Talk:List of articles every Wikipedia should have

Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Latest comment: 10 hours ago by LightProof1995 in topic Add Wetland, Remove Lake Tanganyika

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)

Clarification to the "swapping like for like (category switch only with reason)" rule[edit]

In earlier discussions on this page, after this rule have been accepted that by people on this page, someone interpreted this rule very strictly, like an opposition against "Swap Vatican City for Scandinavia" proposal claim they are of a different category; but others interpreted the rule very loosely. like an opposition against "Swap Marlene Dietrich for Amazon rainforest" claim Amazon rainforest belongs to geography category. So what count and what doesn't count as same category? C933103 (talk) 02:05, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

This is a good question. I think if you come here on a slow day you can get any swap you want.
The category rule was to prevent the natural degeneration to a list of biographies. For some reason, people like biographies over other types of topics. Also, its easier to compare topics of the same type. In my opinion, the rule should just apply to the broadest category.
There is also a balance rule that is used to prevent the natural degeneration to a list of topics that editors are most familiar with. This rule is sort of endlessly debatable but I think could be used to oppose both swaps you mentioned. i.e. adding yet more Italian topics and yet more American movie stars doesn't make the list more globally balanced. -MarsRover 06:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Can we swap smth/smone for Discrimination?[edit]

Swapped with Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Discrimination is the general concept that can include racism (that we already have in the list), sexism, ageism, ableism, religious discrimination etc.; it also includes individual discrimination, structural discrimination, instututional discrimination... so it's the one of the core concepts. And, when we look in the relevant academic literature, we can see the importance of the topic only grows.--Reprarina (talk) 07:57, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Discrimination can be introducced in "Human rights". And it's necessary to explain more your proposal : "Smth" and "Smone" don't us give the possibility to understand it.--Toku (talk) 13:49, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Support Support I'm not sure what should be swapped but I agree it's a pretty fundamental category of human interaction. AsimovtheCat (talk) 23:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Swap Vienna for Toronto[edit]

Not swapped (support : 1, opposition : 7)

We list both Vienna and Austria on the list and I think one of the two should be removed. Vienna seems to be redundant to Austria. Toronto should be added because there is no Canadian city on this list and at the very least, would add Toronto since it is the powerhouse of the Canadian economy. I would also be interested in knowing what the significance of Bogota, Brussels, Cape Town, Rio de Janeiro, and Tehran are to this list. Interstellarity (talk) 01:09, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Strong oppose Vienna is not only the capital of Austria but also is the city where many people from the list were born/lived/died (Beethoven, Brahms, Haydn, Mahler, Mozart, Schubert, Freud, Schrödinger, Wittgenstein), also it was one of the most important cities in Holy Roman Empire.--Reprarina (talk) 05:31, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Oppose Oppose Per Reprarina. --Toku (talk) 11:42, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Oppose Oppose Per Reprarina. --ThomasPusch (talk) 12:05, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Oppose Oppose Per Reprarina. -Theklan (talk) 23:35, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Oppose Oppose: Vienna and Austria are actually important for different reasons. While Austria has mostly historical importance as the core of the eponymous empire that was a major player in the European politics for well over a century, Vienna has been (and, I daresay, stays) one of the foremost cultural capitals of the world. As a Canadian, I would certainly like to see Toronto included, but objectively it is of less economic importance than some U.S. cities that haven't actually made it to the list. --Deinocheirus (talk) 20:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Oppose Oppose Per Reprarina and Deinocheirus. Also will add that Vienna has a large impact on international events with a large UN presence. AsimovtheCat (talk) 22:43, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Weak oppose per above, and I’d consider taking Toronto’s high GaWC ranking into account. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 13:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Numbers adjusted[edit]

Hello! It have been a good ride, but the numbers in every section are now right. For a while, I had 1001 items and I was turning crazy. Theklan (talk) 14:20, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Added Kyoto, Japan and Taipei, Taiwan[edit]

Both Kyoto in Japan and Taipei in Taiwan are important historical cities in Asia. can't you add? Amkjmltpsjmej (talk) 11:40, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

What do you propose to remove to make place? I also think they do not have so much importance outside their respective countries. — Yerpo Eh? 16:35, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
I'd rather see Osaka get added than Kyoto, as it is the main city in the Kansai region. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 21:35, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Articles that are popular in big wikis[edit]

I generated a list of articles that are popular in 10 big wikis, the list is based in the pageviews and consider all articles that have number of pageviews above the average in 10 wikis. Maybe it can help in some way to choose the articles that every Wikipedia should have. Danilo.mac talk 20:59, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

It seems like many articles on that list are of topics that have gained a lot of media attraction the last months. I think this list should contain topics that remain relevant over the years. Boivie (talk) 07:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
I agree, it should be used as a separate list. — Yerpo Eh? 10:43, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Notable women missed, see HPI by Pantheon.World[edit]

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

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

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


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

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

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

Sun Tzu is male. When using data, please consider carefully whether the data is reliable.--Opqr (talk) 23:30, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Of these 30, Nightingale is the only new person we need to add to the list. However, Nightingale is neither a scientist nor a politician, so I don't know where to put her on the list.--Opqr (talk) 23:49, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
We also already have en:Rosa Luxemburg and en:Marie Curie. I see in the list several figures of a comparable scale to those already in the list, but they are objectively few. Most of the female political figures are known thanks to their association with even more famous men (Nefertiti, Anne Boleyn, Roxelana, Marie Antoinette, Empress Sisi, Grace Kelly, Hillary Clinton) or are rather ordinary politicians whose gender is their only difference from literally hundreds of others (Merkel, Elizabeth II, Mary Tudor). We also don't have ordinary saints in the list (note that there are no apostles or evangelists, neither Solomon or David), so there is no need to include Mary or St. Barbara. Hypatia is most known by her violent death, as opposed to the scientists on the current list who are included due to their important contributions to the sciences. So maybe we can talk Margaret Thatcher - but note that neither Reagan nor Gorbachev made the cut, and she isn't more prominent than them. Maybe we can talk Catherine the Great or Maria Theresa - but note that Friedrich the Great didn't make the cut, and the scale is once again the same. Maybe we can talk Agatha Christie - but without Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Edgar Poe or Georges Simenon on the list it would be very hard to argue for her inclusion. I agree with Opqr that Florence Nightingale's contribution is unique, and I can also see some potential for Coco Chanel, but this is all. And don't forget that adding somebody to the list means excluding somebody else, so you have to come with a good reason why any of the candidates is better than somebody already on the list. --Deinocheirus (talk) 14:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Modern figures like Hillary Clinton and Angela Merkel should not be included here. It would be better, then, to include someone whose elevated encyclpedic value has stood the test of time. One such person could be Mary Wollstonecraft, who can be considered a forerunner of Simone de Beauvoir in a certain sense, or perhaps even more foundational. Reprarina (talk) 01:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I certainly think Cleopatra is more vital than Kwame Nkrumah and Umar (Aren't either Abu Bakr or Ali both a no-brainer over Umar? I am not Muslim, so I am not sure). I also think Catherine the Great is a potentially better choice than Peter the Great -- she has over double the page views on English Wikipedia than him. There are probably more swaps that could be made; I agree 8/200 is not accurate of women's contributions to history and society. LightProof1995 (talk) 01:54, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
I strongly oppose to replace Peter for Catherine. It's not an equal replacement. Maybe Stalin can be a better candidate if replacing Russian polotical leader for another Russian political leader is the only option. Tucvbif (talk) 17:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
I agree Stalin would be a better choice, however Stalin is already listed. LightProof1995 (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Peter the Great changed Russia much more seriously than Catherine the Great. Reprarina (talk) 20:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
I've changed "far better" to "potentially better". I think the swap is worth considering. Peter changed Russia in a foundational way, setting up the groundwork and military, while Catherine continued his work, focusing on the sciences and arts. Wouldn't it be better to have one dictator-militaristic Russian leader, and one cultural one, instead of two dictator-militaristic ones? LightProof1995 (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Catherine the Great was quite militaristic. Her era is associated with Partitions of Poland, with Greek Plan and such fugures as Grigory Potemkin, Fyodor Ushakov and Alexander Suvorov, while the writer Alexander Radishchev was repressed. Reprarina (talk) 07:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
What do yo mean when say «dictator», especially related to monarchy? Catherine came took her power not in peaceful and legitime way, many historians believe that she killed her husband. She turned peasonts literally to slaves. She established demarcation line for jews, dissolved authonomy of Zaporizhzhia, suppressed many riots.
Peter, for comparition, provide reforms in fashion and etiquette, grammar and education, calendar, industry, church e.t.c. He popularize potato, tobacco, cofe. He, at the end, emproved relationship with Western Europe. Tucvbif (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Alright, I agree we should keep Peter. I think Catherine deserves to be listed alongside Peter. LightProof1995 (talk) 19:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Okay so earlier I stated I felt in an ideal world, this list would eventually match the "Vital-3" list at English Wikipedia. I'd now like to retract that statement. Perhaps all of you already know this and if so I am very sorry I am just now understanding as a newbie, but perhaps there is more value in asserting the two lists would necessarily be different as an ideal goal. For example, maybe the consensus is to list Catherine at Wikipedia Vital-3, and list Peter here, but not list both leaders side-by-side on either list.
If so, I think it could make discussion easier. For example, Vital-3 lists the following articles:
Neolithic Revolution, Green Revolution, and History of agriculture, along with 9 more "History of..." articles. Here we list none of those articles, but we do have Irrigation and Plough, which are not listed at English Vital-3. Such a great difference between the lists maybe points to differences being necessary. For example, maybe there is consensus Irrigation and Plough should be listed here instead of History of agriculture, because we want countries focusing on growing crops instead of learning about the history of them. But at Vital-3, there is obviously more emphasis on history and agricultural history. If we say we want the lists to eventually match, that is probably ignoring the fact the value in that they are two different lists.
So, I will no longer be focused on getting Catherine up here, since she is listed at Vital-3. Maybe she belongs here too, maybe she doesn't. Either way, what other women are listed at Vital-3 and the list posted above in this discussion, but not on the main list? Both Cleopatra and Hatshepsut are currently listed at Vital-3 but not here, but Hatshepsut may get removed. Would it be better to consider adding Hatshepsut here over Cleopatra, if Cleopatra is listed there? LightProof1995 (talk) 17:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
While I agree, that women are lacking in this list, I can see how hard it is to decide which men to exclude instead.
Maybe we could finish and revive the List of biographies of women every Wikipedia should have to tackle the gender bias in the Wikipedia, give small wikis a list of important women and larger wikis an incentive to improve women’s biographies. Flaverius (talk) 16:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
The best candidates for exclusion are those men who are from the Western and especially English-speaking world and at the same time have relatively few Wikipedias. Those that are mainly known in the Western and especially English-speaking world and not outside it. Reprarina (talk) 20:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Remove Venezuela, Add Colombia[edit]

Swapped with enough support (support : 5, opposition : 0)

Colombia has a much higher population and GDP than Venezuela. Interstellarity (talk) 01:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Support

  1. per nom. Colombia also beats Venezuela in land area and oil production, and Colombia supplies around 70% of the world's cocaine. LightProof1995 (talk) 01:55, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 19:06, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
  3. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
  4. Support per nom. J947: 00:45, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
  5. As nom. Interstellarity (talk) 12:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Add Animism, Remove Fundamentalism[edit]

Animism is a term coined by anthropologists to describe the basic spiritual beliefs of indigenous cultures. This to me seems more "fundamental" than Fundamentalism, the theory of following religious texts literally.

Support[edit]

  1. As nom LightProof1995 (talk) 01:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
  2. Support Support Per nom. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 13:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
  3. Support Support Per nom. --Toku (talk) 14:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
  4. Support Support Add Animism, but move Religious Fundamentalism to Social Sciences: Politics Ideology section. If space needed in Social Science section, vote to swap Fundamentalism for Nobel Prize from the International Organisation section (Nobel is not an Intl Org, it's just a Swedish private-corporate, non governmental award). --AntekVeganova (talk) 11:43, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Oppose[edit]

  1. Oppose Oppose Fundamentalism is not religiously important. But fundamentalism is politically important. The spread of fundamentalism has caused widespread political turmoil and religious intolerance in both Christian and Muslim countries. Fundamentalism is a very important keyword to explain the current chaos in the world.--Opqr (talk) 11:48, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
    I suggest in this case we move Religious fundamentalism to Social Sciences: Politics in the Ideology section, what do you think? Can vote to swap the space with Nobel prize in International Organisations in same section (as Nobel prize is not an Intl Organization, just a Swedish private, non gov. award) AntekVeganova (talk) 11:11, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
  2. Oppose Oppose per Opqr.--Ideophagous (talk) 16:32, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
  3. Oppose Oppose Animism is not universally accepted term in anthropology, it has received some criticism. Fundamentalism is important religious topic. --Thi (talk) 22:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Discussion[edit]

If we remove both Zen and Yoga, there will be no more "Spiritual practices". I think Meditation is vital, but I'm not sure what to propose to swap out. LightProof1995 (talk) 01:33, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

  • Meditation and Yoga can be moved to Art and Recreation, Sport section. If place is needed to keep them, I suggest one of the less significant German biographies could be taken out, such as Social Science section Max Weber or Heidegger (that section seems unfavourably dominated by German philosophers that did not prove globally significant). AntekVeganova (talk) 11:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Add Mandarin Chinese, Remove Chinese language[edit]

The fact is that "Chinese language" is actually not a language but a group of languages. The Chinese language on the list is almost as if there were Indo-Aryan languages on the list instead of Hindustani. It's even the definition in the article Chinese language: Chinese is a group of languages spoken natively by the ethnic Han Chinese majority and many minority ethnic groups in Greater China. Mandarin Chinese is more accurate analogue of other big languages in this list.

Support[edit]

  1. Support Support as nom--Reprarina (talk) 19:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
    Is it allowed to vote for your own suggestion? It seems like cheating by adding a fake vote in support, to be honest. It is a given that you support your own suggestion. AntekVeganova (talk) 17:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
    Yes it's common here. Reprarina (talk) 23:39, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
  2. Support Support Per nom. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 10:38, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Oppose[edit]

  1. Strong oppose In other words, are you saying that Mandarin is the official language of China, and that Mandarin is also designated as the official language of the United Nations? It is different. Chinese is designated as the official language. Even if it is actually Mandarin, the international community treats it as "Chinese." Don't underestimate generic terms. If I follow your suggestion, Arabic would have to be changed to Modern Standard Arabic, and English would have to be changed to American or British English. That's so ridiculous.--Opqr (talk) 14:32, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
    Even if it is actually Mandarin, the international community treats it as "Chinese." But not the linguistic RSs. Linguistic RSs view Chinese language as a group of non-mutually intelligible languages. The article Chinese language physically can't be an article which say many enough things about Mandarin Chinese. I won’t say anything about the Arabic language, but the situation with the English language is completely different. Reprarina (talk) 17:48, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
  2. Strong oppose There are more Chinese languages than just Mandarin, for example Cantonese. Chinese is a general group that covers all the dialects and groups of Chinese. Seems the suggesting user doesn't quite understand linguistics and is unfairly in favour of just Mandarin. Also the user votes in favour of his own suggestion, which is dishonest. AntekVeganova (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
    "There are more Chinese languages than just Mandarin, for example Cantonese. Chinese is a general group that covers all the dialects and groups of Chinese." And the same can be said about other groups of languages. We have no articles in the list about groups of languages, only about languages. Should we make an exception for Chinese group to be included in the list, and for Mandarin (a big language) not to be included? Why should we? Reprarina (talk) 23:39, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
  3. Oppose Oppose per Opqr. --LR0725 ( Talk / Contribs ) 17:29, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
  4. Strong oppose Most of Chinese languages that are locally spoken in much part of the world—especially in Southeast Asia—aren't Mandarin (see Language Atlas of China). Also Mandarin already included in Chinese languages. Mbee-wiki (talk) 07:37, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
    Quite the same can be said about, for example, Japanese language and Japonic languages. Should we exclude Japanese language for Japonic languages?--Reprarina (talk) 10:49, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
  5. Oppose Oppose Per Opqr. --Toku (talk) 10:40, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
  6. Oppose OpposePer Opqr. --Algovia (talk) 13:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Discuss[edit]

  • I would support swapping Hindustani with Indo-Aryan languages, and listing Chinese languages and Indo-Aryan languages under a new header called "Language families" LightProof1995 (talk) 18:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Chinese (d:Q7850) is listed under "Specific languages". It sounds like the nomination rationale for removal is that it doesn't fit into the section because it is a group of languages rather than a language. I think a group of languages can fit. If necessary, we could rename the section name as "Specific languages and groups of languages". whym (talk) 10:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Add Prison, Remove Capital punishment[edit]

Is the capital punishment actually a more important topic than prison? Prisons are everywhere (terms are diverse, but the concept is quite international), the death penalty is not everywhere. Imprisonment affects much more people than the death penalty.

Support[edit]

  1. Support Support as nom.--Reprarina (talk) 13:56, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
  2. Support Support per nom.--Ideophagous (talk) 08:31, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
  3. Support removal. --Thi (talk) 19:10, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Oppose[edit]

  1. Oppose Oppose The death penalty is a very important element in the history of justice. It is still present in many societies. Personally, I think "Prison" should replace "Universal Declaration of Human Rights". Best regards, --Toku (talk) 10:39, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
  2. Oppose Oppose Again, the rationale is understandable but I feel that capital punishment is more prominent instance of legal penalty. --Deinocheirus (talk) 03:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
  3. Oppose Oppose To answer your question about whether capital punishment is or is not more important than prison, we can consider the objective measure of views in the past 30 days, because they are similar articles. Prison has 27,102 and Incarceration has 7,209 views on English Wikipedia, totaling 34,311 views, while Capital punishment has 98,195. LightProof1995 (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Add Warsaw, remove Brussels[edit]

There is some Western European bias on this list, and Belgium has less than a third of the population of Poland. Brussels doesn't have much going for it other than the EU and NATO. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Support
  1. Support as nom. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Oppose
  1. "other than EU and NATO"? I hope you're joking. — Yerpo Eh? 09:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
  2. Brussels is the capital of the European Union. Until Poland becomes a big player within it, no to Warsaw. The Blue Rider 00:26, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
  3. Per Yerpo and The Blue Rider. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 15:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
  4. Per Yerpo. --Algovia (talk) 13:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Add Hildegard of Bingen, remove Antonín Dvořák[edit]

Aside from the problematic European bias in the composers section, Dvořák is not really influential enough to be on this list. He was certainly an important composer, but there are already many romantic era composers on the list who had more influence on the direction of classical music as a whole. Hildegard of Bingen, on the other hand, has had more of her work survive to the modern era than any other medieval era composer, and was also an influential philosopher and polymath. AsimovtheCat (talk) 04:58, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Support[edit]

  1. Support Support per nom. She's a notable female polymath, and this helps with gender bias. She also beats Dvorak in page views. LightProof1995 (talk) 03:28, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oppose[edit]

  1. Oppose Oppose Is Hildegard of Bingen really important enough to be on this list? She doesn't seem to have done anything significant enough in the fields of music, natural history, or medicine to be included on this list. As a religious figure,she does not seem to have left as important a footprint as Thomas Aquinas or Augustine.I don't think she's more important than Dvorak at all.--Opqr (talk) 12:41, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I guess I'm in agreement with that. I just don't feel like Dvorak is important enough to the trajectory of classical music to warrant an entry here. I'll spend some time thinking about a more suitable proposed replacement I guess. Or I will just leave it. AsimovtheCat (talk) 22:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
  2. Oppose Oppose. As for composers, I would rather agree to exclude Stravinsky (who is definitely not as important as Chaikovsky and maybe not even more important than Glinka, Rimsky-Korsakov, Shostakovich and Rachmaninoff) than Dvořák. Hildegard of Bingen would unproportionally increased the presence of Chistian religious figures in the list, and we cannot put her on a par with Jesus, Thomas Aquinas, Aurelius Augustine and Martin Luther. It's better to add Bible than Hildegard of Bingen, after all. Reprarina (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Out of curiosity what do you feel Dvořák has done to merit inclusion on this list? I'm not trying to just wage war against Dvořák to be clear, I just don't feel like he was very influential overall. AsimovtheCat (talk) 22:57, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
  3. Oppose Oppose Support for removal. --Thi (talk) 22:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
  4. Oppose Oppose Incorrect proposal, Hildegard of Bingen is not really a musician. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 12:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
  5. Oppose Oppose Per Nicolas Eynaud, the proposal is not valid. --Algovia (talk) 13:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Discussion[edit]

Hildegard of Bingen is not really a composer or a musician. I think this proposal doesn't respect the guidelines for changes in the list ("swapping like for like (category switch only with reason"). A valid proposal should propose a swap in the "Religious figures and theologians" category (?) or in "Philosophers and social scientists" (?). Best regards, --Toku (talk) 08:31, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
I do not support adding Hildegard of Bingen, but is there some metric that can be used to determine composer influence? I feel like composers like Rachmaninoff, Debussy, Schumann, Shostakovich, or Stravinsky could be more appropriate to include here rathan than Dvořák, but I don't really know the best metric to determine that. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 04:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, it is views. From English Wikipedia's Vital page FAQ:
"In order to see a page's view counts (in the past 30 days), one can click on "Page information" on the right of the page. In theory, the amount of views a page receives points to it being critical to Wikipedia's structure. However, this is hardly the case. View counts are by no means a definitive marker of vitality and should be approached with caution. In general, view counts should only be compared across similar articles. Recent events and popular celebrities tend to receive views that aren't necessarily "critical to Wikipedia's structure views" as the popularity of these pages is temporary and often irrelevant to Wikipedia's other articles."
We can compare views across the composers you list because they are all "similar articles" in that they are all composers:
Rachmaninoff views: (English: ~50,000. Russian: ~37,000.) Avg 43,500 views
Debussy views: (English: ~49,000. French: ~10,000.) Avg 29,500 views
Schumann views: (English: ~40,000. German: ~14,000.) Avg 27,000 views
Shostakovich views: (English: ~47,000. Russian: ~44,000.) Avg 45,500 views
Stravinsky views: (English: ~36,000. Russian: ~14,000.) Avg 25,000 views
Dvorak views: (English: ~33,000. Czech: ~11,000.) Avg 22,000 views
Hildegard views: (English: ~37,000. German: ~18,000.) Avg 27,500 views
One could average/sum across even more Wikipedias of different languages to get even more feel of their global importance. Looks like Shostakovich and Rachmaninoff stand out the most in this initial analysis. LightProof1995 (talk) 00:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
I would personally support replacing Dvořák with either Rachmaninoff or Shostakovich (I'd lean towards Shostakovich as a composer representing a different style from Rachmaninoff and the other Romantics). Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 18:11, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Add Florence Nightingale, Remove Umar[edit]

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

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

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

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

Support
  1. Support Support as nom.--Opqr (talk) 13:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
  2. Strong support Strong support Abu Bakr or Ali are better choices for this list over Umar, as I've stated before. So Umar doesn't belong at all. Florence Nightingale is a great choice and helps balance the gender bias. LightProof1995 (talk) 03:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Oppose
  1. Oppose Oppose I fear that the addition of Florence Nightingale will disproportionately increase the British presence on a list that is primarily aimed at an international audience. I don't think Umar is insignificant to this list. I think that the percentage of Muslims in the world is growing, so the importance of Umar is only increasing.--Reprarina (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
  2. Oppose Oppose The proposal is not clear. Nightingale is described as « a great figure who established the concept of nursing and left a great mark on medicine, hygiene, and statistics » but she is proposed to join the list as a « social activist » or a « political leader ». Why not ? But, in this case, is it possible to describe what she has done in this area ? Because Umar is not just « a representative of the development of the early Islamic state », he is the one who leaded the first Islamic expansion outside Arabian Peninsula, created the first administration of the Caliphate and initiated the compilation of the Quran. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 14:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
  3. Oppose Oppose It can be argued that Umar had a greater effect on the development of early Islam, than most other historical figures apart from Muhammad himself. Among people with an Islamic background, Umar is practically a household name, whatever people think of him. The list already has some Western bias to begin with, and on that basis, there was little enthusiasm in my language community, to join an editing campaign I started, to create and improve the articles on this list. Let's not make it even more biased. Ideophagous (talk) 20:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
  4. Oppose Oppose Per N. Eynaud and Ideophagous. --Toku (talk) 22:03, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
  5. Oppose Oppose This proposal is not valid ("swapping like for like (category switch only with reason"). --Algovia (talk) 13:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
That's a misunderstanding. I consider Nightingale to be a social activist, a great figure involved in politics and social change, so I am proposing an exchange within the category of politician. I haven't switched categories.--Opqr (talk) 13:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Discussion

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

Data on the number of page views in Russian Wikipedia over the past year - Florence Nightingale - 70,688, Maria Montessori - 78,068, Virginia Woolf - 117,359, Margaret Thatcher - 370,057, Golda Meir - 441,142, JK Rowling - 446,837, Taylor Swift - 582,697, Queen Victoria - 633,560, princess Diana - 1,049,843. I have a strong suspicion that Florence Nightingale is not the best candidate to correct the gender bias in the list without falling into Anglocentric bias. Reprarina (talk) 07:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
English views:
Florence Nightingale: ~100,000
Maria Montessori: ~24,000
Virginia Woolf: ~154,000
Margaret Thatcher: ~236,000
Golda Meir: ~124,000
J. K. Rowling: ~214,000
Taylor Swift: ~4,200,000
Queen Victoria: ~511,000
Princess Diana: ~463,000
View counts are not everything. At English Wikipedia Vitals FAQ, other considerations besides views include Coverage, Notability, Importance to other articles, and No (Western) bias. No one is going to suggest Taylor Swift, talented as she is, and receiving 4.2 million views, is a better candidate for this list of articles all Wikipedias should have other Florence Nightingale, because being a great singer-songwriter is not as notable, or as special, or as important as founding the modern nursing movement. The same goes for all other women listed here. LightProof1995 (talk) 09:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Then first we need to add nursing to make it clear what the significance of being the founder of the modern nursing movement is. Reprarina (talk) 09:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
I respectfully disagree we must necessarily add Nursing before Florence Nightingale. No one has suggested a swap for Nursing, but here we have a perfectly good swap proposal to get Florence Nightingale up there. I think we should consider each proposal as they appear. LightProof1995 (talk) 22:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

Add Sociology, Remove Thought[edit]

We have too many concepts of psychology in the list, including those ones which can be problematic to translate on some languages, such as mind and thought (these words can be translated very differently into other languages). Concepts from psychology are chosen in an Anglophone-centric way - the list does not include consciousness, psyche and activity, but includes mind, behavior and thought. This is hardly an internationally recognized hierarchy. At the same time, sociology is not even on the list as such.--Reprarina (talk) 10:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Support
  1. Support Support as nom.--Reprarina (talk) 10:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Oppose
  1. Oppose Oppose "Thought" has 129 interwikis in wikidata. It doesn't seem to be an English or an American view. But I think you're right about sociology, it could be in the list. --Toku (talk) 22:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
  2. Oppose Oppose per above. --Thi (talk) 09:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Discussion

Both are listed at English Wikipedia's Vital-3 list LightProof1995 (talk) 04:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Add Manila, remove Bogota[edit]

South America is overrepresented on the list and the Philippines is the second most populous country in Southeast Asia. Even Lima would be better than Bogota. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 13:16, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Support[edit]

Support Support as nom. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 13:16, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Support Support per nom, especially if we are adding Colombia LightProof1995 (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oppose[edit]

: Oppose Oppose We have almost 20 Asian cities in the list already and just 4 South American cities. The ratio is as lopsided when we look at the countries subsection (16 to just 3). I don't think reducing South American representation in the list is a good idea. --Deinocheirus (talk) 19:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC) Since we added Colombia, no need to keep both the country and its capital in the very limited list. --Deinocheirus (talk) 20:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

You’ve got to be joking. South America has 5.5% of the world population and 8.9% of the cities on this list. Asia has 60% of the world population and 42% of the cities on this list. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Add Algae, remove Marine mammal[edit]

Swapped with enough support (support : 6, opposition : 0)


Both Algae and Marine mammal are hodgepodges from a cladistic point of view, but Algae is a more important, more ancient, more fundamental hodgepodge. It should be noted that users are not enthusiastic about writing the article "Marine mammal" - this article is written in only 73 languages. "Algae" is written on 115. There is a big field of science about algae - phycology (algology), which has a long history.--Reprarina (talk) 22:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Support
  1. Support Support as nom.--Reprarina (talk) 22:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
  2. Support Support Algae account for approximately 50% of global carbon fixation, and have a major impact on the world's ecosystems and climate. The large amounts of oxygen produced by cyanobacteria caused a dramatic change in the atmosphere 2.4 billion years ago, triggering the great prosperity of life that continues to this day. I agree because algae are very important in this way.--Opqr (talk) 11:41, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
  3. Support Support Per Opqr. --Algovia (talk) 16:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
  4. Support Support Makes sense. --Deinocheirus (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
  5. Support Support per nom and Opqr. Marine mammal doesn't belong when we already list Cetacea. I was going to propose swapping Marine mammal with Elephant, but this work too. LightProof1995 (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
  6. Support Support Per nom. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 16:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Add Johannesburg, remove Cape Town[edit]

While it doesn't have the historical importance Cape Town has, the fourth-most populous and largest African city economically deserves a spot on this list. Johannesburg is ranked α- on GaWC, and Cape Town is ranked β. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 21:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Support Support as nom. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 21:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Support Support per nom, Johannesburg is the largest metro population in South Africa, and exceeds Cape Town's by ~10 million. LightProof1995 (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Per nom. Interstellarity (talk) 12:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Add Soviet Union, remove Cultural Revolution[edit]

Swapped with enough support (support : 6, opposition : 0)

Is the Cultural Revolution in China 1966-1976 really so important that it should be included not only in the extended list, but also in this list?.. The absence of the Soviet Union in the list seems extremely strange to me. The Soviet Union defeated Nazi Germany, launched the first human into space and was the main enemy of the United States in the Cold War which is included in the list. The Soviet Union had the second largest economy in the world from the end of World War II until the mid 1980s. The extended list contains a lot of articles that are directly related to the Soviet Union (Great Purge, Holodomor, NKVD, Gulag, Population transfer in the Soviet Union, Chernobyl disaster, Dissolution of the Soviet Union), so I guess the core article should be included in this list.

Support
  1. Support Support as nom.--Reprarina (talk) 11:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
  2. Support Support per nom LightProof1995 (talk) 06:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
  3. Support Support Per nom. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 16:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
  4. Support Support. One of the most important historical states. --Deinocheirus (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
  5. Per nom. Interstellarity (talk) 12:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
  6. Support Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 09:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Add Wetland, Remove Lake Tanganyika[edit]

No need to list this Great African Lake when Lake Victoria is already listed. Also, of the three major African Great Lakes, Lake Malawi is arguably most important due to it having the highest fish biodiversity of any lake in the world.

No individual lake is more important than the concept of a wetland. Wetlands are seen worldwide: the floodplains along the Nile and Amazon, the swamps in the Sundarbans and American South, and the bogs in Siberia and Ireland are all wetlands. Being neither truly aquatic or terrestrial, wetlands are a biome of their own. Because of this, wetlands provide unique ecological benefits not seen in other biomes. Wetlands also protect coasts, purify water, and restore groundwater reservoirs.

Support[edit]

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

Oppose[edit]

  1. Oppose Oppose Not convinced by the need of a swap between two different categories. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 19:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Wetland would also go under Geography. LightProof1995 (talk) 21:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Neutral[edit]

  1. Neutral Neutre I agree with removing Lake Tanganyika because it is not that important. Also, adding some general geographic concepts isn't a bad thing. However, I don't think the concept of "wetlands" is that important, so I won't state my pros and cons at this time.--Opqr (talk) 14:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Thanks very much for your vote and reasoning :) the importance of wetlands is unfortunately not well-taught in schools. It's something you'd only learn about at a university or professional level. LightProof1995 (talk) 19:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Discussion[edit]

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

Thanks for pointing this out Reprarina. Grassland isn't listed either. Maybe we need to achieve a consensus on which to add: wetland, grassland, plain, or meadow. LightProof1995 (talk) 14:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I feel like plain is too much of a generic term (Oxford dictionary defines it as simply "a large area of flat land with few trees" which includes everything from deserts to grasslands to tundra) and meadow is a common language term and isn't fully defined encyclopedically which may lead to significant inter-Wiki discrepancies, including the possibility of completely missing in some languages. So I'd say the choice should be between grassland and wetland. Deinocheirus (talk) 12:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Add African Great Lakes, Remove Lake Victoria[edit]

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

Support[edit]

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

Oppose[edit]

  1. Oppose Oppose I don't think Lake Victoria is that important, so I agree with its removal. However, I would object if Africa's Great Lakes were to be included instead of Lake Victoria. As I said last time, the major lakes of Africa's Great Lakes, Lake Victoria, Lake Tanganyika, and Lake Malawi, all belong to completely different water systems and are not interconnected. In other words, the African Great Lakes is a meaningless classification of ecologically and economically unrelated lakes forced together based solely on geographic and geological commonalities. Compared to the African Great Lakes, Lake Victoria is much more important. I strongly oppose cramming unimportant concepts into this list just to save space.--Opqr (talk) 14:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Thank you very much for voting. Sorry I missed citing your excellent reasoning for adding Algae to the list; I've cited your reasoning as well now. Please see https://www.britannica.com/place/East-African-lakes to read about how these lakes are connected hydrologically, geographically, ecologically, and economically; along with what I said before. Best regards, LightProof1995 (talk) 20:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
  2. Oppose Oppose since Lake Victoria is listed at WP:VA. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 02:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Add Averroes, Remove Martin Heidegger[edit]

Islamic Golden Age is still underrepresented in the list. Thw article about Averroes was written in more Wikipedias than about Heidegger (Averroes has 107, Heidegger has 105). According to this indicator, Heidegger is an outsider among Western philosophers and humanists on the list. He has even less Wikipedias than Carl Jung (107), Baruh Spinoza (114), Friedrich Engels (125) and Noam Chomsky (138) who are not included. Averroes returned Aristotle to the Middle-Aged world. So I guess he is the missing link of the great philosophers on this list.--Reprarina (talk) 02:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Support[edit]

  1. as nom --Reprarina (talk) 02:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Discuss[edit]

I support the removal, but I'd rather see Islamic Golden Age itself added. I don't think Averroes should be included over Avicenna or Alhazen. LightProof1995 (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Avicenna is in the list. Reprarina (talk) 21:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Oops, my bad. Thank you for correcting my error. LightProof1995 (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't think adding the Islamic Golden Age is a good idea because it is just as important as the other golden ages. Reprarina (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Do you have any specific ones in mind? LightProof1995 (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Add Murasaki Shikibu, Remove Geoffrey Chaucer[edit]

We have lack of Asian writers of post-classical period, we have lack of women, especially in post-classical period. Murasaki Shikibu is ahead of Geoffrey Chaucer in the number of Wikipedias (137 for Shikibu versus 134 for Chaucer). The Tale of Genji has much big number of Wikipedias than The Canterbury Tales (94 for The Tale of Genji versus 57 for The Canterbury Tales).

I will try to counter the potential argument “We already have the Tale of Genji in the list, so we don’t need Murasaki Shikibu” - rather, on the contrary: if we have the Tale of Genji, but don’t have The Canterbury Tales, then maybe the author of The Tale of Genji is more important than author of The Canterbury Tales? By the way, The Canterbury Tales are not included in the expanded list. In addition, Murasaki Shikibu's creative heritage is not limited to writing The Tale of Genji. She wrote also 128 poems and The Diary of Lady Murasaki.

Other English-language writers in the list (Dickens, Austen, Byron, Joyce, Shakespeare, and Twain) have more Wikipedias than Chauser. Chaucer significantly increases the Anglocentrism on the list, being an English writer with relatively few Wikipedias.--Reprarina (talk) 12:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Support[edit]

  1. as nom --Reprarina (talk) 12:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oppose[edit]

  1. Oppose Oppose “We already have the Tale of Genji in the list, so we don’t need Murasaki Shikibu” I oppose this proposal for this very reason. There are currently several literary greats on this list who are credited with only one great work. Dante and Cervantes. However, this list includes Dante, but not “The Divine Comedy“, and Cervantes, but not “Don Quixote“. Only one work and author can be on the list. There are no duplicates. Why is Murasaki Shikibu the only one allowed to list both authors and works?  Murasaki Shikibu is famous for both diary literature and waka poetry, but he was only one of dozens of writers who excelled in these two fields at the Japanese court at the time. Murasaki Shikibu's achievements are basically all due to his writing of “The Tale of Genji”.--Opqr (talk) 01:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Why “Dream in the Red Chamber” is on the list, but Cao Xueqin is not on the list, I understand perfectly well - the novel is significantly ahead of the author in the number of Wikipedias (97 for the novel, 47 for its author). I don’t understand why “The Tale of Genji” is on the list, but Murasaki Shikibu is not on the list - in this case, the author is significantly ahead of the novel in the number of Wikipedias (94 for the novel, 137 for its author). Reprarina (talk) 10:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
    The reason you just gave is a reason to exchange The Tale of Genji and Murasaki Shikibu, not at all a reason to exchange Chaucer and Murasaki Shikibu. There is no reason to overlap Murasaki Shikibu and The Tale of Genji.--Opqr (talk) 11:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Like for like rule. Reprarina (talk) 11:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
    The main reason for removing Chaucer is that the list is Anglocentric. Reprarina (talk) 12:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
  2. Oppose Oppose per Opqr, and per your initial argument, I agree we should only have either the artist or their work. So I'd support removal of the Iliad. I proposed swapping Murasaki Shikibu for Tale of Genji at Vital articles (English) and it failed; consensus at the time was to have no works of art at all and only the artists. I also oppose removing Chaucer, the father of English literature. LightProof1995 (talk) 19:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I don’t see anything wrong with the presence of both Homer and the Iliad. The presence of Homer as a poet is not a reason to downgrade the status of the Iliad as a poem. Reprarina (talk) 21:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
    It's not a downgrade; only an acknowledgement that with limited space for our encyclopedic list, we need to at least consider all aspects of a category before deciding we can have overlap on purpose. There wasn't even consensus to list Iliad over Odyssey in the archives. LightProof1995 (talk) 21:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
    And I think this would be the wrong approach. And in this case, I believe that the presence of both Homer and the Iliad in the list and the absence of the Odyssey is completely fair. Although since ancient times there actually has been an ultra-elite opinion: Hesiod and Works and Days are more important.<> Reprarina (talk) 22:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Precisely, Chaucer is important for English literature, but is he really a writer who is very well known outside of English-speaking countries? Reprarina (talk) 21:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Well, if the other encyclopedias followed the recommendations of this list, he would be :) LightProof1995 (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
    In my opinion, there is a lot on the list that is considered important mainly by the English-speaking intelligentsia. And since the page is in English, this is difficult to avoid, but highly advisable to avoid. Reprarina (talk) 23:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Add Romania or Greece, remove Switzerland[edit]

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

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

Support
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion