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
• 2025
• 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)

Add South China Sea, Remove Lake Tanganyika

Swapped with enough support (support : 7, no opposition)

No need to list this African Great Lake when we have Lake Victoria listed, which is the largest one. The South China Sea is important polticially for everyone that does trade in the region, which is everyone! Support  Support As nom LightProof1995 (talk) 16:30, 14 September 2024 (UTC)  Support South China Sea has been an important maritime area for world trade since (at least) the Middle Ages. Today, it is an area of ​​major geopolitical tensions. Lake Tanganyika doesn't seem to be so important. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 22:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)  Support per above --Ideophagous (talk) 10:12, 11 February 2025 (UTC)  Support Per nom. --Novaria85 (talk) 23:02, 14 February 2025 (UTC)  Support Per above. --Algovia (talk) 08:18, 19 February 2025 (UTC)  Support Sound most reasonable among 3 proposed body-of-water swaps. --Deinocheirus (talk) 19:30, 10 March 2025 (UTC)  Support Per nom. --Toku (talk) 13:53, 25 March 2025 (UTC) Oppose Neutral Neutre This is not a bad idea because the South China Sea is indeed a major element of global geopolitics (and of the "Asian Mediterranean"). But the weakness of the arguments (supposed bias to be corrected) does not convince me. --Algovia (talk) 20:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC) - Agreed. I’ve removed the sentence on bias LightProof1995 (talk) 01:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC) When I see the new proposals, I find this swap is a good idea. --Algovia (talk) 08:20, 19 February 2025 (UTC) Discussion Now I am wondering if I should've made a swap of Lake Tanganyika for Lake Titicaca, and Baltic Sea for South China Sea. Thoughts? LightProof1995 (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC) Now, the proposal could be adopted, but I think it will be better to wait some time before integrating the swap in the list as the two new proposals – Titicaca/Tanganyika and South China Sea/Baltic Sea are very recent. We should take time to see the developments of these discussions. --Algovia (talk) 08:26, 19 February 2025 (UTC) Conclusion @ Algovia, LightProof1995 : I think the result of the discussion is quite clear. The swap South China Sea / Lake Tanganyika is supported by a majority and the two alternative proposals are contested. If no new point and no opposition, we will be able to do the swap in the next days. Best regards, --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 08:11, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Add Lung, remove Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

It seems to me unreasonable to include an article on lung disease before an article on the lungs. By the way, the article on lungs has 172 language sections, and the article on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease has 93. Lungs is just a more basic concept.

And yes, this is a suggestion to switch from medicine to biology. But a medical specialist will first study the topic of Lungs, and only then move on to studying the topic of Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. I believe that medicine is unlikely to lose from the inclusion of the lungs.--Reprarina (talk) 15:41, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom.--Reprarina (talk) 15:41, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
2.  Support The rationale seems solid. --Deinocheirus (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
3.  Support per nom LightProof1995 (talk) 14:33, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
4.  Support Per nom. --Algovia (talk) 07:33, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose There is already "Respiratory System". Then, I'm not convinced by a swap between two categories. --Toku (talk) 08:47, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

   I'm not sure the Respiratory system is enough. Why not exclude the Ear, Eye, Nose and Taste on the basis that there is a Sensory system then? Reprarina (talk) 14:08, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

Add Bible, Remove "Dream of the Red Chamber"

The texts listed are Arabian, Japanese, Mesopotamian, Greek, Indian, Persian, and two Chinese: "The Art of War", and "Dream of the Red Chamber".

I don't think we should list two Chinese texts, when there are no other civilizations with more than one text listed (especially since it is now India, not China, that is the most populous country in the world)

I had never heard of "Dream of the Red Chamber" before noticing it on this list. "The Art of War", however, I know as a widely influential text in the history of war.

Comparing pageviews for the two Chinese texts, plus the other "Four Classic Chinese novels", on various Wikipedias, suggests "Dream of the Red Chamber" is China's most popular novel in China (or at least, by readers of Chinese, since Wikipedia is banned in China), but "The Art of War" is more popular everywhere else.

"Dream of the Red Chamber" is a novel about love within the context of Chinese philosophy. The Bible, however, in Wikipedia terms, is at least the "Western consensus on the meaning of love", if not more so than just the "West", given its global impact (e.g. the year). As the holy book of the world's largest religion, Christianity, it has been the cornerstone for a large number of civilizations, philosophies, cultures, and institutions: The Catholic Church, Protestantism, Orthodoxy, Spiritism, The Holy Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, the Spanish Empire, the Ethiopian Empire, the Red Cross, etc.

Consider the great determination and perseverance of Christian missionares throughout history to spread the Bible's word to all peoples all around the world, and I'm sure you'll agree its exclusion on the "List of Articles Every Wikipedia Should Have" is completely unjustified.

The Bible's influence on other Abrahamic religions also deserves a mention: the Hebrew Bible is composed of the same books as the Christian Old Testament, and the Quran alludes to Biblical narratives.

The Bible's most memorable impact to China is the Taiping Rebellion, a civil war started by Hong Xiuquan, who proclaimed himself to be Jesus Christ. It was the bloodiest civil war in history, and had global repurcussions. So, even the average person in China—where the population is mostly Buddhist, Taoist, or irreligious, and the place where "Dream of the Red Chamber" is most known—has likely heard of the Bible.

Support

1.  Support As nom LightProof1995 (talk) 20:46, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
2.  Support Per nom. --Algovia (talk) 07:42, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose We just added Protestantism and removed Trimurty, I very much doubt that it is necessary to continue the Christianization and de-Asianization of the list. It is true that there are two Chinese texts on the list, but considering the antiquity of the Chinese civilization and the fact that this country is still larger in population than the USA and Europe combined, why should not we have 2 Chinese texts in the list? All the more so because there are more than two thousand years between these two texts. And then, are we planning to add the Bible and not add the Quran? That would not be a very good idea. In practice, the Quran means much more to ordinary Muslims than the Bible does to ordinary Christians, they memorize it in the original en masse. And demographic trends (the percentage Muslims in the global population is increasing) indicate that Muslim issues will only grow in importance.--Reprarina (talk) 08:44, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

   That's why I followed this with a proposal to replace a Christian article with a Hindu one!! Why accuse me of De-Asianation when I did that?? India has more population than China, yet has only one text listed. So, why not include the Vedas over "Dream of the Red Chamber"? Russia is the country with the largest land area, why not include "War and Peace"?

   "the Quran means much more to ordinary Muslims than the Bible does to ordinary Christians" I take offense at this one, Reprarina. The Bible to Christians is SACRED, HOLY, DIVINE, RIGHTEOUS, JUST, PERFECT, LOVING, CARING, PEACEFUL, WISE, IMMACULATE, HONORABLE, THOUGHTFUL, INSIGHTFUL, NECESSARY, BLESSED, VIRTUOUS, RIGHT, COMFORTING, GENUINE, ADMIRABLE, EXEMPLARY, MORAL, ETHICAL, BRILLIANT, SUPERB, SUBLIME, AUTHENTIC, COMPELLING, MAGICAL, INFLUENTIAL, and GOOD!!

   The reason Christians don't memorize the entire Bible is because it is much, much longer than the Quran (The Quran has ~77,000 words, yet the Bible has ~780,000 words!) And yes, we can certainly add the Bible and not the Quran, seeing as currently the Mahabharata is the only religious text listed. We can only add one religious text at a time. Do you think the Quran seriously belongs on the list, but the Bible doesn't, when Christianity is the world's largest religion, while Islam is the second-largest, and as I said before, the Quran references Biblical narratives, like you're supposed to already know the Bible before reading the Quran??

   This is how the Bible introduces Adam in Genesis: "Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed."

   This is how Adam is first mentioned in the Quran: "He taught Adam the names of all things, then He presented them to the angels and said, “Tell Me the names of these, if what you say is true?”"

   As you can see, the Quran is intrinsically linked with the Bible. Muslims also believe Jesus to be a great prophet. The average Muslim would likely agree with the inclusion of the Bible of this list, even over the Quran, because they read both!! LightProof1995 (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

   Anyway, in this section we are not discussing the proposal "Add Bible, remove Thomas Aquinas" but the proposal "add Bible, remove Dream of the Red Chamber". Reprarina (talk) 19:20, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

   Yessss...... If the "evaluation-by-civilization" wasn't worthy, perhaps a thorough investigation of these two texts is needed. I asked AI to summarize both the "Dream of the Red Chamber" and the Bible, and that's how I confirmed both are about "love". But, I didn't actually read through the entire plot of "Dream of the Red Chamber", nor have I gone through every Book of the Bible to summarize their contents and compare their overall gist in regards to the "meaning of love", and compare that to how love is defined in "Dream of the Red Chamber". I suppose I will have to, and perhaps as many of us Meta-Wikipedians as possible should, so we can best grasp this proposal :) LightProof1995 (talk) 19:59, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

2.  Oppose Per Reprarina + Bible is – at least – very present in Abraham, Judaism, Christianism, Protestantism and Catholic Church. --Toku (talk) 13:52, 25 March 2025 (UTC) --Toku (talk) 13:52, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

   There are two Schools of Thought: one, I have been proposing: We should reduce redundancy in the list, since we have limited space. However, this came into conflict with the other School of Thought, proposed by Reprarina: Articles should be related. I feel both "Schools of Thought" must be considered properly. Here, it seems you are invoking the Pioneer of the "Articles Should Be Related" School of Thought by saying there are already articles related to the one I am proposing, so we don't need any more. LightProof1995 (talk) 18:50, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

3.  Oppose Per Reprarina.I am against further religiousization of this list. The Bible is the holy book of three religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and as these three religions are on the list, there is no need to add the holy book alone to the list.--Opqr (talk) 14:02, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Add Tokugawa Ieyasu (Q171977), Remove Rosa Luxemburg (Q7231)

I checked the chapter of political leaders and noticed two things: there are only six figures from the early modern period, which is relatively few, and there is no one from Japanese history. Although Japan’s influence on the entire world has been limited, its large population and thriving culture makes it impossible to ignore. Tokugawa Ieyasu, the leader who initiated the Edo period that laid the foundation for Japan’s prosperity after the Meiji Restoration, should be included in the list. On the other hand, while I acknowledge that Rosa Luxemburg was an important figure in Germany/Poland and socialism, her significance is relatively smaller. --Xefon (talk) 07:25, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Support

1.  Support --Xefon (talk) 07:25, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
2.  Support per nom. Japan was first unified under Tokugawa. He's commonly seen as one of Japan's greatest leaders, if not the greatest, because of this impressive feat. Rosa Luxemburg doesn't deserve to be listed. She's not that influential or well-known on a global scale, like Tokugawa. She is a controversial figure and her importance is debated even in her homeland of Germany and Poland. LightProof1995 (talk) 23:12, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose Firstly, I think that Tokugawa Ieyasu's encyclopedic significance is approximately equal to that of Oda Nobunaga and Toyotomi Hideyoshi, and I do not think that one of them should be on the general list and the other two on the extended list. Secondly, if we were to choose from Japanese political figures for the general list, we should rather choose Mutsuhito, who organized the change of the socio-economic formation in Japan from feudal to capitalist, than Tokugawa Ieyasu, who, together with Oda Nobunaga and Toyotomi Hideyoshi, merely modified Japanese feudalism. Thirdly, I am not sure that Rosa Luxemburg should be excluded from the list - she is one of the most important figures in the history of the socialist movement.--Reprarina (talk) 03:41, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
2.  Oppose Per Reprarina. --Toku (talk) 09:51, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
3.  Oppose Per Reprarina. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 11:13, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
4.  Oppose Per Reprarina. --Algovia (talk) 07:34, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
5.  Oppose Rosa Luxemburg's importance is obviously lower than that of other historical figures. For the history of socialism, Marx and Lenin are enough. She remains on this list only because there are obviously few important female political figures. (In fact, in my previous proposal, I included her for that reason alone). However, it is true that there are no other suitable important female figures, so I feel that I have no choice but to include her.--Opqr (talk) 13:36, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Add Rumi (Q43347), Remove Lord Byron (Q5679)

Out of the list of 32 writers, 21 are Europeans. It is too heavily skewed towards modern European authors and should be corrected. Rumi is a master of Persian poetry is also included in the Enwiki Vital Articles Level 3 list. I know Lord Byron's role for Romantic movement, but other writer such as Hugo would represent. --Xefon (talk) 11:03, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Support

1.  Support --Xefon (talk) 11:03, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
2.  Support per nom LightProof1995 (talk) 23:12, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutre Neutral for now until the proposition is actually argued: too many Europeans is not really an argument, the level 3 list of English concerns the English Wikipedia and the fact that Rumi is a master of Persian literature does not tell us why him and not another master... --Algovia (talk) 07:38, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Question: I generally think Rumi (Q43347) belongs on this list, but is he too similar to Hafez (Q6240)? EchoVanguardZ (talk)
   1. Yes, I agree -- What if we accompany this with a swap of Hafez out for J. R. R. Tolkein in? LightProof1995 (talk) 11:47, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Add Lu Xun (Q23114), Remove Jorge Luis Borges (Q909)

The inclusion of two modern Latin American authors in the list is questionable. Lu Xun is a representative modern Chinese author and should be included in the list. --Xefon (talk) 11:24, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Support

1.  Support --Xefon (talk) 11:24, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Neutre

1. Neutre Neutral for now until the proposition is actually argued: too many South Americans is not really an argument and the fact that Lu Xun is a representative of modern Chinese literature does not tell us why he and not another representative of Chinese literature (or even of another literature). --Algovia (talk) 07:40, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose Currently, the list includes 32 authors, two of which are from Latin American literature: Borges and Garcia Marquez. Both are important authors, and it makes sense to include two Latin American authors in the list.--Opqr (talk) 13:53, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Add Indus Valley Civilization (Q42534), Remove Jacques Cartier (Q7321)

The list seems to have too many historical figures and too few historical nations. In particular, the list of explorers is excessive and should be replaced with other historical articles.

I think the Indus Valley civilization is one of the few ancient civilizations that should not be written off. Jacques Cartier is credited with discovering Canada, but other explorers, such as Columbus, are more important. --Xefon (talk) 12:30, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Support

1.  Support per nom assuming we achieve consensus Biography quota should be reduced and History quota increased LightProof1995 (talk) 23:12, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
2.  Support, if we arrive to a consensus on reallocating some space from biography to history section. --Deinocheirus (talk) 16:15, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose I do not support reducing the number of biographical articles in the list.--Reprarina (talk) 03:47, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

   The allocation to Biography seems too generous, 204/1000 compared to 111/1000 for the English version and 1943/10000 for the Extended version, while the allocation to history is too sparse, only 46/1000 compared to 85/1000 for the English version and 800/10000 for the Extended version. Xefon (talk) 04:23, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

2.  Oppose Not convinced by a swap between two categories. --Toku (talk) 09:50, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
3.  Oppose Not in favor of a swap between two categories. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 18:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
4.  Oppose Per Reprarina. The prerequisite – too many explorers in the list – is not even demonstrated. --Algovia (talk) 07:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Add Achaemenid Empire (Q389688), Remove Hernán Cortés (Q7326)

The list seems to have too many historical figures and too few historical nations. In particular, the list of explorers is excessive and should be replaced with other historical articles.

The Achaemenid Empire was an important ancient dynasty that influenced many regions. I think the activities of the conquistadors such as Cortes could be covered in the other articles. --Xefon (talk) 12:42, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Support

1.  Support --Xefon (talk) 12:42, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
2.  Support per nom assuming we achieve consensus Biography quota should be reduced and History quota increased LightProof1995 (talk) 23:12, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose I do not support reducing the number of biographical articles in the list.--Reprarina (talk) 03:49, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
2.  Oppose Not convinced by a swap between two categories + why the Achaemenid Empire and not the Sassanid or the Safavid or the Parthian Empire ? --Toku (talk) 09:52, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
3.  Oppose Not in favor of a swap between two categories. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 18:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
4.  Oppose Cortés is a major figure in American history, as he allows us to address the exploration, conquest, colonization, and religious conversion of America by Europeans. Removing him from the list therefore weakens him. Furthermore, why the Achaemenid Empire? How important was its influence? This is not an explanation, and we are entitled to wonder why the Sassanid Empire, the Partian Empire, the Seleucid Empire, the Median Empire, or the Safavid Empire are not proposed instead. --Algovia (talk) 07:33, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
5.  Oppose per Toku and Algovia. Also, Spanish Empire is not listed. I'd support a swap for that one instead. LightProof1995 (talk) 03:34, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Add Mughal Empire (Q33296), Remove Charles de Gaulle (Q2042)

The list seems to have too many historical figures and too few historical nations.

The Mughal Empire is important in history as it was one of the few empires that controlled all of India. Charles de Gaulle was a great French leader, but he is less important than his contemporaries and is not even listed at level 3 on the French Wikipedia list. --Xefon (talk) 13:21, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Support

1.  Support --Xefon (talk) 13:21, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
2.  Support per nom assuming we achieve consensus Biography quota should be reduced and History quota increased LightProof1995 (talk) 23:12, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose I do not support reducing the number of biographical articles in the list.--Reprarina (talk) 03:50, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
2.  Oppose Not convinced by the need of the swap between two different categories + de Gaulle is important for French and European history + Mughal Empire quickly became a nominal entity with a limited power. --Toku (talk) 09:47, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
3.  Oppose Per Toku + Reprarina. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 05:08, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
4.  Oppose The proposal is not very detailed, which is highly recommended for changing articles between two categories. The Mughal Empire is described as one of the empires that controlled India, but it does not say why this one and not another, for example, the Delhi Sultanate (which has a longer existence). It also does not explain why two Indian empires should be included in the list (and why these ones). Conversely, de Gaulle plays an important role in recent history and his thinking seems to be influencing certain European defense policies again since the election of Donald Trump. It is also frequently invoked in the context of European integration. The proposal therefore does not seem adapted to the current needs of the fundamental articles. --Algovia (talk) 07:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
5.  Oppose per Toku and Algovia. Also, French Empire is not listed. I'd support a swap for that one instead. LightProof1995 (talk) 03:37, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

   French Empire does not matter much without Napoleon, so it seems redundant. --Deinocheirus (talk) 14:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

   Napoleon's "Empire" was a little short in its duration, don't you think ? I'm talking about the glorious French Colonial Empire, second only to the British Empire in size at the advent of WW1, and third behind the British Empire and the Soviet Union during WW2 under De Gaulle. Its remnants control the world's only source of black pearls to this day! LightProof1995 (talk) 11:21, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Add Age of Discovery (Q133641), Remove Russian Revolution (Q8729)

Since the Soviet Union was added to the list, there is less reason for the Russian Revolution to be on the list, and I would suggest putting the Age of Discovery instead as a more general term than individual explorers. --Xefon (talk) 15:30, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Support

1.  Support --Xefon (talk) 15:30, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong oppose. No way. Russian revolution was in 1917, USSR was in 1922-1991, and there was a full-scale civil war between them. Russian revolution was one of the most important events in the history of humanity. And the Russian revolution is one of the most important revolutions in history. It was the first socialist revolution in the history of mankind, at least the first of those that were not soon suppressed.--Reprarina (talk) 03:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
2.  Oppose Russian Revolution and Soviet Union are two important notions for the history of the latest century ; Age of Discovery is often a list of discoveries with limited interest. --Toku (talk) 09:45, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
3.  Oppose Per Reprarina. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 05:05, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
4.  Oppose A proposal based on the idea that the number of biographies should be reduced. In my opinion, its goal isn't to improve the list, but to find an artificial way to remove all explorer biographies. Furthermore, it doesn't elaborate on its arguments beyond stating that it's a "more general term". --Algovia (talk) 07:29, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral – Phương Linh (T · C · CA · L · B) 15:31, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Add Silk Road (Q36288), Remove Ovid (Q7198)

The Biography lists seems to be a bit excessive, and Ovid is not so important as Virgil. Instead, a topic that has broader cultural relevance, such as the Silk Road, would be more appropriate. --Xefon (talk) 16:09, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Support

1.  Support --Xefon (talk) 16:09, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
2.  Support per nom assuming we achieve consensus Biography quota should be reduced and History quota increased LightProof1995 (talk) 23:12, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose I do not support reducing the number of biographical articles in the list. And Ovid is very significant, he is an author of a work that is included in Verdensbiblioteket.--Reprarina (talk) 03:54, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
2.  Oppose Not convinced by the necessity of a swap between two different categories. --Toku (talk) 09:44, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
3.  Oppose Swap between two very different categories - a writer and a historical concept - with a weak argument ("there would be too many biographies"). --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 05:04, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
4.  Oppose A proposal between two very different categories. Literature is already barely present in the list, aside from author biographies. Reducing it further doesn't seem appropriate to me. --Algovia (talk) 07:27, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Add spice (Q42527), Remove Secale cereale (Q12099)

Rye is consumed in large quantities in limited areas, such as Northern Europe, whereas spices are consumed worldwide and are more desirable. (This is my final proposal) --Xefon (talk) 01:31, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Support

1.  Support --Xefon (talk) 01:31, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
2.  Support Per Xefon. --Toku (talk) 09:56, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
3.  Support per nom LightProof1995 (talk) 23:12, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
4.  Support Per nom. --Algovia (talk) 07:26, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
5.  Support, makes sense. --Deinocheirus (talk) 13:49, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Proposal to change allocation from Biography to other category

The allocation to Biography seems too generous, 204/1000 compared to 111/1000 for the English version and 1943/10000 for the Extended version.

Plus, The list is biased towards Western figures and is, as a result, more Eurocentric than the English Vital list. It should be allocated to other categories that deal with more globally common terms. Xefon (talk) 10:56, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

The list is used by many projects for organizational and structuring purposes, especially by "small" projects. Therefore, it doesn't seem wise to make such radical changes. However, there's nothing to prevent you from making another list. There's no shortage of synonyms for fundamental – elementary, central, important, basic, essential, capital – and it's really not forbidden. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 18:18, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

I am making such suggestions because they are useful for such small projects. For example, if you have limited resources, an article like "Achaemenid Empire" would be more useful than "Cyrus the Great". You know that such a dismissive opinion will not produce anything. If radical changes are not favored, we may update the version. Xefon (talk) 06:00, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. We should reach a consensus on what the quotas should be, and this could take place by making a separate draft list that explores how the list would look with various quotas! :) LightProof1995 (talk) 23:12, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I would support some expansion of historical section, say, adding 20 items. Biographical section can be reduced somewhat, but we may also borrow items from other sections, not all of them should come from biography. --Deinocheirus (talk) 16:13, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree with changing the allocation from biography to other categories, but I would prefer it to be in technology rather than history. I'm thinking that "concrete" and "tunnel" should be on the technology list, but I haven't been able to propose it for years because there are no articles to replace them.--Opqr (talk) 13:24, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Add respiration (Q472287), Remove breathing (Q9530)

Q472287: Respiration (physiology), Breathing, Breath, Respiration, Respiration (biochemistry), Respiration (comparative physiology)

Q9530: Breathing, Pulmonary ventilation, Breath, Respiration, Pulmonary breathing, Respiration (human physiology), Respiratory system (humans), Breathing (movement)

There's serious cross-wiki confusion about what the difference between these articles is supposed to be. I've tried to translate the various titles they have just in Germanic and Romance languages - probably if someone looked through other languages, there would be even more confusion. There also often seem to be problems within wikis with duplicate articles and articles whose content doesn't match the title.

However, so far as there's any identifiable pattern, it's that Q472287 is a broader topic - all ways of getting oxygen from the surrounding environment into the cells of an organism - and Q9530 is a specific subtopic, focused only on the way humans breathe or the part of it that involves moving air in and out of the lungs. The English Wikipedia is unusual in putting a lot of the content that most Wikipedias would assign to Q472287 in en:Gas exchange instead, leaving its "Respiration (physiology)" as a kind of super-disambiguation page.

I think it would make more sense for the broader topic to be the one recommended for all Wikipedias. That way, on small Wikipedias, whatever information anyone chose to add to the article would be appropriate, regardless of whether it was about human lung-based breathing or more general. Later, as the article grew, they could choose whether to move some of the information into a more narrowly human-focused or lung-focused one.

A second reason for my proposal is that when the narrower topic is listed as more important, the way it is now, it creates a perverse incentive for medium-sized Wikipedias to move as much information into the supposedly narrower article as possible, regardless of whether it is actually appropriate there. The end result is duplicate articles on the broad topic and no article on the narrow topic. This has happened on the Esperanto Wikipedia, where I usually contribute, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's happened on others.

Notice that this proposal would undo a change made in 2011 (Talk:List of articles every Wikipedia should have/Archives/2011#Respiration (physiology) -> Breathing). That change was decided based on the semantics of "breathing" and "respiration" in English and the lack of content in the English Wikipedia article "Respiration (physiology)", which I don't think were appropriate reasons for modifying this global list. (I've pointed out above that the English Wikipedia's treatment of Q472287 is anomalous.) --Arbarulo (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

To clarify the reading, the links to the wikidata pages are as follows: Respiration (Q472287) and Breathing (Q9530). --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 16:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

These are synonyms, and the current allocation of their categories makes no sense. Can we merge the two topics? LightProof1995 (talk) 11:31, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

My understanding of d:Help:Merge is that no, we can't merge the topics, because 42 Wikipedias have separate articles about them. I don't have much experience with Wikidata, though, so I could easily be missing something or misunderstanding your suggestion. Am I? --Arbarulo (talk) 16:42, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Per

1.  Support Per Arbarulo, --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 16:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC)