Talk:List of articles every Wikipedia should have
Archives of this page
 Please add new topics to the bottom of this page
Contents
 1 The list should be more focused (in mathematics)
 2 Anatomy & Medicine
 3 Dubai City/Emirate
 4 Please add The Divine Comedy
 5 Video game and Smartphone
 6 Wikidata Q15645384 and Q12106 (Wheat)
 7 Catholic Church
 8 Can we add Shenzhen into the list?
 9 Philosophers and social scientists: Martin Heidegger
 10 Artists
 11 16th century
 12 Wagner, Richard
The list should be more focused (in mathematics)[edit]
Catchall term like "algebra" is vital for wikipedias as a category, but not as an article. We could compare wikipedias of different languages better by articles of more focused, clearly defined topics. I propose a new list for mathematics:
(General)
 Mathematics
(Algebra)
 Linear algebra
 Complex number
 Fermat's Last Theorem
 Abel–Ruffini theorem
(Geometry)
 Area
 Angle
 Pythagorean theorem
 Coordinate system
 Symmetry
 Möbius strip
Euler characteristicPolyhedron
(Analysis)
 Limit
 Infinity
 Differential equation
 Logarithm
 Trigonometric functions
 Pi
 Taylor series
(Statistics)
 Normal distribution
 Probability theory
(Logic / others)
 Boolean algebra
 Mathematical proof
 Set theory
 Function
The following is the list of changes:
 Remove: algebra, arithmetic, mathematical analysis, numerical analysis, equation, geometry, trigonometry, number, number theory, statistics.
 Add: Fermat's Last Theorem (Q132469), AbelRuffini theorem (Q657482), Möbius strip (Q226843), polyhedra (Q172937), limit (Q177239), Taylor series (Q131187), trigonometric functions (Q93344), normal distribution (Q133871), probability theory (Q5862903), Boolean algebra (Q173183)
Other candidates of consideration might be:
 Negative numbers
 Prime numbers
 Quadratic equation
 Fourier transform
 Fundamental theorem of calculus
 Secondorder logic
 Gödel's incompleteness theorems
 Markov process
 Lambda calculus
 Graph theory
Rollingfrenzy (talk) 09:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 Sounds reasonable in gerenal, but are you sure that highly technical topics like Fermat's Last Theorem and Abel–Ruffini theorem are suitable for a list like this? — Yerpo ^{Eh?} 18:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 I agree with the overall reorganization, but not most of the topic substitutions. In particular, I think it's worth keeping the major divisions of mathematics, algebra, mathematical analysis, and geometry, as well as the elementary mathematical concepts arithmetic, equation, and number; and somehow I just can't part with trigonometry or statistics, either. (Full disclosure: I have a degree in statistics.) The items in bold are so marked in the List itself, meaning they are considered "top priority" articles, so their removal should not be undertaken lightly. This leaves me two substitutions to make: I could let number theory and numerical analysis go and add normal distribution (central to the study of probability and statistics) and parallel postulate (one of the most important statements in the history of mathematics).  dcljr (talk) 02:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 The word arithmetic is too ambiguous and does not have clearly corresponding word in some languages (in Japanese, we usually say "四則演算", literally "the mathematical operations of the four rules", since distinction between calculations, mathematical operations and arithmetics is not clear) while individual operation like addition has. In many languages, the article for "arithmetics" seems to be merely a collection of the description of the four basic arithmetics. Some of the major divisions may be worth keeping, but we should care about how the article should look like and examine whether we really need that content. I also think this list should provide a list of good sample points of wikipedia, rather than the complete coverage of the basic mathematics.
 Parallel postulate. Hmm, it sounds worth considering ... (replacing Boolean algebra, maybe) Rollingfrenzy (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 Regarding arithmetic, Wikidata lists 117 Wikipedia languages having corresponding articles, including ja:算術. I can't say whether that's a good Japanese title for this concept or not, but it is one of 2 terms listed in one of my English–Japanese dictionaries under "mathematics". [g] Note that the Wikidata item is about the "elementary branch of mathematics", not just the four operations. If the existing Wikiepdia articles are so limited, they need expanding. As for "complete coverage of the basic mathematics", that is clearly not what this list is aiming for, nor is that even a realistic goal. I see it more as a collection of major topics that can serve to point out (as they are expanded and wikified) what other articles are worth writing. Also, most of them are the kinds of articles that would naturally split off into more specific, related articles as they develop. In other words, they serve as "seeds" that can help a small Wikipedia to grow. When viewed in this light, many of the topics I cite above as things I wouldn't want to lose could serve in this role nicely, whereas more narrowlytailored articles about specific theorems, say, would not necessarily function the same way.  dcljr (talk) 03:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 I think we should take balance of the divisions, the theorems, the (proof) systems, and the object of studies in mathematics. In this point of view, wikipedias should have some articles on some of the most famous theorems, IMHO. (Pythagorean theorem is rather a definition of Euclidean norms in modern mathematics.) I picked up FLT and AbelRuffini's because they are famous and easy to understand and describe while difficult to prove. (Maybe one of the two (AbelRuffini's?) should be replaced by a famous theorem which is easy to understand and prove, but I just couldn't illustrate a good example.)Rollingfrenzy (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 I agree with the overall reorganization, but not most of the topic substitutions. In particular, I think it's worth keeping the major divisions of mathematics, algebra, mathematical analysis, and geometry, as well as the elementary mathematical concepts arithmetic, equation, and number; and somehow I just can't part with trigonometry or statistics, either. (Full disclosure: I have a degree in statistics.) The items in bold are so marked in the List itself, meaning they are considered "top priority" articles, so their removal should not be undertaken lightly. This leaves me two substitutions to make: I could let number theory and numerical analysis go and add normal distribution (central to the study of probability and statistics) and parallel postulate (one of the most important statements in the history of mathematics).  dcljr (talk) 02:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Structure change first[edit]
We can continue to talk about possible topic substitutions, but I don't see any disagreement about the basic idea of restructuring the mathematics portion of the list along the lines outlined above. Might I suggest the following scheme using the current set of topics?
 Mathematics
 Arithmetic
 Algebra
 Geometry
 Mathematical analysis
 Probability and statistics
 Logic and foundations
Some of these things are kind of hard to place, so I welcome other suggestions.  dcljr (talk) 03:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 I agree the structure changeWolfch (talk) 01:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 I mostly agree with dcljr in first considering the structure. Concerning the possible changes, I think that the present list is not bad, but if it has to be more "focused" then perhaps I would replace Arithmetic, Number theory and Set theory by Zero, Derivative and Set (mathematics). With these changes, I would rename section 2: Numbers. Txebixev (talk) 13:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Anatomy & Medicine[edit]
After discussion elsewhere the following (hopefully) uncontroversial changes were made by myself and Doc James (although on the wrong page).
 Penicillin > COPD
 Antibacterial > Antibiotic
 Lungs > Nerve
I'm creating this section for future discussion, as I find some of the choices within these fields a tad arbitrary, especially when it comes to anatomy. Doc James Would you like to weigh in here?
I'm going to appropriate the above argument from the mathematics section  a catch all article such as Anatomy isn't very useful, and would do well to be replaced by something more important  such as Thyroid. CFCF (talk) 16:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 First of all, please list all of the changes you two made, as this is kinda confusing and I'm not even sure if we're still at 1000 entries anymore. It is generally preferable to discuss before changing, but most of the changes I could agree with (and I know Doc James is an expert). Still, at least linking to that "discussion elsewhere" would be helpful... I do have an issue with a few changes, such as:
 removing en:Cholera which is still one of the most important diseases in the developing world (we strive for balance here)
 replacing en:Lungs with en:Nerve  I don't see how the latter is so much more important than the former. Perhaps Nerve could replace something else instead?
 Also, en:Anatomy should stay in my opinion, as it is not just a catch all term, but one of the oldest scientific disciplines and so important both as a natural science topic and within science history. — Yerpo ^{Eh?} 07:29, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 While I will at large agree with Yerpo, and admit that the concessions we made are far from ideal, I will try to justify them. I believe some nonmedical topics are overrepresented here, and that medicine/anatomy/biology topics are lacking in this list. I am not currently willing to take that debate, instead to justify the reordering within med/anat/bio topics:
 Cholera causes a form of gastroenteritis, so while a very important subject the term also includes similar diseases caused by other pathogens. Often the treatment is similar, and in lieu of having both we should choose gastroenteritis.
 Lungs are covered under respiratory system, and in such a limited list it is superfluous to include both. That said I'm willing to replace respiratory system with lungs.
 While I agree that anatomy is an important subject (not in the least because I primarily work on anatomy articles), with such a limited number of articles I find including the actual organs far more important.
CFCF (talk) 11:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


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

for your consideration[edit]
Instead of Influenza, Smallpox, Dentistry, Pneumonia or Alzheimer's disease. Igel B TyMaHe (talk) 08:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Dubai City/Emirate[edit]
Another one of those silly distinctions that only serve as a field for pingponging links in Wikidata (remember Brussels?)... Encyclopedially, the city (d:Q612) and the emirate (d:Q613) are largely coterminous  just look at the articles linked with what is supposed to be the item representing the city d:Q612. Almost all talk primarily about Dubai as a political entity, including en:Dubai. Any ideas how to solve this? — Yerpo ^{Eh?} 08:02, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 I would prefer keeping Dubai City (d:Q612) for the following reasons:
 In our list, "Dubai" is listed in the "Cities" section.
 Dubai City has more interwiki links, which means there are more languages treating Dubai City as vital article than the emirate.
Please add The Divine Comedy[edit]
I think that the Divine Comedy should be added to this list. It is a masterpiece of the Italian literature and one of the most important works of the world literature. Dante's work also established solid foundations to the theological and scientific thinking of the following centuries. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rapper skull (talk) 17:56, 17. september 2015
 Which entry do you propose to remove to make room? — Yerpo ^{Eh?} 06:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

 I can't propose to remove anything from the poetry section, since there are only four entries, but maybe we could remove metal and steel from the physics section. — Rapper_skull 13:58, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 I strongly oppose removing such important topics. — Yerpo ^{Eh?} 15:02, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Video game and Smartphone[edit]
I think Video game (already discussed here two years ago) and Smartphone should be in the list. I suggest to remove Litre, Physical chemistry, Hard disk drive, Email or Acceleration. Paucabot (talk) 19:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 Litre could go, possibly also Physical chemistry, other topics are too core. Although I'm not sure I'd replace them with these two (as per the comment two years ago). — Yerpo ^{Eh?} 07:09, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 I agree with Litre and physical chemistry. I also think hard disk is not very core. I would compare hard disk to Chipset, RAM or Motherboard. Maybe replace it by Computer data storage or Integrated circuit? I neither don't see the cority of acceleration, as we do have Force. Taking a look at the article, it seems a very mathematical definition, not a core physical concept as you can see comparing its background with the corresponding to Force.
 And yes, video game and smartphone are very recent, but the former is approximately as recent as email, artificial intelligence, hard disk and CPU. I think video game is comparable to cinema (or Film): video game industry is earning more money than film industry and is replacing TV, movies as the main leisure activity in some age segments. As for smarthpone, I think it's a big big revolution and it's the next step in computing (they are much more popular in the third world than normal computers), but I admit this item it's much more recent than video games. We could change it for Cell phone to gain more time length but we also have Telephone, which is maybe too much overlapping. Paucabot (talk) 11:03, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Wikidata Q15645384 and Q12106 (Wheat)[edit]
Please consider change d:Q12106 with d:Q15645384 in this list. Currently, none of the "big" Wikipedias doesn't have this article. (very similar problem with banana, apple etc.)C3r4 (talk) 14:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 Support There is a user on Wikidata who separated the taxon Triticum d:Q12106 and the cereal d:Q15645384. I think that in this list the cereal would be much more properly than the botanical genus. Holder (talk) 06:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 Support Wheat is listed as "Foodstuffs" instead of botanical.Wolfch (talk) 08:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Catholic Church[edit]
I'm new to wikidata and meta, and I need your help with the following issue:
"Catholic Church" is clearly the odd one in "Specific religions", as it refers to a church (an organisation), and not a religion like every other item in that section.
This makes good sense in the context of enwiki, where en:Catholic Church describes both the church and its doctrine, i.e. [Roman] Catholicism. At the same time, en:Catholicism describes one of the en:Four Marks of the Church, which applies to most christian churches, and starts with a caveat: "This sense is to be distinguished from the use of these words to refer to the Roman Catholic Church..."
In other languages  and particularly in ruwiki, where I'm coming from  the two meanings of Catholicism are expressed with different terms. Thus, the Russian interwiki of en:Catholicism came to describe the doctrine of the [Roman] Catholic Church; the Russian interwiki of en:Catholic Church  the church itself and its organisation; and a third article is for the catholicity as one of the en:Four Marks of the Church.
Now, our question is, how can we align that with WP:HAVE? Naturally, we want our main article on [Roman] Catholicism to be on the list; the Russian article on Catholic Church is essentially a subarticle of Catholicism. At the same time, we want to preserve the interwiki between en:Catholic Church and its Russian counterpart, since the subjects (though not the scope) of the two articles are the same.
Looking at wikidata, Catholicism "has parts" Catholic Church and Old Catholic Church, but none of the other catholic churches in the sense of the en:Four Marks of the Church  in particular, not en:Orthodox Catholic Church. This seems to imply that Q1841 "Catholicism" stands for the second meaning of the term, i.e. the doctrine of the [Roman] Catholic Church,  and not the one described at en:Catholicism. I don't know if there exists a wikidata entry for the other meaning of catholicity.
So, the source of our confusion is: there are three subjects, loosely mapped to two enwiki articles. One of the three merits an entry on WP:HAVE  the religious doctrine; but it's not the main subject of its enwiki article. How can all this be handled? 146.200.13.17 23:58, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Can we add Shenzhen into the list?[edit]
Shenzhen is a city of more than ten million inhabitants in Southern China and among the fastest growing in the world. Wishva de Silva (talk) 15:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 What do you propose to remove to make place for a new entry? — Yerpo ^{Eh?} 16:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 Yes, we can. Not only Shenzen, but also Guangzhou (Canton). They should replace Cape Town and Nairobi which are much smaller. Propositum (talk) 15:25, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Philosophers and social scientists: Martin Heidegger[edit]
Hello. I suggest to add Martin Heidegger instead of Noam Chomsky or Simone de Beauvoir. I think the most important and influential philosopher in the continental tradition in the 20th century should be in this list. Please comment. Ratte (talk) 18:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 Zhu Xi is the first to be removed. Chomsky and Beauvoir are not less appreciated than Heidegger. Propositum (talk) 18:54, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Artists[edit]
Among early modern architects, Bernini should replace Sinan; as regards 16thcentury painters, Caravaggio ought to take over Dürer's slot. The former are more famous, as the Wikimedia Tool Labs prove, and both were more important for the development of art. Propositum (talk) 20:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
16th century[edit]
It is necessary to put Charles V instead of Palestrina. The former created an empire encompassing Germany, Spain, Italy, the Americas and the Philippines. The latter is much less popular than the other listed composers. Propositum (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Wagner, Richard[edit]
Why he is more meaningfull than other? I think it will be better to remove bold font writing for Wagner.SEA99 (talk) 13:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)