed at Vital-3. Maybe she belongs here too, maybe she doesn't. Either way, what other women are listed at Vital-3 and the list posted above in this discussion, but not on the main list? Both Cleopatra and Hatshepsut are currently listed at Vital-3 but not here, but Hatshepsut may get removed. Would it be better to consider adding Hatshepsut here over Cleopatra, if Cleopatra is listed there? LightProof1995 (talk) 17:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

While I agree, that women are lacking in this list, I can see how hard it is to decide which men to exclude instead.

Maybe we could finish and revive the List of biographies of women every Wikipedia should have to tackle the gender bias in the Wikipedia, give small wikis a list of important women and larger wikis an incentive to improve women’s biographies. Flaverius (talk) 16:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

The best candidates for exclusion are those men who are from the Western and especially English-speaking world and at the same time have relatively few Wikipedias. Those that are mainly known in the Western and especially English-speaking world and not outside it. Reprarina (talk) 20:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Add Florence Nightingale, Remove Umar

I'm a little hesitant about this suggestion, but I'd like to suggest a change to Nightingale and Umar.

Nightingale was a great figure who established the concept of nursing and left a great mark on medicine, hygiene, and statistics. The question is, in which category should we put her?

Although Nightingale contributed to medicine and statistics, she was essentially a social activist rather than a scientist. Therefore, I think she should be classified in the political leader category rather than a scientist.　

Of the 39 people currently in the political leader category, I believe that the three who are somewhat less important are Umar, Nkrumah, and Rosa Luxemburg.　Rosa Luxemburg is less important, but not completely unimportant and should not be removed as the proportion of women in the list needs to be increased.　Nkrumah was a leading figure in the African independence movement of the 1950s and 1960s and should not be removed to reflect the history of sub-Saharan Africa on the list.　Umar is a representative of the development of the early Islamic state, but his importance is somewhat less because Muhammad, the founder, is already on the list, and the Abbasids, the descendants of the Islamic state, are also on the list. Therefore, I think we should add Nightingale and remove Umar.--Opqr (talk) 13:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Support

1.  Support as nom.--Opqr (talk) 13:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
2.  Strong support Abu Bakr or Ali are better choices for this list over Umar, as I've stated before. So Umar doesn't belong at all. Florence Nightingale is a great choice and helps balance the gender bias. LightProof1995 (talk) 03:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose I fear that the addition of Florence Nightingale will disproportionately increase the British presence on a list that is primarily aimed at an international audience. I don't think Umar is insignificant to this list. I think that the percentage of Muslims in the world is growing, so the importance of Umar is only increasing.--Reprarina (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
2.  Oppose The proposal is not clear. Nightingale is described as « a great figure who established the concept of nursing and left a great mark on medicine, hygiene, and statistics » but she is proposed to join the list as a « social activist » or a « political leader ». Why not ? But, in this case, is it possible to describe what she has done in this area ? Because Umar is not just « a representative of the development of the early Islamic state », he is the one who leaded the first Islamic expansion outside Arabian Peninsula, created the first administration of the Caliphate and initiated the compilation of the Quran. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 14:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
3.  Oppose It can be argued that Umar had a greater effect on the development of early Islam, than most other historical figures apart from Muhammad himself. Among people with an Islamic background, Umar is practically a household name, whatever people think of him. The list already has some Western bias to begin with, and on that basis, there was little enthusiasm in my language community, to join an editing campaign I started, to create and improve the articles on this list. Let's not make it even more biased. Ideophagous (talk) 20:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
4.  Oppose Per N. Eynaud and Ideophagous. --Toku (talk) 22:03, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
5.  Oppose This proposal is not valid ("swapping like for like (category switch only with reason"). --Algovia (talk) 13:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

That's a misunderstanding. I consider Nightingale to be a social activist, a great figure involved in politics and social change, so I am proposing an exchange within the category of politician. I haven't switched categories.--Opqr (talk) 13:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Both Florence Nightingale and Nursing are listed at English Wikipedia's Vital-3 list, but neither are here. I think Nursing is critical globally and should be listed here, if not alongside Florence Nightingale. I supported this swap before even seeing Florence Nightingale is listed at Vital-3 because of the worldwide importance of nursing and Umar's relative importance to Islam compared to other figures. LightProof1995 (talk) 04:42, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Data on the number of page views in Russian Wikipedia over the past year - Florence Nightingale - 70,688, Maria Montessori - 78,068, Virginia Woolf - 117,359, Margaret Thatcher - 370,057, Golda Meir - 441,142, JK Rowling - 446,837, Taylor Swift - 582,697, Queen Victoria - 633,560, princess Diana - 1,049,843. I have a strong suspicion that Florence Nightingale is not the best candidate to correct the gender bias in the list without falling into Anglocentric bias. Reprarina (talk) 07:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

English views:

Florence Nightingale: ~100,000

Maria Montessori: ~24,000

Virginia Woolf: ~154,000

Margaret Thatcher: ~236,000

Golda Meir: ~124,000

J. K. Rowling: ~214,000

Taylor Swift: ~4,200,000

Queen Victoria: ~511,000

Princess Diana: ~463,000

View counts are not everything. At English Wikipedia Vitals FAQ, other considerations besides views include Coverage, Notability, Importance to other articles, and No (Western) bias. No one is going to suggest Taylor Swift, talented as she is, and receiving 4.2 million views, is a better candidate for this list of articles all Wikipedias should have other Florence Nightingale, because being a great singer-songwriter is not as notable, or as special, or as important as founding the modern nursing movement. The same goes for all other women listed here. LightProof1995 (talk) 09:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Then first we need to add nursing to make it clear what the significance of being the founder of the modern nursing movement is. Reprarina (talk) 09:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree we must necessarily add Nursing before Florence Nightingale. No one has suggested a swap for Nursing, but here we have a perfectly good swap proposal to get Florence Nightingale up there. I think we should consider each proposal as they appear. LightProof1995 (talk) 22:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

In general, when Osama bin Laden, in the number of languages in which there is an article on Wikipedia, is ahead of Umar, Abu Nuwas, Umm Kulthum, Hafiz Shirazi, Naguib Mahfouz, Zheng He, Al-Khwarizmi, Ibn Khaldun, Salah ad-Din, Suleiman I and Al-Ghazali, this trend is not only sad, but also not entirely healthy. I will very much object to the tendency to exclude figures from the Muslim world from this list, especially such important ones as Umar. On the contrary, I believe that their number should be increased.--Reprarina (talk) 09:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Add Wetland, Remove Lake Tanganyika

No need to list this Great African Lake when Lake Victoria is already listed. Also, of the three major African Great Lakes, Lake Malawi is arguably most important due to it having the highest fish biodiversity of any lake in the world. LightProof1995 (talk) 01:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC) No individual lake is more important than the concept of a wetland. Wetlands are seen worldwide: the floodplains along the Nile and Amazon, the swamps in the Sundarbans and American South, and the bogs in Siberia and Ireland are all wetlands. Being neither truly aquatic or terrestrial, wetlands are a biome of their own. Because of this, wetlands provide unique ecological benefits not seen in other biomes. Wetlands also protect coasts, purify water, and restore groundwater reservoirs.

Support

1.  Support as nom LightProof1995 (talk) 17:26, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
2.  Support OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 21:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

   Thanks for your support OhnoitsvileplumeXD I too am a Pokémon fan ! LightProof1995 (talk) 01:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose Not convinced by the need of a swap between two different categories. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 19:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

   Wetland would also go under Geography. LightProof1995 (talk) 21:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

2.  Oppose Also not convinced. --Toku (talk) 07:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

   We can consider an objective measure in views.

   Lake Tanganyika: 18,024

   Wetland: 22,343

   LightProof1995 (talk) 09:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

3.  Oppose Invalid proposal (swap in the same category). Best regards, --Algovia (talk) 17:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

   There’s no need to say this is an invalid proposal. It’s in the same category: Geography. Even if it wasn’t, the rules clearly state a swap between isn’t invalid if there is a reason. Best regards, LightProof1995 (talk) 18:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

4.  Oppose Lake Tanganyika is important in Africa and in Bodies of water category. I'm not convinced by the need to reduce this category by one article. But, maybe, if we want to swap "like for like", we can question the presence of both Ocean and Sea articles at the beginning of Geography section of the list. --Tegest Vonis (talk) 14:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

   Wow, how did I miss that? You’re right, maybe swapping out “Sea” would be a better swap. On English Wikipedia, there is consensus the “Ocean” and “Sea” articles should be merged, but never will be due to the difficulty. LightProof1995 (talk) 01:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutre I agree with removing Lake Tanganyika because it is not that important. Also, adding some general geographic concepts isn't a bad thing. However, I don't think the concept of "wetlands" is that important, so I won't state my pros and cons at this time.--Opqr (talk) 14:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

   Thanks very much for your vote and reasoning :) the importance of wetlands is unfortunately not well-taught in schools. It's something you'd only learn about at a university or professional level. LightProof1995 (talk) 19:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

I don't know what is more important, wetland or meadow or plain.--Reprarina (talk) 10:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out Reprarina. Grassland isn't listed either. Maybe we need to achieve a consensus on which to add: wetland, grassland, plain, or meadow. LightProof1995 (talk) 14:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I feel like plain is too much of a generic term (Oxford dictionary defines it as simply "a large area of flat land with few trees" which includes everything from deserts to grasslands to tundra) and meadow is a common language term and isn't fully defined encyclopedically which may lead to significant inter-Wiki discrepancies, including the possibility of completely missing in some languages. So I'd say the choice should be between grassland and wetland. Deinocheirus (talk) 12:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

If everyone keeps being so strict on “switching between categories” when they’re referring to sub-headers under the same category, I’m afraid we’ll only be able to choose one or the other, in a swap out for Sea. LightProof1995 (talk) 02:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Add African Great Lakes, Remove Lake Victoria

Should we really list only one or two African Great Lakes, when all five North American Great Lakes are listed as a single article, and we have limited space? The Great African Lakes are special in that they were all formed by the Great African Rift. All of them are known for the rich fish biodiversity, especially cichlids, with Lake Malawi having the most. The fish populations in the lakes are important for the local populations and fishery economies in adjacent countries.

Support

1.  Support as nom LightProof1995 (talk) 17:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose I don't think Lake Victoria is that important, so I agree with its removal. However, I would object if Africa's Great Lakes were to be included instead of Lake Victoria. As I said last time, the major lakes of Africa's Great Lakes, Lake Victoria, Lake Tanganyika, and Lake Malawi, all belong to completely different water systems and are not interconnected. In other words, the African Great Lakes is a meaningless classification of ecologically and economically unrelated lakes forced together based solely on geographic and geological commonalities. Compared to the African Great Lakes, Lake Victoria is much more important. I strongly oppose cramming unimportant concepts into this list just to save space.--Opqr (talk) 14:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

   Thank you very much for voting. Sorry I missed citing your excellent reasoning for adding Algae to the list; I've cited your reasoning as well now. Please see https://www.britannica.com/place/East-African-lakes to read about how these lakes are connected hydrologically, geographically, ecologically, and economically; along with what I said before. Best regards, LightProof1995 (talk) 20:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

2.  Oppose since Lake Victoria is listed at WP:VA. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 02:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
3.  Oppose Per Opqr. --Toku (talk) 07:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
4.  Oppose I think the point of Opqr is right. African Great Lakes is just an expression but not a reality in ecology, in economy or in culture (maybe the Great African Rift would have been more relevant, but not sure). --Tegest Vonis (talk) 14:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Add Romania or Greece, remove Switzerland

I'm not sure if we need every major Western European country on here. We've got Germany, the UK, France, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Austria, and Portugal on here already, not to mention Berlin, London, Paris, Rome, Madrid, Amsterdam, Brussels, and Vienna also being listed. It's between Switzerland and Amsterdam for me, but I'd prefer to make individual swaps between countries and cities. And while Switzerland is projected to hit $1 trillion GDP in 2026, tax havens are not something we should list in the majority of cases.

Our only geographical article covering the Balkans is Athens, and we don't list any regions other than the Middle East, so either Romania or Greece is the best non-city to cover the Balkans. It's a tossup between the two for me. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 17:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

1.  Oppose Not convinced that Romania is more important than Switzerland. --Toku (talk) 07:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
2.  Oppose I'm opposed to this proposal, at least until the proponent choose between Romania or Greece. --Tegest Vonis (talk) 14:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

   I chose Romania, as stated in the comment below. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 14:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

3.  Oppose I'm surprised by this suggestion. Switzerland has a rather small population, but in every other respect it is one of the world's leading countries. Switzerland is truly one of the world's economic centers and, due to its unique political position, plays a major role in international politics.　To begin with, Romania's GDP is only about 40% of Switzerland's, and Switzerland is clearly superior in terms of national power.　From these points of view, Switzerland is more important.--Opqr (talk) 13:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

• Please clarify, Romania or Greece. We don't vote for unclear propositions.--Reprarina (talk) 00:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  I'll give the edge to Romania, since it has a much larger population and economy, and we already list many articles covering Greece's importance, most importantly Ancient Greece and Athens. I do understand that this is not a great nomination, so I will be met with strong opposition. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 02:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

• I’d support your suggestion of Amsterdam or Netherlands for Romania or Greece LightProof1995 (talk) 09:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Add Tourism, remove Rugby

Unlike other sports on the list, the Rugby (Rugby football in English Wikipedia, just Rugby in many other ones) article talks about a certain general concept that combines several similar sports into one (Rugby union, Rugby league, which in turn are divided into smaller ones). It’s difficult to write an article about this, and for example, in my language community, few people use “rugby football” as a term and as a concept and in the same time call rugby union just rugby. Relatively few Wikipedias have an article on Rugby football, and virtually no Wikipedias where it has received status.

It seems to me that tourism in the topic of recreation is a more suitable article.

For clarity, it’s worth comparing how many language sections already have an article about the subject.

• Rugby football: 122
• Backgammon: 92
• Go: 110
• Video game: 129
• Gambling: 104
• Swimming: 116
• Judo: 126
• Martial arts: 107
• Athletics: 127

versus Tourism: 146

I am convinced that tourism in the topic of recreation is undoubtedly one of the most important articles.--Reprarina (talk) 00:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. as nom--Reprarina (talk) 00:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
2.  Support Probably one of the many anglo-centric articles in the list. Among all the ball games icluded Rugby or Cricket are the least internationally known and important. Changing one of them (Rugby prefered for the reasons stated above) to a broader topic, that is internationally important is a good idea.--Flaverius (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
3.  Support per nom and Flaverius LightProof1995 (talk) 09:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutre Since tourism is a very important subject and also belongs to the category of recreation, the problem of category swapping does not arise. I'm in favor of adding tourism, but I can't judge the removal of rugby. In terms of the number of language versions you provided as the basis for this proposal, rugby has 122 articles, more than any other item. This is not a valid basis; other items have fewer articles, right?--Opqr (talk) 13:35, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose Not convinced by a swap between two different categories, especially with such comparisons. --Toku (talk) 07:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
2.  Oppose Per Toku. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 14:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
3.  Oppose Invalid proposal (swap in the same category). If I remember well, rugby is a sport and tourism an economic activity. Best regards, --Algovia (talk) 17:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

   The category in which sports is included is called "Recreation". I have no idea why tourism is not one of the most important items in the Recreation category. Nothing bad will happen if there are fewer sports topics. Certain sports are characterized by the fact that they are of great importance for some countries. The list prioritizes the most international things. Tourism is an international topic, and one of the most important. Reprarina (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

4.  Oppose Tourism belongs to Business and economics category and Rugby to Recreations. I don't think a swap between these two different categories is necessary. --Tegest Vonis (talk) 14:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Remove Los Angeles, Add Toronto

I think we should add a Canadian city. We list 3 US cities and 1 Mexican city. I think it would be fair to include 1 Canadian city and two US cities. NYC is too important to remove, so it is a tossup between Los Angeles and Washington DC, but I decided to go with LA because Washington DC is the seat of government of the world's only superpower. Interstellarity (talk) 23:12, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 23:12, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose No Canadian city rivals the three listed US-American cities in popularity and importance. Because of the movie industry Los Angelos is among the most filmed and internationally known cities. Canada is already listed among the most important countries. But I don’t think any single Canadian city is important enough to make the cut for this limited list.--Flaverius (talk) 12:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
2. Strong oppose per above. Even Chicago is more vital than Toronto. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 14:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
3.  Oppose Per Flaverius and OhnoitsvileplumeXD. --Toku (talk) 07:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
4.  Oppose per others. Since the United States and Mexico have much larger populations than Canada, it is okay they have cities listed while Canada does not. Also, the urban metro population of Los Angeles is ~17 million compared to Toronto’s ~7 million. LightProof1995 (talk) 09:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
5.  Oppose Per Flaverius, OhnoitsvileplumeXD and LightProof1995. --Algovia (talk) 17:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
6.  Oppose Per Flaverius, Los Angeles and Toronto are clearly in different categories. --Tegest Vonis (talk) 14:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
7.  Oppose per Talk:List of articles every Wikipedia should have/Archives/2024#Swap Vienna for Toronto - the rationale hasn't changed since last year. --Deinocheirus (talk) 16:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

Remove Manufacturing, Add Industrial sector

I propose removing Manufacturing and adding Industrial sector.

Manufacturing is available in in 93 languages, among those many stubbs and many translation of the article in Simple English, probably only for the purpose of this list. als:Industrie, fy:Yndustry, ht:Endistri, ia:Industria, af:Nywerheid are linked here, but would be better under Industrial sector.

The article for Industrial sector is available in 132 languages, is usally longer article and the main article about industry and manufacturing in most language versions. Most notable exception is English, as is redirects from Industrial sector over en:Industry (manufacturing) to en:Manufacturing.

I think the article Manufacturing is an anglocentric addition to the list. The overlap of manufacturing and industry is hard to diffenrentiate in many languages. Flaverius (talk) 11:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

1.  Support as nom. Flaverius (talk) 11:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
2.  Support per nom. LightProof1995 (talk) 09:26, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
3.  Support Britannica views manufacturing as a type of industry. So industry is probably a more general concept. Reprarina (talk) 19:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
4.  Support Per nom. --Tegest Vonis (talk) 14:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
5.  Support Makes sense especially given the opinion in the #Discussion subsection. --Deinocheirus (talk) 16:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

1. There are great difficulties in translating the concepts of manufacturing and production into other languages. Thus, on Wikidata there are not entirely correct links from manufacturing to manufacturing industry in other Wikipedias. Many Russian-language sources still do not differentiate between the concepts of manufacturing and production, translating them into one word производство. We perhaps need to include a concept that, on the one hand, is general, and on the other, translates well into other languages. In addition, even the English Wikipedia could not make two different articles about Industry and Manufacturing, making the first a redirect to the second, although the extended list requires both articles.--Reprarina (talk) 12:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Remove Dentistry, add Surgery

It is not very clear to single out dentistry from all medical specialties (then it is strange that teeth are not on the list). Surgery is a more important thing from the point of view of preserving life, and partially includes dentistry in itself.--Reprarina (talk) 11:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. as nom --Reprarina (talk) 11:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose I agree surgery is important, but as teeth is not in the list, I think dentistry should remain because it allows to express this notion. --Tegest Vonis (talk) 14:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

   I am against the compensation approach. On the contrary, if teeth are not very significant for anatomy, then dentistry is not very significant for medicine. The importance of topics in different sections are interrelated with each other. Reprarina (talk) 14:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)