Talk:List of articles every Wikipedia should have

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
See the list of removed entries for articles that were listed in the past or are still under consideration.

Archives of this page

Please add new topics to the bottom of this page


Contents

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

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

(General)

  1. Mathematics

(Algebra)

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

(Geometry)

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

(Analysis)

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

(Statistics)

  1. Normal distribution
  2. Probability theory

(Logic / others)

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

The following is the list of changes:

Other candidates of consideration might be:

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

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

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

Structure change first[edit]

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

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

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

  • I agree the structure change--Wolfch (talk) 01:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I mostly agree with dcljr in first considering the structure. Concerning the possible changes, I think that the present list is not bad, but if it has to be more "focused" then perhaps I would replace Arithmetic, Number theory and Set theory by Zero, Derivative and Set (mathematics). With these changes, I would rename section 2: Numbers. --Txebixev (talk) 13:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and made the structure change exactly as I proposed above. Further discussion is, of course, welcome… - dcljr (talk) 03:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Anatomy & Medicine[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

You're right about the respiratory system, and I think replacing it with lungs would be a good idea. Let's see what others think about these changes before making a final decision. For this purpose, please list all the changes that you made, here or in the Template:Top1000 recent changes. — Yerpo Eh? 05:58, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

for your consideration[edit]

Instead of Influenza, Smallpox, Dentistry, Pneumonia or Alzheimer's disease. --Igel B TyMaHe (talk) 08:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Dubai City/Emirate[edit]

Another one of those silly distinctions that only serve as a field for ping-ponging links in Wikidata (remember Brussels?)... Encyclopedially, the city (d:Q612) and the emirate (d:Q613) are largely coterminous - just look at the articles linked with what is supposed to be the item representing the city d:Q612. Almost all talk primarily about Dubai as a political entity, including en:Dubai. Any ideas how to solve this? — Yerpo Eh? 08:02, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I would prefer keeping Dubai City (d:Q612) for the following reasons:
  1. In our list, "Dubai" is listed in the "Cities" section.
  2. Dubai City has more interwiki links, which means there are more languages treating Dubai City as vital article than the emirate.
--Romethus (talk) 05:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Please add The Divine Comedy[edit]

I think that the Divine Comedy should be added to this list. It is a masterpiece of the Italian literature and one of the most important works of the world literature. Dante's work also established solid foundations to the theological and scientific thinking of the following centuries. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rapper skull (talk) 17:56, 17. september 2015‎

Which entry do you propose to remove to make room? — Yerpo Eh? 06:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
I can't propose to remove anything from the poetry section, since there are only four entries, but maybe we could remove metal and steel from the physics section. — Rapper_skull 13:58, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
I strongly oppose removing such important topics. — Yerpo Eh? 15:02, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Video game and Smartphone[edit]

I think Video game (already discussed here two years ago) and Smartphone should be in the list. I suggest to remove Litre, Physical chemistry, Hard disk drive, Email or Acceleration. Paucabot (talk) 19:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Litre could go, possibly also Physical chemistry, other topics are too core. Although I'm not sure I'd replace them with these two (as per the comment two years ago). — Yerpo Eh? 07:09, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Litre and physical chemistry. I also think hard disk is not very core. I would compare hard disk to Chipset, RAM or Motherboard. Maybe replace it by Computer data storage or Integrated circuit? I neither don't see the cority of acceleration, as we do have Force. Taking a look at the article, it seems a very mathematical definition, not a core physical concept as you can see comparing its background with the corresponding to Force.
And yes, video game and smartphone are very recent, but the former is approximately as recent as email, artificial intelligence, hard disk and CPU. I think video game is comparable to cinema (or Film): video game industry is earning more money than film industry and is replacing TV, movies as the main leisure activity in some age segments. As for smarthpone, I think it's a big big revolution and it's the next step in computing (they are much more popular in the third world than normal computers), but I admit this item it's much more recent than video games. We could change it for Cell phone to gain more time length but we also have Telephone, which is maybe too much overlapping. Paucabot (talk) 11:03, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata Q15645384 and Q12106 (Wheat)[edit]

Please consider change d:Q12106 with d:Q15645384 in this list. Currently, none of the "big" Wikipedias doesn't have this article. (very similar problem with banana, apple etc.)--C3r4 (talk) 14:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Support Support There is a user on Wikidata who separated the taxon Triticum d:Q12106 and the cereal d:Q15645384. I think that in this list the cereal would be much more properly than the botanical genus. --Holder (talk) 06:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Support Support Wheat is listed as "Foodstuffs" instead of botanical.--Wolfch (talk) 08:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Catholic Church[edit]

I'm new to wikidata and meta, and I need your help with the following issue:

"Catholic Church" is clearly the odd one in "Specific religions", as it refers to a church (an organisation), and not a religion like every other item in that section.

This makes good sense in the context of enwiki, where en:Catholic Church describes both the church and its doctrine, i.e. [Roman] Catholicism. At the same time, en:Catholicism describes one of the en:Four Marks of the Church, which applies to most christian churches, and starts with a caveat: "This sense is to be distinguished from the use of these words to refer to the Roman Catholic Church..."

In other languages -- and particularly in ruwiki, where I'm coming from -- the two meanings of Catholicism are expressed with different terms. Thus, the Russian interwiki of en:Catholicism came to describe the doctrine of the [Roman] Catholic Church; the Russian interwiki of en:Catholic Church -- the church itself and its organisation; and a third article is for the catholicity as one of the en:Four Marks of the Church.

Now, our question is, how can we align that with WP:HAVE? Naturally, we want our main article on [Roman] Catholicism to be on the list; the Russian article on Catholic Church is essentially a subarticle of Catholicism. At the same time, we want to preserve the interwiki between en:Catholic Church and its Russian counterpart, since the subjects (though not the scope) of the two articles are the same.

Looking at wikidata, Catholicism "has parts" Catholic Church and Old Catholic Church, but none of the other catholic churches in the sense of the en:Four Marks of the Church -- in particular, not en:Orthodox Catholic Church. This seems to imply that Q1841 "Catholicism" stands for the second meaning of the term, i.e. the doctrine of the [Roman] Catholic Church, -- and not the one described at en:Catholicism. I don't know if there exists a wikidata entry for the other meaning of catholicity.

So, the source of our confusion is: there are three subjects, loosely mapped to two enwiki articles. One of the three merits an entry on WP:HAVE -- the religious doctrine; but it's not the main subject of its enwiki article. How can all this be handled? --146.200.13.17 23:58, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Can we add Shenzhen into the list?[edit]

Shenzhen is a city of more than ten million inhabitants in Southern China and among the fastest growing in the world. Wishva de Silva (talk) 15:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

What do you propose to remove to make place for a new entry? — Yerpo Eh? 16:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, we can. Not only Shenzen, but also Guangzhou (Canton). They should replace Cape Town and Nairobi which are much smaller. Propositum (talk) 15:25, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Size is not the same as importance. The lead of the en-wp article gives the impression that Shenzhen does not have a very important history. And by size it is not (yet?) in the absolute top. --LPfi (talk) 11:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
So should we add Venice, Agra or Xi'an which used to be very important? Moreover, Guangzhou-Shenzen-Hong Kong is actually the biggest urban area in the world. Propositum (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Philosophers and social scientists: Martin Heidegger[edit]

Hello. I suggest to add Martin Heidegger instead of Noam Chomsky or Simone de Beauvoir. I think the most important and influential philosopher in the continental tradition in the 20th century should be in this list. Please comment. Ratte (talk) 18:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Zhu Xi is the first to be removed. Chomsky and Beauvoir are not less appreciated than Heidegger. Propositum (talk) 18:54, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Artists[edit]

Among early modern architects, Bernini should replace Sinan; as regards 16th-century painters, Caravaggio ought to take over Dürer's slot. The former are more famous, as the Wikimedia Tool Labs prove, and both were more important for the development of art. Propositum (talk) 20:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Popularity is not a relevant measure. We're here to educate, not entertain. Sinan should stay as the sole representative of eastern art in that section - it's a matter of balance. Similarly, Dürer represents a totally different period than Caravaggio and is also important as a humanist and a natural scientist. — Yerpo Eh? 06:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Popularity is the most relevant measure. And nationality is not an argument; we should take into account achievements. By the way, Turkey is more Western that Eastern. Propositum (talk) 17:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Nah, popularity is just the most lazy measure. We can do better than that. By the way, Turkey has been more Western than Eastern only for the past century or so. — Yerpo Eh? 07:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
It is not a lazy measure. It is the most unbiased one. NPOV is the core of Wikipedia. Have You any better method? As regerds Turkey, it has been always connected with the West, but this is another story. Propositum (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
View count of an English-language website unbiased? You have got to be joking. It's also self-referential apart from other wiki "sins". — Yerpo Eh? 11:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

16th century[edit]

It is necessary to put Charles V instead of Palestrina. The former created an empire encompassing Germany, Spain, Italy, the Americas and the Philippines. The latter is much less popular than the other listed composers. Propositum (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Alternatively, we can replace Palestrina with Benjamin Franklin, which is one of the crucial figures in the history of America. Only few people listen nowadays to the papal composer. Propositum (talk) 17:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
To keep the list balanced, you should either suggest removing someone from the political leader section or adding someone to the composer section. --MarsRover 22:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Wagner, Richard[edit]

Why he is more meaningfull than other? I think it will be better to remove bold font writing for Wagner.--SEA99 (talk) 13:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

May be highlite Beatles instead?--SEA99 (talk) 16:35, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
This is a good idea, because they have much more articles and views in Wikipedia than him (159/32,568 per day in 2016 compared with 132/8,319). But it is particularly necessary to include Michael Jackson who has better statistics than any other composer or musician in the history (190/54,677). Last but not least, the highlight for Stravinsky is more strange than for Wagner, because the former has only 111/4,005. Propositum (talk) 08:32, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Roman empire - Ancient Rome[edit]

I suggest that Ancient Rome is made the base article instead of Roman empire. In that way we would include all the history and culture of the Roman civilization, and not just its second half. --Chandra Varena (talk) 08:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Not a bad suggestion, but we already have the Byzantine Empire and the earlier part of the Roman civilization might not be as important as the latter. --MarsRover 21:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

remove feminism / add rape[edit]

Feminism is a eurocentristic/western topic. It hasn't had much effect on many Asian and African societies. Rape however was always present through human history, worldwide, and was and still is an important issue. It is also an often underestimated genocidal war tactic even though it is rarely spoken about. 185.100.87.228 03:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

  • disagree. feminism represents the rise of women as equal to men in society, a huge issue, some would argue the largest social issue facing mankind. that is has roots in the West is not a reason to denigrate it. women's equality is much larger than any eurocentric idea of what women are. rape, while of course deadly serious, is taken more seriously now BECAUSE of feminism. there was a time when rape was in most of its forms not noteworthy.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 09:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
    • When was this time that you are speaking of? Rape has always been illegal in most societies, often punishable by death. 134.130.182.31 23:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • agree with anon on this. Generally the list should lean more toward specific topics. Also to recommend to Yazidi women or Chibok schoolgirls that the world need to read about equal rights seems a bit elitist. We have more basic issues, IMHO. --MarsRover 22:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • should be done similar to "Slavery"
    right now "Slavery" is included, but "slave-ownership" (or slave-owner) is not D1gggg (talk) 19:29, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Hormone[edit]

Hormone doesn't belong in organic chemistry as there is no way that an organic chemist could tell whether a substance acts as a hormone or not. It should be moved to biochemistry or perhaps even to biology(physiology). --Episcophagus (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Agree, I suggest you put it under biochemistry. — Yerpo Eh? 20:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

art of war[edit]

remove art of war from literature, add divine comedy by dante. art of war doesnt belong here, maybe in philosophy. the literature list is really short, i must say. we should probably also have don quixote in it.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 09:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Not against removing Art of War, but we already have Dante in the list. I don't think we also need his most famous work. Maybe another choice would work. --MarsRover 22:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata:List of 1000 articles every Wikipedia should have[edit]

The lists in the individual Wikipedias are often outdated. Maybe they should be maintained by ListeriaBot. For this, the data must be in Wikidata. Is there a plain list of all WD item ids?

See 282 items at d:Wikidata:List of 1000 articles every Wikipedia should have maintained by ListeriaBot, based on data at the corresponding WD item page d:Q5460604. User:Yerpo, can you provide a list of Q-ids or even better can you somehow add them to d:Q5460604? 85.180.34.213 06:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I can do this, but is it sensible/possible to list a thousand objects under "has part" in Q5460604? Besides, all the objects would then have to be equipped with the inverse property "part of" (P361) and I'm not sure what are the rules for such metadata. — Yerpo Eh? 09:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
PS: where exactly did ListeriaBot get the partial list from? Maybe it's better to make a full list in the project space? — Yerpo Eh? 09:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
I guess the list was created when Q5460604 had lots of "has part", see history. A discussion about it can be found at d:Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2017/01#Q5460604.23P527. I agree it would be useful if Wikidata could hold the information from this list somehow. But I'm not familiar enough with Wikidata to know how it should be done in the best way, if it is "allowed" at all. Boivie (talk) 11:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Maybe a new property has-list-item is needed, to avoid revers statements. Could that help? 77.179.239.159 14:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think this will be approved, seeing that the strategy for WD is to facilitate dynamic querying for lists. Perhaps ask around the Community portal how this could be done, but for now it's better to make it outside the mainspace. I put the raw list of items at List of articles every Wikipedia should have/Itemlist. — Yerpo Eh? 06:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Yerpo: There are lists that can be dynamically generated (Wikidata lists), and there are lists that are maintained externally (e.g. Music charts, but also this Meta list). If one wants to describe the external lists, one has to store the information. "dynamic querying for lists" does not work if the information is not stored. Thanks for the raw item list!!! 77.179.181.135 15:32, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Global Perspective: History[edit]

From reading the list, it is clear that the aim is to have a global perspective, which is great and critical for a global project like Wikipedia. With important entries like Ibn Battuta, Zheng He and the Gupta Empire, it is less anglo-centric and less euro-centric than most of these types of lists. Kudos to the creators for achieving that. There are still some critical gaps though, and it will require some additional work to make the list truly global in nature. Under History, I suggest adding the following four topics:

  • Mali Empire, the richest civilization during the 14th century, with extensive trade reaching three continents, and with a highly developed and sophisticated culture. In comparison, Medieval Europe was at the time a stagnant backwater.
  • Maya, one of the great early civilizations in the world, an independent inventor of writing and with sophisticated science and architecture.
  • Inca, the great civilization of South America, with direct or indirect reach over almost a whole continent
  • Sumer, the cradle of western civilization. While Sumer is part of Mesopotamia, which is on the list, it definitely deserves its own entry.

Of course, to add also means to subtract. I propose removing the Hundred Years' War, the Thirty Years' War, The crusades and the Treaty of Versailles. These are all important events in European history, but they are not the most important and defining trends of European history, which are represented by the existing entries of Medieval Europe, The Renaissance, the Protestant Reformation and World War 1. For example, the Hundred Years' War was a long lasting local skirmish between the French speaking lords of France and the French speaking lords of England, neither of which were of global importance at the time, and the Thirty Years' War was one of many violent periods in European history.

To double check my own thoughts on this, I consulted Felipe Fernandez-Armestos book Millenium: The history of the last 1000 years, which attempts to take a truly global perspective on world history. The Maya, Inca and Mali Empire all have several pages devoted to them, while the Hundred Years' War is not mentioned at all, the Thirty Years' War is given a couple of paragraphs, and the Treaty of Versailles is briefly mentioned in the chapter on the First World War. The Crusades get almost the same amount of coverage as the Maya and the Inca, but considerable less that the Mali Empire. (Sumer is older than 1000 years so it falls outside the scope of the book).

In summary, in order to make the list more global and less euro-centric, my suggestions are to include:

  • The Mali Empire instead of the Hundred Years' War
  • The Maya instead of the Thirty Years' War
  • The Inca instead of the Treaty of Versailles, and
  • Sumer instead of The Crusades.

Looking forward to hear what others think. Martinogk (talk) 03:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

That looks like reasonable and well motivated changes. Boivie (talk) 11:31, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with these arguments, except perhaps regarding the crusades which impacted the wider region (Europe, Middle East, North Africa) and two civilizations. Maybe we could postpone including either Maya or Inca until a better alternative to replace is found. — Yerpo Eh? 07:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that sounds like a better approach, to instead remove something from a different category. With only 45 entries, the history section is surprisingly short compared to some of the other sections. To make room for both the Maya Civilization and the Inca, I suggest that we instead remove Esperanto, a constructed European language with 2000 native speakers and a couple of million fluent speakers overall. While Esperanto has some interest as the most successful constructed language, there are hundreds of languages around the world that are more commonly spoken, including Quiché, a modern Maya language with 2.3 million native speakers. Martinogk (talk) 03:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Am I right to understand this comment was the only piece of „discussion“ on deleting Esperanto from the list? Amikeco (talk) 21:07, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
It seems to me that you are right, Amikeco. So the method was, one person, Martinogk, suggested to take out Esperanto, waited 18 days, no one else commented - and then Martinogk deleted Esperanto. I am sorry, this is not what I consider to be appropriate. Esperanto has a very special role in the world. It's not amazing that Esperanto is offered on a lot of language learning sites. A search of "Esperanto" via Google gets at least 100 million results. Just to count the number of speakers is not enough to understand the special role of this language. We should consider e. g. that China publishes daily news in Esperanto, along with only nine other languages. Esperanto has a world wide role and there are not a lot of languages that are learnt in so many countries.
Martinogk argued that e. g. Hundred Years' War is also part of Medieval Europe. OK. But with the deletion of Esperanto the whole subject and the idea of an international language, much quicker to learn than other languages, is omitted. --Lu Wunsch-Rolshoven (talk) 13:20, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Even if the method was not perfect, I could hardly argue against removing Esperanto. Its role as a universal language has been completely overshadowed by English, so its actual impact is probably on par with the number of speakers. The idea behind it may be noble, but that's not enough in my view. At least presently; I might be persuaded to change my opinion if the autor's wishes come closer to realization in the next few decades, but for now, I support the removal. — Yerpo Eh? 17:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
You didn't touch the subject of the uniqueness of Esperanto, Yerpo. The fact that English is the most learned and used foreign language is nothing new in principle in human history - there were international languages like Latin or French before English. The unique thing with Esperanto is that one man put together the basis of Esperanto. Then people learned Esperanto and are still learning Esperanto and an international language community of a new kind was created and is expanding more and more. This community developed its own culture with books and songs etc., being a supranational community. This is something quite different from English. There is no real alternative between English and Esperanto (as many people seem to believe) - Esperanto has a very distinct approach, it's rather a complement. This special aspect of Esperanto was one main reason to include it in this wikipedia list.
The other relevant aspect certainly was the fact that Esperanto can be learned in about a fourth of the time needed for English and similar languages. This also is a unique aspect of the language Esperanto and one more reason why Esperanto should be included again. (And thanks that you agree about the method of deletion.) --Lu Wunsch-Rolshoven (talk) 07:56, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
We should also consider that a lot of linguists and others constantly misinform about Esperanto. That's why a well documented article about Esperanto is necessary in every wikipedia. --Lu Wunsch-Rolshoven (talk) 08:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Uniqueness is certainly a criterion to consider, but is not sufficient for inclusion, in my opinion. Existence of misinformation, on the other hand, is definitely not relevant here - see also WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. — Yerpo Eh? 18:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Probably we should think twice before deleting a unique subject; this obviously didn't take place. - Existence of misinformation is relevant, because a lot of people have ideas about Esperanto which are obviously false. Just reading the wikipedia article about Esperanto will help them to understand their errors. I do not speak about facts without sources, so RIGHTGREATWRONGS is not relevant here. But I would like to know, if those speaking against Esperanto already read the WP:Esperanto article. Did they? - Up to now there are only two people here who speak for the deletion of the Esperanto article from the list. Not a lot, it seems to me. --Lu Wunsch-Rolshoven (talk) 16:38, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
I fully support Lu Wunsch-Rohlshoven's proposal to undo the deletion of Esperanto from the list. The reason given when deleting it was short-sighted: The number of speakers is not what is relevant, but the attention it gets in scholarly and popular discourse. Esperanto gets much much more attention than languages of comparable size of speakers due to its special role as by far the most successful planned language ever. Marcos (talk) 18:28, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
As there isn't any further comment for quite some time, I hope, it will be ok to revert the change which deleted Esperanto. If someone wants to include Mayan Civilization (this is quite ok for me), he or she should find another topic to delete. Esperanto as a worldwide language should not be deleted, certainly not while speaking of a "Global Perspective"; Esperanto should stay in the list. Yerpo already commented, that the method (of deleting Esperanto) "was not perfect"... --Lu Wunsch-Rolshoven (talk) 06:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Seeing that two people support and two oppose the removal, the final consensus is not clear, so restoring and then debating again would be overly bureaucratic at this point. Can't we just make another, specific discussion and then act according to its outcome? — Yerpo Eh? 17:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@Boivie: hope you don't mind, but I reverted your changes to the list until tomorrow. We agreed a while ago that changes wouldn't be made just before the ranking is updated, to give communities more time to write/expand new articles and prevent them from score decrease. I'll self-revert back when the ranking is updated. — Yerpo Eh? 17:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Religious figures and theologians[edit]

In the religious figures section, 5 out of 10 personalities represent Christianity (7 if you include Abraham and Moses). Buddha is the only personality representing a non-semitic, non-monotheistic religion. I propose to remove Paul the Apostle, Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas in favor of Mahavira, Nagarjuna and Zoroaster.--Edler von Udinium 20:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't look at Augustine and Thomas as representing Christianity but Medieval philosophy - I would rather remove Abraham, Moses and Paul. Also Mahavira/Zoroaster would be rather redundant with Jainism/Zoroastrism. --Nk (talk) 19:32, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
I'd keep Abraham and Moses, but I wouldn't object to replacing Paul or Augustine with Nagarjuna. A. Mahoney (talk) 13:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Edler von Udinium for noting the lack of personalities from non-semitic religions. With a total of ten entries, it could make sense to include 2-4 from each of the four major world religions. I agree that Nagarjuna should definitely be added, as the key person of Mahayana, the most widely followed branch of Buddhism. Would also be nice to add some important Hindu religious figures such as Ramanuja. I agree that we can remove Paul, as well as either Abraham, Moses or Augustine. Martinogk (talk) 16:07, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Abraham and Moses are pretty crucial (why the name 'Abrahamic' for all these religions is from Abraham), Augustine and Aquinas not so for as many religions as Abraham and Moses are Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:27, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Items should be selected and sorted into several lists regardless of sitelinks[edit]

D1gggg (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Split the list[edit]

I split the list as in it.wiki. I hope this is not a problem. --Geoide (talk) 11:40, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Suggest adding outer space and removing spaceflight[edit]

outer space is an important topic which is not included here, so I suggest removing spaceflight to free the quota for that. --Jason6698 (talk) 04:35, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Though they are both vital, as the list can contain just 1,000 articles, and spaceflight means "ballistic flight into or through outer space", a small Wikipedia should have and then maintain outer space first.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

As no people oppose this suggestion, if no further comments are raised by the following week, I will make the change by myself.--Jason6698 (talk) 08:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I think outer space is a bit redundant to Universe. Many Wikipedias just describe outer space astronomical objects/structures in the article about the latter (96 vs. 151 interwikis). Spaceflight, on the other hand, is important as a technological topic, which this list lacks. So I'd prefer to keep spaceflight here. — Yerpo Eh? 06:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree; "outer space" can also be discussed in an article on the solar system, so I'd keep space flight in the 1000-page list. Both, of course, can be in the 10,000 page list. A. Mahoney (talk) 15:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Agree with Yerpo and A. Mahoney that with the Solar System and the Universe, we do not also need to include Outer Space. Martinogk (talk) 00:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Replace biological classification by taxonomy[edit]

Now that in the English Wikipedia the former was merged into the latter, and the list asks that each Wikipedia should contain every article in the list, the former should be replaced with the latter here since English Wikipedia is the largest one, and a smaller Wikipedia does not have to have the article on biological classification as the English Wikipedia used to, but should have taxonomy instead. The list should contain zoology and genetics as well, since it is absurd that the list contains botany but not these two articles. RNA, Gene and heredity should be included as well. We can add these four articles without exceeding the 1,000 quota by removing five people, for instance, Marilyn Monroe need not to be kept, as the English Wikipedia page on vital articles (Lv3) does not contain her.--RekishiEJ (talk) 18:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC) added and changed a word 18:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Week oppose for replacing biological classification, as it has far more languages (107) then taxonomy (54).
In principle, I argee that the quota of biography can be reduced. Howerver, further discussion is needed to find out who should be removed.--Jason6698 (talk) 08:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

remove Flamenco[edit]

I don't see why it should be in this list. --Gnom (talk) Let's make Wikipedia green! 13:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

What would you propose instead? A. Mahoney (talk) 18:32, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, maybe with "pop music", which surprisingly isn't in the list yet. --Gnom (talk) Let's make Wikipedia green! 21:33, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
@Gnom:,@Amahoney: Agree that Flamenco can be removed. If we want to replace it with another music genre/dance, salsa is much more widely spread across the globe, making the list less euro-centric. Martinogk (talk) 00:20, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
@Gnom:, @Amahoney:, @Amahoney: Folk music would be a more general replacement. --Nk (talk) 19:35, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Lemon (and Soybean): Fruit vs Taxon[edit]

Currently Lemon is listed under foodstuffs/fruit as the species/taxon Citrus ×limon (Q500) (instance of: taxon). While I was trying to have this reflected in Wikidata, @Succu: (d:) was disputing my edits [1]. If I understand his very brief remarks correctly, he is convinced that this list should rather reference the fruit lemon (Q1093742) (class: hesperidium and citrus fruit), but seems not to bother to do anything about it, so let me play proxy here for his request: @Succu: asks to replace Lemon(-tree) (Q500) with Lemon(-fruit) (Q1093742). See also [2]

The same issue also applies to Glycine max (Q11006) (listed here as a taxon under foodstuffs/fruit as Soybean), but I couldn't find a separate article or wd-item for its fruit/bean.

Following his request, we would consequently replace the plants with the fruits (lemon for now) and end up with no english (or simple) articles for it. I find this problematic due to the nature of this list, but it is certainly possible. E.g. in german we can live with those holes as we include see-also-notes with them [3]. But whoever wants to track adoption of this list automatically will have to deal with it (already).

Citrus ×limon (Q500) has far more sitelinks than lemon (Q1093742) 138 vs 25.

  • The taxon-item has sitelinks to simple and german talking about fruit and taxon, englisch says it's about the fruit, but actually also is about both.
  • The fruit-item has no sitelinks to english, no german, no chinese...

As a general rule, we could keep Wikidata-Items for taxons on this list as long as there are no separare Wikidata-Items for their fruits. Thus soybean would be replaced as well, once we find the fuit item.

My intend here is to seek clarification and as a German could also live without a sitelink to english, especially as lemon only appears there in the expanded list (level 4, 10.000 articles). --Aeroid (talk) 12:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)


I'd like to participate in this discussion. My edition was reverted when I changed Citrus ×limon (Q500) for lemon (Q1093742) and I'm going to explain why I think it might be in that way. Firstly, let's take a look to this list. In Foodstuffs, part 7 is about fruits (fruit (Q1364)), defined here in wikidata as a "part of a flowering plant" but I prefer the more complete definition in the english wikipedia: "a fruit is the seed-bearing structure in flowering plants". Taking in account these definitions, it seems to be clear that the fruit is not the whole plant or tree. Now, let's take a look to the fruits mentioned in this part 7 and their definitions in the linked pages in wikidata: apple (Q89) "fruit of the apple tree", banana (Q503) "fruit", grape (Q10978) "the fruit, use Q191019 for the genus, use Q30046 for the species", Glycine max (Q11006) "species of plant", Citrus ×limon (Q500) "nothospecies of plant (for lemon use Q1093742)" and nut (Q11009) "edible seed (with or without the rest of the fruit)". We can see that 4 out of 6 linked pages in wikidata talk about fruit (it could be doubtful "nut", but an extended definition of fruit is "any plant product useful to man, including grain, vegetables, etc" or "any edible part of a plant", but never the whole plant). As a conclusion, in my opinion, there are two mistakes concerning to "soybean" (in this list, it might be only the grain of the plant) and "lemon" (clearly concerning to lemon (Q1093742)). I think that Citrus ×limon (Q500) has far more sitelinks than lemon (Q1093742) is not a strong reason to maintain Citrus ×limon (Q500) because a repeated mistake (in my modest opinion, of course) doesn't make it true. Most of the languages that sounds, more or less, familiar to me, make the difference between the fruit and the fruit tree: lemon and lemon tree (english), limón and limonero (spanish), citron and citronnier (french), zitrone and zitronenbaum (german), limao and limoeiro (portuguese), limón and limoeiro (galician), llimona and llimoner (catalan), limone and (albero di) limone (italian); but only two (french and galician) have a page for everyone. The other have only one page for the lemon tree or two pages, being one a redirection to the other. On the contrary, for example, grape (Q10978) and Vitis vinifera (Q30046) have their own page on everyone of the mentioned wikis. Why all of these wikis have different pages for "grape" and "grape vine" but not for "lemon" and "lemon tree"? That seems not to be so coherent. Yours, --Xosé Antonio (talk) 01:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I think that if apple, banana, grape, and nut point to the articles of the fruits, lemon has to point to its article too. In other hand, I think that soybean can't be considered a fruit, and I suggest change it for pineapple. Bye, --Elisardojm (talk) 12:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Add Poverty[edit]

Add Poverty (social issues), remove Auto racing. (Really? Auto racing???) Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:44, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Support Support poverty is a human socioeconomic condition issue since the beginning of the civilizations and a core theme. Auto racing... well... --Zerabat (discusión) 18:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support Poverty has been linked with biodiversity and ecosystem issues - biodiversity is also an article that is missing. Shyamal (talk) 04:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes check.svg Done Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:37, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Good change. Thank you. Martinogk (talk) 00:23, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Add HUNGARY[edit]

I suggest either adding the Hungarian language (because of its unique position of being a major non-Indo-European language in Europe, just as important as most other European languages and more important than most non-European languages) or the country Hungary (a regional superpower which contributed a lot to European culture and history over more than a millennium, probably more important than countries like Afghanistan, Congo, New Zealand, Sudan, Venezuela etc). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 185.79.93.4 (talk)

These assertions don't convince me, so I suggest we keep the balance and not remove non-European topics to accommodate Hungary or Hungarian. — Yerpo Eh? 11:06, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
I do not think we should add more languages to the 18 that are already listed, but if we do, I would add Korean, Javanese, Vietnamese or Thai, all with over 50 million native speakers, rather than Hungarian, with 13 million. Martinogk (talk) 18:11, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Giza pyramids[edit]

At the moment the list shows "Giza Necropolis", which is listed under wikidata Giza pyramid complex (Q13217298). This looks like a mixup because it is not about the pyramids but about the surrounding cemeteries. Surely the whole Giza Pyramid complex is meant, of which the cemeteries ("necropolis") are not the main interest. So I propose to link to Giza Pyramids (Q12508) . Kipala (talk) 14:35, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I think it will upset a lot of people who organized their wikipedia a bit differently but the German Wikipedia shows after you expand both articles. One is about graves and the other buildings. --MarsRover 16:24, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
I guess if people organized different then with a look at this list and the connected ranking. But i do not see any reason to keep articles about the bunch of graves around Giza among the 1000 most important topics every wikipedias should have. The argument is for the pyramids; and also the German article de:Nekropole von Gizeh which is now connected to this entry has no place among the 1000 top, the de:Pyramiden von Gizeh however is, even though not connected here. So what can be done to correct this? Kipala (talk) 06:49, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Unless someone disagrees I think you can switch it. There are a lot of articles that have even more challenging issues (e.g. Is "blindness" or "sight impairment"? Is this "nose" or "human nose"? Is it "biological classification" or "taxonomy"?). Probably there isn't a perfect solution but I think in this case graves vs buildings is easy to explain. --MarsRover 17:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree, both about Giza and about the larger problem. In Latin Wikipedia we spend a lot of time chasing our tails as the specific Wikidata items on lists like this one keep flopping around; neither English, nor German, nor any other of the big WPs seems to have an ideal organization for everything! A. Mahoney (talk) 12:55, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Michael Jackson[edit]

Why Michael Jackson not listed here?.He has wikipedia in 231 languages (Only trailing Ronald Reagan).I dont know what is the criteria to be listed here but i think Jackson should be listed here. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 00:30, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

This was already discussed, even more than once, I think. Please check archives. — Yerpo Eh? 09:35, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
I think he is safely more notable than Louis Armstrong. 201.27.100.86 15:14, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

International organizations[edit]

Just stumbled about 'International organizations'. The major organizations like EU, AU, ASEAN, .. are there, but UNASUR is missing. IMO it is much more important an representing many more inhabitants than Commonwealth of Independent States (a more or less Russian organization). --Murma174 (talk) 11:47, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Agree that Commonwealth of Independent States could potentially be removed. Founded in 2008,UNASUR is a young and fledgling organization, with Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Paraguay and Peru having recently suspended their membership. I would rather add the Organization of American States, which is older, larger, more active and more important. Martinogk (talk) 19:47, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I'd agree to Organization of American States, as America is not represented in this chapter. --Murma174 (talk) 12:26, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

replace Flamenco with Esperanto[edit]

As I read the discussion. I can see that people are being annoyed that Esperanto get removed from the list. So I propose bringing Esperanto back and putting Flamenco away. Worra Mait Kosit (talk) 20:28, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

As a regional Andalusian dance not widely practiced outside of Spain, I agree that we can remove flamenco, even though I think it is an absolutely fabulous dance. With only three entries ("dance", "samba" and "flamenco"), dance is underrepresented on the list though, considering its world wide practice and popularity. I think we should replace flamenco with either salsa, belly dance, bharatanatyam or tango, all of which are more popular and more widely practiced than flamenco. What do others think? Martinogk (talk) 22:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
In spite of I'm Spanish, I'm not specially interested in Flamenco, but I'm not agree with the assert that is not widely practiced outside of Spain. In some far countries from Spain, like Japan and many latin american countries, included United States, there is a crescent interest in flamenco with people learning it and opening locals where flamenco is danced. Also, UNESCO has recognized that Flamenco is a form of popular artistic expression representing a long-standing tradition that appears on the UNESCO’s list of Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity. --Xosé Antonio (talk) 20:35, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Agree w/ Xosé Antonio's reasoning, even though I, too, do not follow this particular art form. Acwilson9 Acwilson9 (talk) 01:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
I am not sure how much UNESCO's classification matters here. I agree with replacing it with a more popular dance like the ones suggested. 201.27.100.86 15:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Artists[edit]

Claude Monet has 110 articles — more than Mimar Sinan, although he his listed as compulsory. In the pageviews the gap is much bigger: 9471 to 798. The former should replace the latter. And yet 5 artists is too much for a single century (the 15th or 18th have no one). Propositum (talk) 19:07, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

21st Century Scientists[edit]

The list of great scientists and inventors is missing Stephen Hawking who is number 23 on Wikipedia:Multiyear ranking of most viewed pages. I suggest deleting the 19th century British physicist James Prescott Joule to make way. More generally, I think the list skews towards ancient scientists at the expense of modern ones.T0mpr1c3 (talk) 12:07, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree Hawking is missing, however Joule needs to be kept as well - his contributions to physics were so significant, that the Joule energy measuring unit is named after him - ever heard of the kiloJoule instead of the older calories? That's from him. Best regards. AntekVeganova (talk) 01:53, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

20th Century revolutionaries[edit]

Che Guevara attracts attention, but Fidel Castro is surely a more important historical figure. For similar reasons I prefer Trotsky over Rosa Luxemburg.T0mpr1c3 (talk) 12:26, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I hope this is not a list of personal preferences? I agree we should keep both Fidel and Che - Fidel for the historical importance (Bay of Pigs, Cuba crisis etc) and Che, well... for the Wiki-popularity. Furthermore I politely ask to keep both Rosa Lux as well as Trotsky, on behalf of the Eastern Europe states who were affected by these figures directly. Rosa was a Polish revolutionary woman, fighting for the rights of the working class, and unfortunately she got brutally murdered and thrown in the river in Berlin by a German socialist militant dictator. While Trotsky was quite a murderous git himself, he used to be Stalin's henchman (much like Lenin) and led the "Trotsky slaughterers" - a squad effing opponents until Trotsky himself fell out of Soso's favour and had to flee. Leonid wasn't exactly as warm and endearing as the Hollywood Frida-Hayek movie portrays him as. Both were significant historical figures and miss Rosa is a special source of pride for the Polish people. Best regards. AntekVeganova (talk) 01:49, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
On the list of political leaders, it is important to not only have heads of state, but also important popular movement figures such as Che Guevara and Rosa Luxemburg. The only other three on the list are Martin Luther King, Joan of Arc and Mohandas Gandhi. Martinogk (talk) 01:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

About "Military"[edit]

There are two concepts here that are dealt with in different ways by different language versions of Wikipedia: "Armed forces" and "Military". Some versions have separate articles for these concepts, while others have a single article that spans both.

While there may be certain nuances of meaning between these two terms in certain languages, in many other languages they may not be substantial enough to merit separate articles. It makes no sense to "force" Wikipedias that have an article under item Q772547 to create a second, likely redundant, article under item Q8473 to be able to complete the List of articles every Wikipedia should have.

I therefore suggest replacing "Military" with some related concept that avoids such problems, e.g. Army.--Leptictidium (talk) 11:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with replacing "Military" with "Army". The purpose of this list shouldn't be force a standard structure across various languages. If something is commonly expressed multiple ways we should just avoid those topics and select a more specific subset of the topic. I think not doing that is just wasting people's time creating shadow topics or having someone delete their work as duplicative. --MarsRover 20:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
+1. --Nk (talk) 14:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Global Perspective: Geography[edit]

It is nice to see how this list is becoming more and more global in nature, which is both natural and important for a global project like Wikipedia, but we are not quite there yet.

Cities[edit]

The list of cities is truly global in perspective, which is very nice and impressive to see. I would suggest a few minor tweaks though:

While both Bogota and Nairobi are natural members of a list of the most important cities in the world, I think it is more important to include their respective countries, which are among the largest and most important on their continents.

The only truly global city that is missing from the list is Canton/Guangzhou, which is not only one of the biggest cities of the world with over 20 million people in its metropolitan area, but also the cultural and historical center of southern China, with several hundred million people. To make room for Canton, I would remove Vatican City. Both Rome and the Catholic Church are on the list, which is good, and I do not think we need the Vatican City as well.

As a very minor item, one could also consider moving the city-state of Singapore from the list of countries to the list of cities. While the city and the country are the same, as a city Singapore is of truly global importance, but as a country it is rather small and less important than for example neighboring Malaysia.

Countries[edit]

To make the list of countries more global in nature, I would add

  1. The Phillippines, with over 100 million people it is the largest country not currently on the list
  2. Colombia, with 49 million people, one of the major countries in South America
  3. Kenya, with 47 million people, one of the major countries in Africa
  4. Syria, with 18 million people, and historically a very important country.
  5. Morocco, with 34 million people, a culturally and historically important country in both Africa and in the Arab world
  6. Yemen, with 27 million people, also historically very important
  7. Guatemala, with 16 million people, which is both historically and currently the most important country in Central America.

What seven items do we then remove? In addition to (i) Bogota and (ii) Nairobi, mentioned above, I suggest removing (iii) Austria with 9 million, (iv) Switzerland with 8 million and (v) New Zealand with 5 million people. Regarding Austria, I rather keep Vienna on the list, for its historical and cultural importance. With two more to go, it is hard to find other candidate countries to remove. Instead, I suggest removing (vi) the North Sea. There are other Seas that are equally or more important, such as the East China Sea, the South China Sea, the en:Sea of Japan, the Red Sea, the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Mexico, but I find it more desirable to include more countries than more seas. It is also questionable if we need to have (vii) Ocean on the list since we already have Sea. It is linguistically a little tricky though, as these have slightly different meaning in English (Sea can mean either part of an ocean or the collection of all oceans), while most languages have a word that are commonly used for all three concepts, such as mar in Spanish, hav in Norweigian, and Meer in German, even though some also use an ocean equivalent word as a less used specialty term.

Islands[edit]

While the list includes the longest rivers, the tallest mountain, the biggest lakes, all the oceans and the most extensive dessert, the biggest island is missing. I suggest adding Greenland, while removing the Arctic ocean.

Looking forward to learn what others think. Martinogk (talk) 02:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

I have looked through the archives since 2010, and there has been proposals to add/remove some of the entries listed above:

Cities

Countries

Other

I hope these archival discussion can help us today. Based on the historical comments, I think there must have been some Divine intervention that has kept "Vatican City" on the list. Martinogk (talk) 02:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Most of the proposals are reasonable (I'm not 100% convinced about some of the newly proposed countries). I would consider replacing Ocean/Sea with en:World Ocean - anyway most of the content of the 2 articles is about the general concept. --Nk (talk) 14:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
In general I agree with the suggested changes, but with some nuances:
  • In the list of countries, Myanmar, Malaysia and Peru should also be included. Peru is more important than Guatemala, both in size and history. As a Central American country, Cuba is included, which is smaller than Guatemala although I do not know if it is of more interest. As there is limited space to include countries, I would choose one or the other.
  • In cities I would remove Washington DC. The only relevant reason to include that city is that it is the capital of United States, but is it enough? If being the capital of an important country is enough to be included in the list, then Brasília should also be included, which is larger. Honestly, I do not think that reason is enough, and neither by size nor importance do I see reasons to maintain it.
  • I see no reason to change Singapore from "countries" to "cities" only because as a country it is small. In general it is considered a country (even if it is a city-state), which also has a special relevance in Asia. I would keep it as such.
  • I see no reason to include Greenland. Although we include it as an island, the Wikipedias will treat it as a country.
  • I see no reason to eliminate Ocean. Although sea and ocean may be similar, I believe that all languages ​​have a different term for both concepts, so in all languages ​​there is therefore a difference in the concept. If there was a language in which it was not, we could study the case, but otherwise I see no reason to eliminate any.
Therefore, of the 7 countries that you propose, I would remove Guatemala and I would include the 3 that I have indicated, with which we would have 9 countries to add.
In addition to the indicated cities and countries for remove, I would also remove Washington DC, so we have 6 spaces. In seas I would add article Seven Seas (very poor article in English for a very important historical denomination) and remove the seas from that list (Black Sea, Caspian Sea and Mediterranean Sea) and also the North Sea. In this way we have 3 more spaces, with a total of 9 spaces for the indicated countries. The doubt could be with the Mediterranean Sea, which is an important sea, but I think it would be covered by the article of Seven Seas. --Tximitx (talk) 22:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Mediterranean Sea is one of the most important civilizational area (Roman Empire, Carthage, Greece, Egypt...), an economic center (from Antiquity to nowadays) and a major geopolitical issue (Suez channel, maritime roads, border between North and South countries, border between several big religions, US/NATO/Russian presence...). AMHO, its presence is then expected in the list and I disagree with its removal. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 11:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Nicholas about the Mediterranean. Seven Seas, on the other hand, is a vague and historically shifting concept, much overlapping with World Ocean, so not very relevant. — Yerpo Eh? 07:13, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments 2[edit]

Comments about the different proposals :

  • Support Support Replace Bogota with Colombia : I think it's a good idea. Even if Bogoto is a major city, Colombia is one of the most important regional in South America and, to me, the country is more important than its capital.
  • Support Support Replace Nairobi with Kenya : for the same reasons (Kenya is one of the regional power in East Africa).
  • Oppose Oppose Remove Austria but {{support} Remove Viena : AMHO, Austria is the heir Austria-Hungary which was a major power in Europe during centuries and an important cultural center. AMHO, keeping Austria will allow to remove Viena (which is the center of Austrian culture) and to justify easily the absence of Austria-Hungary.
  • Oppose Oppose Remove Swiss : Swiss is of course not a very populated area but the country has an important politic and economic influence.
  • Support Support Remove Vatican City : AMHO, the proposal is right : Vatican is included in Catholic Church.
  • Support Support Remove New Zealand : AMHO, the country is not a regional power in Oceania (it's Australia) and its cultural and economic influence is limited.
  • Support Support Include Song Dynasty which is missing despite its importance in Chinese History.
  • Support Support Include Yemen and Syria as there are historical region.
  • Support Support Remove Black Sea, Caspian Sea and North Sea : there are important geopolitical and economic theatres but we can consider others elements (as major countries) are more important.
  • Support Support Then include Phillippines (a demographic and regional power), Morocco (a regional power with an important cultural and historical influences) and Peru (major cultural importance in South America).
  • Oppose Oppose Remove Arctic Ocean as it is one of the major ocean and an important region (future crude oil production area ? geopolitical issue between USA and Russia...). To me, Greeland seems to be included in Arctic Ocean (at least in the current list).
  • Oppose Oppose Remove Mediterranean Sea (as explained).
  • Oppose Oppose Include Seven Seas in the list : the concept was important during Middle Ages but, AMHO, it is just now an historical curiosity. Its presence in the list is then not expected.

--Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 07:49, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Comment Comment Austria is not the heir Austria-Hungary. This empire was dissolved in several states, Austria being one of them, but not the heir. That it is preferred to keep Austria instead of Vienna is something else (which I do not share), but not because he was the heir Austria-Hungary, since it is not. --Tximitx (talk) 10:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Vaccine[edit]

I am surprised to see that this list does not include the vaccine as one of the most important articles, that it should even be in bold. The vaccine is considered the most important invention of modern medicine and the medicine that has saved the most lives.

Instead, I propose to withdraw the "headache", which seems to me a minor element to include it in the list of the most important.

As for the articles in bold, I think the "vaccine" is important enough to include it in this way, eliminating the "virus" from the list in bold. --Tximitx (talk) 12:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Tximitx for this important suggestion. I agree that "vaccine" should be added, and that it can be bolded instead of "virus". What to remove is a little bit more of a headache. Considering the importance of medicine/health, the section is rather short. Can we remove something from a different section? How about "Machine gun", "Erwin Schrödinger", "Le Corbusier", "Michael Faraday", "Commonwealth of Independent States" or "Lipid"? Other suggestions? Martinogk (talk) 22:25, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
I have no objection to deleting an article from another section. Of those proposed, "Commonwealth of Independent States" I don't consider it as relevant enough. There are even more important political and commercial blocs that aren't on the list. --Tximitx (talk) 22:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I fully agree on the importance of this topic. But, as usual, a dilemma can't be avoided - should we include vaccine (Q134808) or vaccination (Q192995) as a broader topic? — Yerpo Eh? 08:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Although "vaccination" is important, from the encyclopedic point of view, what is important is the vaccine. Without it, vaccination would not exist. Therefore, I maintain that "vaccine" should be included as the relevant article. --Tximitx (talk) 12:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Good question Yerpo. I agree with Tximitx that "Vaccine" is the better choice. It also fits with other entries, as we have "Food" instead of "Eating", "Agriculture" instead of "Farming", "Bicycle" instead of "Cycling", "Milk" instead of "Milking", "Song" instead of "Singing", "Antibiotic" instead of "???", etc. Martinogk (talk) 19:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm a novice here and I don't know how to proceed with the change of the articles in the list. Do I have to make the change? Is someone responsible? Are they done every so often and we have to wait? I appreciate the clarifications. --Tximitx (talk) 17:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Anyone can do it. I would wait a week to give others more opportunity to comment. As for timing, there is a wish not to change the list just before the ranking is updated. Martinogk (talk) 23:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
All right. I will wait until the ranking is updated to make the change. --Tximitx (talk) 13:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Literature[edit]

Hello, without bothering anyone, I wonder if the literature section has ever been discussed. The added articles are good, but I think it would be more enriching if there were representation of other cultures, because most of the added works are Asian. What do you think?. --Rodelar (talk) 15:33, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Good observation Rodelar. All eight works of literature are from Asia, including the Iliad. Except for Dream of the Red Chamber, all of them are also ancient literature, while Roman literature as well as modern literature from the last 800 years are covered under the authors in the biography section. I think there are two issues:
  1. It is hard to make room for both the authors and their major work. Is it then better to include Dante or Devine Comedy? Tolstoy or War and Peace? Shikibu or Tale of Genji? Cervantes or Don Quixote? Shakespeare or Hamlet? Cao Xueqin or Dream of the Red Chamber? Virgil or Aeneid? García Márquez or One hundred years of solitude? etc... Should we replace some of the authors with their books or vice versa?
  2. For a more global perspective on ancient literature, what could be added? Kebra Nagast? Beowulf? Popul Vuh? the Icelandic Sagas? Martinogk (talk) 20:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Martinogk, about the observations indicated, I think we have to differentiate each case. For example, Cervantes is a writer recognized especially for his work Don Quixote, but as a writer he is not a relevant writer, since he does not have other works that are especially relevant. I am spanish, and I can affirm that there are many spanish writers and other spanish-speaking countries that are much more important. But, of course, there is no doubt that his work Don Quixote is the most important work of literature in spanish and one of the most important and recognized in the world. In this case, the work surpasses the author, so I think it is more relevant to include his work in the list instead of the author. As shown, the article in es.wiki of Don Quixote is twice the size of Cervantes.
Different is the case of, for example, Shakespeare or Jules Verne, whose set of works are practically classics of universal literature. In this case I think it's better to include the authors.
After these explanations, about the indicated authors I would make the following changes:
  • I would keep the authors Tolstoy, Shakespeare, Virgil and García Márquez, because I think they stand out more for their complete work than for a specific title.
  • I would include the works Don Quixote, Devine Comedy, Tale of Genji and Dream of the Red Chamber, replacing their authors, because they are works of universal literature that stand out over their authors (in my opinion).
In authors I would include Jules Verne, which I consider an important reference. In substitution, can eliminate the article of "machine gun", which I think is not a particularly remarkable invention.
On ancient literature, some titles: Beowulf, the Icelandic Sagas, Cantar de Mio Cid, Nibelungenlied or The Travels of Marco Polo. The importance of the works or what articles to eliminate, I leave it at the discretion of others. --Tximitx (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Tximitx: Thank you for your very thoughtful comments. I like your thinking about author/work. Martinogk (talk) 23:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Tximitx in including Don Quixote, Devine Comedy, Tale of Genji and Dream of the Red Chamber as works in lieu of authors. Also, the inclusion of Jules Verne instead of machine gun. Among the ancient literature, I find significant the Icelandic Sagas, Popul Vuh and The Travels of Marco Polo. --Rodelar (talk) 23:57, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
About Marco Polo, I hadn't realized that he was already included as an explorer. In this case, I don't know if it is better to include the person or the book. I don't find necessary is to include both. --Tximitx (talk) 21:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Agree with Tximitx to include Don Quixote and Devine Comedy instead of their authors, as is already the case for Tale of Genji and Dream of the Red Chamber. Thanks for pointing out that Marco Polo is already on the list, which I find sufficient and more natural to include than The Travels of Marco Polo. For ancient literature, I agree with Rodelar's selection of Popul Vuh and the Icelandic Sagas, the latter being more extensive and culturally reflective than Beowulf or Nibelungenlied, the other ancient Germanic literature mentioned. What can we remove to make room for these two? The only instance of having both a literary work and its author on the list is the Iliad and Homer, and I suggest we keep the former and remove the latter as it is not certain that Homer existed and who actually wrote the Iliad. Two other potential options for removal are phoneme and syllable. Martinogk (talk) 12:10, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Martinogk in everything expressed. Also in keep Iliad and remove Homer. Between phoneme and syllable, the phoneme is important, since it is the representation of the sound that the words would have. However, the syllable is the division of the word according to the phonemes. Therefore, it would keep phoneme and remove syllable.
By the way, Homer is in bold, and I don't think that Iliad should be (yes Don Quixote and Divine Comedy by Cervantes and Dante). What is put in bold by Homer? Maybe Novel? Another biography? Bearing in mind that several writers are removed in bold from Biography, I suggest including Gabriel García Márquez, who is considered one of the best writers in history. It may also be that my preference is influenced because my native language is Spanish. --Tximitx (talk) 12:52, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Biography section[edit]

Yerpo: You are both a long-time and a very thoughtful participant in these list discussions. What is the thinking behind having a separate biography section rather than including authors in the language and literature section, scientists in the science section, musicians in the music section, explorers in the geography section, etc? Was this a conscious decision or it just happened that way? Martinogk (talk) 12:29, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

The biography section was there from the first day this list was being created. I tried spreading the biographies 10 years ago. But it was reverted two months later. I can't find anything on the talk page about why it was reverted. Boivie (talk) 10:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
The best answer I have is also something along the line of "that's how it's always been done". Sorry. — Yerpo Eh? 20:11, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Maybe we should make another try to split out the biography section, if the current users of this page think it's a good idea? Boivie (talk) 09:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't consider it a good idea. I don't think mixing biographies with other articles is better than the current way. --Tximitx (talk) 12:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Elephant[edit]

The item elephant presents problems in some languages, specifically in those that, like Spanish, use exclusively the scientific classification of species to create articles. In this case elephant refers to a group of species that doesn't have a scientific classification as a group (they are several different species). The family they belong to (Elephantidae) also includes mammoths, but there is no scientific group for elephants alone. I don't doubt the importance of the elephants, but the selected items shouldn't impose a structure in the languages on the articles to be included. In this case I suggest as an alternative to include marine mammal, which are more important than elephants. Within this item would be whales, dolphins and porpoises, which would be keep. --Tximitx (talk) 13:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

+1. --Maqivi (talk) 19:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
We made a dubious change from Whale to Cetacea a while back because there wasn't a Swedish word for whale. IMHO, a core article's purpose is to link to other articles and a biological classification doesn't really do that. For example, the "Whale" concept links to "Whaling", "Save the Whales", "Moby Dick", "Jonah and the Whale". I think this change is a similar situation. Would you link "Elephantidae" to what Hannibal rode through the Alps. So, don't really agree on this. But you do have precedence on your side so am neutral on this. --MarsRover 04:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree in part with your opinion, but I'm not proposing to change "Elephant" to "Elephantidae". I'm proposing remove "Elephant" and add "marine mammals", which is also important and allows link other items. The reason is that the scientific classification doesn't consider the elephants as a specie, and we cann't force a wiki to use another classification. That's why I ask for a change from one item to another, which I don't think means a relevant change. --Tximitx (talk) 12:29, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Tximitx, for this list having a therm confussing is not the best. MarsRover, no, I would not link Elephantidae to what Hannibal rode through the Alps, but Loxodonta (African elephant), that is a specie, and elephant is not. Millars (talk) 22:55, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
And now we have both Marine mammal and Cetacea wich creates quite important overlap. Isn't it better to replace Cetacea with a different group, for example bat (Q28425)? --Nk (talk) 18:25, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Continents and Water[edit]

I observe that in continents North America and South America appear as two continents instead of Americas as a single continent, but this meaning is only used in English and a few related languages ​​such as German. However, for most languages, Americas is a single continent, and the North/South division is political, and not geographical. In fact, the normal thing in almost all languages ​​is to use North/Central/South America as a political division of a single continent, not including Central America as part of North America. It is enough to see the articles linked in Wikidata to North America to realize that there is no uniform criterion and in most cases they don't refer to the subcontinent. Some only include United States and Canada; others add to Mexico, and only a few add Central America. International organizations such as UN, IOC, etc., also recognize Americas as a single continent, this being the most globally accepted meaning. I don't find a reason to maintain the sense of the english language that is a minority and that in most languages ​​is a political concept and not a geographical. I propose to eliminate items from North and South America as continents and to include only Americas as a single continent, since this is the most universally accepted meaning.

In the free space, I realize that there is not an element as important as Water, essential for life. I propose to include it also with bold. I don't know in which section to include it, since as a chemical element it is not an important element, but it is in other scientific disciplines. I think the best place to include it is in Science, within Nature. --Tximitx (talk) 16:38, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: water is not a chemical element, but a compound. It is in the list under Beverages. This is indeed slightly odd, so I would support moving it from Beverages to Chemistry (under chemical compound). — Yerpo Eh? 09:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
I hadn't seen that Water is under Beverages. However, I don't consider that under Chemistry is the most suitable place (although better than under Beverages). The reason is that although water is a chemical compound, within chemistry is a compound of little importance and with few applications. Much more important is in Biology, Nature, or Earth Science. AMHO I think the most appropriate place would be to move it to Science, under Nature.
In the case of the continents, if the items North and South America are eliminated for the Americas, there would be a free space with bold. As I have indicated before, I see no reason to keep both items as separate continents, since it is a concept that, except in the English language, is a minority. Any suggestions to add? --Tximitx (talk) 10:30, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
"within chemistry is a compound of little importance and with few applications" - that's a joke, right? Because it's definitely far from truth. Its only logical place is under compounds. — Yerpo Eh? 10:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
I cannot say anything about most languages, but both in Russian (distantly related to English) and Hebrew (not related whatsoever) North and South Americas are considered separate entities defined as continents. Moreover, they are different not only politically but first and foremost geomorphologically, with Isthmus of Panama forming relatively recently. --Deinocheirus (talk) 15:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Replace Anime with Video Game[edit]

Hello, first-time contributor to any Wikipedia talk page at all here.

When reading this list, "anime" stuck out to me as an entrant. We already have "animation". There should be sufficient information on anime within the animation article, right? It seems just a little too specific for this list. Checking the archives shows a bit more talk about anime's worthiness, too. I suggest replacing it with "video game"(Q7889), a topic that by contrast seems too broad for its containing article, "game". There's incredible variation within video games, and, unlike most other kinds of game, the video game is often considered an emerging art medium. I think these qualities distinguish video games enough from games as a whole to warrant their separate place on the list. Granted, they're somewhat Western, but then again so is anime.

Thanks, I'd love to hear your thoughts. --Megaskizzen (talk) 03:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Although I haven't read the English Wikipedia articles on animation, anime, game and video game yet, Megaskizzen's argument makes sense since for a very small Wikipedia Wikipedians should create an article on video game before one on anime (although anime is quite influential on the world currently).--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:42, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree with this proposal. Not sure if my opinion counts, since I am an unregistered user, but it is very reasonable. Anime is much closer to animation than video game is to toy. 177.68.136.138 14:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Seems to be a well-supported proposal then. Should I make the change? --Megaskizzen (talk) 12:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Edit made. My apologies if I've approved the proposal too soon. --Megaskizzen (talk) 04:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Change Science and Nature to be top-priority entries[edit]

It is puzzling to me why Science and Nature, which are root-level articles under Science section (Science is even included in Vital articles/Level/1), are not included as one of the top-priority entries. I suggest just to add these two, but if it is required to remove two entries from top priority, I would name (1) Photosynthesis, (2) Mineral, though both are difficult choices.--ネイ (talk) 13:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Agreed that science and nature should be top-priority entries, since for very small Wikipedias science and nature should be created before botany or species. However, photosynthesis can be removed from top priority since IMO it should not be deliberately created before suicide.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:18, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Changed Science and Nature to be top-priority and removed Photosynthesis from top-priority.--ネイ (talk) 17:32, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

The entire topic of crimes and laws[edit]

Someone mentioned adding rape before, but I now see that there are no crimes or criminal activities at all; no murder, no rape, no theft (or the concept of property, for that matter), not even the concept of crime itself, or the related religious concept of sin. In fact, the section on Law is quite bare bones, having only law and constitution. I have no proposition on how to change this, but since this is a talk page I figured I would talk about it. Maybe such ideas could perhaps be more important than having so many specific rivers/languages/countries/leaders? 177.68.136.138 13:32, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Replace pages for specific African Great Lakes with African Great Lakes, and more[edit]

I propose we remove both pages for specific African Great Lakes, add an African Great Lakes page, and use the extra slot for some other proposed page, such as property or crime or video game. I would suggest property (video game can replace anime, as seen above). This would maintain the lakes in some capacity, be more comprehensive (since that page would cover more than two lakes), and be in keeping with the procedure adopted for the North American Great Lakes. It would also free up a slot for an important concept such as property, or someone else's proposal. 177.68.136.138 14:45, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Alphabetically order all lists[edit]

This is currently done inconsistently. I think it should be done consistently unless there is a more obvious rationale, such as:

  • Chronological order, for historical events
  • Distance from the Sun, for planets

201.27.100.86 15:22, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I brought up a similar topic on the extended list, that we should make these lists conform to the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style for lists. That would require ordering the list, which I think should be done anyway, but the manual also mentions that numbered lists should only be used for a reason. I don't know of any reason to refer to the list items by number, so I think we should convert to bulleted lists as well as order the lists. --Megaskizzen (talk) 12:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Change Algebra to be top-priority entry and remove Moses from top-priority entry[edit]

I would like to propose (1) Change Algebra to be top-priority entry, and (2) Remove Moses from top-priority entry. These can be treated as separate proposals.

  • Algebra - it is odd that Geometry is a top-priority while Algebra is not. These two entires appear to have similar level of importance.
  • Moses - it is a bit unbalanced under "Religious figures and theologians" where there is one top-priority entry for buddhism, one for islam but two for christianity. Choosing between Jesus and Moses, it should be quite obvious that Jesus is of higher priority.

--ネイ (talk) 17:53, 11 July 2019 (UTC)Fixed typo--ネイ (talk) 18:22, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I believe Moses is left high-priority for Judaism, not Christianity.
--Megaskizzen (talk) 12:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Made the change for Algebra given there are no objections at all; for Moses, I am treating Megaskizzen's comments as an alternative opinion and taking down the proposal.--ネイ (talk) 02:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


Mark this page for translation.[edit]

Many Wikipedia already have a translated version of this list, why don't we just take advantage of the translation builtin to meta, instead of relying on volunteers to manually update each wiki?

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_articles_every_Wikipedia_should_have&oldid=19255867"