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)
6. List stays at 1000 (every article added gets one removed)

Expanded list

Swapped (support : 5, opposition : 4 for Bible)

Add Bible ([1]), Remove "Dream of the Red Chamber" ([2]) 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  Support As nom LightProof1995 (talk) 20:46, 24 March 2025 (UTC)  Support Per nom. --Algovia (talk) 07:42, 8 May 2025 (UTC)  Support Minoo (talk) 21:50, 1 October 2025 (UTC) Purplebackpack89 16:37, 20 October 2025 (UTC) Support Dawid2009 (talk) 21:57, 10 January 2026 (UTC) Oppose  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) Reprarina, your usual metric of choice is number of articles, with the more the merrier. The Bible has 270 entries, possibly more than all other articles. Perhaps a thorough investigation of these two texts is needed, so we can all best grasp this proposal :) LightProof1995 (talk) 19:59, 25 March 2025 (UTC)  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)  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) See latest reply to Reprarina. The number of languages Bible is currently in, points to its importance not just in regards to religion, but also secular importance as well, e.g. the year.LightProof1995 (talk) 20:32, 7 July 2025 (UTC) 飞车过大关 (talk) 18:30, 14 November 2025 (UTC) Discussion Bible is no doubt very important (as is Quran, with articles in 207 languages), but is it correct to treat these as literature? They belong to religion section, and there the competition is quite fierce, so I am not too surprised they did not make it. --Deinocheirus (talk) 16:56, 7 October 2025 (UTC) Hey Deinocheirus! Great question -- I do think Bible and other religious texts could go in religion section with consensus. The reason the swap is in literature is both because Mahabharata is in literature section and is a religoius text, as well as I genuinely believe that "Dream of the Red Chamber"'s current inclusion on the list is woefully abominable, just like "Nematodes". Best, LightProof1995 (talk) 20:59, 7 October 2025 (UTC) Can you think of a zombie film that doesn't draw on the following 2,600-year-old ancient Oriental text? The hand of the lord was upon me, and set me down in the midst of the valley, which was full of bones. He caused me to pass by them round about. Behold, there were very many in the open valley. And, lo, they were very dry.  He said unto me, Son of man, can these bones live? I answered, O lord, thou knowest. O ye dry bones, hear the word of the lord. I will lay sinews upon you. I will bring up flesh upon you and cover you with skin. I will put breath in you. Ye shall live. There was a noise, and behold a shaking. The bones came together, bone to his bone.  Thus saith the lord: 'Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe upon these slain, that they may live.' I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them. They lived, stood up upon their feet — an exceeding great army. (Hesekiel 37) Maybe this reminds you to the army of the dead in Game of Thrones. The Song of Songs is a collection of love lyrics. There are action stories like David and Goliath and queer stories: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Which means God is both male and female. You can find everything in the bible, it's is an influential work of literature. Best Minoo (talk) 20:23, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Sections for male and female are needed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Women barely exist. I counted 8 women among 204 biographies. Without a rule, this problem cannot be solved via this discussion page, otherwise this list would be in a better shape. My suggestion for solving this problem: There are categories that must be retained. There should be a subsections in each biography category for men and women. No gender section should make up more than 70% of a category. Minoo (talk) 22:24, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Note: There are 11 biographies of women. --Algovia (talk) 21:45, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

This would be great. But which ones? Minoo (talk) 20:10, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

You're right; I've just sorted the table so that it can be counted. Minoo (talk) 21:07, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

The proportion was deleted because, as Purplebackpack89 correctly pointed out, 30% is too high a figure, given that articles about women make up only about 19% of Wikipedias. Best Minoo (talk) 13:33, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Support

1.  Support Minoo's suggestion in discussion of creating a separate List of female biographies every Wikpedia should have , moving the few women from this list to that one, and renaming the biographies section here to "Male biographies" (with a note pointing to the female list) LightProof1995 (talk) 20:41, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Opposition

1.  Oppose The current system allows for swaps to be made after discussion and voting to judge the relevance of the proposal (7 swaps have already been accepted in 2025). Therefore, it is not necessary to impose gender quotas, just to have proposals likely to generate consensus. --Toku (talk) 06:51, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

   This does not work. As the list shows. If you don't want any form of categorisation, you should be honest with yourself and accept that you don't believe in representation. That's fine by me, but we should then mark the list as male only. Best Minoo (talk) 22:54, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

   Hello, Wikipedia's goal is not to correct the world, but to describe it based on reliable sources. If your arguments were obvious, there would be no need to make assumptions or veer into excess. Sincerely, --Toku (talk) 22:36, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

   An impressive debating technique is the use of insinuations. Best Minoo (talk) 20:08, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

2.  Oppose If accepted, the proposal could result in the change of approximately 60 articles on the list in a short period of time (in the simplest scenario, where an agreement could be reached quickly and 30% of the biographies on the list are women). However, this list is used to help structure projects, especially smaller ones by helping to focus work on the most fundamental parts. I believe this point is central and should not be lost. Such changes don't seem compatible with this objective because, on small Wikipedias, 60 articles often correspond to several years of searching and writing. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 07:08, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

   It's a pity that diversity requires so much effort. Why not skip 50% of humanity? Best Minoo (talk) 22:54, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

3.  Strong oppose There is no need to emphasize people's gender where it is not necessary. If the goal is to draw attention to the underrepresentation of women, then that is initially not Wikipedia's problem; that problem is secondary to the fact that the academic literature, the core of Wikipedia's reliable sources flow, focuses more on men than on women.--Reprarina (talk) 02:03, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

   Women authors are not underrepresented in real life. However, they are underrepresented on this list. The 24 best-selling books were written equally by men and women. Best Minoo (talk) 20:33, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

   A book may be significantly less sellable and at the same time significantly more significant in terms of the need to create an article about it on Wikipedia. Reprarina (talk) 07:55, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

   This is a never ending discussion. When people want to include a book written by a man, then it's either more "important" or more "successful". Below, we have the proof: Conan Doyle is important because he is not a best-selling author. Agatha Christie is insignificant because she is. If the situation were reversed, Christie's genius would certainly be recognized, but Doyle's success would be an indisputable and rational reason for including him, because it is measurable.

   Agatha Christie was added to the German Wikipedia in May 2002 (article ID 203), followed by Conan Doyle in August 2003 (ID 52247). At 52246 opportunities German authors seem to have been unaware of Doyle's significance. Rank 52247 is nowhere near the top of the list. But perhaps it is only the Germans who are uninformed. Let's take a look:

   - On the Nostalgia Wiki, which provides a snapshot of the initial display on the English Wikipedia, you can find Agatha Christie, but not Conan Doyle.

   - Agatha Christie received 51,929,509 page views across 141 languages.

   - Conan Doyle received 25,193,022 page views in 120 Wikipedia languages.

   It is clear that Wikipedia readers and authors around the world are unaware of Doyle's immense significance, but this "fact" was recognized impartially in this discussion. Of course the father of detective literature he is more "important" than the queen of crime. We need to consider whether we should write this encyclopaedia for the sake of the readers or for an undefined and unclear "importance" which, in at least 96% of cases, tends to favour male biographies. Best Minoo (talk) 01:12, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

   Even among women not included in this list, there are those, who, unlike Agatha Christie, are the authors of books included in Bokklubben World Library: Emily Brontë, Virginia Woolf, Doris Lessing, Toni Morrison, George Eliot, Elsa Morante, Marguerite Yourcenar, Astrid Lindgren, and Murasaki Shikibu. Besides them, there are women who have won the Nobel Prize in Literature who also did not make it onto this list: Selma Lagerlöf, Grazia Deledda, Sigrid Undset, Pearl S. Buck, Gabriela Mistral, Nelly Sachs, Nadine Gordimer, Wisława Szymborska, Elfriede Jelinek, Herta Müller, Alice Munro, Svetlana Alexievich, Olga Tokarczuk, Louise Glück, Annie Ernaux, Han Kang. Some women (Doris Lessing and Toni Morrison) made it onto both lists. Are you sure that precisely Agatha Christie was not included in the list because of the male quota? Reprarina (talk) 09:59, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

   Now it's getting really productive! I love all of your suggestions :-), but I still think that the three best-selling authors/books worldwide of all time (The Bible 216’699’217 page views in 266 lanugages, Shakespeare and Agatha Christie) deserve a place on one of the lists. Best Minoo (talk) 14:04, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

   The tricky thing here is that authors may be a lot easier subtopic to attend gender parity in, in comparison to other careers Purplebackpack89 16:36, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

4.  Oppose There are simply not enough women notable at the same level as most notable men. The most famous female painters cannot compete with Rubens, Picasso or Leonardo. The most famous female scientists, with maybe a couple of exceptions (Marie Curie is already on the list... Lise Meitner?), are not even closely as famous as Newton, Copernicus, Darwin, Archimedes etc. Same with composers - are there any female composers that are as notable as Vivaldi, Chopin or Brahms (not even invoking Mozart, Bach etc.)? In other words, when we limit the entire biography section to just over 200 names, the 70% threshold is not just arbitrary, it is in fact harmful because it will require removal of literal pillars of human culture and replacing them with figures of lesser notability. --Deinocheirus (talk) 16:19, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

   The reverse is true: Rubens, (1577 - 1640) with his ridiculous bodies, cannot compete with Artemisia Gentileschi (1593 - 1654), who was able to paint real men and woman. Joanne K. Rowling is one of the most successful authors. She wrote eight of the twenty-four best-selling books of all time, with sales of more than half a billion copies — far exceeding those of The Dream of the Red Chamber and any male author on the list. Nobody ever reads James Joyce or Dante Alighieri unless they are forced to (did you?). By the way: Agatha Christie is the best-selling fiction author of all time, with over two billion copies of her novels sold. She isn't on the list, but Anton Chekhov is. He wasn't particularly successful or influential. The only reason for excluding her is the 96% quota for men. Best Minoo (talk) 20:33, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

   Who has more academic literature been written about, Rubens or Gentileschi? Reprarina (talk) 21:46, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

   She isn't on the list, but Anton Chekhov is. He wasn't particularly successful or influential. Very funny. Reprarina (talk) 21:50, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

   Funny indeed. No other book has been the subject of more academic literature than the Bible, yet you don't want it on the list. Consequently, you should refrain from making this argument. Best Minoo (talk) 10:14, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

   No other book has been the subject of more academic literature than the Bible. Perhaps, but Chekhov still should remain on the list, in part because he is important for women. We shouldn’t erase the history of women who are significant because they played the heroines he created. We shouldn’t erase the female school teachers who deeply study and teach his work at school either. Reprarina (talk) 13:16, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

   A female protagonist in a novel written by a man does not necessarily represent the female perspective. Women have already been erased. When you round down to one digit, 100% of the biographies are male. There's no point in pretending that this list includes women. Minoo (talk) 13:57, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

   Can you name any famous female Russian writers? I can only think of two: Sofia Tolstaya and Anna Akhmatova. Akhmatova was nominated for the Nobel Prize, but, of course, she did not win. Minoo (talk) 14:18, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

   Anna Akhmatova, Marina Tsvetaeva, and Bella Akhmadulina are invariably included in the Unified State Exam in Russian literature. Among Ukrainian writers, I recently secured the inclusion of Lesya Ukrainka on the extended list, and I also succeeded in including Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya in the journalism section. I also proposed including Nobel laureate Doris Lessing in the extended list, but it was not successful. Reprarina (talk) 14:39, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

   While it is nice of you, the problem remains unresolved. This can be achieved by either starting a new list or using the 'woman' sections in the existing list. Minoo (talk) 16:59, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

   A female protagonist in a novel written by a man does not necessarily represent the female perspective. Yeah, yeah. However, the history of women's theatre is, to a super-significant degree, the history of actresses playing (and wanting to play) Chekhov's heroines. Reprarina (talk) 14:19, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

   This argument is unconvincing. Similarly, you could argue that any male biography represents women, since he was born by a woman. Minoo (talk) 14:35, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

   It's unconvincing to you, but to me it's perfectly clear that the article about Chekhov and the articles about the actresses who played Chekhov's characters form a coherent system, and we don't need red links to Chekhov in articles about actresses. Chekhov is absolutely, fundamentally significant for the history of women's theatre, whether someone likes this fact or not. Reprarina (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

   In Bukklubben World Library, Chekhov is present, unlike Sappho and Agatha Christie. Reprarina (talk) 14:57, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

   Favouring male authors does not represent the female perspective. Actresses should be included in the section "Film directors, screenwriters and actor", where currently only a quarter of articles are about women. You can try adding the article 'Women in Theatre' to the list, but I would suggest a more general topic in section "Ideology".

   This list deteriorates in terms of female representation. 2006 Version 1.0 included 18% women. We should put a stop to the gradual decline and begin anew. Minoo (talk) 16:53, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

   What Wikipedia rules say that Wikipedia has to reflect the female perspective?.. Reprarina (talk) 00:58, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

   WP:GENBIAS is just one of several essays discussing the gender gap on Wikipedia. There is an entire project dedicated to their inclusion: WikiProject Women. It's actually a HUGE DEAL -- to dismiss the female perspective is to entrench Wikipedia in its editors having anti-women stereotypes such as "neckbeards" and "incels", severely deteriorating its credibility and value to society, and shunning the few female editors out there who could make a real difference. LightProof1995 (talk) 17:21, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

   Yeah, there is such an essay. But it is not a rule, it is an essay. I'm aware of the opposite stereotype—that Wikipedia contributors are aggressive feminists who revert any edits made by men's rights activists without discussion. Reprarina (talk) 00:07, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

   My apologies, Reprarina. You seem to be speaking in some language here I don’t understand. LightProof1995 (talk) 01:09, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

   Notability is defined not by volume of sold books (otherwise we would have to fill the movie section with porn directors and actresses) but by the volume of professional literature written about any given author/scientist. Gentileschi is quite obscure in this regard when compared to absolute majority of names in the artist section right now (and you are proposing to throw out close to 30 % of these names and replacing them with someones even more obscure than her). As for Agatha Christie, with all due respect, adding her ahead of Arthur Conan Doyle, the father of detective literature as we know it, is unthinkable, and he is not currently on the list. Deinocheirus (talk) 17:18, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

   Deinocheirus, Agatha Christie is ***the best-selling author of all time***, tied with Shakespeare. Misunderstandings such as this is why we should support Minoo's proposal of a separate List of female biographies every Wikipedia should have, and move the few women on this list to that one. Best, LightProof1995 (talk) 16:25, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

   To promote best-selling authors in the list because of being best-selling is not a "female perspective", it is a commodity-fetishistic perspective. Reprarina (talk) 00:37, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

   I didn’t claim adding the best-selling authors of all time to the list is needed for a female perspective? I simply stated Agatha Christie and William Shakespeare are the best-selling authors of all time. Also the word you are looking for is “success”. LightProof1995 (talk) 01:09, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

   I didn't equate a feminist perspective with a female perspective. In fact, if we want more female editors, we need something completely different from what it takes to get editors with feminist views. Reprarina (talk) 01:19, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

   UGH I LITERALLY JUST REPLACED “FEMINIST” WITH “FEMALE PERSPECTIVE” JUST TO FIND YOU POUNCED ON THIS WHEN CLEARLY I WAS PARAPHRASING DUDE . BIG WHOOP !! LightProof1995 (talk) 01:23, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

   There may be some actual rationale behind promoting less "serious" genres such as sci-fi, mystery, adventure and fantasy on this list due to their overall popularity. But if we do it, we'll nevertheless have to clearly explain why Rowling and not Tolkien or C.S. Lewis (or GRR Martin, for that matter); Christie and not Doyle, Poe or Simenon; le Guin and not Wells, Verne, Heinlein or Asimov deserve the quotas for such genres on the list. And if we talk children's literature (another worthy possible addition), then once again first names coming to mind are Charles Perrault, Andersen, Grimm brothers and Lewis Carroll, with all due respect to Rowling, Pamela Travers or Astrid Lindgren. Deinocheirus (talk) 18:50, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

   Astrid Lindgren was previously on the list. Agatha Christie would also be a good addition to the new list of female authors. While I don't think they are "feminists", they undoubtedly offer a female perspective, which Conan Doyle does not. I would focus on deceased individuals who died more than 20 years ago. Best, Minoo (talk) 22:38, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

   So what Wikipedia rules (not essays - rules of Wikipedia) say that Wikipedia has to offer a female perspective? Reprarina (talk) 08:45, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

   So, what are we trying to achieve? Which rule says that chemistry, art, Asian perspectives or male perspectives should be included? Best, Minoo (talk) 14:10, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

   There is a rule WP:NOTADVOCACY, from which it follows that Wikipedia does not constitute advocacy for identity politics, among other things. Reprarina (talk) 16:25, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

   That's why Minoo's idea is so genius, Reprarina. By separating women out, it gives them a chance to get more recognition, while also giving men a chance to get more recognition since men are left on the original list. It doesn't advocate either way, whereas the current state of the list advocates toward men. Best, LightProof1995 (talk) 19:08, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

   I don't feed. Reprarina (talk) 19:34, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

5.  Oppose Requiring 30% of each section to be women seems excessive. Nearly all significant military personnel and explorers are men. The science and invention sections should be chosen primarily for who made significant discoveries Purplebackpack89 16:32, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

   You are right, since the proportion of female biographies in wikipedia (at least the German one) is about 19%. I deleted the proportion in the proposal. Best Minoo (talk) 13:26, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

6. 飞车过大关 (talk) 18:34, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Minoo, while I agree there are nowhere enough enough women listed, I'm unsure we'll be able to successfully implement aesthetic subsections for each biography section. Since there are so few women listed, it could be worthwhile to list them in their own biography section as "Famous women", but while the idea has its merits in highlighting exactly how many women are listed, it also could imply they don't count as say scientists and authors as much as the men listed are (to counter that argument though, one could say listing them separately makes them more impressive, not less, but I digress). Therefore, I agree strongly with the substance of your argument and spirit of your proposal, yet am still voting neutral for now given the uncertainty surrounding its execution. LightProof1995 (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
2. Neutre Given the discussions, if the idea is to create a standalone list, I don't really see how this list is affected. We keep whoever we want here and we create a list of women with the aim of making it attractive enough to replace this one. --Algovia (talk) 18:48, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

Question -- do you have additional ideas to highlight and readjust the discrepancy between male and female biographies? All the best, LightProof1995 (talk) 22:23, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

It seems that this list is intended for men only. Including women would be too cumbersome. While categories and quotas are useful for countries, they are not useful for men and women. Someone even claimed that there aren't enough notable women and that, if there were, the men would be more important. One person pretends that there would be no gender quota, but in reality, the quota is 96% men. You don't support the regulation either. It does not make sense to fight for each woman's biography in such a toxic environment. The most honest approach would be to remove all women from the list and title it 'Male Biographies', rather than making false claims about its inclusivity. What would you suggest? Minoo (talk) 18:27, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Minoo, that's a great idea!! LightProof1995 (talk) 20:41, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

This would mean creating a second list of women. We could include 200 women on this list. Best Minoo (talk) 23:03, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. We might want to start out with 100 and expand later. LightProof1995 (talk) 16:32, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

You can simply create a list of women included in https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_articles_every_Wikipedia_should_have/Expanded. Reprarina (talk) 01:38, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the expanded list, Reprarina. Even if we did that, it would end up being its own thing anyway, but I do agree we should only choose women from the Expanded list to make the top 100/200. LightProof1995 (talk) 01:48, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

I have several questions if the proposal is accepted. How do you intend to manage the change (especially with Wikipedians who have been working for years to develop this list)? In particular, how do we define which articles to delete and which to add (knowing that the list is now relatively stable, this risks devolving into a long and painful conflict)? Do you want to proceed quickly? What will we say to those who say that the new names are only there to meet a quota? --Algovia (talk) 20:22, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

The target of having 96% of people on the current list be male has been successfully reached by these Wikipedians. Starting with a smaller list is a good approach. One option would be to start with the women who have been eliminated from the current list. Then we could fill it with women from the extended list (credits to Reprarina). We could start with a draft on a user page. However, you are right, Algovia; we need to discuss the female list. The first step would be to remove the remaining women from the current list, starting with Rosa Luxemburg. She could then be the first candidate on the women's list. Best Minoo (talk) 22:29, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

I've just started working on a draft. Including the female perspective makes sense in all sections except 'Inventors, scientists and mathematicians'. I cannot see the value added in this context. A law of nature does not change, regardless of whether it is discovered by a woman or a man. In the 'Explorers and Travellers' section, for example, it makes sense. After all, there's a difference between Cortés arriving with soldiers and Maria Sibylla Merian arriving with a palette. What do you think? Best Minoo (talk) 23:16, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

At the moment, I see two major difficulties. The first is that the rules for the fundamental articles list limit the number of articles to 1,000. Adding 200 at once could generate very strong opposition. Second, removing all articles by women from the biographies list is also going to be complex (for example, how do you remove Marie Curie, Simone de Beauvoir, or Elizabeth I?). I also see a minor problem: taking women from the list of 10,000 fundamental articles and declaring them eligible for the list of 1,000 can be seen as very demeaning (in short, a woman would have to reach a lower threshold of "merit" than a man to access the list). --Algovia (talk) 10:05, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

We want to label the current list as 'male only', because it already is. When rounded down to one digit, 100% of the biographies are of men. We also want to start a second, female-only list. None of the male representatives need to be removed; in fact, they will gain additional places. I do not expect much opposition to this. I think we should follow LightProof1995's suggestion and start with a smaller list of females who have already been on the current list. This way, nobody can claim that this list is less exclusive, given how much harder it is for a woman to gain a place on the current list. Minoo (talk) 14:23, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand how you intend to achieve this goal within the current rules governing this list. Do you want to remove the 1000 article limit from this list or create another standalone list? --Algovia (talk) 18:31, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Algovia, it would be a standalone list. The 1000 limit here would be the same. LightProof1995 (talk) 18:38, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Okay, that will avoid unnecessary conflict here. However, I don't see the point of removing women from the current list. We might as well focus on including women in this standalone list and, above all, think about a title that will attract users to write the articles. If this works, it will lead to the abandonment of this list due to obsolescence [on the other hand, adding rules without any votes seems to me to be a particularly scandalous procedure]. --Algovia (talk) 18:46, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

@LightProof1995: I did not intend to start a second 1000 articles list. The idea is great, but it's a _much_ bigger task. Then we could not exclude men, at least not in my understanding. I would not try to reach 96% female representation while pretending the new list would include men. I just wanted to label the current list male only and start an additional list with the female perspective, starting with a smaller number, let's say 100 women, or maybe only 50 woman. Because as @Algovia mentioned, we really need to stick to unquestionable outstanding woman. Best Minoo (talk) 20:37, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

What I need is a list written with the perspective of people who hate gender emphasizing. Reprarina (talk) 21:06, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Me too! But we don't live in Fantasia, we live in the real world. That's why this list deteriorates over time. Minoo (talk) 21:39, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

If the real world is patriarchal, then the list of biographies that should be in the encyclopedia should also reflect the patriarchality of the world that chose these individuals as the most significant. Reprarina (talk) 21:43, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

The real world is 50% female. Would you deny that? Minoo (talk) 21:57, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia rules, we include information about encyclopedic-significant (covered in detail in reliable sources) people, and it’s far from 50/50. Take any universal encyclopedia published in a patriarchal country and you will see that there are significantly more biographical articles about men. Reprarina (talk) 22:03, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Luckily, it is far from 4:96 either. Therefore, this list does not accurately reflect the proportion of female biographies on Wikipedia. Addition: 81% of biographies on the German Wikipedia are about men and 19% about women. I could live with this ratio. Minoo (talk) 22:13, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

It does not follow from this ratio that the ratio of vital articles is the same. Reprarina (talk) 22:55, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I need to cite LightProof1995: My apologies, Reprarina. You seem to be speaking in some language here I don’t understand. Minoo (talk) 20:03, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Do you think your langauge is understandable to me? Reprarina (talk) 20:49, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

By the way, keep in mind: right now, alongside the rapid development of AI, women face serious discrimination in the IT sector. So, in the foreseeable future, it is quite possible that there will be a new influx of men displacing women on the list. Reprarina (talk) 05:21, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

I suppose so. That's one of the reasons why I'm suggesting a separate list. Minoo (talk) 20:05, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

I won't feed you. Reprarina (talk) 21:27, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

@Algovia: Regardless of whether there are eight, nine or no women on it, describing the current list as including women is misleading. The proportion of women has fallen drastically to 4% in the last 20 years.This is because men are more dominant. Two male biographies have been added since 2021, so the number is still increasing. Fighting for women's representation on this list is bound to fail. A more effective approach would be to create a separate women-only list, which affiliate wikis could then choose to include. Minoo (talk) 21:36, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

In this case, there is no need to find a consensus on this page to me. List creation is free (as far as I know). If the project is relevant, it will attract people; otherwise, it will be forgotten. In this case, perhaps some of the Wikipedia users who have finished writing the list of 1000 fundamental articles will be interested in 50, 100, or 200 additional articles. --Algovia (talk) 21:48, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

We should discuss this before we make a list. Minoo (talk) 22:00, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

We need to add the link to the new project to the current list. We need to make a decision before we start. Best, Minoo (talk) 22:24, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

We definitely don't have a decision to "exclude all women and make this to be a men's list." Reprarina (talk) 22:27, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

In any case, there is clearly no majority for that. Algovia (talk) 22:47, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

@Minoo I didn't mean to imply the new list would also be 1000. This list would remain at 1000, but the new list would only be a list of 100 or 200 women. Best, LightProof1995 (talk) 02:36, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Obviously, this was never "the target". Deinocheirus (talk) 21:19, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

What wasn't the target? Best Minoo (talk) 13:50, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Presumably to reflect in the list the most important topics covered in Wikipedia for their development in all languages. All possible side effects (including having too few articles on any specific topic) are just this: side effects. Deinocheirus (talk) 16:48, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

No need for a new list. The List of biographies of women every Wikipedia should have does already exist. The project never really caught on. But why not revive it. The list could be a good addition to this list and the expanded list. Flaverius (talk) 12:46, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the hint. This "List of biographies of women every Wikipedia should have " should be linked in the "List of articles every Wikipedia should have" and reduced to a maximum of 200 entries. Best Minoo (talk) 13:06, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

But why 200? The expanded list has about 130 women. If the target number is 200, then it would be easier to increase the number of women in expanded list. If it should is an expansion to the extended list the number should be higher. So I still dont understand your intention and the vision of your proposal. Flaverius (talk) 14:48, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Add Toni Morrison, remove Lord Byron

After analyzing some lists that showed a high level of importance in literature, I decided that we should consider this proposal. The fact is, Byron doesn't author a single work included in the Bokklubben World Library. Meanwhile, Toni Morrisson both wrote a book included in the Bokklubben World Library and won the Nobel Prize in Literature. Furthermore, perhaps the list needs some generational updating. Although Toni Morrison is a relatively recent author compared to the other authors on this list, her work has already generated a colossal amount of academic literature during her lifetime and posthumously, including encyclopedic sources, and has also had a fundamental influence on a number of influential contemporary political movements.--Reprarina (talk) 10:42, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Support

1.  Support As nom.--Reprarina (talk) 10:48, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose There is no point in pretending that this list includes women, or ever will. The proportion of women has declined over the last 20 years. Therefore, all women should be removed, the list should be marked as male only and a second, all-female list should be created. Minoo (talk) 14:27, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
2.  Strong oppose per Minoo. Also, Tolkien is a better option if making a separate female list, and Maya Angelou is a better option if not LightProof1995 (talk) 18:40, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

   Neither Tolkien has a book in the Bokklubben World Library, nor a Nobel Prize in Literature, nor does Maya Angelou. Unlike Toni Morrison who has both. What lists will be created besides this one, I am not interested here.--Reprarina (talk) 19:11, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

   I agree to swap Byron for either 'Language and Literature' or 'History', as these subjects are both underrepresented on the list. By contrast, biographies are overrepresented. The target is 200. Best, Minoo (talk) 21:47, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

   If the "Bokklubben World Library" is as important as you suggest, you'd support adding Bible, since the Book of Job is listed in the "Bokklubben World Library". I state Tolkien and Angelou are better options because they receive more views than Morrison on Enlgish Wikipedia, their language of writing. Tolkien receives double the views of Lord Byron. LightProof1995 (talk) 02:40, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

   If the "Bokklubben World Library" is as important as you suggest, you'd support adding Bible, since the Book of Job is listed in the "Bokklubben World Library". Not necessarily. I state Tolkien and Angelou are better options because they receive more views than Morrison on Enlgish Wikipedia, their language of writing. It is entirely possible to be more interesting to the Wikipedia readers and less significant from the point of view of Wikipedia's rules. Reprarina (talk) 05:06, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

3. 飞车过大关 (talk) 18:35, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Based on other discussions, Agatha Christie (Q35064) may be a better candidate. She may not have been a Nobel laureate but her overall literary legacy is quite significant. --Deinocheirus (talk) 15:16, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

   And Conan Doyle is even better. Reprarina (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Add Ethiopian Empire (Q207521), remove Middle Ages (Q12554)

Regarding African history, I think Ethiopia is due for the list, not just for its significance in precolonial times and surviving the Scramble, but also for heavily influencing Pan-African ideology. I think you can make a strong argument that the Enlightenment is due for its scientific and technological achievements and their eventual impact globally (less so for the Renaissance), but it's much harder to justify the Middle Ages, and having all three of these periods/movements doesn't seem due. Kowal2701 (talk) 20:29, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Didn’t make this clear, but the reasoning was that we have 3 European periods (4 if counting the Industrial Revolution), which seems disproportionate Kowal2701 (talk) 09:08, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose The Middle Ages, despite the imprecision of its boundaries, covers too long a period and too many key concepts (feudal-vassal relations...) to be removed from the list. Best regards, --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 05:34, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

   It only covers Europe Kowal2701 (talk) 08:26, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

2.  Oppose The Middle Ages is a central period in European history and imagination. One can even, to some extent, define medieval periods in other regions. By comparison, Ethiopia does not hold the same historical significance, even within African history. --Tegest Vonis (talk) 17:19, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
3.  Oppose A regional power doesn't strike me as an adequate replacement for a continental-scale historical period. Even the sheer volume of scientific work on these two is simply incomparable. --Deinocheirus (talk) 14:02, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Remove Vietnam War (Q8740)

The Vietnam War is within the scope of Cold War, and United States. What should go in it's place, I don't know. I was going to suggest Scramble for Africa (Q179848), but then European colonization of the Americas (Q184716) is also similarly due. Osama bin Laden (Q1317) and Climate change (Q125928) are other options. Civilization (Q8432) can probably also be removed, we already have State (polity), and AFAIK it's rather old-fashioned terminology. Epic of Manas (Q690174) may be due? Kowal2701 (talk) 20:53, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose None of the proposed replacements are satisfactory. The proposal doesn't seem fully developed yet, given this hesitation. Best regards, --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 05:36, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
2.  Oppose Invalid proposal. A swap must be proposed. --Tegest Vonis (talk) 17:21, 24 February 2026 (UTC)